Talk:Battlezone II: Combat Commander/Archive 1

Archive 1

Version

Flesh storm taken out as it does not have any relavent sites to its name, seems to be just a minor mod for the game, of no real influence or importance. (Sahands)

I've re-added FleshStorm in to the entry again with more links this time and a better description. (hopefully). FleshStorm was the first mod (better a Total Conversion) to be completed and to come out since Forgotten Enemies. Since The Section Modifications was created for Modifications, it would be fair to have it in there (imo). I also added a cover art picture. (lucky_foot)

nice man, it needed one. (Sahands)

Added Actors and Actresses section so people would have a link to the people who played the voices. I mean, How many new that Colonel Decker from the A-Team played Major Manson? :D (lucky_foot) 9-14-06

Corrected (I think) a few of the typos I put in here a couple of years ago. Glad to see that someone has expanded on the initial 1.3 content, but I'm not sure that new members to the BZII community are going to be worried about online play; Whenever I log on, every single server is password protected. Personally, I'd be fine with just the Instant Action mode if the mortar weapons were removed or a static anti-artillery base defense was introduced. (Kalthuras) 9-29-06

Well, in the 1.3pb3 patch that was released, you can pick Recycler variants and Rocket Towers have been added to the list. (lucky foot) 10-11-06

Now that is music to my ears. Going to reinstall the game and see if my turtle tactics aren't so doomed this time. (Kalthuras) 10-19-06

Turtle tactics are always doomed, you have to go around the map and get biometal pools otherwise the other player will and it doesnt matter what kind of shit u got in ur base if he has more extractors then you--66.102.73.162 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)--66.102.73.162 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtle tactics work fine if you execute it right, but of all the possable strategies, it is the hardest to pull off. --76.116.57.5 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Units!

Could someone please put a list of units Scion or Isdf please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.20.138 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Why? - lucky_foot 12/11/06

Would be a bit of an endeavour, as we'd need to detail vehicles, their hardpoints, what can be mounted in each hardpoint, and then, by default, have to detail the weapons and their ammo consumption... it'd be a mess, probably. Kalthuras 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a list of the ISDF and Scion units would require a separate article. However, it wouldn't have to be so in-depth as Kalthuras talks about (unless we make sub-articles on each unit). A simple list of vehicle names, some pictures and brief descriptions of their role would be enough, I guess. -Sybaronde

@ The game manual would be a start, it has brief descriptions of the common vehicles and would give the backbone to the article- the-unko-lema

Link to my wiki

Copyrighted material hmmm. Ok, I will have to figure out how to make sure the information on my page is compleatly legal, but this is something that will take some time. Mabey lucky foot can help as he is a member of my wiki. For anyone who wants to help clense the info, just go to the bzwiki link from an old page revision. I don't have a user but I will sign as ~Nielk1 <72.89.162.195 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)> (Laptop IP)

Best way to do that is look at the standard copyright laws. I don't see anything on your wiki that violates any of the copyright laws since it's public novels. If you have like a .pdf of the original battlezone II manual online then that maybe ilegal. Lucky Foot

In looking, I have had alot of trouble finding the infringing material. I am at a new site now, which is compleatly reworked, but I have alot more work to do. The new domain is http://www.bzcomplex.com . I hope to fix any issues that it may have. I see that, for example, although the screenshots of mods are not copyrighted, I did not include rational. Does this site fit the requirements of a linked site, or do I need to do more work on it. --76.116.57.5 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Added "pb3" to the patch number since 1.3 Public Beta could have been referring to 1.3pb1,pb2, or pb3. Lucky Foot 17:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in catergorization?

I noticed that the releasedate on the table says 2000, but still it's in a category for "video games 1999". -Sybaronde

"When I did a search online I found the release date being said December 21st, 1999. I'm going to email a friend who may know the Release date." Lucky Foot 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there are multiple release dates or something? -Sybaronde

"I emailed Ken Miller, one of the programmers that wrote Battlezone II: Combat Commander (I met him through an article interveiw), and he said the game was released late December of 1999." Lucky Foot 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Other games like Battlezone 2?

Battlezone 2 (and Battlezone 1) is truly an addictive game and has unique gameplay. But it really is starting to show its age in terms of graphics and whatnot.

Is there any other games similar in style and feel to this game that you would recommend?...

ie- RTS and FPS combination hybrids... preferably one that involves strategy- base building, vehicles and commanding would be way fun. Something which captures the feel of the instant missions in Battlezone 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.101.41.44 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

"Not that I know of. I have had the honor to interveiw some of the original programmers of both BZ1 and BZ2 and most say that the game didn't sell well and so publishers will stay away from the RTS/FPS genre cross over. I have played a bunch of games and I haven't seen any that even come close to the playing Style BZ2 presented." - Lucky Foot 13:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe BZ2 didn't sell well because compared to BZ1 the story was unsophisticated childish mush, it lacked BZ1's adult ironic humour and retro style, and the new weapons sucked (eg the slow-mo bomber). In short they listened to marketing too much instead of being original and brilliant again. Result a modern games market which is full of derivative crap. Just venting. Allmedia (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Flashpoint Mods mfcti (mfcti.sourceforge.net) and crcti (google) feature a remarkably similar gaming environment, with base building, one commander and several squad leaders per faction, cities that need to be conquered (resource pools), salvaging destroyed vehicles (resource gathering) and AI substituting for human players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.62.65 (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay

