User talk:Jartapran

Original research
About your edit message in ACS: this is not Wikipedia. Original research isn't banned. In fact, it's a large part of the technical content. Keep in mind that any form of original research in these pages can easily be verified by other members of the community, since most of the time it merely involves looking at code or maps. Therefore, there's no reason to remove original research, unless it's mistaken and verified to be false. --Gez 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember it from now on, the policy does seem reasonable. I had test runs for the scripts in Hexen v1.0. and they worked the way as described. They only need the #include "common.acs" command at the beginning of the list. Also, if the nether script is used via a repeatable linedef, it causes a lockup (unless played in ZDoom) if pressed for the fourth time since the test returns it instantly back to the start over and over again. However, I guess that is a secondary thing, the primary one being that they act as suggested.


 * PS. Seeing that you review new changes actively, could it be possible for you to review the pending changes in articles Key and Item? Anyway, thanks for your help. --Jartapran 05:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Competnftp
Um... what was wrong with your edit? I tried downloading the file and it worked. Ryan W 21:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was something bizarre going on with it. When I originally saved the page with the new link and made a test, the template still used the old link - competn.mancubus.net - instead of the new one - www.doom.com.hr/public/doom2/demos/compet-n. It led me to think that some other template needed to be changed too (there was some kind of material I don't know anything about) so I reverted the edit, in fear of breaking something. Only after the revocation, the template started to use the link I had changed and, as you said, it worked. Today, as I checked the template again, it had returned to use the mancubus.net address.


 * Knowing that you've worked with templates much more than me, you may tell what the matter was there. Does it take a while (say, more than five minutes after saving) for the template links to become updated? It seemed utterly odd to me ... --Jartapran 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is odd, I agree. Possibly an internal MediaWiki option controls how long it waits to update links.  Possibly Manc is less aggressive than Wikia when setting such options, because of the load issues we've had...  You could try comparing the job queue length before and after the change.    Ryan W 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Updating all affected pages after a template change takes a while, yes. Also, note that there is a revision control system here, so if a page is modified by a template change, the change will only appear in the "Draft" version until it's been reviewed. If it isn't a review issue, you can do this to purge the cache: go to the page, click on "edit", modify the URL to replace "edit" by "purge", and press enter. That'll tell the wiki software to purge the cache and recreate it from the raw data and can be used if you don't want to wait.--Gez 08:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Purge did the trick for the template itself; the page reflects the change finally. Secondly, the necessary changes had already been carried out successfully in every article that uses the template. There were some issues with the incoming folder of some old links but I fixed them whenever I caught one by the search tool. Couldn't find more than five pages with such links. --Jartapran 12:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Prayers of Armageddon
I'm not opposed to Prayers Of Armageddon having an article on the Doom Wiki. I do not think removing it from the list of noteworthy megaWADs on the megawad article is tantamount to deleting its own article. I believe one of the eventual goals of the Wiki is to have an article for every WAD (and every map), though it may seem unfeasible. My issue is whether it is worthy of inclusion on the list of noteworthy megaWADs on the aforementioned page. I'm aware that it's a contentious topic, as indicated by the discussion page of the list of notable WADs, a separate list with somewhat similar goals.

I believe that all WADs are worthy of a Wiki article, but I do not think that all megaWADs with a Wiki article are noteworthy, or a host of WADs should be added to the megaWAD list, in which case, why not just link the megawads category? I suppose the true issue is the lack of some definite criteria for whether a megaWAD is noteworthy or not, outside of the Cacowards and Top 100. --KMX E XII 03:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do respect your open-minded view although I don't fully agree with it (I think each map should not have a page here, only those that are considered notable). The central point was that if some content is to be removed from the wiki, some argumentation should be given, and after seeing your summary, it would have been interesting to hear more accurately why you consider the megawad unworthy.


