Doom Wiki:Central Processing

From DoomWiki.org

This is the central discussion forum for wiki editing and administration activity on the Doom Wiki. Feel free to ask any questions or pose any concerns you have here, and you should receive a response shortly. Check the archived discussions for older threads. For extended discussion on long-range "to do" issues and project planning, please also visit our Request For Comment hub.

Archived discussions[edit]

Big fat list of Vfd[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm laying here a list of articles that are currently (as of today, I mean) in a VfD. I know there is a category but I'll just leave this here, along with the dates, which I think are important.

Also, these categories:

Also, these files:

I did not vote on most of them because I'm a horrible person, but you knew that already. --Kyano (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

About the Bruiser Demon case, my opinion three years later would be that maybe the policy ought to be rethought. I think there is some justification for having pages on individual resources when they are notable enough. Many custom monsters have become more-or-less standard staples (and I'm not talking just about custom ZDoom monsters here, DeHackEd wonderkids like the evil marines or the afrit are memorable and noteworthy) and I've seen them discussed casually in Doomworld threads that weren't specifically about them. And we do have individual articles for one specific kind of resource already (maps), so given the emergence of gameplay mods which do not have maps but do change monsters and weapons, it might be time to allow individual articles for other resources than maps. Just to be clear though, I think this should be reserved for memorable resources that have been used in several high-profile works and where the behavior has known little or no alteration between their various versions. So the Bruiser Demon (KDIZD, Stronghold, ZDCMP2...) would qualify, but the upside-down orange caco from Zen Dynamics (and AFAIK no other mod) wouldn't. --Gez (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree for the most part, but it's important IMO that we very strongly distinguish between these resource monsters and the original ones. For example, having them in their own category (not just Monsters, but maybe User-created monsters or some other suitable subcat). --Quasar (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, the proposed speedy deletion criteria would only affect two of these, Doom23.gif and Ralphis.jpg (and the first might need to stay until the glitch gets fixed, can't remember).    Ryan W (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose speedy delete of Doom23.gif for now; I've been using it to monitor the status of whether or not GIF thumbnailing has been fixed (this is a server-side backend issue which is due to the distro of Linux on MancuNET being too old...) --Quasar (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, I only nominated the redirect to the aquarius page, not the actual page. That was nominated by Grain of Salt. Justice ∞ (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

In the future, I suggest archiving not the previous year, but the one before. E.g., please don't archive 2015 in 2016; instead wait until 2017. Thanks. --Gez (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm apt to agree except for how massive the article starts to get. I think last year has a record number of issues that should still be considered open and actionable. It's getting to the point where I might have to consider having something more effective for tracking them, like a Bugzilla instance somewhere for example. --Quasar (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015 upgrade[edit]

manc and I will be attempting to upgrade the wiki to MediaWiki 1.24.1 as of tomorrow, assuming all goes to plan. This time it seems that the only major question is the EmbedVideo plugin (as usual), so that's one thing that will need immediate verification after the upgrade. --Quasar (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We are now up and running on MediaWiki 1.24.1 - a couple minor issues remain, and I'm still testing some stuff. Report anything you find here. --Quasar (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems most of our extensions were not upgraded, so a number of them are currently broken. Currently known to not be working:
Special:CheckUser (if user has permission to use, throws an exception)
Special:Editcount (always throws an exception)
Will keep this list updated until the situation is resolved. --Quasar (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I have updated all extensions except EmbedVideo. So far everything is working, but it's impossible to test that much stuff exhaustively. --SpiderMastermind (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Group image VfD[edit]

Following up an IRC conversation, I have opened a deletion thread for 57 images recently added to Enter the Doom Chapter I: Lucido Attack and Enter the Doom Chapter 2: Legacy.  Please feel free to contribute your opinions here.    Ryan W (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Strife minor characters[edit]

Please comment on or help advance the status of the three merger requests for Strife minor characters Ketrick, Sammis, and Ulaine. Of the existing articles, these are the only ones that I feel should be merged. All three are explained in Strife minor characters - Hub 1. --Quasar (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the merge is a good idea. MacGuffin could be considered a minor character as well, but I guess he is unique enough for a separate article. --Jartapran (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
MacGuffin is borderline but there are SEO considerations for him if nothing else redeems him; we are linked to from at least tvtropes for our article on him. I think a big enough deal is made out of him, similarly to Worner, for him to have his own page. Sammis, while he does possess a plot-important key, is never referred to in the third person by anyone else (they all tell you to go to Ketrick instead, who is actually a red herring), and can be killed without ever talking to him in order to get the key. It's a gray zone but I prefer we keep most of the well-written, already pictured character articles. It's a small set that will never grow any larger. Speaking of pics, I will be adding some to the minor characters pages when I can get around to it. --Quasar (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
While Ketrik and Sammis have some minor plot relevance, Ulaine does not so this article at least should be a no-brainer. --Gez (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Add autocheck to Jartapran[edit]