There needs to be more discussion about gameplay in this article, as well as the original game's. Is there base and unit building? What makes this game a strategy game? SharkD 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten Enemies

Why was the link to the official forgotten enemies website removed? It is the biggest most played mod of BZ2. AgentFish 21 June 2007

Probably because the site is gone... There is a mirror somewhere, but it has some odd text errors.
-Nielk1 76.116.57.5 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battl.jpg

Image:Battl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bz2 62.jpg

Image:Bz2 62.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Cleanup and Changes

I added the Gameplay section and changed some naming. I commented out the Unit descriptions as they seem to be long, clanky and not need. I didn't delete it from the source if it needs to be re-added. Just take away the comments brackets. :D Lucky Foot (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Blue Devil Character

I made the change to the page where it says Chang Wasanasong played Blue Devil. There is no such character in Battlezone II: Combat Commander. I've played the single player over 20 times and that name never ever came up. :D Lucky Foot (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated Public Beta Info

Simply updated the 1.3pb4 to 1.3pb4a when the patch was released. Lucky Foot (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

Reverted Wgungfu's changes. Thought these were approved from the descriptions and talk from above. Lucky Foot (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They violate WP:EL, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. Mods and patches have nothing to do with improving the article, they're for people who play the game - Wikipedia does not provide links to "warez". Also, being "unofficial", they violate licensing and trademarks, something else Wikipedia is also very careful about. Likewise, links to discussion forums are expressly forbidden. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take note Mr. Goldberg that none of the links for BZ2 are warez. The BZ1 link which started this issue was technically as it was a remake (though IIRC there is a "we don't care about it" letter from Activision on that very subject somewhere). If you remove the links to the perfectly legal Battlezone 2 sites you are making a mistake (BZuniverse for example has Ken Miller and Nathan Mates, two original programmers, as active members and is the location for the development of the 1.3 patch). (Patches 1.2 and 1.3 are called beta by decision from Activision so they do not have to provide technical support.) If you really say all 3rd party links must go, then you will have to go to every other game entry and remove every other community and other site link there is. 1.3, the latest Battlezone II patch, is mainly for the addition of modding abilities, so to remove any mods is to deny this game its story and existence. Please tell me if anything here has failed to remedy this misunderstanding. Every other game listen on this wiki has links to its community and patches, so you have singled out this article/game for unfair treatment. Please reply after reading the above. If these are not put back technically every other game must have similar links removed. Final note, DOOM has a major moding heritage, so why not go and remove all those mod and patch and remake links? -130.156.141.2 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC) (AKA Nielk1)

Wikipedia external link and trademark/intellectual property policies are very clear. Likewise is the policy of WP:OSE - and "every other game" does not have such links. If a few do, that's because they just haven't been cleared out yet, which has no bearing on this article. Patches are warez and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links (another fact under EL guidelines). Discussion of the existence of mods in a game like Doom (i.e. Wads) exists, because such a topic is notable to the subject and an important part of the game's history, as ID encouraged it. I.E. it can meet notability requirements. Additionally, discussion forums are not allowed per external links policy. Likewise, I said nowhere all 3rd party links must go. I stated specifically what type of links are not allowed per external link policy. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You people should also note, discussing things like "going over someone's head" because you want to get your mod links in to an encyclopedia doesn't help the issue. Neither does stating about wanting to "advertise" your mods, which also clearly demonstrates why Wikipedia doesn't allow such links here. I suggest you follow what one of your other discussion posters stated, there's plenty of other sites to advertise your mods and discussion forums. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links - there's plenty of other web sites out there for that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well point made, time to start taking links off other pages. I wont go do that though, if its really an issue its the job of a moderator, or, sysop was it? Whatever it is, something like that would definitely needs lots of rule declarations and other things I just don't know so hop to it! My BZ site, while it has a forum, also has a Wikipedia specifically for Battlezone (where such things do belong). What must I do for it to be linked, or does the presence of a message board on the same site automatically disqualify my BZWiki from linkage. -130.156.141.2 (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) (AKA Nielk1)

The over someone's head thing was if you turned out to be a trolling admin/moderator instead of a truthful calm one as you appear to be. I have met many many many very bad ppl in authority positions. Please note I said "if we have any standing" where reading the rules we don't. Though, your definition of warez in this case is wrong, it actually doesn't matter here. Addition: Also, we don't want links to our mods and are not the egotistical maniacs you put us out to be. We want links to the community sites which are the only places one can get info for Battlezone II (the official site is bunk if not gone). -130.156.141.2 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC) (AKA Nielk1)

