Doom Wiki:Central Processing

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Doom Wiki's first birthday
The doom wiki is a year old from yesturday. HAPPY BIRTHDAY! -- TheDarkArchon 15:01, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * happy birthday :) -- Jdowland 21:47, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday DoomWiki! Congratulations to everyone for their work on this wiki for the last year. I hope the next year is a successful one for your community. Angela (talk) 17:38, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Custom Search Icon?
I was looking at the current featured Wikicity (Wikifur. No, I'm not a furry.) and noticed that it's search box had a custom logo instead of the generic Wikicites logo. Any chance of one coming here? -- TheDarkArchon 23:38, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the current featured Wikicity anymore... for everyone's reference, the Wikifur wiki is http://furry.wikicities.com/. -- Jdowland 20:07, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ok on further investigation, it looks like the method of customizing that box differs for Mediawiki versions 1.4 and 1.5. I think we're on 1.4 still, and that furry one is on 1.5, although I can't figure out how to tell the version.

For 1.5, You would edit Mediawiki:Sidebar I believe. -- Jdowland 20:26, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We're on 1.5 now. Look at the top of the screen. -- TheDarkArchon 09:27, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, my edits were failing yesterday, I guess I caught the middle of the upgrade :) Looks like the search box is not defined in Mediawiki:Sidebar after all. You need to browse around Special:Allpages, Mediawiki namespace, to find the relevant page. -- Jdowland 10:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On an upgrade related note, what's with the exclaimation marks next to edits? I've noticed this on the ZDoom wiki and haven't understood what it meant -- TheDarkArchon 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. ;>    Ryan W 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You could just have asked! Setting the search logo requires uploading a new image for Search logo.png, as. -- GreenReaper 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For something boring, how about an image of the word "Search" done in the Doom (intermission screen) font? Fraggle 13:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I created this as a search logo, but when I try to upload it, I get this error: Internal error: Could not rename file "/home/wikicities/cities/doom/images/8/85/Search_logo.png" to "/home/wikicities/cities/doom/images/archive/8/85/20060208131626!Search_logo.png". Fraggle 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it works now. Check it out! Fraggle 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks really cool. I'm glad you did that.    Ryan W 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But when I click on the "Search" graphic (not the button), why do I go to www.wikia.com? Special:Search would seem more logical.    Ryan W 18:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree whole 100%! If you can figure it out please tell me how to change it so I can change the link on the Halopedia site!!! I know its possible because on the Wookieepedia site when you click on their Search_logo.png it takes you to their Advanced Search Page

On a similar note, I noticed that the Doom Legacy Wiki has a custom icon for the "user" icon which appears next to your username at the top right of the page. It has a little picture of a Doom marine's head instead of the generic person-in-green-top icon. It would be nice to do something similar. Fraggle 13:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture is located at  http://doom.wikia.com/skins3/monobook/user.gif .   Ryan W 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.5: info links for non-image uploads
All links of the form now appear to be broken. They can be fixed by adding a colon, like links to categories: file info. But should I do this, or is it a bug that the Wikicities people intend to fix? (I can't find a reference to it on their MediaWiki 1.5 help pages.)   Ryan W 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I added this to the appropriate talk page on Wikicities.  Ryan W 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: the instructions on Special:Upload now refer to a non-existent copyright checkbox. (Also, if the above problem was intentional and not a bug, said instructions will have to include the new colon.)   Ryan W 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: Wikicities says it's not a bug, it's a feature.   :>

I'll change all the links when I have a minute. It remains for an admin to fix the two problems on Special:Upload noted above. Ryan W 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: also, the string MediaWiki:Largefile is a run-on sentence.  Ryan W 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So is MediaWiki:Noarticletext.  Ryan W 01:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Redlink template
Use in articles that have a lot of links to non-existant items. E.G Bugs. -- TheDarkArchon 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this idea: An article with lots of red links has nothing wrong with it, so I don't see why it should be modified to include a template. Where is the precedent - I don't know of any other wikis doing it (certainly not wikipedia). For redlink-resolution, Special:Wantedpages is less intrusive on other articles. -- Jdowland 23:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would we need a precedent, and why doesn't Special:Wantedpages list red links which only appear once (i.e. almost all of the items TheDarkArchon is concerned about)?


 * US$0.02: I'm ambivalent about this template. (You might guess that from my contributions page, which states that I proofread the template, then added red links to List of Doom community people.)  On the one hand, wikis by definition are works in progress, and as Fraggle sometimes says, the only way to get good articles is to let everyone write about whatever currently turns them on.  On the other hand, in this wiki, articles on highly technical or esoteric subjects (such as node building and Strife) have often received a lot of attention at the expense of topics more digestible to the average reader, and this template would help to combat that phenomenon.


 * I guess if I had to choose, I would say that we have too few active editors to be able to enforce any sort of policy on which areas of the wiki get the most aggressive updates. Most people seem to spend about a month contributing information about what they happen to like most, then disappear.   Ryan W 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some articles which are nothing more than lists (List of doom community people; Bugs) that have a high red-link density. But I object to those articles on other grounds: IMHO the category system should be used for all such articles which are otherwise content-less. -- Jdowland 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But then articles without content wouldn't show up in Special:Wantedpages, since they contained the text " ".  Or should they all be marked as stubs, perhaps?    Ryan W 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles without content (but which exist with a category) should not exist, imho, and therefore would not be listed in a category. If I come across such an article, It'd be immediately tagged and so you could find it at Category:Stubs instead. They would therefore only show up in Special:Wantedpages if they were referenced or linked from other content-articles, which in my view, makes Special:Wantedpages more relevant than if they are listed in otherwise-content-less list pages. But this is just my opinion :) I value the opinion of major contributors like yourself, and I'd like to hear from other regulars to see if there is a majority concensus. -- Jdowland 11:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But your method would remove articles from Special:Wantedpages, since they would contain the text " ".  Assuming that you had deleted the "list" articles, there would then be no distinction between articles with 50 red links and 2 red links, and articles with only one red link (or none, as with Uwe Girlich) wouldn't show up in any list/category unless there was a strict policy about putting all red links into Category:Stubs immediately.    Ryan W 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, whatever the admins may think of the redlink template or the "list" articles, I daresay there should *not* be red links in protected text.


