Doom Wiki:Central Processing

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Archived discussions

 * 2005
 * 2006
 * 2007
 * 2008
 * 2009
 * 2010
 * 2011

Console-exclusive levels
Hi, I'm new around these parts. While I'm very impressed by this Wiki as a whole, both in terms of layout and actual content, I am struck by how barren the articles on console-exclusive levels are compared to the ones on PC levels. Even Hell Gate and Hell Keep, which appear in no less than five versions of the game, have noticeably empty walkthroughs and enemy/item tables.

I have a copy of the Saturn version of Doom, and will add what I can to the levels which appear in that version of the game when I get a chance. However, I'm certainly not able to fill in all the blanks myself, so I'm posting here to make Doom fans who are far more hardcore than I aware of this gap in the Wiki. -Martin III 16:46, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Arch-Vile *can* be killed by monster-fight
I've once seen an Arch-Vile battling against a Sergeant, seems like the Sergeant started the fight.

The following repeated until the Arch-Vile was dead: It was quite fun to watch...
 * Sergeant shots arch-vile
 * Arch-Vile kills Sergeant
 * Arch-Vile resurrects Sergeant
 * Sergeant remembers somehow to battle the Arch-Vile and shoots him again

The wiki entry for Arch-Vile says that this cannot happen due to an exception in the source code by which the Arch-Vile can't be targeted by other monsters - how could that happen then?

(Gridwolf) 93.104.70.150 02:50, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Who do you want as a new administrator?
Since some of you know that the admins are no longer active, who do you think should become adminstrator? A week ago I posted an adoption request for this wiki to become adminstrator. Now that request is on hold and the staff will check back in a week or so when everybody has had a chance to discuss this issue. Justice Infinity 21:41, June 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically, I think you're referring to the person or people in charge of the entire wiki, for which the MediaWiki term is "bureaucrat". Mind you, as far as I know the only significant power a bureaucrat has that an admin doesn't is the power to change user rights (so a bureaucrat can appoint admins but another admin can't).


 * Mind you, I wouldn't object to being an admin (or even a bureaucrat) provided that I'm not the only one. -- RobertATfm 10:16, June 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot to mention that I wouldn't mind having you as the new bureaucrat. I already said that on the adoption discussion, but need to repeat it here for it to count. -- RobertATfm 10:26, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Update on Doom Wiki
About a week ago I started a discussion on who should be administrator and Robert has supported my adoption request I filled out for this wiki. I have been successful on my adoption on becoming the second Bureaucrat here since we need some new leadership. Since then I have made RobertATfm the second new administrator because I believe he will make an excellent admin. He has archived the central processing discussions since that has been overdue. Robert has also restored the Sandbox article because he feels we need one for new people to test editing.

What I have done personally is update the Cacowards since that has been overdue for about six months. The deletion category has been cleaned up by removing all of the spam and articles that have been nominated for deletion. One of my goals personally, is to make this wiki better by maintaining things making sure things are up to date. Recently I have nominated 3 wad articles and a category for deletion. If there's any reason as to why I should keep these articles, I suggest you speak up otherwise they will be deleted in about a week. Justice ∞ 23:02, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Hello and goodbye
I've just had to (with reluctance) block one of our newest members, User:Painelemental, because he admits to being only 12 years old and is thus too young to legally be a Wikia user. See the thread I posted on the Admin Help forums about this.

As Painelemental hasn't (to my knowledge) done anything else wrong, he's welcome to rejoin our community once the one-year block expires. — RobertATfm 15:55, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if I should just go ahead and delete the unused screenshot and self promotion article he made himself instead of waiting an entire week? Justice ∞ 17:24, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea, since after all he did (even if unknowingly) violate COPPA in posting what he did. — RobertATfm 23:31, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just received an email response to my support request, in which the Wikia staff informed me that they have globally imposed the same one-year block that I imposed locally, and go on to say "While running a smooth wiki is the responsibility of the local Admins, we do not expect or desire them to be policing our Terms of Use (which this was a breach of)." So if any such incident should happen again, we should hand it to Wikia Staff to deal with; must remember that. — RobertATfm 14:29, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Trivia
The Trivia article hasn't had any of the non-featured trivia promoted to featured in quite a while. Does anyone else think that one or more items should be promoted, and if so, which? — RobertATfm 15:55, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it would be interesting to feature different trivia items every week instead of having the same old piece of trivia being featured like the current one for years. Justice ∞ 17:10, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * That would also be a good idea. Meanwhile, I have one trivia item I'd like to see featured, but as I posted it and thus have a vested interest, I think someone else should nominate it. — RobertATfm 23:37, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Going Through and deleting pages made by Aeizzat Toha Ansari Mohamed
I have recently nominated the Batman Doom enemies category for deletion because according to the Doom Wiki policies here it says that Mod-specific weapons, items, and monsters should not have their own articles. What I'm thinking about doing is going through his contributions and finding similar articles and just deleting them right off the bat instead of wasting time nominating them for deletion when there's no way anybody can defend those articles. Justice ∞ 17:35, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, in cases of clear policy violation where what has been done is as you say indefensible, there's no reason why the deletion(s), block, or whatever else is called for shouldn't be done immediately instead of being open for discussion. Only in cases where there's possibly a plausible defense should discussion be called for (although of course it should be called for in such cases).  That's why I went for an immediate block earlier today (the kid was simply too young to be here, no disputing that) instead of opening the issue.  — RobertATfm 23:46, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Chex Quest articles
We until recently had numerous articles about characters, monsters etc. from Chex Quest and its two sequels; in breach of our policy stating that separate articles on such things in any WAD other than the official id-sanctioned WADs are not allowed. Not only does this prohibition include Hexen II (which was entirely a Ravensoft game), it also includes the Chex Quest games; and such pages are in any case not needed, as Chex Quest has its own wiki where such articles are actually welcome (unless of course they also breach their policies).

It is thus not necessary to have Chex Quest articles here, since page authors can instead link to the already-existing pages; for instance, instead of linking to Bazoik (yes, that's supposed to be a redlink; the page has been salted, i.e. deleted and protected against being re-created) one can and should link to w:c:chexquest:Bazoik. (The "w:c:wikiname:article name" syntax works for linking to any article, anywhere on Wikia; I haven't tried it for linking to files on another wiki. The full syntax is article name to prevent the markup showing in the link text.) If the article only exists here and not there, but would belong over there, it can be moved (as I did with the "Chex Quest 3 Characters" page); edit the page, select all text and copy it, paste it into a new article on the other wiki with the same name, then tag the article here for deletion, so one of us admins can deal with it.)

RobertATfm 17:34, June 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I went through those articles last night by deleting them and protecting them from being recreated. I see you have gone through the Ghostbusters stuff and got rid of it.  I have also changed the protection of the entryway to prevent future vandalism as was shown in the page's history.  Justice ∞ 02:14, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

More Mod Specific Articles
It has come to my attention that we still have articles on mod specific things. I went through deleting some of them as shown in the deletion log and afterwards protected them from recreation. I didn't get through it all, but plan on it soon since articles like this still remain. Justice ∞ 06:23, July 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I gone through a few more mod specific weapons and deleted them. I have also protected the Skulltag monsters, weapons, powerups, and runes to prevent creation, or for some re-creation.  Justice ∞ 05:33, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Altered template
I've just altered the template so that instead of just typing it like that, which gives the text "This article or section is a stub", one can use a parameter to specify whether "article" or "section" is meant. Indeed, I just added a whole bunch of tags to an article.

I've decided to announce this here, pending finding (or creating) a more appropriate place for it. -- RobertATfm 12:17, July 9, 2012 (UTC)