If there are other specific Wikipedia entries with links to discussion forums, mods, etc., feel free to point them out and I'll remove them. Wikipedia is a big place, and I have specific articles I watch. As far as linking your own site, that violates WP:COI. If there's specific material on your site that's of value as a reference to the article, it'll usually wind up being added via that way. But it must also pass WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability requirements. This goes on a lot here with fans wanting to add links to material and sites that, while may be of value to fans, is not of value towards meeting Wikipedia's needs - i.e. material is purely for enhancement of an encyclopedic article. For example, the fact there are mods available is not notable in and of itself, and while useful to fans who currently play the game, does nothing to enhance encyclopedia standards. If it were a case like DOOM, where the game was built to be user scripted and modified and it was a part of the history of the game that had been well documented by notable and verifiable sources (books, magazines, etc. etc.), then that would be a different matter. I think its wonderful you guys are still supporting an out of print game, there's actually a lot of people like yourselves out there doing that. However, supporting a game is not Wikipedia's mission. Providing an encyclopedic level reference to a subject is. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense for me. :) Thanks for clearing that up though I'm kinda sad to see the links to 1.3 disapear. It's still coming from employees of Pandemic who made the game...just unofficially so it doesn't interfere with the support rules and stuff. Thanks Marty! Lucky Foot (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you guys really want to support this game's entry on Wikipedia, I strongly encourage you all to put your passions in to digging up references to improve the article. To date, there is 1 reference listed in the entire article. Wikipedia thrives on verifiable content, and articles need it so as not to promote WP:OR and present a credible resource. If you need an example of what's considered a well presented entry here, take a look at Space Invaders which just passed featured article status. Templates for citing books, magazines, etc. are located here. I think helping improve this article and even possibly moving it to featured article review would be a wonderful way to show your support for the game. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am finally no longer trapped behind the rotating IP of an open proxy twit (Comcast IP rotations suck) but I only checked monthly. BZUniverse is the unofficial official site, but sadly it does not fit in the rules for the wiki as I can tell. Then again, I must say the original site way way way back had an official forum. The adding of the link to this article should not be used to lock this, because believe it or not, there are incidius parties that may do that just so they can get it locked. I know I brought this point up again, but I am better suited to state it this time. The game DOOM was an iconic game, but it is subject to the same rules as any other wikipedia article. Yet, it has a link section literally called "Unofficial portal websites with Doom-related news and content" that contains links to various forums. I notice at the very least, that "Planet Doom on GameSpy" is linked. As such, I move that "Planet Battlezone on GameSpy" be added to a similar subsection. I should note that the other two unofficial sites are quite similar to "Battlezone Universe". The following games have similar links (i pulled these up in 5 min of looking, literally with an egg timer): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. As for citeable resources, there just purely aren't many. Whatever there is does not fit the standards of Wikipedia aside from the interviews that took place for an online publication (that are already used). I look forward to your reply to my concerns. -Nielk1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

Also, I would just like to note that BZUniverse used to look just like Planet Battlezone. Only after a financial situation did it loose that 'portal' face that made it look as psudo-official as it is. I mean, the 1.3 patch is literally developed THERE by two of the original developers. --Nielk1 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I cite a paper game manual? --Nielk1 (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding sources

I made a small tweak so far (forgot to log in). The following fit the Battlezone Community's standards but I would like to know if they fit here before I use them as sources: The paper game manual, the web page of a developer (programmer, not company), forum posts by developers with specific information, IRC chat logs from talking with developers (not sure about how/where to record this one), and information sites like Planet Battlezone. (On that note, Battlezone Universe was the 'replacement' for P-BZ, but it lost its front page portal about a year ago and is now only a forum. Is it citable in general? --Nielk1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest version

The version listed (1.3) is an un-official patch. Unless no-one rejects, I'm gonna change it back to the latest official patch. Eik Corell (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm objecting here. The 1.3 patch may not be official by Activision's standards, but Activision has long since given up support for this game. The two people working on the 1.3 patch were original developers for Battlezone II. And if you did your research, you'd also know that 1.2 is an unofficial patch. The latest official patch is technically 1.1, since that's the only one sanctioned by Activision. (Vsmit (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