 * I agree with you there: If you come across such things feel free to list them here to be fixed. -- Jdowland 11:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's another example.   Ryan W 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Another red link in protected text: MediaWiki:Searchresulttext.

List of doom community people and Bugs are convenient indexes of both existing content and what needs to be done. I personally don't see the problem with red links, or mixing red links with blue links. Fredrik 16:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm-m, do we know for a fact that all major browsers show them in red? (That wouldn't necessarily affect the template's name, but perhaps the second line of displayed text could stand to be a bit more vague.)    Ryan W 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I think they're only red in IE 4 IE 5 if style sheets are turned on.    Ryan W 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike this "red links" box. Fraggle 03:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) From an aesthetics point of view, seeing a glaring red box at the top of a page gives the impression that there's something seriously wrong with it.  If we must keep it, can we tone it down?
 * 2) Is this really going to encourage anyone to contribute?  It seems that all it does is explain some of the basic concepts of the Wiki software - namely, that it is possible to contribute to the site, and that red links indicate articles that have not yet been written.  Anyone who has seen the front page of the Wiki will understand the former, and the latter will be fairly intuitive to a new user (I can't see it would take most people with half a brain to figure out red = "not written yet")
 * 3) The whole concept of it seems potentially misleading in some situations.  On List of Doom community people, for example, it's implying "we want articles written on ALL of these people".  However, a lot of the people on that page aren't notable enough to have full articles dedicated to them.  We've all seen plenty of two-sentence doomer writeups get deleted.

interwiki
I see doom is on http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Interwiki_map ; I've submitted it to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map (this edit) -- Jdowland 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's live now :) I'm using it at wikipedia:User:Jdowland -- Jdowland 13:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Maps in level articles
Some levels are extremely large and intricate, and I think the textual walkthrough sections (instructions, secrets, powerups) would be much clearer if they could refer to numbered markers on the map, as with (e.g.) the Prima guide for Quake 4. Opinions?

(I realize that this is a ton of work, and difficult to do in a non-ugly way, so it's not like I'm about to change everything tomorrow.)   Ryan W 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)




 * I've thought of it before, and came up with this when playing around. The style used here has the advantage that the markers are visible even in the thumbnail. For more complex maps, smaller markers may be better though. Anyway, I like the purple myself :) Fredrik 07:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very pretty. :D    And we could just add a little note at the top of the walkthrough section, mentioning the markers.


 * Hmmmm, one problem I see is that some editors want to write about secrets/walkthroughs, and some editors know how to work with pictures, and they might not be the same editors. Then the writers and "illustrators" would have to agree on the number and placement of markers, which slows everything down (even if they did agree on the article's organization, which wouldn't necessarily be true).


 * If you're willing to do hundreds of these yourself, great, but I wouldn't want to just assume that. :D     Ryan W 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing policies for User: pages
Certain small conflicts seem to be arising over the following questions. Since we have no policies on any of these issues, perhaps some conflict is unavoidable, but I am curious what our long-time editors think. (IMHO they are not causing the wiki large problems at the moment... but that's why I'm bringing them up now.)   Ryan W 03:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) As long as Wikicities's content policy is being obeyed, does it matter what a person puts on their User: page?
 * 2) Should other users ever edit someone's User: page?  If so, when?
 * 3) When it comes to spam and vandalism, or things that look like spam and vandalism, are "user talk" pages held to the same standard as talk pages for other articles?  (That is, are they considered part of the User: pages, or just part of the overall "discussion space" like this page is?)
 * 4) Do we care if the same person creates multiple login names?  (One name plus one or more anon addresses seems to be okay, since there are situations where logging in is inconvenient or impossible.)


 * My take:
 * 1. Probably not, but the space of possible scenarios is too large to make general statements about. Do you have any particular cases in mind?
 * 2. Corrections are always fine, in my opinion. But the page owner should decide.
 * 3. User talk pages are part of the general discussion space.
 * 4. Unless they abuse it, no. Fredrik 18:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (1): Not really.  It's hard to think of something really troublesome that wouldn't also spill over into other articles, or violate the Wikicities policy.  (In fact, I question whether the Impse image is NSFW &mdash; would people who have never played Doom be able to tell what was going on?  But others probably disagree with me, so this actually seems like a good compromise.)


 * (2): What does "corrections" mean in the context of a User page, which doesn't necessarily include factual information?  (And if somebody wrote something on their User page which contradicted a regular article, I personally would let that speak for itself.)


 * I think I know who Jdowland is talking about below, and I can understand his reasoning. But that doesn't explain, for example, why this edit was made.  I myself do not write anything quite that nonlinear on my User page (I hope), but don't we have the right to do so?     Ryan W 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I recently reverted some edits to User and User:Talk pages (or maybe just the latter... I forget) from a new author on this wiki who has made no doom-related contributions at all here -- merely pasting a URL to another site on these pages.

I was a bit reluctant to revert these because I wasn't sure what the etiquette would be, but I decided to do so because if I make a mistake someone else can always undo it.

The more traditional spammers often target User pages too, Fredrik is often targetted for example. -- Jdowland 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Password field of Special:Userlogin
When I misspell my password, the incorrect password is still there after the page refreshes itself. That seems like it would make it a lot easier for somebody to crack an account.

Can we change this ourselves in the script of the page (I'm not an admin so I can't tell), or would I need to ask the Wikicities people about it? Ryan W 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a Wikicites problem. I can't change it. TheDarkArchon 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why that might be a security problem: Could you explain in more detail? -- Jdowland 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never written a program to try to guess someone's password, but I imagine that such a program might run much faster if it could use tail recursion &mdash; not having to re-enter the first N letters each time if they hadn't changed.


 * Looking at it again, I notice that you can also paste text into the password field, which my least bureaucratic ISP once assured me is a big no-no for a login page.


 * Now, I personally know even less about computer security than I do about Doom, but the password blanking thing is used by every other login page I can remember seeing (including that of hotmail.com, not the most vocal of privacy rights advocates). So I figure there might be something to it.  There may already be code in the wiki software that raises a racket when someone rapidly misspells their password 10,000 consecutive times from the same machine.  Or there may not.


