Talk:Hell lord


 * Not about Doom, it's about some fan game. Belongs in an article about the fan game, not as an article itself. Delete. Bloodshedder 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Our written policy is extremely vague on this point, but I agree that you are describing the existing practice. Delete.    Ryan W 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fraggle 15:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. An additional note: The fangame the monster is from is not finished yet. -- TheDarkArchon 12:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Bloodshedder. The article for the game it is from is not particularly developed yet. If it was large and becoming unwieldy, I would reconsider. -- Jdowland 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy discussion
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)