Doom Wiki:Central Processing

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Archived discussions

 * 2005
 * 2006
 * 2007
 * 2008
 * 2009
 * 2010
 * 2011
 * 2012

Favicon?
Has this wiki lost its favicon, or is it something wrong with my PC? For some reason, I'm seeing the Wikia default favicon, instead of the one this wiki used to have. — RobertATfm (talk) 15:00, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just checked the Theme Designer and the favicon is still there. I suppose Wikia must be glitching again. — RobertATfm (talk) 15:46, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Ralphis' Article
Now according to the article history at least a little over a month ago, it appears that Ralphis has blanked out his own article, meaning he no longer wants an article about himself on the Doom Wiki. I have left a message on Ralphis' talk page about this and seem to get no reply from him. Now if I delete this article, I will also do the same for the redirects, and media associated with Ralphis, and remove all of the soon to be redlinks for this person.

I'm also opening up this discussion if there's others in the future that do the same thing for their own articles, by removing everything and replacing them with nothing. If I see them doing this, that just means they no longer want an article on here about themselves. Justice ∞ (talk) 06:01, February 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I have recently removed all links to his article, deleted the two redirects, his picture, and him main article. Well like I said before in this discussion, if there are others that choose to blank their own articles, then I'm assuming they no longer want one on the Doom Wiki and I'll do what I did to Ralphis. Justice ∞ (talk) 07:49, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Grezzo 2
Now I have made a test change in the Sandbox testing out an idea for a new template. I personally believe that Grezzo 2 should have it's own article since it did win an award after all. The reasoning behind this possible template is, because I'm pretty sure that posting images or videos of this mod is against wikia terms of service, due to how offensive and inappropriate the content is. Are there any second thoughts on why Grezzo 2 should or shouldn't have an article or is there anything that others disagree with as far as the template? Justice ∞ (talk) 01:54, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Vulona Accounts
It seems like there's a problem here since this individual keep creating account as Vulona#m with the # starting off with the letter A. I have a feeling that I will be contacting wikia if this problem doesn't stop. I choose to not do something about it for awhile because I wanted to see if this person was a user of this wiki. That's not the case since Robert and myself have been blocking the accounts for an infinite period of time and deleting the pages they create since it's just spam. Justice ∞ (talk) 18:09, April 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, thankfully that problem has been solved when VegaDark did something about it and has done an block on 2 different IP ranges. I thought it was one person when it turned out to be two different people. Justice ∞ (talk) 01:03, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism as of Late
It seems like there was lots of vandalism on this wiki as of late. The deletion tag being constantly removed on the Sandy Hook Shooting and HexTheRex articles and JstcDstryer removing content from pages for some idiotic reason. That's just to explain most of what has happened. Then there was JstcDstryer assuming that the same guy behind the vanity page called The Sensational Doom Group created yesterday, was deleted on sight since I saw no search results. That pretty much explains most of the vandalism. Justice ∞ (talk) 18:53, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

The Deathkings of the Dark Citadel walkthrough is in bad shape
As anyone watching Recent Changes can deduce, I am currently playing through Hexen:_Deathkings_of_the_Dark_Citadel, which I've owned for three years (having got it as part of the id Software bundle from Steam) but have never got around to playing until now — and am correcting the errors in the walkthrough as I go. And there are a lot of errors...

Apart from the fact that the author's grammar stinks (he often breaks into two sentences, or even three, what should be one; also some passages are phrased ambiguously, a no-no in any walkthrough) and that he frequently misspelled "fourth" (the ordinal of "four") as "forth" (henceforward), there are also numerous factual errors. For instance, in Blight he got north-east and south-east the wrong way around; and he frequently confuses Chaos Serpents (the green ones) with Brown Serpents (the decidedly non-green ones).

He evidently played through the game once, and jumped to the conclusion that what happened in that one game, happens in all games. (An unwarranted conclusion; Hexen is scripted, allowing for far more randomness than Doom or Heretic.) For example, in Hub_2:_Constable%27s_Gate_(map) he claimed that one room has alcoves which, when they open upon the player pressing a switch, prove to contain Ettins; which is probably true for whichever character class he was playing as, but for the Mage (which the random selector chose for my playthrough) they are Chaos Serpents. He also claimed that a piece of the "forth"[sic] weapon appears in another room a bit further on; again, not for the Mage.