 * Ryan W 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone was able to obtain the password as returned by the server to the password field, they could potentially reduce the password search space from unfeasibly big to a smaller degree of unfeasibly big. But that problem pales compared to if the attacker could intercept the password going the other way -- which, if they were catching unencrypted packets as needed for the first case, they could be doing here too -- HTTPS is not used for the authentication and so the passwords are inherently unsecure. -- Jdowland 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another bug, this time on Special:Log
Searching by user or title does not work. The list of results is always blank. Ryan W 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

differences between monsters (e.g.) in different ports
No sooner had I posted about this in Talk:Super shotgun than someone started adding expanded universe information to the monster articles. And I already thought it was quite awkward to have Doom RPG stuff on the monster pages, but I didn't object because Fraggle implied that a large amount of Doom RPG information should be on the way, so I figured it was only temporary.

If we need this much technical info about the different ports (and IMHO it is probably worthwhile, but its current organization seems distracting), maybe we should have one or more new articles which are only about the engine differences between ports/remakes, like Ledmeister does. (In fact, a lot of the console stuff in such an article could be paraphrased from his lists!)   Ryan W 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Doom level format navbox doesn't work properly
The Doom level format navbox looks like this in my browser. Anyone have any guesses on what's wrong with it? -- Janizdreg 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * fixed: sorry, I broke it. -- User:Jdowland 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Domain name
This project is great :) I love Doom series. This wiki will help us remember everything about Doom :) but I think it needs a better domain name. doom.wikia.com isn't good. How about doom-wiki.org? 80.243.19.233 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are really serious about this, you should probably ask the Wikicities administrators. (Don't hold your breath, though.  I don't remember our being consulted before the last change.)    Ryan W 17:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikia doesn't allow custom top-level domains, except for Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia (see Domain name). But if someone here wants to register a domain for URL redirection, that'd work. Fredrik 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Doom RPG maps and articles
Hi all. As you may have noticed, I've generated maps for all the Doom RPG levels and added stub articles for them. I've written a walkthrough for Entrance, but haven't written much for the other levels yet.

I've tried to make the maps appear visually similar to the ones Fredrik has generated in the past. There are a few mistakes: gates (like 2 sided linedefs with middle textures in Classic Doom) don't appear on the maps, for example. I haven't worked out exactly how these are represented yet.

I've uploaded the level format information that I've been able to deduce for anyone who may find it interesting. Fraggle 19:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sweet! Fredrik 22:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bug on Special:Userlogin
Unless I check the "Remember me" box when I log in, the site completely forgets that I am logged in as soon as I return to the page I want to edit. I am using Firefox 1.0.7 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 (kernel 2.6.9-34.ELsmp). Ryan W 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What URL are you using: doom.wikia.com or wikicities? I Wonder if it could be a cookie scoping issue. -- Jdowland 20:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * doom.wikia.com. It seems to work now, though (hmm, I think there has been another MediaWiki upgrade recently).  But I might keep checking the box anyway, since that prevents the cookie disappearing after ~15 minutes, as tends to occur on this machine for some reason.    Ryan W 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know where else to ask
I got a few textures out of Doom 2's wad with a wad editor, only three or four, actually, and just because I remember seeing them in game and wondering about them. After a bit of searching, I can only find one.

The Baphomet

The other two I was wondering if anyone knew about, and what they were called, if anything.

87bf3178.jpg e8ff24ca.jpg

It's just been bugging me a bit, and I'd like to know what they are on behalf of, well, just knowing. Thanks in advance!
 * The one on the left is probably the Baron, but i think the one on the right is just a "generic scary satanic face". Fraggle 12:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I recall someone on the forums once suggesting it might be an Arch-Vile. - DooMAD 17:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I figured they might have had names. I went looking, and I found the Baphomet easy. The next one I think got pretty close to Balrog, and I was thinking of the last as somethingcubsomething, but no luck on that one. I didn't know if they had names and iD just put them in, or if iD made those last two.
 * I think I made the Arch-Vile suggestion (old image), but I also vaguely recall that someone asked Romero (?) to confirm, and that he said it's just some random alien creature. Fredrik 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

These pictures were a copyright violation (according to a discussion on some talk page long ago which I cannot find), since they are raw graphics and not screenshots. Also, our policies page says that we cannot display pictures for which there is no Image: page. Ryan W 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And when I say "on some talk page long ago", I of course mean here. Whoops!    Ryan W 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Rereading our policy page, I now think that I misspoke and that it doesn't actually prohibit externally hosted images (and neither does Wikia's copyright policy, although they don't advise using them).  But these are still raw graphics, so they stay down.    Ryan W 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Two questions about category structure
Opinions are humbly solicited on the following minor issues. Ryan W 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Should Category:Companies be in Category:Community?
 * Is there really any point to having categories for TNT and Plutonia (whereas there are no categories for Final Doom, Doom II, or Ultimate Doom)?
 * I don’t know.
 * Maybe, there are categories for Vrack2, Thematic Elements, Void… look at the levels category. Ducon 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, there should be a Category:Plutonia Levels which the plutonia levels are in (and *not* in Category:Levels), same for TNT etc., with these more-specific categories being in the less-specific Category:Levels. There's a lot of edits of this kind that I haven't done yet, because I'm working on a program to do it for me. Nearly there :) -- Jdowland 11:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But then what will I do with my Sunday evenings? ;>    Ryan W 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Soul Cube
The spelling of Soul Cube is inconsistant throughout the wiki: Somepeople spell at as two separate words, like I have done, while others make it just one word I.E Soulcube. This needs to be sorted out. However, I've never played Doom 3 so I wouldn't know the correct spelling. -- TheDarkArchon 11:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. Fraggle 13:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing. We have two articles on the Soul Cube, with the difference being the 'c' being capitalized. Soul Cube is a brief article while Soul cube is based on Wikipedia's article. -- TheDarkArchon 16:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien Vendetta MAP20
How is it named? Mishri Halek? Misri Halek? Mišri Halek? Ducon 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Misri Halek according to Anders Johnsen (zokum reply).

