Talk:Tips for creating good WADs

Am I the only one who thinks this article is just awful? First of all, it's all opinions, no verifiable facts. Perhaps not everybody is annoyed by overdetailing. Second of all, All the! Last few! Scentences! All end with! Exclamation marks! Most of them aren't complete scentences anyway. At the bottom, you can see the author's name, which I don't think is very encyclopedic. The claim that over half of all Doom players play Deathmatch simply cannot be verified. I applaud the author's efforts but this is a wiki, not an advice page. -Wagi 69.51.157.227 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a wiki, which means that at any given time, a lot of articles are awful.  :>    For what it's worth, I see at least two items in this list that you could have just fixed yourself without discussion.


 * Most of the editing tutorials are nearly as bad, and have been for at least as long as I've been here. The reason is that this is a volunteer project, so people write what they feel like writing, and hitherto no one has found the time to create reasonably complete editing tutorials.  I personally believe that DM tutorials and editing tutorials should have been added before any other articles, as those are seemingly the two most widespread activities in the Doom community, but I cannot do so myself, whereas I don't know anything about them (I can debug vanilla PWADs, but designing them is quite another matter).  Therefore, I have to sigh and do something else, and hope that our number of expert mappers and DM players will keep growing (and hope also that my constant hectoring of User:CarlosHoyos, who has actually contributed to published editing guides, didn't drive him away from the project).    Ryan W 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives
For things like this (subject), I think the wiki should try present the essentials impartially and then refer as fully as possible to the sources that generate the general idea, so that people can go in depth and find their preferred styles and suggestions. In the long run the existing article could be replaced by an article dealing with existing tips and how to articles, as opposed to being some sort of original work.

Any positions presented can be backed by posts, articles, and criticisms that have dealt with how to make good wads. Since this isn't the more general Wikipedia and community work weighs more here, we could use forum posts by established mappers or wad critics and stuff they've said on wad text files, web sites, and so on. We could even try to determine different points of view and places where they are defined or where people have argued different perspectives. For example, how things like "aesthetics" and "game-play" are judged and treated by different groups, fans, and wad authors.

In short, I think this is a subject that has a lot of potential, and instead of trying to push agendas and being pedagogic, the wiki is best suited for opening a window to the matter instead of giving practical answers for something defined so subjectively. Who is like God? 10:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your ideas, and this type of approach would definitely improve the article a lot. Unfortunately I'm not motivated or knowledgeable enough to write such an in-depth article/articles myself. -- Janizdreg 12:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)