I think the most idiotic of these (that I've come across, so far) was in Brackenwood (which he misspelled "Braken", presumably German for "brakes", which aren't something I, for one, would associate with a wood; "bracken" is a species of fern). The puzzle in this level involves noting which symbol is showing by the staircase to the outer area, then finding which of the four small step pyramids in this area has a blank cube atop it, pressing on that cube until it shows the matching symbol, then clicking the switch; repeat three more times. The article text claimed that the symbol "will" be different the second and "forth" times, but that the third symbol will be "the same as the first" — both of which, because of the randomness mentioned above, are false assumptions. (There are four cubes but only three symbols, so it's impossible for there not to be at least one matching pair; but this won't necessarily be the first and third.) In the Brackenwood playthrough I recently completed, the first, second and fourth symbols were all the same but the third was different.

RobertATfm (talk) 15:46, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

New admin?
Since we are forging links with the Heretic Wiki for Hexen II and Heretic II stuff (and perhaps could also link there in "See also" sections for Heretic and Hexen stuff), how about making User:Vorknkx (one of the admins there) an admn here? — RobertATfm (talk) 15:16, September 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * I could make him an admin, the problem is that he isn't very active on here, and shows no interest in becoming one anyways. If were going to have more administrators, then they have to not only qualify, but also be active here quite frequently. Justice ∞ (talk) 01:46, September 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Another possbility (who admittedly hasn't been very active here so far, but shows early signs that he might be) is User:Thisismyrofl (admin on the related Wolfenstein: Wiki (and who has today, at my behest, added three useful links to our local interwiki map). — RobertATfm (talk) 11:04, September 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll keep both of those candidates in mind if I decide on making more people on here admins. Justice ∞ (talk) 23:42, September 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, guys. Yeah, I am not very active here because the Wiki already has a lot of stuff. I prefer to work on "younger" Wikis that still have much work to do - it gives me more freedom to shape things and improvise. But make no mistake - I am a sworn Doom fan and I keep an eye on the Doom Wiki, making edits if something catches my attention :) -- Vorknkx (talk) 12:37, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

What I am trying to do with Template:XWad
As people watching Recent Changes may have noticed, I have taken a break from writing a Strife walkthrough to create a new experimental WAD template and test it. I have done this because the existing template presents the Doomworld stuff (e.g. the Cacowards) on a black background (gamma 0), but the links are still blue (gamma about 10%), and on my laptop's monitor that combination is unreadable and nearly invisible. It would be far better if the links were cyan (gamma about 70%), but due to my limited knowledge of CSS (and the W3C site hasn't been helpful), I can't seem to get it to work. (It is because of this possibility of course that I created an experimental temporary WAD template, rather than modify the live one.) Does anyone have any ideas? — RobertATfm (talk) 15:16, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Frustration
First, I'd like to start that I understand, and respect that DOOM has a very long history. The original being released about 20 years ago, and ported to more systems than can be mentioned. I respect that, and I don't want anybody to think otherwise. However; I would also like to say that the Doom series has released more games since the 90s, and even now, there is another Doom game in development right now.

It really does seem like 60% or more of this entire wiki is dedicated to Doom and Doom II, and the games based on those game engines. If I want to know exactly how many pistol shots it takes to kill any classic monster in Doom and Doom II, I can find that. Every secret level from both of those games, all their extensions, and the entire Heretic series in great detail are there too. All about a project to update all the sprites in the original Doom to make them compatible with other graphic formats. The cheat codes to the Jaguar port of the original Doom. I can even find out how many punches it would take to kill the Spiderdemon. However, if I need help gathering PDAs or Video Disks in Doom 3, forget about it. Video Disks don't even have their own page, and the PDA page is a few sentences and a picture.Hell, the achievements in the BFG Edition aren't even listed, let alone aides on how to get them.

I know these complaints don't fix anything, and that I can fix the problems, but there is something I need to know first. It is quite clear to me from reading some of the talk pages and administrative comments that the administration of this wiki leans heavily towards keeping it largely dedicated to the so called "Classic Games." To me, you are letting Doom's past overshadow its present and future. Before I start working on pages from the newer games, I need to know I won’t be shot down or held back, because I want to do a lot. I want to massively overhaul some pages related to Doom 3 and its expansions, add some pages that I feel are missing, and if that violates the spirit of this wiki, tell me now so I know not to lift a finger.