Bug in the search results
The end of the page shows this:
 * Fatal error: Call to a member function getID on a non-object in /home/wikia/wiki16svn/includes/Skin.php on line 887

Ducon 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Borked user name
A page seems to have a borked name, see here: http://doom.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Activeusers&from=Insomniak User:Jānis Legzdiņš, but with latin1 things. The Jānis Legzdiņš page here seems also borked: http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Ancientpages Ducon 07:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bugs
Today I see bugs in the wiki: Ducon 12:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On some pages, for example E1M3: Toxin Refinery (Doom), the column on the left is covered by the text in the big central column. I use the old theme. Megawad is OK.
 * The wiki is slow, very slow.
 * The dates of my last edits are borked, I edited the image pages at 21:32 and 21:33 and not 13:32 and 13:33.
 * OK, the date bug seems to be corrected on my last edits. Ducon 12:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to bug: ③ is the first (22:19 at home), ① is the second and ② is the third edit (22:22). The minor edit was just here to correct a =, then I saw that the date was OK and I added some date info. Ducon 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ①M 22:20 (actu; dern) . . Ducon (Talk | contribs) (→Bugs - )
 * ②  14:22 (actu; dern) . . Ducon (Talk | contribs) (→Bugs - date corrected)
 * ③  14:19 (actu; dern) . . Ducon (Talk | contribs) (bugs)

Bug on Special:Whatlinkshere
When I log in from Special:Whatlinkshere, the target article is not passed to the "redirect" part of the URL on the login page, so it then tries to load Special:Whatlinkshere with no target, producing an error. Ryan W 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Offical line on removal on templates
There needs to be an offical lines on the removal of templates. The delete notice on Hexen II, placed by Jon, was removed. I warned the user that it could be vandalism but without an offical line on it, I can't really draw the line on who removes what?

I propse a basic rule on deletion templates: Anyone can nominate an article for deletion (as long as they're registered) but only admins can remove the deletion templates to prevent, for example, a user removing a vfd tag from an article they created. The deletion tag should last for 1 week or longer if necessary and if the general concensus is delete, then the article gets deleted.

Suggestions/additions?

-- TheDarkArchon 21:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fredrik says that there is no way for the wiki software to specify who uses or removes a template, so this would require some admin to watch Category:Delete carefully to prevent abuse. (Even the timestamp has to be entered by hand.)  Jdowland may be doing that already, but I'm not sure how extensively.


 * Also, our copyright policy sometimes requires deleting pages, so the following templates are relevant:


 * Template:Fairuse
 * Template:GFDL
 * Template:PD-Self
 * Template:Pd
 * Template:Unverified


 * Ideally, the new policy should be broad enough to cover those situations.   Ryan W 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I realise there's no way for MediaWiki to decide who places what. However, we need offical rules on the removal of templates. On Wikipedia, for example, removal of deletion notices is considered vandalism. -- TheDarkArchon 15:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that having a policy would be constructive. I like your proposal &mdash; in fact, if you click the above link, you'll see that I suggested some of the same ideas at the time.  I'm just pointing out that, since there is no automated way to enforce it, a human will need to do so.  (In the past, we've had trouble getting volunteers for tedious, contentious tasks.)    Ryan W 17:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I realise that. It's not really that much work for me since I scroll through the recent edits every time I log on and, in non-obvious cases, use the history to check for changes. A missing template between edits is usually easy to spot, in the first place. In fact, the hardest thing about this would be in case of a close argument and deciding which way to go, though in this case, I would use an "if in doubt, keep" policy, even on articles I had vfd'd -- TheDarkArchon 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * in non-obvious cases &mdash; what, *all* of them?  Wow.  Okay, never mind.   :D


 * I agree with the "if in doubt, keep" idea also.   Ryan W 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-obvious are ones I can't see at a glance. :P -- TheDarkArchon 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If removing the template is vandalism, isn't it also vandalism to remove all links to the article from other articles?   Ryan W 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. -- TheDarkArchon 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing Hell Knight stat
The Hell Knight Evilution appearance stat for UV/NM is still missing. Someone who knows an easy way to count the appearances should add it. Janizdreg 11:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone had already done the work for us a long time ago. However, there was a problem in the wikicode for the table that completely screwed up the TNT Evilution row. The code read:


 * TNT: Evilution||63||93|110


 * Since there was only one | in between the 93 and 110, it effectively hid the 93 and put 110 in its place in HMP. I've gone ahead and fixed it. Dom  Rem  | Yeah? 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Heretic/Hexen 2; Eidolon, etc.
Recently, some people imported Heretic II, Hexen II and Eidolon (Serpent Rider), either in whole or in part. The relevance of these articles was brought into question by yours truly. My opinion was that the material was not directly relevant to doom. I was further influenced by the fact the information was not original.

Since then a few other people have chimed in and the articles have ended up being deleted.

This is just an attempt to centralize discussion on this issue as it is currently spread across over three talk pages for deleted articles: Talk:Heretic II, Talk:Hexen II and Talk:Eidolon. I request that further discussion takes place here.

(Note that since one of the proponents for the articles is riding out a temporary ban, it might be best to leave discussion until they can voice their opinion on the matter).

Wikia database dumps are broken
All the wikia database dump files have been empty for over a month, since the last mediawiki upgrade. Appeals in the tech support pages have gone unanswered. I hope all our work doesn't go poof one night. radius 02:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I just took a look at this and looks like it's just a display bug. When I look on the server I see two files created for you last night. Here's the info...

05908645 May 30 21:59 pages_current.xml 59705291 May 30 21:59 pages_full.xml

We'll add this display bug to the list. :) Thanks for letting us know!! Johnq 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Another usability problem
Some of the description strings in MediaWiki:Monobook.js are rather misleading, especially the ones for Central Processing (n-portal), the news board (n-currentevents), and Help:Contents (n-help). Ryan W 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do users have editorial control over their person articles?
This edit brought the question to mind. We have no policy about it, but I think the answer is "no", because it could be abused in too many ways (in fact, it was once proposed that users stay away from their own articles entirely), and because in all but a few cases we have no way of verifying an editor's identity.

