Talk:Freedoom

limit removing, etc.
The article should reflect the state of freedoom as of the last release; since there has not been a release of Freedoom since the goal change to 'limit removing', this is not strictly correct. It's fine to mention that the goal has changed however. -- Shambler (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2017 (CST)
 * A new release is coming soon, since chungy has accepted new demos to the repo, which he said he would only accept when a new release is getting ready. Also, the goal change was "Boom" to "vanilla", but limit-removing is temporary milestone for the project. Most of the bigger maps are limit removing, which are quite a few really. The rest are vanilla, and very few aren't even Boom anymore. Point is, it's safe to assume that the current state of Freedoom is how the new release will be like. There's even a thread on Doomworld specifically on getting Freedoom v0.11 ready. I don't see the point in moving the vanilla-compatibility announcement away from the History section and taking out the reference too. It is history. --Voros (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2017 (CST)
 * I understand your enthusiasm, but bear in mind that the latest release is what most people will be seeing, and the Boom maps effectively set the required port for playing the game anyway. It gets too confusing to note that some maps are vanilla, some are limit-removing, some are Boom. Let's keep it simple and related only to current releases (and while 0.11 may be soon, 0.10.1 is still current).
 * When 0.11 is out, we should (re-)add a new paragraph to the history about the changing targets and limit-removing being an interim target. --Chungy (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2017 (CST)
 * Whatever you say. It is a bit confusing with vanilla, limit removing and Boom mentions in the beginning of the article. But I still think the vanilla-compatibility paragraph should be kept in the History section, because it was a major thing in Freedoom's development. Isn't that what the History section is meant record?

Links added
An anon recently added a plethora of links to weapons and monsters that don't exist and I would argue, at this point at least, should not exist. Freedoom is subject to constant change, and is also entirely composed of reskinned Doom content. I don't see the necessity of articles at this point to detail weapons and monsters that may yet be reworked multiple times, and are a repeat of their Doom articles with the names changed. --Quasar (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2017 (CDT)


 * While not knowing much about the Freedoom project, that sounds reasonable so I agree. --Xymph (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2017 (CDT)
 * Agreed; the project is particularly in flux at the moment, due to the format change and new coordinators. A retrospective version comparison would be a fine idea IMO, given the project's significance, but that should wait until features actually settle down (or all the mappers retire to spend more time with the grandkids).    Ryan W (usually gone) 05:20, 7 April 2017 (CDT)
 * Didn't notice the discussion here. I already removed the links, stating my reason as to why I reverted it (if that's not a problem). --Voros (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2017 (CDT)

It's an IWAD
This is currently classified as a TC, but it's actually an IWAD, i.e. a stand-alone game. I'll let a wiki veteran take care of this one. I don't want to look into new categories at this time. I've done enough this week :) --PhilthyPhilistine (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2021 (CST)