 * On YouTube, I had a little taste of this treat. Design-wise, I'm ready to brand it unworthy as the first levels, at least, were just small rooms connected to each other with doorways. Guess some people call it minimalism. Then again, it has a wide variety of new sound effects that, admittedly, give a positive addition to the experience. I know many of them were from other games but nevertheless. Judging by the small amount of discussion page hits via Google, I don't think the megawad is very known which is another reason for me to doubt its notability. In case I made similar points as you would have made, I could remove POA from the Megawad article. However, the topic may gather more opinions. --Jartapran 12:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The sound effects are not native to Prayers Of Armageddon. According to the video poster, if I'm looking at the correct video playthrough, "I also used my custom soundpack with this mod". Your impression of the level design is accurate, in my opinion. Rarely do the levels deviate from short maps composed of small rectangles and cramped hallways, and while there are bits of interesting architecture every few maps, the level of design below the standards of every megaWAD I have played to date, in both visuals and encounter design. I've written a full review which I'll be posting to my blog in five days or so, complete with screenshots.


 * The only reason I heard about this WAD was because of its inclusion on the "list of noteworthy megawads", and the only discussion I've seen anywhere was on Doomworld, with someone asking for a copy of the bugfixed version, as the link to it on its article page is dead. At one point, Sigvatr cared enough about it to add "It is widely considered to be excellent", but the only results Google returns are for the Doomwiki article (and derivatives on other sites) and the aforementioned Youtube playthrough, which was apparently done on request by madfinnishgamer38. This is actually H3llraich's alias - MFG38 - as I discovered while trying to find information on POA (link here).


 * My conclusion, then, is that H3llraich manufactured any publicity for this megaWAD outside of Doomwiki, and he may well have created the articles themselves. I can't tell from the IP addresses. It would have had a Newstuff review, but H3llraich didn't submit it to the idgames archives (at least, that I can tell), not that the distribution clause prevents anyone else from doing it. All of this information brought me to the decision that Prayers Of Armageddon is not a noteworthy megaWAD. --KMX E XII 14:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudos to your thorough research. You're perfectly right with the sound effects, and the Doomworld page seems to be the only topic that is related to POA there. I returned your edit at Megawad. The argumentation questions the presence of the article well enough but someone else may do the nomination if it is seen necessary. --Jartapran 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots
Hello, maybe you should rename your screenshots to include in their name that they are from Doom 2. Ducon 09:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, it will happen. EDIT: It seems that only the Administrators can do it (the move feature is not available for files). Anyway, thanks for notifying so that I know to name them more wisely in the future. --Jartapran 09:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I suggest you'd better use some other port for taking screenshots rather than Zdoom (with bloodstains, custom hud and all the stuff) You have read our manual of style, haven't you? :) Prboom+ would be a good choice if you don't mind the hassle of converting BMPs. --Unmaker 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My prboom takes screenshots in png, but I don’t know how. Ducon 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I have something wrong in its setup, but my Prboom has the enemy corpses partially sunk in the floor. In other words, the lower parts of the recumbent bodies are cut out horizontally. Thus, if vanilla conditions need to be mirrored, I don't think that would be the best choice either. Of course, I could have pictures with the bodies out of sight but ... :) --Jartapran 19:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you using GLboom? This is very likely a messed-up sprite clipping. Software renderers cannot display such errors. --Unmaker 20:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, wrong one. Sorry for screwing up, now I'll start re-uploading the pictures. --Jartapran 20:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that you can set cl_maxdecals to 0 and use the original Doom HUD with ZDoom. --Gez 22:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for your great work, it's pretty impressive. Keep it up. --Kyano 14:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Mancubuses"
However, we've decided to use small letters for Doom powerups and "mancubuses" instead of "mancubi". Well, who are those "we"? Either way, "your" decision was wrong - take a look at Talk:Mancubus, if you hadn't before. While the link provided there is long dead and wayback machine gives nothing, I see no reason why the attribution to Romero should be undue in any way. So it will be better if you refrain from such corrections in the future. Cheers, --Unmaker 16:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was a slapdash assumption from me and based solely on an opinion by a single sysop. I never shouldn't have written it. Anyway, I do think that the English plurals would be better; mancubi and efreeti are non-English versions and can be thus considered questionable. But if Romero approves something, I'm fine with it. :) Thanks for your activity. --Jartapran 16:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that English is not your native language, and neither is mine. I'd say that all these latinisms in English are appealing to me in a way, whereas your suggestions look like ugly artificial constructs. That's just my opinion.


