Talk:Half-Life 3

Why won't
Why won't they make a Half-Life 3?

They should make Half-Life into a trilogy....who is with me?

Half-Life 3 should not redirect to Episode 1. The episodes are expansions upon Half-Life 2's plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.124.187 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * is a half life 3 page realy nessisary considering we have no info abut the game other than that it will eventualy be made. Chardrc (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to redirect
Reverted the page to the redirect for Episode 1. Lombardi has stated that the episodes essentially are Half-Life 3, albeit broken up into parts. We don't even know that the title that will continue the Half-Life series is called Half-Life 3 yet; it could be the sequel to Opposing Force for all we know. Fedallah (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We should keep the page of Half-Life 3 just in case they realy do make a sequel to the game after the episodes. It has been confirmed that Half-Life 2 Episode 3 will not be the end of the Half-Life franchise.Garmanbozia (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that, but no one except Valve knows what that continuation will be called. Filing it under "Half-Life 3" is total speculation, which runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines.  The page for Episode 2 states that the episodes will not be the end of the franchise, which is good enough for me.  Fedallah (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Moved from draft talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Until now Half-Life 3 has only been written about on the Half-Life (series) article. As a game which hasn't been officially confirmed by Valve (creators of the series), arguments have been made that it should not yet have its own article per WP:CRYSTAL. This draft article has been created to test the waters and see if the large amount of coverage the potential game has had is enough to support its own article. An inconclusive discussion can be found at WikiProject Video Games. The question here is a fairly straightforward one: Should Half-Life 3 have its own article based on this draft, or should it remain in the series article? Sam Walton (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Standalone article

 * 1) For all intents and purposes, Half-Life 3 is vaporware, but its extensive coverage in third-party sources makes it rather notable vaporware, worthy of its own article and one that can easily grow if/when it is ever released.  -- McDoob  AU93  13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Reliable sources talk enough about this, such as the article in the Guardian, to justify creating it.  It clearly passes the general notability guidelines.  Once put in main space, more people will be seeing it, editing it, and expanding it.   D r e a m Focus  18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Series article

