User talk:Nuxius

Template:Doom 64 screenshot
Hi, welcome to the doom wiki. Thanks for your contributions. Template:Doom 64 screenshot was being used to signify in an article that a picture was taken using the doom 64 TC, rather than doom 64 proper. I appreciate that it is not the most appropriate name for that.

I see you've modified the template to indicate copyright on the image pages, and created Template:Doom 64 TC screenshot containing the older content.

I've modified the previous uses of Template:Doom 64 screenshot to now use Template:Doom 64 TC screenshot. Please also use this template when you link to a picture taken using the Doom 64 TC.

Thanks!

Jdowland 14:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I totally forgot about the pages with the monsters and stuff, the only ones I changed were the ones for the levels under the Doom 64 section itself.

Thanks for catching that (and changing it).

--Nuxius 21:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:D64StagingArea1.jpg
Hi, just to draw your attention to a question I'm asking at Image talk:D64StagingArea1.jpg regarding the source of the pic. It looks to me to be from Doom 64 proper, in which case please adjust the licence description for the Image :) -- Jdowland 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the screenshot I took a while ago. Originally it was not on that page (I just put it on the page for MAP01 of Doom 64). Looking at the history for that page, it appears user 71.222.57.250 updated it to my image back on the 8th, hence the discrepancy. --Nuxius 08:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Platforms Doom has been ported to"
Wait, I'm confused. The discussion on Talk:Platforms Doom has been ported to is about merging that article into Games, so why are you splitting it out into separate articles? Fraggle 13:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did that for several reasons,


 * 1)because the links were already on the games page, and those pages needed content


 * 2)some of the platforms already have their own page, and to me, having some platforms listed on their own page, while some others with more content (ie the X-Box page that was already there vs. the SNES page that I created out of the info on the 'Platforms Doom has been ported to' page) on the main page just seems a bit sloppy.


 * 3)most importantly, as someone in the discussion on Talk:Platforms Doom has been ported to page said "but to go into that amount of detail we could always give each port one article, which I believe was the original intent of all the red links in Games"; which is one of the things I was planning on doing. It was the main reason I did all of that, I'm wanting to add more content to the various ports/platforms pages, and better organize some of the content on some of the other pages there. I definitely won't be doing anything close to the level Ledmeister goes to (if someone wants that, they can go to his page or read one of his various FAQ's posted at different places), but I think there is more info that would fit in the scope of this wiki.


 * However, if you or someone still disagrees with this, then feel free to move it all to one page; won't bother me one bit. Nuxius 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's okay, I agree with what you've done and I think it makes sense to have separate articles. I was just a bit confused :-) Fraggle 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I once asked for community opinion on item 3, but no one responded. Therefore, those of us interested in the gameplay articles have to take the next move and "be bold", and see if that gets a reaction.  :>   Which is what you're doing.


 * If I had to guess at the consensus, I would say: put detailed port differences in the individual port articles (e.g. E1M1#Secrets), and give each port's article a summary of the changes but not an exhaustive list (see the original version of the GBA article). This avoids redundancy with Ledmeister's work, as you say, and also if people are using our walkthroughs to play the games, they don't have to look in two places for each level.  IIRC if you look at the history of Platforms Doom has been ported to, only two people have actually contributed content, and the rest of the changes are either copyediting or transferring text to another article.    Ryan W 13:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Console Doom
I really like this. Do you think the Xbox bonus levels should be included as well? Ryan W 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, I really didn't think about the XBox levels when I did this. Yeah, I agree, they would be better suited for this template versus the Doom PC level template they're in now. Nuxius 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, just to let everyone "in the know", I have all the pages for the other levels listed done on my hard drive. All I need to do now is take the necessary screenshots and map shots. I'll be able to finish those later today. :) Nuxius 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All roit! One more question: should Category:Xbox Doom levels become a more general category, Category:Console Doom levels?  To divide them all up consistently by console seems unwieldy because most levels appear in multiple versions, as you point out, and there are only 10 of them in total anyway.  (TheGreenHerring, this question is for you too, since you started this whole thing.)    Ryan W 11:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed and done. :) Nuxius 11:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind, but I changed the navbox so that it automatically puts the article in Category:Console Doom levels (like with the other navboxes for stock levels), instead of having to add that category by hand afterward.   Ryan W 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, thank you! :) I didn't know you could do that. Nuxius 03:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "'normal user' status"
Nuxius says: "However, I'm not an admin like you are, so I try to keep my edits within my "normal user" status, and try to give reason for any deletions/edits I make unless I'm deleting spam or something."

I feel that the wiki has failed you somehow. AFAIAA Fredrik has always made clear that people are made admins in order to clean up messes (block spambots, delete ripped images, fix typos in the interface), not to give them increased purchase in content or policy discussions, or permission to make less comprehensible edits. When Fraggle gets into a debate on the wiki about aspect ratios, he expects to be taken seriously because he is a port programmer, not because he is an admin.

I suppose that a lot of editors might feel the same way you do, based on their experiences of Wikipedia or other large volunteer projects (or, God help them, other gaming sites), which is even more depressing. I've thought of adding an explanation here, but as it is a rather strong philosophical statement, I would want to run it by the other admins first, and I have no idea how to contact the inactive ones. Ryan W 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, no, this wiki definitely hasn't failed me, trust me on that one. ;) And thank God it's not like Wikipedia, otherwise I would not be editing here anywhere near as much.


 * or, God help them, other gaming sites Images of me trying to deal with Moby come to mind. Never before have I donated so much content to a site that could least yet give a crap about any of it because it is content for old games and no one cares about those anymore. I don't know how many images I uploaded there back in November of last year for some PSX games that they had no cover scans or images for, and to this date not a one of them have been approved or shown up on the site. Meanwhile, content for newer games will show up the same day. That's bullshit.


 * Anyway, back on topic (heh) I'm curious as to why you felt the need to post When Fraggle gets into a debate on the wiki about aspect ratios, he expects to be taken seriously because he is a port programmer, not because he is an admin.? My post wasn't even in response to him, as he made that post after mine, so there's no way I could have seen it in the first place. ????? Nuxius 09:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry; the reference to Fraggle was just an example and not related to that specific thread (actually I was thinking of this). I'm glad you like it here.  :>    Ryan W 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image summaries
A suggestion: include wikilinks in the summaries of the images you upload. I guess this isn't an absolute necessity, but it's still better if you do add them. Thanks. -- Janizdreg 00:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just going by how I typically see other people use wiki links in the summaries for the images they upload (recent example) where they only provide wiki links to things that are not already wiki linked on the page by default (like how he didn't link Cyberdemon because it's linked at the bottom of the page.) An example of my own would be Image:The_Mansion_map.png where I linked PlayStation and Saturn but not "The Mansion" since it was already at the bottom of the page.


 * In these two cases, everything was already wiki linked in either the copyright box or at the bottom of the page, so I didn't bother with any of them.


 * But if you would prefer that I do that, that is no problem, I was just providing my rationale behind it. :) Nuxius 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"you don't delete it, you fix the double redirect"
A Talk page redirect which itself doesn't have anything linking to it serves no purpose whatsoever, because it is not being used and won't be used in the future. But if you want to fix them, I guess it's harmless (it may also serve the remote possibility that they may be linked from some page outside the wiki). Who is like God? 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * it may also serve the remote possibility that they may be linked from some page outside the wiki
 * Exactly. Plus, it's easier anyway. Having to go through the delete process just creates a extra step of pointlessness for something one can easily fix themselves. Nuxius 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)