There is still an asterisk in the page pointing to a removed section. What is the rational for the removal of the unofficial patch details? The patch is made by a few of the original programmers still employed by the original company. It is only unofficial because for it to be official, the publisher Activision would need to make it so, and the name is currently owned by Atari, and all three companies in question are all in competition currently. It was bad enough when most 1.3 references and the link to the community site were removed for claims of warez (completely false) and conflict of interest (then why do 99% of game articles link to the community sites?) by a moderator (so no reverting was possible even though the rational was rather twisted). (That mod even used selected quotes from the now not-linked site on this incident out of context to make them look like uncouth warez supporting wackos instead of real fans and original programmers working to keep the game alive and even make the new patch.) Will there ever be any resolution to this or will the BZ2 article continue to be widdled down to a footnote? It's despicable one person who hated this game so much was able to take advantage of something on another page to start the slow destruction and removal of pertinent information here in the effort of destroying what chance of community/game recovery could occur from the receipt of this knowledge. --Nielk1 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Eik removed it, and I don't really disagree (see end of point 2). 2) This article exists for the purposes and goals clearly stated in the regulations and guidelines of both wikipedia and the video games project, it is not a community support hub for the game. The fact that it was made to be modded and still has this occur is notable, and already summed up in the article. Tracking of said community patches and mods is beyond the scope of this article. 3) Lastly, I resent your statement regarding what happened, a blatant twisting of what occurred, and bordering on violating WP:Civil. The entire conversation is still on this page, as is my wrap-up of actually encouraging you and your community people (since there were discussions of this conversation over there as well) to help improve this article towards good article and featured article status. Improvement does not mean throwing up whatever you feel is pertinent, regardless of given standards on content here. If you like, I'd be happy to bring in members of the video games project here who have plenty of experience moving articles to good article and featured article status (the actual goal of all entries at Wikipedia), to weigh in as well. Most likely, their opinion will be the same. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'd be happy to bring in members of the video games project here who have plenty of experience moving articles to good article and featured article status" That would certainly be helpful. All that has been occurring to this article is the steady chipping away of information with rational that does not well fit the situation. It would be nice to actually get some information ADDED. I know there is a general resentment from staff that Wikipedia has such information in it summing greater than that of actual historical information, and that really is a shame. The whole way the entire debacle here occurred did nothing but leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth. (The allegations of warez, the misquotes, the misunderstandings. As everything I said I felt was backed up by what is above on this page.) What is simply needed is a white list and not a black list here. What is occurring is information is being removed because it falls in the gray area of the 'blacklist' instead of the article being improved. Even if the removal of the information can be rationalized it seems to only be hurting the article which is the source of the discontent. (It certainly doesn't help that an 'enemy' of the majority of the BZ1/2 communities orchestrated this from the initial removal of links from the BZ1 page, and much of the anger at that is likely misdirected at you.) What is also puzzling is how this article seems to be treated differently. I would like to know what sources can be cited and how, as over at 'the community site' we have a tremendous source of invaluable and never otherwise known information, a programmer from the original game. I have learned so many things from him that are not mentioned ANYWERE else that have made it onto my Battlezone Wiki. This information is written in IRC or forums and the forum/community site has already been disenvowed as a possible source of information, so I am at a loss. The most frustrating thing is that we have a wealth of information at our disposal but none of it fits within the guidelines provided, so all we can do is watch the aftermath of the nefarious acts of an individual (not you, you are his tool really) as they spiral out of control. What can we do? I ask you to give us options that we can actually use. So far all you have suggested has has resulted in a mere trickle of additional information and article help because of stringent hard to understand source rules and now even that little bit of work has been removed. Really you have put us at the ends of our ropes and we only have the choice to hang ourselves or try to climb back up without assistance as your 'help' has done nothing but to tighten the bottleneck on our ability to work on this article. Even worse we have to work with the fear that one wrong word, or the act of one nefarious person purposely putting that wrong word could lock the article and prevent any pertinent additions if we ever do find anything. Do you understand where I am coming from? Can you do anything to actually help us? --Nielk1 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

By different treatment I am referring to this situation: A 5 second 'click around'/search brings up various game documents that cite sources of the same type that has disallowed here. I do not wish to go policing all these articles and as a result making myself the center of disdain for any communities for those games. (In a final note to #3: What I said I said with full knowledge of what was above and even re-reading it to strengthen my points in my head. What is above is a misunderstand of our words and then an overly defensive response on our part because of the conditions I refer to here that you had no knowledge of. By that I again refer to 'the nefarious one', a nickname I have come to use often for this individual and his cronies. This is the very same who started the topic alerting us to what was occurring so he could sit back and watch the horror he had caused an the inevitable flame war coming to that topic.) --Nielk1 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first things first: I don't know why you refer to people as "enemies" of a community and "nefarious acts of an individual". That kind of talk will get you nowhere and will only serve to make the debate hostile. Yeah, I play this game, too. It's an interesting game, but that doesn't mean that its article here is except from Wiki's guidelines on video games. I can't really make heads or tails of your message; it seems to be a rant against some specific editors. I think it would be more productive if you had a look at Wikipedia's video game articles guidelines here: WP:VG/GL. Now, with that out of the way, I'll respond to what I can get from your post. When you link to an un-official patch, you violate WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. I ran into this one, too, with another article; the AVP1 article where I wanted to add a link to an un-official patch that fixes issues with the game today, except I asked before adding it and as a result, the editor watching the article told me exactly which Wiki guidelines that violated, and I see that it has been stated here quite a few times already. I think you need to look at those guidelines and you'll see where we're coming from with this. It's not some "enemy" trying to destroy or harm any community, it's a community that have gotten the concept of Wikipedia a bit backwards. Happens on so many video game articles, that's why you can find examples of other articles breaking these guidelines. By the way, if you have seen other articles mention stuff like this, I would appreciate if you told us which ones. Eik Corell (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugg... I thought I was clear, I guess I was not. What's done is done and its irrelevant who started it or any of that. It would be best to just start over. I was trying to explain what had happened but since it is not understood I guess we can only just forget about it. I said the psydonyms I said because I will not mention people by name, even though I know exactly what person I refer to. I do have a few issues right away so lets start with that: I have contradicting sources that the 1.2 patch for Battlezone II is or is not official. I have sites that say it is, but really cannot know as they are simply old community level sites that have no sources other than conjecture and often forget to even note that 1.2 is a beta patch, and then I have an original programmer who suggests it was not, but it has been 10 years so he may be wrong. What is an acceptable way to solve this conundrum? I can never make sense of WP rules and there is even a rule that says WP:IAR which even more complicates the situation. What is improving the article, does the omission of the 'unofficial' patch prevent improvement or would adding it be bad? I do not know if this matters, but the 1.3 patch, while unofficial, is made by the company that made the game with the source code. It is not simply a change to game assets but miles and miles of new code including a change from DX7 to DX9. Also, of the pages you linked, I see the following issues with what has occurred: WP:NOT#LINK says nothing is wrong with what has been removed (links) and as such, it even states "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate". This statement says that at least the primary fansite should be linkable, especially considering it is one of the few possible resource. It is a site used by the programmers who still stick with the 1.3 patch even and is the home of all current development. For reference, this site is: [1]. The front page was lost and replaced later with a wiki that has currently had no additions, all community actions take place at [2]. WP:VG/EL says nothing about unofficial patches but does say exhaustive version histories are not allowed. We are not adding an exhaustive version history, just 1.2 and 1.3. Considering 1.2 might not be an official patch either, we technically should only list 1.1 and 1.3 if that is shown true. What do I do about the unknown status about the official/unofficial nature of 1.2, the possibility of the word unofficial being used to cut off something when it is not being used in that way (1.3 is only unofficial so it won't be supported, it is by the original company Pandemic), the fact that the WP:NOT#LINK page does not say the link to the main community site should be removed but rather that is is perfectly allowed? Let us start with these issues and do out best to just forget about all the stuff above, because nothing goes anywhere when people are hurt and others just start citing regulations in a patronizing manner. Can we get on with this? --Nielk1 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again regarding community/fansites and what should not be linked to -

Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

That's directly from WP:EL. I.E. if the author of a game was running a blog, and something needed to be cited from it, it can be prooven and cited that he's an authority on said subject. A fansite/community site dedicated to after market mod support, in no way satisfies that criteria. If it were written or used as a reference by numerous notable periodicals, and sites, that's another matter. Again, Wikipedia does not exist to support a game community.

Likewise, community/fansites fail notability and reliability standards here, which is why they are not allowed in video game project related articles unless said notability and reliability can be demonstrated. In this case, the proposed addition of that community site fails on all counts. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. It seems that there are some misunderstandings. BZU is not "A fansite/community site dedicated to after market mod support", BZ2MD is the mod site and as such has no use being linked here. BZU supports all versions and helps anyone with questions. It is where the 1.3 patch is developed. Most likely an issue with adding it would come down to the 1.3 = unofficial = mod? It has been said by the programmer it is a patch not a mod, but does it not fit Wikipedia's standards as a patch? I know Ken Miller has a blog but I also think it started well after BZ2 and thus has very little BZ2 info in it. Nathan Mates has a site: here. :::Again, we do not want to support the game community, we are members of it. Do not confuse those. We want to provide correct, truthful, and complete information about the game to anyone who looks, not direct people to the community as the community is for a 10 year old game and will not grow ANYWAY. We are not egomaniacs after support, we just want the real information out there, not stale information nearly 10 years old. --Nielk1 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what about things said by the programmers (authority on the subject)? These things are unfortunately said in forums and IRC, does that void them of any use? --Nielk1 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. Forums and chats are not considered reliable sources. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling, that is unfortunate. Is there any format that can be extrapolated? Perhaps some page with the information written as a sub page of the programmer's site. (I;m sure I can ask him to put up a simple collection of such publicly available info.) I mean the things he himself has said. --Nielk1 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This still fails to explain exactly why a link to the latest version of the 1.3 patch is disallowed. That would definitely not be a link to a fansite. --Vsmit (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Its been explained over and over, and its getting quite tiresome with members of these sites popping up here. If its not an official site, and not a site run by the authors, its a fan/community site. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vsmit asked about the 1.3 patch, which is on a site run by the author. The BZU thing is dead, fine, we get it. Even if your reasons seem a bit off. Bug what about the various other questions raised? There are at least 5 other questions about other things, so let's start with the Nathan Mate's site linked above. --Nielk1 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The 1.3 patch is not hosted on a community site. It is hosted on the personal site of one of the programmers. Said site does not have a community aspect. Thus not a fan/community site. --Vsmit (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That site used to be cited from when I made some tentative edits with the comment "not sure if I am doing this right or these will stay" or some such like that. On that note, there is still an asterisk in the info box pointing to that removed section. I am not editing the page anymore but instead just discussing edits here. --Nielk1 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I found the tiny bit that remains after 10 years of the official site. A small bit on a project archive page. --Nielk1 (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason people keep citing regulations is because what you want to add violates them. The purpose is not to patronize, but to to inform you. Although some editors could indeed get a bit annoyed, in this particular case because they have to keep citing these regulations over and over. Now, questions:

