Talk:Garry's Mod

Add DarkRP

Adding DarkRP, DarkRP is and has been an extremely popular gamemode that multiple people play today, in the DarkRP subcategory I will also include some mention of City RP,Police RP,SCP RP,Starwars RP and Zombie RP since they are also popular gamemodes that are derivations of the DarkRP category. This change will do justice to this wiki as informing them of popular gamemode categories that have brought individuals to GMOD is a must.

This contribution is planned to be added below *Prop Hunt* and will be formatted similarly.

Once i have permission to do so, i will begin the contribution. Siyyo (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

To un-boilerplate: You don't need anybody's permission. What you do need, however, are reliable sources. I checked around and there arent't that many (0, to be precise) that go into depth on DarkRP. With no sources, there is not content for us to add. IceWelder [✉] 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That is a shame. Anecdotally, I know that it is a big deal to players of Garry's Mod. WindowEnthuziast557 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The truth about Nintendo removing GMOD addons

Yeah, about the whole thing about Nintendo copyrighting addons from Garry's Mod, that's not true. That's the work of a copyright troll under the name of Aaron Peters. Here, take a look at this video to see the truth behind this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6mNpVlUJjM&list=LL&index=1&t=2s&pp=gAQBiAQB 108.35.187.110 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/garrynewman/status/1783501547361411494 IceWelder [✉] 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually;

https://torrentfreak.com/nintendo-vs-garrys-mod-dissecting-the-fake-domain-behind-all-the-chaos-240426/ 108.35.187.110 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Your article captures the siutation perfectly: There were plenty of fake DMCAs in the past, but the most recent ones remain unseen by the public and are said to be official.

Whether the DMCA or similar takedown notices sent to Garry and the team are legitimate is best judged by those who have seen them. Based on the above, however, his claim – that the notices are official – should really be the last word on the matter.

IceWelder [✉] 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the removal of this information from the Article: I feel it is inappropriate to remove this relevant information. user:IceWelder proposed it should be removed as it gives undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. However, while I do believe it was a conspiracy theory, it is also one worth discrediting, which is exactly what was done in the article. QuiteBearish (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

We're giving in to a baseless accusation by random people on Twitter. The reporting on this matter is also questionable, lacking the necessary context of how fake Nintendo notices transpired in the past. My removal was fine per WP:BRD / WP:STATUSQUO, reverting the adding user's changes, but for now I've settled on a simple copyedit. I do urge you to check out WP:UNDUE. IceWelder [✉] 15:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would need to review what RS have said, but a brief sentence to say that the devs confirmed the legitamcy of the takedown notices, amid a raft of fake DMCA notices, seems fair to say. We don't need to go into a breakdown of why some thought they were fake, only that we know the devs aren't doing the removals on blind trust. Eg Ars Tech briefly explains it. Masem (t) 16:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say I disagree with your assertion that your edits were fine under WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.

First, as to BRD: Your original bold edit did not explain why you were editing, it just said "trim" which did not explain your rationale at all. Without knowing why you removed the information, I reverted it. That leaves us to the third step: Discuss. Under this section it explicitly says not to restore your edit, which you did. When you restored your edit, you broke the BRD process.

Second, as to status quo: It only covers editing during a dispute discussion. While there had been an ongoing discussion as to the validity of the copyright strikes, no discussion had yet happened as to the inclusion of the information or whether it should be excluded under undue influence. I believe that based on the order of events, the status quo protects including the information rather than excluding it.

I already discussed the undue weight issue in my original comment, but to continue as to whether it's giving undue weight to a "fringe conspiracy theory": considering basically every mainstream publication that is discussing the takedown notices has also had to take time out to debunk the issue, I don't think it's that fringe. If mainstream publications are devoting paragraphs to debunking the issue, I don't think one sentence debunking the issue here is inappropriate. Having read the article on undue weight, I don't think a brief reference to the validity of the takedown notice gives undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. I don't think that's "giving in" to random people on Twitter.

If you think part of the issue is the source's reporting and that it doesn't include enough context, that's a different discussion and different sources can be located if needed. QuiteBearish (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2024

"Other game modes, notably Trouble in Terrorist Town and Prop Hunt," should be changed to "Other game modes, notably Trouble in Terrorist Town and DarkRP" since DarkRP is far more popular than Prop hunt. 93.136.101.21 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

`notably` refers notability in reliable secondary sources. As stated prior, DarkRP is not the ofcus of any reliable secondary sources and is therefore not mentioned in the article. IceWelder [✉] 21:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The game has since released on iPhone

I have gmod on my phone, I don’t know when it came out for mobile tho. That should be in the article. Geghiimgeg (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll need a source that's discussed it. DonIago (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)