Talk:Skulltag

monsters
Do the skulltag monsters deserve their own articles? Or an article "Skulltag Monsters", or maybe just sections in this article? I ask because they are wikilinked and somebody has created Dark Imp (the content of which should probably just go in here). -- Jdowland 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was decided somewhere else (maybe) that custom monsters not in the original games went in their respective game/mod/source port articles. Bloodshedder 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. It was decided that custom weapons went in their respective game/mod/port articles, although IIRC some people thought that this discussion alone was not conclusive enough for a final decision.


 * The larger question here is: which new features in source ports deserve their own articles and which do not? Some, like scripting languages, seem to get their own articles without any debate.  I can believe that a scripting language generally takes more effort and is far less common than a new Thing, but is that by itself enough reason to confine the monsters/weapons to one paragraph each?  (Maybe it is.  I've never tried it so I don't know.)  Does a monster or weapon mod become more notable simply by being bundled with a popular source port?  (It certainly becomes far more widely known, as the Skulltag partisans here have pointed out.)  Are helper dogs new monsters or a new engine feature?


 * Maybe we can agree that anything reproducible with a DeHackEd patch is too minor to have its own article, but we may want to make exceptions for particularly infamous cases (the rocket trooper comes to mind).   Ryan W 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cacolantern has been created also.   Ryan W 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Helper dog has enough information in it to deserve an article of it's own: also, it's present in all MBF derivatives, which includes Eternity and Prboom, so it's relatively widespread. Cacolantern and Dark Imp do not. -- Jdowland 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)