Regards, PyroMerc (talk) 04:19, September 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Doom 3 stuff, we can only host what others provide. That is probably most of the reason why the Doom 3 / 4 stuff is a bit thin (as is the Strife level information, but I've been working on that). As for admin comments, one thing you should bear in mind is that the present team (Justice Infinity and myself) have only been in place for just over two years. Any relevant nformation would probably be welcome.
 * As for recent deletions, those have mostly been made either because the page was for a fan-made project which is incomplete, or one which isn't notable (both of those have been long-standing reasons for deletion), or in the case of the Hexen II / Heretic II stuff, because those two games were neither made using the Id Tech 1 engine, nor with Id's involvement, hence they don't belong on this wiki — besides which, there's another wiki on which they do belong, and to which we can link. — RobertATfm (talk) 07:38, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope the above reply doesn't sound too negative. I for one would love to see the Doom 3 and Doom 4 areas of this wiki fleshed out; I have owned the id Super Pack since Easter 2010, but haven't yet got around to playing Doom 3 (I have only recently cured myself of the phantom motion sickness which has been plagueing me for years; the trick is that since it's psychosomatic, use self-hypnosis to beat it.) — RobertATfm (talk) 23:42, September 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say.  I often wondered what the connection between Doom and Heretic was, and if it is seriously nothing more than that they use the same game engine, that isn't much.  Please tell me there is some other reason that they are listed and detailed so heavily here on a wiki dedicated to the Doom series.


 * Also, I hope you were kidding with "apo'strophe abu'se," because I actually take some umbrage from that.  I added several paragraphs onto the Wraith page, and you get snippy because I used "it's" instead of "its?"


 * I also have to admit your first comment was reassuring, your second, not so much, I don't know what to make of that.  Are you just trying pointing out that you are unfamiliar with Doom 3?  If so, don't worry about it, play it before I ruin any of the story for you, it has an interesting story, though a little hard to follow.  I hope more people than just you and me own Doom 3, and can help flesh out this wiki anyway.  There is a lot unsaid about it.    PyroMerc (talk) 03:13, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I was brought up to believe that good grammar s mportant, and this includes distingushing between "its" (possessive form of "it") and "it's" (abbreviation for "it is" or "it has"). Please, don't take such edits as being aimed at you personally, especially not if marked as "minor". (And anyway, another such correction I have recently needed to do was where someone had used the nonexistent spellng "its' ".) — RobertATfm (talk) 03:58, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by 74.242.244.172
I just have to wonder about these.
 * Do we really need a Ghostbusters‎ disambiguation page or a link to the Ghostbusters Wiki? We have a Ghostbusters Doom article, but other than that I see no connection.
 * Do we really need the The Simpsons page, which was a redirect to Ultimate Simpsons Doom, turned into another dab page? We have a grand total of two pages that are relevant, the aforementioned and Maximum DOOM; and the wikilink to the Simpsons wiki was wrong ("thesimpsons" instead of just "simpsons"). Are we going to see dab pages created for every franchise referenced in a Doom mod? (Why?)
 * I also see no point in the Category:Media franchises created by the above two pages.
 * Although Commander Keen is somewhat more relevant than either of the above, I see little point in our linking to the Wikia wiki when it has only five pages, and the shikadi.net one is older and a lot more comprehensive.
 * Similarly, why should we link to the DOSBox wiki when it has only one page, and has lain dormant since being founded seven months ago?

In a similar vein, Nunica edited the Hexen page calling for us to link to the Hexen Wiki. He clearly hasn't been following recent developments here; we used to link to that wiki, but it's dead (it has a spam post that's been there for over three years, and has been flagged for deletion for over a year) so there's no point, especially as The Heretic/Hexen Wiki has more pages, is better designed, and is actually active. Indeed, courtesy of Thisismyrofl, we now have a shortlink to that wiki and to two other wikis related to ours, comparable to the doom: shortlink available throughout Wikia (because this Wikia was one of the first); namely, wolfenstein:, herhex: and quake:.

