That is a good enough reason to denote the fact that It can retreat because it would be a tactically useful and viable option. It may also be the one that has any real reason to back off or retreat because of its ability to heal itself. You could say it has the ability just stand and heal itself, though that would be rather ineffective in my opinion. Retreat could be implied, it is not meant to denote a special ability. The Hunter can also retreat."Ĭan someone clarify what it means for the hunter to retreat? It can pin a Survivor down on the floor and slash at them with long claws, rendering the victim powerless unless The Hunter is killed by a team-mate or knocked off its victim. Deadsquerl ( talk) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Reply 360Īn agile Infected who can climb walls and jump over rooftops, similar to Half-Life 2's Fast Zombie. I'll continue adding it back until good reason is given why it shouldn't be allowed. I've tried adding back Left 4 Dead 411 but user SkyWalker removed it because of "spam". It seems like the consensus is that useful fansites should be allowed. Noneforall ( talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Reply According to WP:EL, links to discussion forums should usually be avoided so I'm going to remove the link to the unofficial forum but keep the other link.
It can be an endless, pointless, cycle, you know? - Chemicalduck ( talk) 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Reply Okay, I can see why you would want to keep fan sites that has information in one place, but I still don't see why we should keep unofficial forums.
Just as you can undo changes to links added, we (the people who enjoy having them here) can undo your changes. Why limit that? It's also up to the people viewing the links which ones they visit, not up to random Wiki users if fansites should be added or not (and then removed.). I'm sure each site seeks out their own exclusives for information when it becomes available, thus making it an asset to the community. It's all related to the game itself and we can't just assume that each fansite is just a mirror of other sources. I see nothing wrong with adding fansites in the "External Links" section. Noneforall ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Reply I agree with IrDewey that fan sites aren't needed so I will continue to remove these links unless anyone thinks the links should stay. IrDewey ( talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Reply I've been undoing edits by 86.3.236.221 that adds an unofficial forum link to the article. They don't provide any reliable sources for information (mostly mirroring other sources) so there's really no reason to include it in the article. Should we leave it? Or remove it? I know some wikis like Crysis prefer not to have fansites. Looks like an anonymous editor has added a fan site already.
0 kommentar(er)