"does that void them of use?" Yes, per WP:RS. "does the omission of the 'unofficial' patch prevent improvement or would adding it be bad?" Adding these kinds of things serves to make an article what the community wants, as opposed to what an average reader would. "1.3 = unofficial = mod?" That's a moot point, sorry. "It has been said by the programmer it is a patch not a mod, but does it not fit Wikipedia's standards as a patch?" Per WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK, it does not. It doesn't matter if it's a patch, a mod, or whatever, if there are no notable sources for something like this, it shouldn't be added. A programmer's website for example isn't a notable source. Eik Corell (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you cleared up some things simply and quickly and showed why they do not fit the standards where we could not see that. It is a horrible practice to cite the same regulations over and over when clearly it is not understood how they pertain. I was quoting section from those I thought supported my view and was never told contrary other than "you are wrong". What defines a notable source also seems murky and counter intuitive. Would a web archive of the official site be permissible as a source? I know archives of TV Listing sites are used, but those are for media that changes often (in the case I allude to episode titles of upcoming shows in a series). If archives are allowed, what would be used, the standard webarchive or some other service? --Nielk1 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Something like archive.org's archives of sites routinely gets used for references when a site is defunct/no longer in existence. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for whoever wants to use it: here. I am done with Wikipedia I think. I just don't like the way the rules are loosely defined, and how there is a rule called "Ignore all rules" and that 5th pillar is just, yuck. Without clean cut simple rules when two people get together with different interpretations all there are are battles. God forbid in such a situation one party is a mod and locks the page. I am sorry for any misunderstandings with you Mr. Goldberg, I've just had a negative opinion ever since you first came with accusations of warez (that felt like an attack). Yea, someone who can actually work within such an ildefined system, use these [3] [4] and try to improve the article. --Nielk1 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say it's ill-defined. The very fact that the response and consensus on adding these things has been uniformly in opposition shows that it's not. If it was, every single page would be marred with edit-wars, including this one. Eik Corell (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Marty asked that I try to provide a neutral viewpoint to this discussion. I'm coming into this discussion without full knowledge of everything that's transpired, so please forgive me if I say something that doesn't take into account past discussion.

As far as I can tell, the situation looks like its an uphill climb against negative circumstances: some bad feelings on both sides and an obscure piece of information that may not have received attention from reliable sources. I certainly understand that Wikipedia's policies can be confusing (having been confused by them a number of times). Some are very clear cut, while other are intentionally left broad to create a wide umbrella or protection. As already noted, the problem with the broad ones is that they are left up to interpretation.

That being said, I think it's best to disengage for a bit and then tackle the issue from a fresher start. In my experience, most everybody that comes to edit Wikipedia does so with the intent to be helpful. So I'm sure a group people all wanting to help this article can reach an agreement that accomplishes this.

Once the involved parties have had a moment to collect themselves, these are the things I think need to be established.

• What are the end goals the differing sides have in mind for the article?
• Establish a middle ground that satisfies both parties while complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
• Establish what is needed to reach that goal.

Of course, I'll do what I can to help accomplish this: research, copy editing, etc. Sound reasonable? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok. I'm going to work off of your list here:

• The end goal for Nielk1 and I is that anyone who searches for Battlezone II: Combat Commander (Via Wikipedia or otherwise), should be able to find information pertaining to the game and its various additions (mods/patches/addon packs/etc.). I don't think this is unreasonable, as many times when searching something obscure I'll come here first since it seems to have the most complete information. This game is ten years old for crying out loud. It's difficult to find any information on it. I don't want this page to become a myriad of links or a series of "Work In Progress" articles for mods. I'd like to see it grow into a place where necessary information can be had, and where players can find other places to ask questions. I'd like 2 links to Battlezone sites, one which is the main BZ community and one to the Battlezone file depository. The reason behind the link to the community is so that all BZ players, both old and new, can talk to others who share enough passion for the game to get together in one place. It is also where Nathan Mates (and Ken Miller on occasion) communicate with the Battlezone community and develop the 1.3 patch. It is a depository on both game information and real-world experience, with both getting the game to work on most systems and getting computers to work in general. There is a thread of Battlezone links there that include almost all of the other community links, so players can find other communities if need be. The reason for the link to the file depository is so that anyone who wants to get to Battlezone addon files can get to them. This link, however, is not completely necessary, as people can go to Battlezone Universe and ask where to find files. Note that neither of these sites support Warez (both owned and operated by the same person), and people have been banned from the forum for posting links to Warez, and their links have been removed. All files on BZScrap are either free to use, were made by the community or were released by Pandemic to the community. I'd also like to see 1.3 reinstated as the "Latest Patch," because it is. It's developed by Nathan Mates and Ken Miller (You can't call it a mod because it requires the source code, which has not been released to the public), and currently has upgraded the graphics engine from DirectX 7 to DirectX 9, fixing problems users were having with newer graphics processors.
• We'll have to work with the Wiki mods on this.
• We'll have to wait until the second is done.