I think User:Jartapran is a good candidate to try out the "autochecked" group permission on, as he is already an editor and reviewer and has demonstrated universally high quality of editing and willingness to work together on various important projects. I've suggested he mull over requesting admin rights, but would like to try out that permission on him in the meanwhile. Put it to a vote here. --Quasar (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No objection. --Gez (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Jartapran pointed out that editors already have autocheck, so we determined that the missing permission was in fact autopatrol, which only admins currently had. I added autopatrol to the reviewers group, which currently includes Jartapran and DoomAD besides admins who are implicit members, since it seems logical enough. --Quasar (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest that when my computer started to appear compromised and I unplugged it.  :7   Good show.    Ryan W (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Doom 64 maps[edit]

We now have nearly two full sets: old, new.  Which should we keep?  They seem to differ in color scheme and line weight.

(IMO this is no one's fault, just something that happens on wikis when a project is left half-finished for a long time.)    Ryan W (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Vote keep both, because the old set have been marked up with walkthrough tags which are only useful when discussing the map in its own context. It's impossible to do comparative kind of stuff with images that have walkthrough tags on them. --Quasar (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2015 (CDT)
Point taken, since we already do this for the DOS series.  Let the first stone be cast by him whose to-do list is getting shorter.  :>     Ryan W (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2015 (CDT)
PS, I am mulling over some plans that might make it possible to toggle between the walkthrough markup images and the normal ones in-article, but it'd probably require some work in our Common.js, which is always fun. I'd be doing this for all the canonical map articles where both variants exist using some kind of template, provided I can make it work satisfactorily. I'll let you know when I start working on it (I'll be experimenting in a sandbox, needless to say). --Quasar (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2015 (CDT)
That sounds excellent!    Ryan W (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2015 (CDT)

Raven engine games[edit]

Given that we have an article for Shadowcaster, which was at the time made due to it being based on a transitional pre-Doom engine and with a lack of evidence that any other game was using that engine, should we have matching articles for CyClones and In Pursuit of Greed? Both of these games are fairly poorly documented on the net. The Wikipedia article for CyClones should have a stub notice on it, it's so bare. Linking to it is about as good as not doing so at all. --Quasar (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2015 (CDT)

AFAIK the CyClones engine is not based on the Raven engine, and was instead written in-house. Personally I have no objection to having more short articles about contemporary games but it would represent widening this wiki's scope. --Gez (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2015 (CDT)
Raven called it a "rewrite" but we've found evidence that it was not "complete." For example it still uses the same resource formats and archives. This means it's heavily related; watching any video of the game will also show that it still largely behaves the same, with some added flexibilities. As far as scope, the reason I think these fit is because the engine they're using is a direct predecessor of Doom - the earliest 0.2 alpha even contains some of the same source code file names in its binary, showing just how close the evolutionary relationship really is. --Quasar (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (CDT)
The definition of a "rewrite" can be a bit ambiguous. I think it was Quake 3 or Doom 3 that was supposedly on a rewritten engine but there are still many similarities to previous engines (see AI code that traces back to catacomb). While that branch of the engine definitely has its own name and should be mentioned as such, for the purposes of this wiki I think it's safe to file them under the same article. (At least until someone bothers to do enough reverse engineering to technically explain the difference.)
On that note, perhaps instead of full articles we can just have articles on the engines have a section therein for each game? Seems like it would be a good compromise if we have no real intention of covering individual games in depth, but I don't know how that would affect search rankings. Blzut3 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2015 (CDT)
The In Persuit Of Greed source code and all assets have been released, https://archive.org/details/GreedSource -- Shambler (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2015 (CDT)

Skin issue[edit]

It seems that pages in the File: namespace always use Monaco now. Set your preferences to MonoBook, then look at a random example. What you see will not be what you'd expect, but this. --Gez (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2015 (CDT)

My first question is, when did "now" start? --Quasar (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2015 (CDT)
Also, I cannot replicate it. I have set myself to MonoBook and so far, all File articles have the expected appearance. --Quasar (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2015 (CDT)
I first noticed it yesterday. Though after you said you couldn't replicate, I forced a full reload and now it works. Very odd. Well, problem solved I guess. --Gez (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (CDT)
Browser caching or cookie issue maybe? Keep me posted if it returns. --Quasar (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2015 (CDT)

Category: Fun ?[edit]

Given the recent destruction of a tongue and cheek article (that I won't bring up for obvious reasons, my bad), I propose a category for "funny" articles that describe a topic in Doom, Doom games, or the Doom community, but can't really be put in a factual context without losing the "funney". I'm not saying we should have a category for "Uncyclopedia" like content as that may encourage vandalism, but this would be a perfect catch-all category for community in-jokes like "Ball shit snakes", "frad", "Nick Bakery", and other silliness that can be somewhat notable due to it shaping a sense of community in its younger years. Or, maybe the article could be for finding humor in historical high-drama situations the Doom community always wades itself into.

