User talk:Ryan W/2009

Doom II
Thank you for correcting my text. I have corrected the date the game was put on the index, the other date was as the BPjS changed their name to BPjM. Furthermore, i added the index-stuff for Doom, Final Doom and Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. Doom 3 was never put on this index, nobdoy knows why. The same goes for Doom 64.--Cybdmn 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Undoubtedly an important topic, especially when Doom was new.    Ryan W 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this topic is still important today, because these games can't be sold easy even today (ebay.de for axample kick auctions for these games). The games will remain 25 years from the date they entered the infamous list there. However, there ar some exceptions (Game Boy Advance versions). I will took a deep look after that tomorrow, and add the information to clarify that.--Cybdmn 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Some solutions and Questions to DOOM
Ok I do not know what order I should put the games in because The Ultimate Doom was first, then came Doom 2, then Final Doom, then Doom 3. What would be the chronological order to place them in? Perhaps this would work; Doom 3 (Mars base incident was covered up back on Earth), Doom 4 (?), Ultimate Doom (Operations resume on Mars but this time on the moons thinking that it could place some distance from the original portal incident.), Doom 2 (Hell reaches Earth because of a portal, Humans leave Earth to escape.), Final Doom/ Master levels (Marine cleans up what is left of the demonic hordes on Earth before Humans return home.), Final Doom/ Evilution (Demonic hordes try to return to Earth but is halted.), Final Doom/ TNT (UAC closes remaining portals for good and the Marine must find a away to close the final portal.). Now here is the alternate time line; Doom Movie (Virus spreads and infects UAC employees and eventually Reaper must stop the infection from getting to Earth.), Doom 2 Movie (Possible movie if it is producced.) (This is what I think should happen should they make a Doom 2 movie but it should not be counted as an actual account.) (Reaper returns to Earth and rests for a while.  UAC scientists experiment with there own ARK teleportation device.  A portal to Hell is opened and Earth is over fun by ACTUAL Demons.  Reaper makes his way to close the portal.). Also I think the RoE story line might be a prelude to Doom 4, because if Mc. Neil saved the Marine from Hell and took the Marine back to Earth then something may have gotten through a portal she might of opened. Well it is kind of good to be on this site again. DOOMED91 18:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I haven't figured this out either, though we can all take comfort in the low literary standards established by the original authors. You'll get no shortage of interpretations, however, if you ask the same question here.


 * Aside from the original three episodes and Doom II, I personally interpret the Doom universe as existing in a sort of "syndicated immortality" (like in the Simpsons where characters never age and don't know that time is going by). For example, I play WAD series in their order of publication, because the community assumes a more experienced audience with each release, irrespective of storylines.    Ryan W 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Polyobject vs Polyobjects
I wrote a Polyobject article last night but didn't think to check if somebody had already made a Polyobjects article (which isn't in conformance to article naming guidelines). Since the latter is just a stub which goes into no form of detail, it would probably be best if they are merged. I have no idea how to mark articles for merging though (I looked at the template and it is definitely not self-documenting...) so maybe you could take a look at the problem :) --Quasar 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that people find it more fun to rant about Skulltag or DECORATE than to come here and write template documentation for us? Quelle choque.  Maybe I will add some instructions to the merge template, so you can decide whether or not it's easy to use.


 * FWIW I agree with your assessment here... I suppose someone might pop up and argue that the plural form is more correct because it is the original name of the *feature*, with the singular created later as a back-construction. For example, we have an article called Top 10 Infamous WADs because that's the name of the Doomworld page, even though the word "WADs" is plural.  That would be too hardcore for me though.    Ryan W 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the singular guideline has always been that when writing an article about something that can be referred to in either the singular or the plural, an article about it should be titled with the singular form. Your example wouldn't fit because the article title is also the title of its subject, and you do not change titles grammatically, you quote them in a literal fashion. But that being said, it doesn't matter to me if you want to merge into Polyobject or Polyobjects; the only important thing to me personally is that there only needs to be one article on the subject :) --Quasar 08:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the thing is that if you talk about plural polyobjects in an article, and the link is singular, you can link to the singular this way: polyobjects (result: polyobjects); while if you talk about a single polyobject but the page is plural you have to do this: polyobject (result: polyobject) which is more annoying. I've gone ahead and turned Polyobjects into a redirect for Polyobject, that way everyone is happy. --Gez 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: "Quel choc." ;)


 * Well, that should dispel the rumor that I'm from Montreal.  :D


 * IMHO if you come across a case like this, where  polyobjects   is a red link, you should just create a redirect from the singular form.  Choosing page titles on the basis of simplifying markup is a slippery slope (also, wowwiki and yugioh have insanely complex markup but are 10 times our size, so simplifying markup is clearly not of intrinsic marketing value).    Ryan W 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Name convention question
Hi, I want to contribute a little with Doom players (community) but I'm confuzed about naming convetion. Should I use Name "nick" Surname or Name Surname (nick)? Also, some pages needs to be deleted becouse I created double pages. Who can delete those and how to report them? --Zbuzanic 11:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Name "nick" Surname was the original form, when the wiki started. About a year ago it was changed to Name Surname (nick) and nobody seemed to object strongly.  I wasn't involved so I can't tell you what the reasoning was &mdash; you can dig through the page move log to see who participated.  (The wiki only had about 3 editors at the beginning, however, so I suppose they couldn't claim broad community support for their convention.)


 * Any administrator can delete pages. Which pages do you mean?  It's often reasonable to make the leftover page into a redirect instead, which you're welcome to do yourself (although if the second page name is a typo, maybe that doesn't make sense).  Also, if multiple editors have worked on a page since it was created, I suggest nominating it for merging or deletion first, so that large blocks of people's writing won't get erased without warning.    Ryan W 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back!
If you are back, and you got this message. I welcome you back! --Mega Sean 45 19:57, October 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't consider myself a regular contributor yet; as my user page says, I am still somewhat at loose ends (I have slept in three U.S. states in the past week), and I don't have a computer with enough muscle for the latest DOSBox or OpenGL packages. But your optimism is appreciated.   :D     Ryan W 20:35, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, thanks! --Mega Sean 45 14:29, November 11, 2009 (UTC)