Talk:List of Battlefield 1942 mods

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

RicK[edit]

I assume this is about a game? Could we make that clear? RickK | Talk 02:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This page needs work on formatting and wikification. Some problems:

  1. It's Battlefield 1942, not Battlefield:1942.
  2. There's issues with the table; listing the version numbers in the same column as the mod name is confusing.
  3. Titles of unreleased, inactive mods shouldn't be wikified. What are we going to say about them?

I'm going to start cleaning it up now. --Mrwojo 15:47, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield:1942 are used interchangeably([[1]]) a lot of places, though i agree it better to leave it out is probably better.
Version Numbers can go in new columns, certainly. I had moved some to that format but a lot are left. Intially i thouht it was ok as the list was much shorter when I did it intially- and a release version of a mods is nearly as important as its name also factored in.
I re-tablized the 'inactive/moved' list, as eventually I hoped there would be another column for whether it ever had a website, or released screenshots. I was going to remove the ones that had neither, once that information was assembled. The usefullness of the short list and the mini list are debatable but I never decided on them. I also removed wikilinks for those minimods and inactive mods, as I agree there not usefull.
I was thinking of adding some backround color to distingush between moved, ended, or just dead mods like in the bigger table. Also more of the active but unreleased mods in the upper table will have to be moved down, as they move or decide on no BF42 release and keeping the format the same can allow saving work put into formatting that entry.
Finally, the disambig for mods is still up in the air. I was thinking just "(mod)" may be the best as a lot of mods change game engine so cant be pinned down, though this may be to general. The few of the bigger mods I did I didn't choose a disambig for as they tend to have unique enough names, though there are a number of un-done ones that do have this problem. Look forward to have any more idea you have- good luck! Greyengine5 18:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. All that sounds good to me. I personally think "(computer game)" would work fine, even for mods. The main problem I had with the colon is that there was no space following it ("Battlefield:1942" just didn't look right, "Battlefield: 1942" is better). Also, you only need to put one set of square brackets around a URL. If I can think of anything else that's important, I'll bring it up here. In the mean time though, I'll just make formatting tweaks. --Mrwojo 03:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedic enough?[edit]

This list of Battlefield: 1942 mods seems to be striving for comprehensiveness, but I feel fails to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. I do not believe listing mods that never amounted to anything is worth putting in an encyclopedia.

As an example: Many people have tried to climb everest. Should they all be listed? Or should those people of significance be listed?

I'm currently thinking about reorganizing how we list game mods. I will discuss that over at the Mod discussion. But the point I am making here is that this list of Battlefield mods needs to be pruned. Paitum 15:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I recommend leaving it alone, as its the only nearly comprehensive (for a time) list of mods for BF in existence. Determing which mods are truly not significant can be hard to do as mods can unexpectedly come out of dormancy, may have suggested a interesting idea only recognized in retrospect, etc..
Many in the second list released nothing more then a few screenshots, but within are old names, ideas, -and each making news items in its day and becoming part of the history of bf. I am against pruning this history away- which is much less arcane and insignficant then many other things listed on the 'pedia.
I do agree that the organization of mods and games in general needs a lot of work, but I would rather see work go into adding content in the many areas lacking it. Greyengine5 14:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

Just to correct the author: under the dead mods you have Battlefield Firefighter. I am the Developer Leader and I can assure you the mod did not die. We decided to port to BF2 and abandon BF1942 and BFV. BF2 has features we need to do things we could never do with 1942 or Vietnam.

Move to Wikibooks?[edit]

I believe that this article would be unencyclopedic here, but would be better in a "book-type" format at Wikibooks, like other crufty lists.--Zxcvbnm 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it non-encyclopedic?[edit]

I fail to see how it is not encyclopedic. Adding details on the mods would be nice. Simply because it is not something many people care about does not mean that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is factual and accurate information, and Wikipedia is intended to be a source of such. Icarus999 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mod related material being proposed for deletion?[edit]

i have noticed lately that much mod related material has been proposed for deletion.Many of these mods have a website run directly by the modders so theres viable source on much information so why is so much mod related material either deleted or proposed for deletion.this annoys me in a way which i cant express without getting in trouble here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Mod articles are usually not encyclopedic, as the editors just add the name and link to the mod site. Thus, a valid mod article becomes a hyperlink farm, which is against our policies. As for verifiable information, note that third party references are better than home pages, because a third party is usually neutral, while the home page of a mod usually says it is the "best mod ever". -- ReyBrujo 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the subject of the page should be adjusted[edit]