In this case, it might be argued that the link should have been removed anyway, because the blog isn't specifically about Doom (although if he doesn't want random people reading his blog, why does he have one?). But if, for example, we make a list of someone's 15 released levels, and they erase the first five because that was a long time ago and they're kind of embarrassed now, I say we revert. Ryan W 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question, I agree with Ryan here. IMO a person having editorial control over a specific article isn't a policy suited for wikis like this one. Janizdreg 15:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal editorial control? No, but people should still be allowed to edit their own articles in the same fashion anyone else would. However, this edit did not affect article content in a negative way, such as adding a POV slant or removing facts about a negative occurrence. Besides, I don't think his *personal weblog* is totally relevant to an article about his Doom community-related contributions. A link to his Doomworld-hosted site is sufficient.


 * Afterglow does not want his real-life identity linked to his blog. There's nothing on his blog that links his full name to it. I can understand his sentiment in wanting to keep such private things out of the Interweb spotlight, especially if it concerns a potential employer. Bloodshedder 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I don't want an employer Googling my name and the word "blog" and getting my site on the first page of results. That's the main reason I didn't want it linked as the Wiki article as my full name is in its title and URL. I really don't care about random people/friends visiting to the blog, but now I have to pay attention to random people causing undesirable Google results. There are a couple Doom articles in it dating back to 2000, but they're nothing worth noting. :P Afterglow 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bloodshedder. Fraggle 08:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never suggested that an editor have *less* control over their own article than others (which may be impossible anyway, as was noted in the above referenced discussions). :>   I was just curious whether anyone thought they should have *more*.


 * You realize that the title of our article connects Afterglow's handle to his birth name, right? Does that mean we should rename such articles if someone says what Afterglow just said here?  (I know I would be a bit anxious if I were this chap, with the word "DDoS" hovering so close to my name.)    Ryan W 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, Afterglow isn't particularly worried about the connection between "Afterglow" and "Derek MacDonald". What he doesn't want is a connection between "Derek MacDonald" and his blog. His full name isn't mentioned on his blog, and his Doomworld page doesn't link to his blog. Bloodshedder 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doom RPG Monster Pictures
I noticed that all the classic Doom monster articles make reference to their alternate Doom RPG variations, but only a somewhat vague description of the color differences are given, so it's kind of hard to picture what they really look like. I saw that the official Doom RPG page gives sprites (presumably in the game's native resolution) for all the Doom RPG's monsters and their variations. The bestiary page is located here. I was considering uploading these sprite pictures to better illustrate the Doom RPG monsters, but after recently starting to do some editing on Wikipedia, I've become all massively paranoid over image copyrights and proper fair use and whatnot. My only source for pictures of each Doom RPG monster would be this site since I don't own Doom RPG, or a cell phone for that matter, there's no way I could acquire screenshots myself. So, to put it simply, my question is would it be okay to upload these pictures to illustrate these Doom RPG monsters if the source is cited? Unlike Wikipedia, I don't see anything on the upload file page explicitly asking for the license of a file, so I'm preferring to take the safe route by asking first.

Also, if case anyone's interested, all of Doom RPG's items sprites can also be found here. I think these would help with the few Doom RPG item articles I came across. MarphyBlack 04:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the upload page is currently a bit disorganized. :>   I think the article you are looking for is Doom Wiki:Policies and guidelines, which says (among other things), " Although screenshots are OK, raw graphics from the IWADs are not."


 * It is certainly possible to take screenshots; someone who owns the game just has to figure out how.   Ryan W 13:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't using those gfx be considered fair use? Perhaps if you put all the sprites onto one pic and then uploaded it and gave credit to the doomrpg.com website, it'd be ok? Or why not just e-mail them, I highly doubt they're going to be like "heck no, don't educate people about a product of ours that they may possibly buy", in fact, I think they'd be all for it. Another idea, you could e-mail them and ask them to send you pics of the monsters specifically for this wiki.


 * Fair use has always been a subtle issue in internet publication, of which a straightforward resolution is probably a long way off. Copyright law, in general, seems to be an area of law where common sense is unusually irrelevant (see any Usenet discussion concerning the commercial use of open-source software).


 * IMHO these hypothetical cropped pictures (and Doomfaces.png for that matter) are similar to the "rose" example described here, and therefore impermissible. If someone feels confident enough in their salesmanship to contact JAMDAT about the kind of promo material you envision, that would be wonderful.  So far, we haven't been quite that brave; I think all the level maps are reverse-engineered, for example.    Ryan W 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes?
Has the idea of making Userboxes ever been brought up? Cause I'd like some for my user page... --Frusion1021 12:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. This site is so small compared to Wikipedia (five or ten reasonably active editors at any one time) that most of Wikipedia's more formal features would be overkill.  Also, on a gaming site, do we really want to make it easier for people to fill their bio pages with declarations about their playing/editing talents?


 * No one will stop you from importing/creating your own userboxes, I suppose, but you may be the only one who ever uses them.   Ryan W 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they're largely pointless, but feel free to do them if you really want to. It would be nice to segregate them to their own namespace, as they are not encyclopaedic. -- Jdowland 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Rapid-delete for people articles
We've had a spurt of one-time anon contributors sticking together a page about a person which falls very short of our criteria. These articles are sometimes cleaned up to some extend, then later tagged, then there's a deliberation process, then finally the article gets dropped.

What I propose is that admins can delete on sight new people articles that do not meet the criteria from the off. It's quite a simple criteria anyway, stipulating only that there is some relevant doom content and it's correctly categorised. We could divide the criteria up into "must have" and "should have" if necessary.

What do you think? -- Jdowland 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of these transient articles are worthless, of course, but IMHO some get deleted because our long-time editors have a different definition of "notable" than the anon people, and that definition is not spelled out in the policy pages. For example, according to this, anyone who has released two levels can have an article.  Also, nowhere do we mention being a forum moderator or a website maintainer, but a few person articles list only those activities and have never been VfD'd.  (I remember some debates on talk pages about narrowing the criteria, but now I can't find them.)