Thank you for your help in this, Guyinblack25. I hope we can work with both you and the Wikipedia mods in sorting this all out. This is a great game and I'd hate to see it die this way. --Vsmit (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally just want current information. We do not need a massive ball of info, but what we do want should not be 10 years stale. Perhaps it would be best to simply start with sources. There are only 2 possible sources. An archive of a 10 year old site, and the game manual I hold in my hand still after these 10 years. Both a bit stale. --Nielk1 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to wrap my head around things now. I'll wait for a response from one of the other editors before I try to come to any conclusion though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I mainly am concerned about one thing, that is 1.3 as it is the latest, but I am still in the dark to were the issue lies with it. I never touched the section here that says mods because I never knew were it stood. Wikipedia obviously is not supposed to be a guide for a game (as per the guidelines for VG articles) or a link farm, and I have never wanted either of those to occur. I just feel I should say that. Many people stop at Wikipedia, that is why I want the most current info, or else I would just stick to my little corner of the web and continue my work there. I do not need mods and addon packs explained, I just think it would be best if the article reflected development over these 10 years. And a note on the 'extensive version history' bit of the rules, I write this preemptively, all BZ2 versions public are: 1.01b2 (1.0), 1.1, 1.2, 1.3pb1, 1.3pb2, 1.3pb3, 1.3pb4, 1.3pb4a, 1.3ta5. That would be quite a mess to list (and hence why it is against the rules)! Yes, 1.3 has been in production since shortly after 1.2 was released if not before. --Nielk1 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I read over some stuff again and would like to say: I do not wish to turn this article into a community site article nor do I want it to link to community sites for the sake of linking. I do not want an exhaustive history of anything, as that is not the purpose of this article. I simply want the most up to date information and what is best for this article, that being that there is a new version (made by the original programmers via the source code ONLY accessible to them as employees of the company) that is only called unofficially to double protect the company from any liabilities or support requests. I feel that this entire time none of this has been understood and I have been treated with hostility because I am some sort of "rabbit community fan". I hope you can supply a grounded point of view and allow this article to grow into a valuable page on Wikipedia. --Nielk1 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nielk1- I believe I see your side of it now. I'd also like to hear what the other side has to say. Let's give them a chance to say their piece. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK concerns. These are community members who want to add links to community sites and community files to the article. I can see where they're coming from; it would be practical for potential new players, but Wikipedia's intended for everyone, hence the guidelines. I found the things they want to add easily through google, no need to add them here. Eik Corell (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To add to that, the issue for me has also been an ongoing one common with other articles here that have a fan base/community forums - they usually come here treating the article as an extension of their fan community, fill the article with content that doesn't meet Wikipedia's purpose, and then try and test every variance of presenting said info to try keep it in by trying to make it fit how they interpret said rules. Then when said rules are explained, it deluges in devolves in to a debate of said guidelines and rules. Nobody was treating anyone as a "rabid fan", rules (as is evidenced by the lengthy discussions on this page above) were explained and talked over and over. That said, I also have an issue with presenting said likes to community sites (to date they have failed any calls for notability), the previous attempts to add discussion forums, and the technical unofficial patch info that's continually attempted to add here. Nobody is stating the article can't mention or discuss community or aftermarket support if it is notable, Doom's section on WADs is a perfect example on this precedence. But as with that article, it should only related to discussion on its verifiable notability and impact to the game - not be used as a resource to point to people where to get said patches, nor discuss in detail about the patches. Simple verbiage on their existence to support the notability of the game's built in extensibility will more than suffice. Even if some of the original developers took it upon themselves to release even more mods unofficially as mentioned above, that's still unofficially and only bears mentioning in the mods section as a one liner. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I, not saying anything for VSMIT, would be perfectly content with a section on aftermarket support or some such. It was never before suggested, even once. The patch was added once, not continually, and then discussed here so no harm could come to the article. And we are still at a loss as to how the rules fit into this circumstance. If you were to say it was not allowed because of "quote from rule page" or even [[WP:RULE#Section]] we would be in much better shape, but all that was ever said was the repeat "No" with the same explanation even when an inquiry was made quoting supporting rules from the pages linked. In all cases no new information was given, just "no because A", "can you explain?", "no because A", "what about B?", "no because A", "how does A pertain here?", "no because A". This is what made me and others so very upset. I am sorry. I was going to wait for Guyinblack25's next comment to say anything, but I cannot understand how such a suggestion did not come till now. If all parties agree, even before other issues are resolved, we can get to work on the small after market support section (and maybe even community section, though I do not see the need for that, and having that would require referencing the 'cannot ever link ever' sites would it not?). I do not even care if the after market support section says "support is available from various community forums" without a SINGLE link or mention. Links for the community were never my goal and I always stuck to the discussion page during issues to ensure I did not give off an aura of owning the article. As another show of faith I will let Marty start the after market support section if he wishes. I assume modability in general (another chance to give passing mention to 1.3) should be addressed and the long coming trim to the overly large mods section should also follow (as I never did believe it should be that long). I can also draft up such a section in a sub page to my user page if that is preferred. --Nielk1 (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, yet more accusations thrown and yet more claims of rules not being clear or cited when they've been explained and cited over and over and over. Likewise it wasn't a suggestion - the section in question already exists, its called Modifications, and its patently untrue it was never mentioned until now - I clearly stated "The fact that it was made to be modded and still has this occur is notable, and already summed up in the article." Same thing I just said above. Lastly, "support is available from various community forums" is not necessary - once again, the notability falls in that modifications are still being done, not where they are available. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted you in this case, but I never related Modifications with Mod-ability. It would be best if the Modifications section was absorbed into a better designed "Release and later history" section. You did fail to explain why there was an issue in many cases other than citing rule pages. I am sorry if I was not bright enough to find your direct connection inside of the linked rules page. That may have been sufficient for a regular Wikipedian but I could not understand the issue and was attempting, initially, to ask for more information. It would be of great assistance to me if, while we wait for Guyinblack25, you could help me with making this sandbox page Wikipedia worthy and thus better my understanding. That sandbox page should allow a great place for direct examples of problems and their solutions. --Nielk1 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

<Start lengthy post> Ok, here's my assessment of the situation. Stripped down to its simplest form, we have a difference of opinion of what are the most important components of the article and how the different guidelines and policies apply here. Let me first say, I believe everyone here is acting in good faith and doing what they think is best for the article. So long as we keep that in mind, there's no reason why we can't work together to resolve this and improve the article.