Is this worth a shot? ConSiGno (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (CDT)

Community in-jokes should absolutely be included.  A few already are.  For the simpler ones, maybe start a sandbox glossary and encourage people to add what they remember, and bring it live when ready?  (A sandbox is basically undeleteable unless you're committing a felony or something.)  Myself I've always wondered about the origin of "heh".    Ryan W (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2015 (CDT)
Alright, I'll get right to it. Considering how many community-specific terms and fads this community has and has had by now, some of the better ones need to be written down. ConSiGno (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2015 (CDT)
Should they have individual pages or could they all go in one "Community in-jokes" article? Also, cran time. --Gez (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2015 (CDT)
Looks, tastes and smells good, à la [[Category:Silly]] on Wowpedia. --Kyano (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2015 (CDT)
We discussed on IRC the possibility of having a "Humor" namespace that keeps non-canonical stuff separated fully from the purely encyclopedic content. The namespace could even be protected so that only admins or approved users have the ability to create, edit, or move articles into that namespace. This would be a suggestion in addition to CSG's documentation of community memes, which *is* encyclopedic and would belong in main space (so long as we are taking enough care to not tread into defamatory territory; I have a few minor concerns with some of the WIP articles that might merit discussion). I would like to collect opinions on this proposal at the same time. I only have two ideas for articles that would go there currently, and they're the deleted version of "Cutscene psychosis" and the old revision of "Sotoxi," both of which, while "crap" as encyclopedia articles, were actually decent humor. Other wikis have some things like this, to a much greater extent. See in particular Transformers, where they long ago decided their long prose technical descriptions of plastic children's toys required some levity injected in the form of humorous image captions. Having a restricted namespace for a limited number of off-the-wall articles is nothing even close to that level (which is not the kind of thing I'd ever suggest for this resource). The Zelda wiki on NIWA has a method of dealing with "fanon" - ie. rampant fan theories, which in that community are are a big deal - even within its main space articles, using a special template and requirements about how the information must be delineated and separated out from canonical encyclopedic stuff. Again not appropriate for here, but another good example of a minor compromise made to engage the community with the resource. --Quasar (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2015 (CDT)
I am concerned about "that" article for more reasons than that! I could try to "un-slant" it a bit and make it a little more fair to the subject matter. ConSiGno (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2015 (CDT)
I think I was skeptical on IRC, but I'm coming to believe that Quasar's proposal is the way to handle these topics.  Some memes and in-jokes are part of community history.  Some were made up at the bus stop one morning and never will be.  The former belong in article space and the latter do not.
If a new namespace is created, I hesitate to endorse locking it unless there's actual disruption (maybe test the config changes and then comment them out?).  It's never good to preemptively bar good faith edits, and humor is too subjective to assign an unrelated small group to filter it (this is a flaw in the Transformers and Homestar Runner projects IMO).  On the other hand, I see the argument for being conservative; like all gaming communities, we have people whose sole contribution is to post speculations at ridiculous length, then abuse and troll anyone who suggests they're schlock (which they usually are).    Ryan W (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2015 (CDT)

Doom "4" Confirmed for Spring 2016[edit]

I am renewing the suggestion that Doom 4 be moved to Doom (2016) after one week from today (delaying for SEO purposes), now that a release date goal has been set. --Quasar (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (CDT)

OK. --Gez (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2015 (CDT)

License change[edit]

It was previously agreed that it would not be objectionable to migrate to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, and I have been asked to reactivate and carry out the proposal. After some interesting revelations in the wake of the Bethesda E3 conference, I feel this is a very good idea at the current time, in order to better protect any unique content we may develop in the near future regarding the upcoming title. I will be posting the mandatory global site notice for a change to the Terms of Use, after which we can start changing all of the licensing information on-site and within the backend. --Quasar (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2015 (CDT)

id Tech 6 article[edit]

There really should be one, although I'm not sure if anything of real value can be said yet. It could potentially expand on what changes have been folded over from id Tech 5 since Tech 4. --Chungy (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2015 (CDT)

A recent interview with Pete Hines revealed some interesting information in this regard which would serve at least as seeding points. Mainly, as we previously conjectured, megatextures are largely out, and dynamic lighting is back in, so in many regards it is a return to id Tech 4's technological basis. --Quasar (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (CDT)

Cacoward winner category[edit]

Runners-up in the Cacowards with articles are currently categorised as Cacoward winners, which seems a bit misleading to me. Proposing they be split off into a separate category --Eris Falling (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2015 (CDT)

Some are, some aren't.  Good idea though.    Ryan W (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2015 (CDT)
Just for reference, if you want to link to a category, do it this way: Category:Cacoward runners-up. And yeah, if you want to create the category, it's fine to recat everything that fits; no objection. --Gez (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2015 (CDT)
Or use Template:Cat if you don't want the prefix, as such: {{cat|Images by content}} -> Images by content --Quasar (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (CDT)