The list on this page could certainly use a little whittling-down; I propose the subject of the page be changed to "List of major BF1942 mods", and that only mods for which a dedicated server can be found at any given time be listed. The collumns of the table should include a name, a breif description, the latest version released and an "online popularity" column which displays the popularity of the mod based on how many of the internet dedicated servers, averaged over a period of time, have the mod listed under "Active Mods". A second list could include any mods which have any particular novelty value, and a third (not nesesarry as far as I'm concerned) may list the remaining mods (excluding those which the developer conceeds are "dead"). 66.79.240.162 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think inclusion criteria for the mods should come down to the same two factors that affect everything on wiki Verfiability and Notability. If a mod is/was notable to receive the oh-so important multiple non-trivial independant third-party media coverage, and sources to these can be provided, then they can live on the list. Any reasonable objections? According to all the AfDs, you can't move round the net without constantly finding independent coverage about most of these mods (even if the sources never seem to turn up......) so it shouldn't be too hard, right? The Kinslayer 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of mods[edit]

Non-notable mods should be removed from the list, and only notable by a third party should be kept. Any objections to this? Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as long as the sources that prove notability actually turn up this time. After 8 or so months, the waits getting a bit old. The Kinslayer 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can still be saved, and I would rather we do that then delete it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saved how? Even if notability is established, what we essentially have is a list of 'Where to go to download X mod' which Wikipedia is not. The Kinslayer 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Remove the links if you feel like it, I don't care that much for external links anyway. A good example of a good list is List of Virtual Boy games. Which this list can become as well with work. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really can't, simply because the list of Virtual Boy games wasn't set-up solely to linkspam due to it being a dead system. This was, and going off the 'ready availability' of sources for this list, when it's done being cleaned, it's only going to have about 3 entries. The Kinslayer 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can remove all mods not updated with 1.6 and that's not notable in some extraordinary way. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you cut it down to those that reviewed by paper publications you had have more like 10-20. However, the article subject has collective notability (all the mods together). A individual mod need only establish it exists, which supports the overal article about a list. The articles that can establish a independent notablity might get there own article. Bfelite 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. If the mod merely exists it's not notable, it's not even worth a mention otherwise it's indiscriminate information, and in the case of this article, linkspam. This list provides no useful information in itself, relying on people actually leaving wikipedia to get their information. Where's the logic in that? If they have to leave to get any information they are after, what was the point in them coming here in the first place? Most of these mods seem to have solely been placed here in order to attract visitors to the individual sites. Without any sources to establish the notability of a mod, I don't see why good faith should be assumed. (And also, AGF is a guideline not a policy.) The Kinslayer 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to record history, it has nothing to with promotion. BF1942 mods attained notablity in their time, there collective existence is part of their notability. Formal references don't require AGF, because you can go look them up in a couple hours at a library! Bfelite 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but we aim at verifiability, not truth. So, unless you can prove they are notable, it is false for Wikipedia. Also, the burden of evidence lies in the one adding or restoring the information, not the one removing it. So, I can remove them all and say none is notable, and you will have to prove that they are notable in order to restore them. -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all unreleased/dead mods. Discuss each of them here before massively readding. Unless it is notable enough, it should not stay. People compare it with List of Half-Life mods. Well, that article has 4 mods, each of them with an article in Wikipedia. I will be removing them again based on Wikipedia:Verifiability unless a reliable source is used (that means, something other than the mod site itself or a forum post). -- ReyBrujo 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will be removing every mod that does not have an article in Wikipedia in the near future, so instead of trying to put "my friends' mod" back, get to work and find reliable sources to back them up. -- ReyBrujo 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the spam from the page, and created wikilinks for the mods. As you can clearly see, there are only four mods with articles (although three are pointing to the same article, and one has only a subsection that could be considered spam. If any of those mods are notable, create articles for them. I think we should take an approach similar to List of Half-Life mods and List of Half-Life 2 mods: a prose list, not a table (which invites spammers and friends of modders) with no external links and only wikilinks to mod articles. Either force those guys to demonstrate the mods are notable, or keep them as far from this article as possible. -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles, and their refernces were deleted and merged here for the most part. Even the ones that have articles in the paper press written about them are rejected. Bfelite 01:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, most of these should not HAVE wiki links, because part of the AFD of their orignal articles was that remaining content (a link, and a name) be merge to here. Bfelite 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is obvious some people here have an agenda, so I am doing this: Deleting all the "uncertain" stuff, but letting the other spam. Sorry if I deleted your friend's freewebs mod, but it is not notable for Wikipedia. Tell him to put it in Dmoz if necessary. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agenda?? I certainly do not know anybody who is involved with any of these mods (well not that I know, quite possible do have some friends who are though. But wouldn't know which or involved with what).Mathmo Talk
OK< not quite sure how a debate between two between people can be interpreted by a third person as being about him! Anyways, Rey the article looks much better now. Not sure if it's really worth keeping with only 2 mods on it, but at least they are verifiably notable and not just mods from people saying 'The games notable so our mods notable' like some lame Notability Leech. The Kinslayer 09:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable only[edit]