 * I think your idea is a constructive one, especially as the site grows, but I would suggest the following:
 * Start a discussion here (involving all the active admins) as to what minimal criteria we are really using for person articles, and try to reach a consensus.
 * Update Doom Wiki:Criteria for people articles and Doom Wiki:Policies and guidelines with specific descriptions of these minimal criteria, including at least a handful of examples on each side of the line. State that newly created articles may be deleted without a vote if they are obviously substandard.  (The latter page should say the same thing about patent nonsense, since that also gets deleted without a vote.)
 * If an article has been deleted a couple of times, remove links to it from other articles, so it doesn't reappear on Special:Wantedpages.
 * Make a new template for intermediate cases, which puts the article into Category:Cleanup and says something like, "This person probably deserves an article, but this article does not currently meet the criteria for people articles. If anyone has anything Doom-related to add here, please do so, and take out the list of unreleased projects and the personal biographical data."


 * Ryan W 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the current criteria is way too lax. Under the current rules, anyone can make two levels (their quality is not specified) and qualify automatically as notable.  Making levels is far from rocket science.  I made these years ago back when I first got a level editor, but I really don't think that making those makes me notable.
 * I don't think notability is something that can be written down as a set of fixed rules - we need to use our judgment and common sense. Niran "Ruba" Javerson is someone who blatantly isn't noteworthy (the article even says as much) but comes under our definition of noteworthy because he's made 9 poor quality levels.
 * At the very least I think Doom Wiki:Criteria for people articles gives a much better definition of notability than Policies_and_guidelines. I propose that the "People" section on the latter page be replaced with a single link to "criteria for people articles".  Fraggle 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, Javerson started that article himself, so you can't expect it to be NPOV immediately. The anon reviewers at Doomworld, for instance, do not agree that all the levels are poor (I wish there were "reverse" links to the corresponding /newstuff article).


 * I completely agree with your final suggestion if only for the sake of not maintaining redundant text. Looks like someone's already implemented it.    Ryan W 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quake 4 & Prey
Do you think we should cover games based on the Doom 3 engine (i.e. Quake 4 & Prey)? IMO now that we cover Doom 3, we should also cover games related to it. I don't think we need to create actual articles for the games, but I'd say mentioning them on the games & timeline articles and linking to their Wikipedia articles would be appropriate. -- Janizdreg 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. It sounds roughly equivalent to the coverage of heretic and hexen. -- Jdowland 12:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Equivalent to Heretic? I'm not sure I would go that far.  Although Doom and Doom 3 are both in the Doom series, this wiki is much more about the Doom engine than the Doom 3 engine (and for good reason).  IMHO, if a non-Doom game based on the Doom RPG engine was released, it would get one article, so these should get one article each.    Ryan W 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New list article?
I've thought about importing this section. It doesn't look terribly complete (and redundant items might need to be trimmed), and it would take lot of effort to do anything more than just watch the wikipedia page and copy any new entries in the list. On the other hand, the effect of Doom on popular culture is arguably an important subject, and the new article could absorb Songs which sample Doom sound effects. Opinions? Ryan W 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

67.34.103.184
If this user has been banned until April, how did he/she make an edit just now? And if he/she is not banned, why can't he/she create an account? Such behavior seems to contradict this help page. Ryan W 04:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Banned users can still use their talk pages. -- TheDarkArchon 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. (Good!  They can actually contact us if they get range-blocked.)  Thanks.    Ryan W 15:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Busy Pagemover
He vandalized Entryway and has an obviously inflammatory name. Block him please. oTHErONE (Contribs) 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * done :-) --rieke 01:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

namespaces for editing articles
I can't remember exactly but I think I was the proponent of using a different namespace for different topics, e.g. Editing:Doom Legacy:Fake 3D platforms. I now think this is a bad idea, and we should move to having intelligible titles for articles, and organising using categories. Any objections? -- Jdowland 14:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Big Important Policy Discussion
Just so no one misses it, there is a conversation going on in Talk:Hell lord about some games being more/less notable than others and therefore deserving more/fewer articles about them on the wiki. Ryan W 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm now going to move that discussion here: Jdowland 11:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 [ Regarding TheDarkArchon's pointing out that the Hell Lord's mod is currently unfinished: ]  We would certainly keep an article about a source port if it was in public beta, and we kept this one (after some discussion), which is not even at that phase. So I still agree with Bloodshedder. (For a PWAD, maybe not, since the bugs tend to be a lot less subtle.)   Ryan W 16:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This brings up another issue: mod and source port specific items, like Turbosphere. I made a quick edit to the written policy about monsters, and I think items like these, much like monsters, should be kept in the main article (in this case Skulltag) and should be turned into redirects. Discuss? Bloodshedder 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In this specific example (skulltag items), agreed. Regarding a consistent policy: I'm quite happy with the "benevolent dictator" model that we use now (but then I am a benevolent dictator, so I suppose I would be...) -- Jdowland 12:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also been happy with it hitherto, but this site might outlive all of the current editors' tenures, so we really ought to write things down just in case. In fact, I also had thought to expand the policy page, believing that all of our admins agreed on this issue already... don't they?


 * So far, I would describe our existing practice as follows. One article per game or source port, except when:


 * The game is in the Doom series or is an officially licensed port which differs considerably from the original (e.g. Doom 3, Doom RPG, Doom 64).
 * The game is based on the Doom engine and id actually helped develop it (e.g. Hexen), rather than just taking a licensing fee.
 * The available technical information becomes so extensive that a single article would be very unwieldy (e.g. ACS, Amulets & Armor Thing Types). Some editors want this to occur for all games eventually, so that we can be a comprehensive technical resource for programmers as well as for level designers.
 * The game is a TC which happens to be an IWAD instead of a PWAD, but which works perfectly well with existing ports (e.g. Chex Quest, Freedoom). These are treated like other TCs.