As far as the external links are concerned. I have to agree with Eik Corell and Marty. They do not seem to satisfy WP:EL. Here are the reasons why:

• The file depository looks only to provide download links. The reason it does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines is that it provides no additional information about the game. External links are meant to provide extra knowledge to the reader. If it focused specific information about the game, like how to play it, game guide content, and some development history, then it could probably pass as an external link. But since its sole purpose is a site to download files, it provides little to no information. Eik Corell commented that this also conflicts with WP:NOTLINK. I don't totally agree with this as its an extreme interpretation. I believe that section was intended to prevent an excessive number of external links. But since that one link provides links to numerous media files, I can see how it can be interpreted as such.
• The Community link does seem to provide some extra content that could expand on what is in the article. However, because everything is in the form of forum postings, I'm afraid it should be excluded too. Forums are difficult to ensure the accuracy of information because anybody with an email address can sign up. This is not meant to say your community is spreading misinformation. It's just we can't really verify who is who. If this was Pandemic's official forum, then it would be a different story because it's easier to verify the employees. But this is not the case here.

So sorry, but I don't think I can endorse the inclusion of either link. Regardless, the point of the article should not be the external links, but rather the rest of it. That is what is meant to inform the reader. External links are not a requirement for articles and should only be added if the article doesn't cover everything.

In regard to patches, this is falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I believe this is why Marty and Eik opposed the 1.2 and 1.3 versions. To my knowledge, no sources were provided that could verify the information about the patches. Given what I've read about them, programmers further improving the game when the company has stopped support is not your normal piece of gaming history. Something like that should require reliable sources.

As far as sources are concerned, I found a good number of reliable sources that could be used to improve this article, possibly to Good article status. The GameSpot and IGN articles are somewhat older from when they were still establishing themselves as reliable, but are still probably within reason for WP:RS.

• GameSpot has a good number
• IGN has some too
• Eurogamer covered it some as well
• Reviews from PC Zone and CVG
• GamePro review
• Nathan Mates' personal website.
  • Generally personal websites should be avoided. But in this case it can qualify for WP:SPS, Self-Published Source from an expert in the field and topic.
  • General info about the patches
  • More details on his resume

A number of the sources also covered the release of the unofficial patches. That being said, the press and even the programmer of the patches has referred to them as "unofficial patches". I believe the last Pandemic-released version should be listed in the infobox. To do otherwise could be construed as misrepresenting the facts. In reality though, I believe it is best to avoid confusing the reader. But with the information in the sources above, I believe the patches can be adequately covered in the article.

I'd say between the sources above, and the experience of the editors wanting to work on this article it shouldn't be too hard to clean up the article. I recommend Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Half-Life 2 as good models to mimic in improving this article. Both are first person shooters that are popular computer titles; just like this game.

If there are any questions at all (this is a long read), please don't hesitate to ask. If I wasn't clear on anything, which I'm sometimes not, I'm more than willing to try to clarify it. Also, I noticed Vsmit and Nielk1 are relatively new to Wikipedia. If you two would like some more info about writing game articles on Wikipedia, I and few editors created a writing guide specifically for video game articles. Hope this helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

As expected the file site is not linkable (never thought it would be) and I also understand the reasons why the other is not as well. It is unfortunate because the other used to fit the requirements. It used to have a large front page and lots of verified information where as the forum seemed as an afterthought. I thank you for your help as I had never considered using Nathan Mates's site as an 'expert in the field'. I will begin to mimic the structure of the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Half-Life 2 pages is my sandbox page (pattered after your sandbox, thank you for that) and follow the guidelines you have posted here in that. I was worried that GameSpot and IGN and such links counted as advertisements for those sites as I am rather sure both have commercial ties. I know Blue News has some info on the 1.3 patches, but I do not know how much it is and that is a sub-party of UGO and MIGHT be a user posted news site. I should not need to look at additional sites with the available sources however. And the read was not long at all, it explained every issue in detail so that they could be understood and offered great new information. --Nielk1 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe between the info on Mates' website and these two GameSpot pages[5][6], the main ideas about the patches should be covered. The general reader doesn't need too much detail about every aspect. Just try to balance content based on what you find in the articles. If the bulk of the articles are reviews about the gameplay, then the "Reception" should be bigger than the content about patches. That way undue weight is avoided.

For future reference, GameSpot and IGN do count as reliable sources, along with the other links I posted above. Even though they have commercial ties with developers/publishers, they still have a system of editorial oversight. The commercial ties are for regular internet ads on the site, are typically not associated with the reviews. Here's a listing of other sources you can use. If you ever have questions about other reliable sources, feel to ask at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Confused Names

alot fo the names have been confused,

i often see Braddock and Manson confused with eachother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.227.47 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed Re: Multiple Endings? Really

Can't we just cite the primary source and maybe give a level name? --Gigitrix (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1