I suggest moving this article to "List of notable Battlefield 1942 mods". It is obvious that, while the people working at Half-Life have much less problems with spam, this article will stay the way it used to be before the AFD if we allowed it to. If notable means any mod that had been featured in important media, we would be able to remove 99% of them. -- ReyBrujo 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is POV pushing on your part. Mathmo Talk 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I am pushing Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research to the maximun. Anything wrong with that? -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

Could someone with knowledge of the ref tag thing please change all the links to sources and use the ref tag for them, instead of using the Wiki external link style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Havok (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about that. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging mods[edit]

Although this article contains referenced articles, it's a pretty small list. So, what I propose is to merge all the individual mod articles into here (in the process deleting any unencyclopedic lists) and do the same for the stub List of Battlefield 2 mods. Then, Category:Battlefield 2 modifications and Category:Battlefield 1942 mods will be deleted. That way, both lists will be expanded, any mod articles of questionable notability will be merged, this list will serve as the main mod list, and everyone is happy.--Zxcvbnm 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has any problems with it, I'll start merging.--Zxcvbnm 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with both those ideas. Those lists would be better off merged to their respective articles (e.g. BF2 mods to the BF 2 article) not here, and the specific mods would clutter up this page. Bfelite 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this article is to keep the mods away from the main article. They would take up too much space if merged into the main article, and would be regarded as unnecessary. Plus, the specific mods need to be trimmed to take out any extra, "promotional" material.--Zxcvbnm 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean merging this one to the 1942 page, but rather not merging anything to this page. For example, if the BF2 mods list is not big enough for article, it should be moved to the Battlefield 2 page, not here. Bfelite 00:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the BF2 mods list is unfinished, since there are a lot of other mods for Battlefield 2 than in the article. But there are only a few mods that have their own pages, so merging them might be easier to keep their content in check.--Zxcvbnm 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its a good idea to merge BF2 stuff or mod articles here, if thats what you mean. Bfelite 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was merging BF2 articles to this page, just the Battlefield 2 mods to their list page and the Battlefield 1942 mods to this page. Anyway, if you can clean up the individual mod articles, maybe they don't need to be merged.--Zxcvbnm 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I don't think those merges would be appropriate. Bfelite 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but just look at some of these mod pages. For example, FinnWars is just a list of weapons and general info about the mod. This could easily fit into a list. The mod should rely on external links for that kind of stuff, since if it becomes defunct, what's the point of keeping a list of weapons anyway?--Zxcvbnm 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Weponslayoutwz0.png[edit]

The image Image:Weponslayoutwz0.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More exhaustive[edit]

This article used to be an exhaustive list which went on for pages! Why has it been shortened so much? What's the point of a list page when some arbitrary person just decides which items are "notable" enough to keep!? I think it should be repopulated and restored to its formal pointfulness again. 199.212.11.176 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Battlefield_1942_mods&oldid=1203624551"