RobertATfm (talk) 22:13, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you want my two cents, I feel like all the spin-offs and only partially related stuff is really watering down this wiki. Dedicating entire pages to things that are only barely related to Doom seems quite excessive to me, a few honorable mentions and links should do. The Ghostbusters and Simpsons pages are not needed at all, as a link to the respective wikis and/or pages should be more than enough. If we made a page for every mod of Doom, and another if it is a parody of something else, another page for that, it gets crazy fast. Plus, would we then have to have pages about all the enemies in those mods? Like say, a page for Mr. Burns? Stop the insanity now, the pages on this wiki need to dedicated to the Doom series. That's my vote.

The external links should be to reliable sources and wikis, and I agree if one appears dead, don't use it. Also, hooray for shortlinks, thank you Thisismyrofl. PyroMerc (talk) 01:00, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

We already have as policy that although fan-made mods can have pages about their levels (if they have levels; Ultimate Simpsons Doom does not), individual pages about weapons, enemies, items etc. are strictly reserved for the commercial games only; if a mod has custom anything, they may only be listed on the mod's main page (the Ultimate Simpsons Doom page, which I have done some work upon, shows the way to go with that). I reckon that rubbish pages such as "Ghostbusters may refer to..." is going too far outside that policy; after all, if anyone wants to know about Ghostbusters, that's why search engines (which predate Wikia, and probably Doom) exist. — RobertATfm (talk) 01:44, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the useless Ghostbusters pages since that's irrelevant to this wiki and nominated The Simpsons page for deletion. Why exactly do we need to add links to other wikis that have to do with Commander Keen when that's exactly unnecessary? Justice ∞ (talk) 02:03, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

The Commander Keen page has had a link to the shikadi.net wiki in the See Also section (where IMO such a link is appropriate) for at least a few months, so I've removed the pointless top bar. This wiki also has a(n appropriate) link from the MAP12: The Temple of the Oracle (Strife) article to that wiki's article on SGA (because that, or at any rate some kind of alien lettering, is what that texture looks like; as noted in the article, if interpreted as slightly stylised SGA it appears to "read" DAMEX). — RobertATfm (talk) 02:51, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Brutal Strife?
In seeking to add videos for all three of the Strife endings (to the New Front Base page, because that's where the three endings are mentioned), I came across what purported to be a trailer for a "Brutal Strife" mod. Hence, for now, I have added it to this page.

However, I'm skeptical about this; it seems to be just an ordinary Strife game (played using ZDoom) with little or no sign of the ultra-violence which is supposed to be the hallmark of the "Brutal" series of mods. I also remember that "Brutal Chex Quest" proved to be a hoax, adding to my doubts about this one.

What does anyone else think? — RobertATfm (talk) 01:13, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Another point is that Strife, as noted in the intro to the walkthrough, isn't a kill-fest like the other Doom-engine games; there are loads of NPCs whom you aren't supposed to kill, including some whom killing them makes the game unwinnable. So Strife isn't suitable for a "Brutal" version, even if one is available. — RobertATfm (talk) 01:18, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Having seen no evidence that "Brutal Strife" isn't just another hoax, I deleted the video link. — RobertATfm (talk) 16:25, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Another thing I did yesterday was to leave a comment on the Brutal Strife video — "Sorry to have to say this, but I think this is a hoax, as Brutal Chex Quest was". I have today received a reply from the guy whose account hosts the video; "I've recorded a video about it anyway since the experiment of Sergeant_Mark_IV was interesting I think, even if it won't be more than an experiment." Does this mean that even he thinks it a likely hoax? Case closed? — RobertATfm (talk) 09:36, October 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems like Brutal Strife was just an experiment. Who knows maybe one day Sergeant Mark IV will actually start to work on it again and there might be a stable release?  At least there's an alpha available for this WAD. Justice ∞ (talk) 09:57, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Images Uploaded That Are Just Sprites
Lately, there have been uploads of images that are just raw sprites. I had recently deleted most of them, except for the ones that were recently nominated for deletion. I'm thinking if I nominate an image that is an obvious copyright violation, it should stay up at the minimum of three days before it get actually get deleted. Or is it better to just delete them right away without discussion? Justice ∞ (talk) 22:58, September 28, 2014 (UTC)