 * 1) The available (reliable) information is short enough that it would fit within the series article. If this one is mainspaced, it will collect more cruft and rumors by well-intentioned visitors looking to "fill it out" than it would by sitting at the series article. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  ♔   14:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel like that with the content that is already available, that we should keep the information on the series article until an announcement is made. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) As the draft is full of assumptions and rumors, including the title, I would have to say it should stay within the scope of the main article until it is closer to an actual street date with concrete information is given. Chris1834 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Why is there an RFC for this? Plenty of feedback has already been given at WT:VG. Looks like a possible WP:FORUMSHOP.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The WT:VG discussion came out divided and I also wanted input from editors not part of WP:VG. If you notice I haven't voted because I don't know either way. If I had strong feelings for creating the article I'd have gone ahead and done it by now. Sam Walton (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft
If by some miracle Half-Life 3 ever comes out there's a draft at Draft:Half-Life 3 which would make a good starting point, I'm happy for it to be moved straight over if the game is announced. Sam Walton (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Meme article
The R does have potential to be an article on the meme of "Half-Life 3 confirmed". --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with article leaving draft space.
This article seems to be built up on the premise that Half-life 2: Episode 3, and Half-Life 3, are the same thing. This is the first time I've ever heard of the two being considered "the same." There's been times that Valve has commented that Episode 3 might not happen and they might move straight to Half-Life 3. Distinct topics. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed since this article was last redirected. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading about it in the main series article, and what is written here, I agree. This is about Half-Life 2: Episode Three, and should be renamed that.   D r e a m Focus  00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the article because there were arguments for and against it, and I decided to be bold. As for whether Half-Life 3 and Episode 3 are the same thing, I'm not actually sure, and I can see your point. Sources seem to use the two titles interchangably, and I think this article could cover generally the concept of the next Half-Life game with some better wording. Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Half-life 2: Episode 3 was essentially an announced product that never happened. Half-Life 3 has never been announced, but a rumor/meme. Again, I believe this should move back to Draft space and the original redirects restored. The simple fact is, nothing has changed. -- ferret (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It gets significant coverage in reliable sources so it should have an article.  D r e a m Focus  00:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not always. WP:N specifically says that just because a topic has significant coverage, a standalone article is not required. In this case, much of the information on HL3 or HL2Ep3 is one and the same, we don't know what it will be when it comes out, and all this is duplicating the information already in the series page. Once something affirmed is announced, then that changes the picture, but we should not be writing an article on something with this much speculation on what it will actually be. --M ASEM (t) 01:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with this article leaving draftspace. It should go back and the link should continue to redirect to the series. There isn't enough here besides rumors and a lot of empty news coverage to constitute a dedicated article. There has been no major change in the tenor of coverage to disregard the existing WPVG consensus to keep the redirect. – czar   15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What consensus? No consensus was had.  If you sent it to AFD, it'd probably end in no consensus.  This is an article people will want to read, and nothing harmed by having it here.   D r e a m Focus  16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_105 No one's saying to get rid of the article. The argument is to bake it summary style at the series article until there's something to actually say about the topic other than that there have been a lot of rumors and that people have made jokes about its existence. – czar   16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some said they wanted it as an article and some didn't. No real consensus.   D r e a m Focus  17:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They can read about it at Half-life (series). The article name might as well be "Half-Life 2: Episode 3 or maybe Half-Life 3 or maybe nothing ever we don't know" -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A hole paragraph is there. Far more information here with room to grow.   D r e a m Focus  16:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but until Valve actually announces it, that hole will remain, and it is better covered in context of the entire series. --M ASEM (t) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point here is BRD. You boldly mainspaced the article and there is clear opposition to that move. The bold move should be reverted and only reinstated if there is consensus to have it reinstated. – czar   16:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is opposition to having it as just a draft forever also. What's your point?  If you don't think the article should exist, then send it to AFD and see if there is consensus to eliminate it.  Hiding it forever as a draft state is the same as deletion, since most will never find it.   D r e a m Focus  17:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting it is not appropriate since it is a searchable term, and there are contributions that should be merged back into the main page (if they are unique to this). This should be boldly redirected back to the HL series page however. --M ASEM (t) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected it back to Half-Life (series). I do not view this as a bold redirect, but the revert to the original redirect before the BOLD move from draft space. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I reverted you. You want to eliminate an article, then take it to AFD, don't edit war it gone.   D r e a m Focus  17:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there was a redirect here prior to my move (I deleted it to make way for the move), this reverting to redirect is fine. BRD in action. Sam Walton (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The rules are clear for redirects. If someone objects to removing all content from an article and putting a redirect there, then you don't do it.  Take it to AFD if you want to get rid of the article.   D r e a m Focus  17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AFD is not where you discuss redirects. This is specifically described in the AFD instructions. --M ASEM (t) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a simple redirect, it is the elimination of an article. That can only be done in AFD.  You can't just go around getting rid of articles you don't like by replacing them with redirects.   D r e a m Focus  18:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but if a redirect is turned into an article, we don't typically need to go through AfD to revert to a redirect and discuss. Sam Walton (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No content is being deleted, this is why AFD have repeatedly to be an unacceptable place to discuss an article when the goal is simply redirection (that requires no admin action). --M ASEM (t) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, that's not how AfD works. AfD is for deletion rationales only. Any AfD that doesn't advocate for deletion is eligible for a speedy keep closure. This is not "the elimination of an article". The entire article can be expanded summary style within the series article with all of the relevant information. (And if any information would not be relevant there at the moment, then it would also be superfluous in this article.) If someone objects to removing all content from an article and putting a redirect there, then you don't do it. This would only be true if the article wasn't already agreed to be a redirect. Per BRD, if a redirect becomes an article (or vice versa) and other editors disagree, the article returns to its previous state of edit consensus—the state that the article was in before the bold change (whether it's adding or removing a redirect). This discussion section exists in disagreement with the move to a dedicated article from a redirect. SW has agreed. Please desist from edit warring and return the article to its agreed, redirected state. – czar   18:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There was never any consensus to have a redirect and not an article. All discussions had people arguing either way.  This article was an article first, not a redirect.  There is no way possible you are going to put this article's entire contents into another article.  It'll just be a token mention, most information eliminated.   D r e a m Focus  18:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I deleted the previous page, which was a redirect, to move this one over it, thus why the oldest viewable revision is my draft being created. Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You posted in your edit summary "previous discussions were distinctly divided." Do you see that as changed any?  People never have to argue to have an article created, only argue if they want it deleted.  The fact than an old redirect was here, and discussions happened mostly years before the current well referenced article was created, isn't relevant.   D r e a m Focus  18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you take out all the "rumor" content from this article, then all that is in this article is already in the series article, so no the idea of being able to fit all this article into another is bogus. It can be done. --M ASEM (t) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is not rumors. Its development of the game, what developers said, ample references of independent reliable sources covering this.  The small rumor section is also well referenced.   D r e a m Focus  18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the Rumors section, only one is a valid content to include, the Ref 22 sourced to US Gamer documenting all known rumors. Everything else is just straight up rumor mongering. --M ASEM (t) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please move this back to Draft space and restore the deleted revisions for the redirect? -- ferret (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to do that. The article exist, and if you don't want it to, you can take it to AFD through proper procedures.  Not sure why you are so determined to delete a perfectly valid article.   D r e a m Focus  15:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're so determined to ignore every other editor who has replied to this section. Moving it back to draft would not delete the content or the revision history, making it the appropriate BRD response to the BOLD move from Draft. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two people wanted the article, me and the guy who moved it here, and three are against it. Arguments on both sides were split in previous discussions.  And you keep mentioning the WP:BRD essay as though it has some sort of relevance here.  That involves editing articles, not creating them be it from scratch or from moving something from draft space.   D r e a m Focus  17:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , would you please revert your edits that started this per BRD? – czar   17:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sam Walton (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)