Talk:Timeline

What’s the problem with Doom³? It’s written like this. Ducon 15:43, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)


 * With the &amp;sup3;? It's written "DOOM 3" on idsoftware.com and activision.com. Fredrik 15:59, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
 * Yup but not on the Doom³ box, er DOOM³. :-) Ducon 16:18, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)


 * one problem is clarity. The superscript 3 is nigh-on impossible to read or distinguish from an 8, at least for me. -- Jdowland 11:22, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Source Ports
Should Source ports be included in this, I mean they ARE part of Doom now! -- GhostlyDeath 68.197.167.110 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the initial releases of the more popular and stable engines would make sense, plus ground-breaking feature implementations. One problem I see is that some of these features are developed slowly over time, but some stuff stands out clearly, like the releases of Boom and csDoom. In the end, it's a matter of seeing how much impact they had as news back them, and if they proved to be influential over time. Who is like God? 06:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated gamess
I can understand why keen is there, since it's important in the development of iD software, but why is quake 4 and prey mentioned at all? I was just about to remove them when i saw someone already had and that they were later readded. So, how is quake 4 and prey notable in the timeline of doom? 213.114.179.165 06:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They use the doom 3 engine. -- Jdowland 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case Orcs & Elves should appear on the timeline too, as they use the Doom RPG engine. Anybody know the release date for that? Zack 04:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd leave non-Doom idTech4/DoomRPG games out. This is more of a classic Doom wiki after all, and it's not like there seems to be a reason to do more about these games than mention them in the Doom 3 or DoomRPG articles. At least at this point. Who is like God? 07:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First PWAD
So, what was the first PWAD?
 * http://www.doomworld.com/idgames/?id=11 Janizdreg 13:46, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

1.0 or 0.99?
http://toastytech.com/dooma/doom099.html states that the first release was officially labelled 0.99, not 1.0, and has screenshots to support that, so I've changed the timeline to reflect this. -- Jdowland 11:22, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Both are the same thing; the executable says 0.99 on start-up, while the Readme EXEs and TXTs of later versions say v1.0 in their upgrade notes. Who is like God? 06:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Columbine High School Massacre occurs.
Why is this mentioned in a Doom timeline? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.114.179.184 (talk • contribs).


 * Because it was a very significant event in terms of the Doom community's relationship with the rest of the world. At least, that sentiment seems to be common amongst the wiki editors who were gaming then.  Also see Talk:Columbine High School Massacre.    Ryan W 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree it's out of place. It's a relatively well-known topic in its own right so people can easily learn when it happened from various sources. No real need to have it in a timeline dedicated to the games. Maybe mentioning that Doomworld people appeared on TV because of it might make a bit of sense, though. Who is like God? 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Heretic release date
One month after Doom's release does not sound right at all. Wasn't it closer to a year later? 129.21.137.44 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

id related events vs. community events
Perhaps more community events could be added, but the ones that involve id directly could be highlighted by using bold fonts or the like. Who is like God? 07:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Release date of The Depths of Doom
I found this: http://www.listal.com/game/depths-doom-trilogy-22867

The given release date is October 10, 1997. All other search hits I had said only 1997, which is why I'm uncertain if the pending edit can be approved. --Jartapran 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I attempted to verify earlier and could not find any source. MobyGames is usually my go-to for finding stuff like release dates and even they only claimed "1997" - if you believe the source you found is reliable, I say go with it. It definitely was sometime in the "Fall", as several sources back that up. October is in the fall. I bought the thing the year it came out, IIRC, but I couldn't tell you what month I did it ;) --Quasar 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mods and Ports?
Do we want to document these on the main timeline? I feel in the case of mods in particular this is opening a can of worms. Everybody who releases a .wad is going to want to add theirs here, without some kind of almost impossible to reach definition of notability. --Quasar 17:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ideally we could include releases of indisputable importance both inside and outside the community (e.g. ZDoom wouldn't be included, but UAC Labs would).  Realistically, however, the potential flamewars and article clutter aren't worth the trouble.    Ryan W 17:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Whereas if we were to make a Timeline of source ports article for example, or Timeline of megawads, such things would be on-topic and there would be more room/tolerance for things of questionable notability. I DO feel like the info added is valuable; just not certain it should stay here. --Quasar 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "I feel in the case of mods in particular this is opening a can of worms." &mdash; This can of worm has been opened way back then.
 * "ZDoom wouldn't be included, but UAC Labs would" &mdash; Are you serious? The release date of the Harris levels has no relevance at all. I'd even say that they exist at all isn't really important. Saying they are is glorifying a murderous madman who really doesn't deserve the praise. And does anyone outside the community even remembers about that? It's really nothing more than a footnote; the real event was the Columbine shooting. Anyway, I object to the notion that releases should be of importance outside the community -- this wiki is for, by, and about the community. If you remove stuff that doesn't really matter outside the community, then what you are left with is the content of Doom. To use your example, the existence of ZDoom is certainly a lot more important to the community than that of UAC labs. Look at how many ports are derived from it (including Odamex which was used for the 2013 QuakeCon Doom Challenge) or have borrowed code from it. Look at how many mods have been made for it or its derivatives. Look at and count how many answers list at least one port in the extended ZDoom family. Now compare that to how many times a Harris level is mentioned in the "list your favorite wads" threads. Or compare the number of results for this search and that one.
 * You want ports of indisputable importance? Any of those used here or their direct ancestors.
 * "Timeline of megawads" &mdash; important mods are not necessarily megawads. The aforementioned can-opener is a single level. --Gez 18:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems like you have some bones to pick with the existing content whereas my concerns are with the recently added large amount of items. I can't gauge from this whether you like my own idea or not, and whether or not you want the recently added content to stay. I'd request that you state that opinion more clearly. As for the problems you pointed out, I agree with some of them, like the Harris levels' release timing not being of importance; I wouldn't have listed those myself. As for ZDoom being non-notable I would also be forced to disagree with Ryan, it's probably one of the few ports that is widely recognized outside the community. But this response is reinforcing my point if anything. All I've perceived is that up til now this article was mostly about two things: the fundamental events of the Doom "universe," like game releases or awards or the actions of its creators, and the mainstream world at large's reactions to those events. It was not really community-oriented. We can decide to either retain that nature and move these edits somewhere else, or choose to repurpose this article. --Quasar 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes total sense to me.   Ryan W 19:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have bones to pick, I was merely trying to be concise while still listing many points, which I suppose made me sound kinda angry. Mostly, I was pointing out the precedent of Arcadia Demade and disagreeing with Ryan's example. I have no problems with the page's current content, neither before nor after the recent additions. --Gez 19:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we will disagree on many examples :>   but that just reinforces Quasar's point that any but the bluntest criterion will have huge gray areas.  Just because it's an old issue doesn't mean we should ignore it; maybe no one noticed the pattern until now.  I for one would like to avoid years of slow-motion edit warring over the first Zandronum release.    Ryan W 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So we're a couple months down the road and 6 revisions to this article are still unapproved without any further discussion taking place. I don't feel this is being handled well and will probably take unilateral action later if nobody has any more input to give. --Quasar (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)