 * The obvious objection to this scheme, apparently, is that Strife only gets one article.   Ryan W 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Brief remark: Yes, policy seems sound, but I would strongly object to it wrt Strife. Not sure if rewording to find a better fit or simply have Strife as a named exception. -- Jdowland 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bloodshedder suggests that commercially published games are more "notable" than other games or ports (similar to the Wikipedia policy). So maybe the second item in the above list is too arbitrary for commercially published games, and those should all be covered equally (with those in the Doom series emphasized most).  Maybe.  I'm not sure yet.  I do agree with your earlier statement that Strife characters (as opposed to monsters) could all be concatenated into one article without significant confusion.    Ryan W 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Attempting to centralize the discussion) I agree with Ryan's statement on my talk page (linked above) that we should have separate policies for: commercial games in the Doom series; commercial games not in the series but using the Doom engine; fan games using the Doom engine; source ports; and WADs/TCs. The first two would get articles for their items, monsters, and weapons; the latter three would not. Bloodshedder 00:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, and we are omitting the category which started this whole thread: fan games which are clearly Doom-based but which do not use the engine (e.g. DoomRL, Doom 2D). My take is that such games are intermediate in notability between the "commercial games not in the series but using the Doom engine" and the non-Doom mods.  No weapon/item/monster articles, but if someone really wanted to do a brief walkthrough I would not object.  And any game can have extra articles for technical bloat, because notwithstanding my own denseness about those topics, they are very important here.    Ryan W 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a thought here. We're approaching this issue from a "bigger picture" perspective, e.g., decide on whether Cacolantern deserves an article by determining whether Skulltag should have more than one article. However, we don't need such a policy to decide that the Cacolantern article (as an example) should not exist: it's simply too short. If the Cacolantern was a monster from (say) Doom 2, we could be confident that it would be expanded into a sensible article, but that's not apparent in Cacolantern's case. Should policy dictate "the bigger picture"? -- Jdowland 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we do need an overarching policy, for two reasons. First, we don't want to have this conversation as many times as there are types of monster/item/weapon mods (200? 500?), nor do we want our successors to face that prospect without at least a tentative policy summarizing our own consensus.


 * Second, it is important in deletion discussions to separate form and content issues from notability issues (see this list for a bunch of examples). A badly written article on an important subject should be kept, because at some point the grammar will be fixed and the missing citations added.  Therefore, it is not really valid to delete an article because it is ugly, without even asking whether or not the subject is notable.  No article springs from the forehead of a single editor fully grown and armored, even when that editor is extremely knowledgeable about the subject.


 * For instance, Turbosphere could in principle be of comparable length and formatting to Megasphere. The technical data is all there in the code, and in place of a longer introduction there could perhaps be a tactical section about how the powerup influences the various deathmatch modes.  If we had a policy stating that Skulltag mods were not notable enough to have their own articles, however, no one would expend all that effort, because they would know that such articles are invariably deleted.  Or we could keep the vague policy we now have, in which case the articles would tend to be created again and again because Skulltag seems at least as significant as Final Doom (there are apparently a lot of people who feel that way), until an admin decided to delete them because they seemed like they might not be notable.  The latter method sounds like it would leave everyone resentful.


 * Ryan W 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Map view generator
For those who've missed it (apparently most people), the Omgifol script I used to generate map views for the Doom Wiki is available here and here (with some improvements). On a related note, I've been thinking about making a major overhaul of the map statistics tables for a long time. Let's see if I get around to it. Fredrik 10:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube videos
We should make use of the possibility to add YouTube videos to articles. I know at least a couple of Doom speedruns are available on YouTube, for example. Fredrik 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think linking to them would be much less browser-dependent.   Ryan W 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can have both a link and a video. Fredrik 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, our externally hosted ads slow the site down so much (no, it's not my setup; this issue is discussed regularly on the listserv) that I'm not eager to add externally hosted animations as well. Oh, and they would violate our image policy anyway, since they wouldn't have info pages.    Ryan W 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Videos don't load until you manually play them. The second point is irrelevant since the files are not uploaded here. Fredrik 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be irrelevant if I had made it up myself. :>   Unfortunately, that part of the policy is from Wikipedia.    Ryan W 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed logo update


Fredrik 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's awesome. oTHErONE (Contribs) 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The anti-aliasing should be made as good as the present logo, but otherwise a fine idea.   Ryan W 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup: apart from the stepping on the letter-edges, I love it :) -- Jdowland 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks awesome, slightly rough edges aside. Has my support, anyway. -- TheDarkArchon 12:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to draw a vector version, but that's not going to happen immediately (anyone else up for it?). I'm putting up the slightly pixelated version in the mean time; it's hardly going to hurt anyone. Fredrik 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

HTML source
The code for this page (for example) contains the line



and the corresponding line in E2M1: Kansam's Legacy (Kansam's Trial) is



This method of compilation seems rather... random, if not downright misleading. I know why there's a hard limit on the length, but alphabetical order? Ryan W 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice and doomish! --XXYOURSELFXX 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Does someone mind if I rename articles such as E1M1: Hangar (Doom) and MAP01: Entryway (Doom II) to E1M1: Hangar and MAP01: Entryway? It seems redundant to say what games the maps are for, and it's also pretty unnecessary since there's no disambiguation (and even if there were, I think the original levels would clearly be given priority). Edit: I just realized we did this for all PWADs. I still find it redundant and would be happy to move everything and fix all the links, if people think it's a good idea. Sarge Baldy 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See here for the conversation that led to this convention. The goal was to create a method of disambiguating maps (in the same slot) which would update itself automatically as new walkthrough articles were created.  Manual maintenance of disambig. pages would be too big a headache IMHO to justify having short URLs, which nobody ever types by hand anyway.    Ryan W 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, OK. I don't find disambig pages much of a bother and I guess I just find it ugly listing something in the title that's unnecessary, but if people prefer it this way, it's fine by me. Sarge Baldy 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More on system messages
I think that MediaWiki:Subcategorycount and MediaWiki:Categoryarticlecount should be changed to wikipedia's versions. In their current form, they may be misleading for categories which are neither very small nor very large (it is not immediately obvious that the category takes up more than one page, unless there are no subcategories). Ryan W 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Uncategorizedscreenshots
This kind of search doesn't seem to work very well. I pseudorandomly clicked on 20 of the 654 images listed, and found that 12 were in fact categorized.

The problem may have been reported before, however; for those editors who were around then, what was done/decided about it, if anything? Ryan W 11:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
User:82.198.250.2 vandalized the Entryway. Ducon 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks.   Ryan W 12:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Entryway?
This thread is not the first to make the suggestion, if memory serves, but I decided to look closer at all the edits since the present section structure was introduced. Omitting changes by admins (which aren't affected by protection) and page moves, we see:
 * 35 edits to vandalize the page (25 from anon users).
 * 19 (9) edits to revert vandalism.
 * 30 (24) spam edits.
 * 10 (4) edits to erase spam.
 * 3 (1) edits to add/remove links with straightforward importance (e.g. Glossary).
 * 18 (12) edits to add/remove links which may or may not be representative enough for Entryway (e.g. Orcs & Elves).
 * 8 (3) edits to fix markup, punctuation, etc.
 * 7 (1) edits to tweak table layout (all in February 2005).

Sum of first, second, third, fourth, and sixth items: 112 (74) edits.

Sum of fifth and seventh items: 11 (4) edits.

I hesitated to agree with oTHErONE at first, since protection seems like a rather cynical habit to take up. (Move protection IMHO is pretty innocuous at this point &mdash; the page hasn't been moved in over two years, nor has anyone seriously proposed a reason to do so.) Now I'm not so sure. Does anyone else have a strong opinion? Ryan W 02:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (Spell my name as Otherone please, it's only spelled like that in my sig because it's a joke. In my sig, the words "THE" and "ONE" are highlighted, making me look like a self obsessed little twit. But when you get to my page and think about it, Otherone is a pretty bland name. I'm just another one of those wiki editors. Well, now that I got that out of the way...) Yeah, Entryway should probably be semi-protected, as per above. And if vandalism gets really annoying, I won't be biased against full protection either. oTHErONE (Contribs) 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * About the name: OK, noted. I guess I've already been doing the same to Jdowland who doesn't like it.  :D    Ryan W 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Verify template
You can now use if a page contains information / spaculations that has to be confirmed by someone with more knowledge then the author of the article.

--Jobro 07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm nominating this for deletion. See Template talk:Verify if you'd like to debate why this is useful. Fraggle 09:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Doom/Ultima finger-pointing
Hello,

There's these quotes in Ultima VIII's credits:


 * If Origin can do it, so can we. &mdash;id's reason for DOOM shipping late... (Found in DOOM FAQ)
 * If id can do it, so can we. &mdash; U8 Team's reason for Ultima 8 shipping late...

Now, the big question: I believe I've actually read this FAQ, and I don't really think it was an official Doom FAQ, but some kind of collection of Doom humour. A famous one in any case. Does anyone have a pointer? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First item is referred to here. I imagine that FAQs were somewhat less standardized before the game had actually been released!   :>     Ryan W 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I suppose I just saw the "Doom Insanity" section separate somewhere, I had no idea it had actually been included in a FAQ. Fascinating =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of map categories
Obviously this is not a pressing issue, since a new WAD writeup is added about once every three months. On the other hand, that's why I'm bringing it up now, before it becomes too big a job for human editors. :>

As has been noted elsewhere, certain map categories (like Category:Levels) are becoming too large to navigate easily. Also, the overall organization within Category:Modifications strikes me as confusing, because the IWAD maps are segregated from the PWAD maps in some places but not in others, and various independent classifications are applied in parallel (e.g. partial/total conversions, WADs with custom monsters, single-level vs. episode). I suspect that this was intended to imitate the idgames archive, but it doesn't seem quite as transparent when maps are only one of several types of objects being sorted.

I propose/re-propose the following general remedies:


 * 1) Create Category:PWADs within Category:Modifications, and move all PWAD subcategories into it.
 * 2) Sort PWAD articles by name and author, by analogy with Category:WADs by year.  I can live with the megawad category, etc., if this is implemented, since we would at least break up the massive pile in Category:MAP01.  I think we should stop short of trying to replace List of WADs with categories, however; the information in the "required port" and "notes" columns would become diluted over scores of pages and therefore very hard to digest.
 * 3) Make sure Levels includes pointers to all levels, like Category:Levels does.

This does not unequivocally address the "segregation" issue, as a single-level PWAD would end up in a subcategory of Category:Modifications on the one hand, yet in a subcategory of Category:Levels on the other. Any alternative suggestions would be appreciated, though I think the existence of Category:Modifications and Levels (which would be silly to eliminate) sort of forces us to treat IWADs and PWADs inequivalently.

Opinions? Ryan W 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy on small differences between ports
Now, if the above question is too hypothetical, here's an easier one. :>

When a commercial port makes a small change from vanilla (e.g. the secret exit in E1M1 of the Xbox port, or the improved translucency in the Playstation port), not substantial enough for its own page, do we include it in the port article or in the main article? There are IMHO four possibilities:


 * Add a short section to each affected article (mostly the gameplay-related ones) detailing the differences. The monsters and ammo from Doom RPG have already snuck in here, although in fairness it's easy to imagine a very awkward table in the former case.
 * Create long, detailed articles about the individuated features of each port, and keep the vanilla articles "clean" (Ledmeister's approach).
 * Describe the changes in both places.
 * Specify no policy, so that editors who agree with option 1 (2) spend uncounted hours adding material to the main (port) articles, and editors who agree with option 2 (1) spend uncounted hours taking it out again. After several years of this, both groups of contributors are frustrated, and both sets of articles are unimproved at best, if not actually disorganized.

As you might guess, I suggest we avoid the last option. If nothing else, new editors continually show up wanting to add this kind of information at every opportunity, and it would be nice if we could at least cite the policy page after reverting. The same thing happened with Doom 3 before its weapon/monster articles were created.

The third option might be acceptable, since port-specific information tends to be static and therefore would not require maintenance for an open-ended period of time, although it is still a duplication of effort to write it all up and double-check it. The first option seems to have a certain amount of precedent (e.g. Status bar face, Command line arguments), notwithstanding my occasional whining in favor of the second option; the port articles would of course be deficient if they never mentioned the changes, but perhaps a representative summary, too incomplete to demand continual updating, would suffice.

Opinions? Ryan W 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)