 * Meanwhile, I saw you working on some Strife stuff. I've uploaded a bunch of Strife mapviews. If interested, you can engage yourself in incorporating them into map articles. --Unmaker 17:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I appreciated your effort very much. At the moment, I'm about to upload the thing data for E3M9: The Aquifer (Heretic); I finally should get the third episode covered. It may take time so if you just find some for yourself, feel free to add the map pictures instead of me. About languages, yes, you had a reasonable point in your last post as well. --Jartapran 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor notification about demo updating
I've finished doing another check for the 254 Doom II level records and couldn't find more errors. Sorry again for the MAP24 UV speed mistake. For future edits, I'll check both the relevant folders and the official COMPET-N record listings. There are still some oddities with numerous Doom II record dates, though. I'll ask Fx about them on the COMPET-N site. --Jartapran 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also encountered several improperly named demos, and ones residing in wrong folders. I think you'd taken care of these also if you seen any. Unmaker 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do inform the mentioned person if you have extra time. Either send him an e-mail or register to the site and post to a specific forum. He welcomes all help! --Jartapran 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I did wrote him once about the one demo being 404, but that was it. I suppose he has his plate full besides things like these - the new site's navigation is still a mess, no proper frontpage, etc. Unmaker 14:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedrunner record lists
Just a quick notice: I don't know about you or anyone else, but I'm having trouble telling the difference between some of your fields colour-wise for Doom II and Plutonia. Radek Pecka's Plutonia MAP01 UV-fast record being an example. For some it is very clear but there are some where the red colour just doesn't seem that apparent on some. It's probably uncomfortably late to bring this up, but I'm wondering if maybe headers within the table to show the split the sections, and maybe keep the colours anyway?

An example of what I mean - Juho Ruohonen (ocelot) UV speed (minus colours):

To me, that seems slightly easier to interpret, and the colours can still be kept. Tell me what you think :) --Eris Falling 22:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Feedback is welcomed at any point. Frankly, I was a bit worried if I could manage to differentiate the IWADs well enough (here). I had the thought of labeling Plutonia records like "PMAPxx" and Evilution records like "TMAPxx" to make them stand out from Doom II levels. However, I ended up discarding the idea and thought that different colors would be good enough as indicators. I do agree that the listings look unclear at times, and the headers you suggested would help in making the columns more informative.


 * I don't know at all, how much attention the speedrunner record lists have drawn lately. Even if the topic wasn't very interesting, I wish that more editors would add their opinions on the lists into this thread. It's just easier to start modifying the lists if I'm well aware what's good about them and what's not. --Jartapran 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think when adding the headers, keep the colour anyway if you want, as it still looks pretty neat (I edited the above table to demonstrate). In terms of attention, don't forget that these changes will stay there for a very long time and will be seen by a lot of people. I had looked at these pages while you added these records, but Doom and Doom II are easy to distinguish between (ExMx and MAPxx), but it was only until Plutonia I realised there was a problem, hence my input now. As I said above, it is probably a bit late to bring this up, so I would make these changes on your next pass after Evilution. By the way, will you mark special runs too? Such as Radek Pecka's Doom II UV-Max run of 113:18? --Eris Falling 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did plan to finish the updating work for TNT: Evilution's records and then move onto the "sequence records" of the four IWADs (these, for example). However, I'm afraid that time is a restricting thing for me in the near future. In addition, I think it's fair to ask if TheGreenHerring would like to do the work for the TNT records as he has shown an interest in doing it.


 * Bottom line, if you like to add the header boxes, you can do it as soon as you see fit. In my opinion, the aesthetic values would suffer but if the change makes the lists more useful, I'm satisfied with it. --Jartapran 16:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If TGH does go ahead and do the TNT records, then I might ask that he do the "sequence records" since I, having finished KDiZD, am correcting my idiotic errors on the Back to Saturn X articles, and don't have time either to add the records. --Eris Falling 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Though I will proceed to add the header boxes, as it doesn't make them look that untidy. --Eris Falling 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet a few things; I noticed you faded out the color marks from Radek Pecka's record columns but left them in Drew DeVore's and Jim Leonard's articles. Now, using such color coding probably wasn't a good idea to begin with, but I meant them to work as episode boundaries; if there's a considerable amount of records for a single run and IWAD, such marks would quickly direct the reader to the section he/she is looking for. Admittedly, the system is quite clumsy for non-Ultimate Doom games because of their irregular sequence boundaries (1-11, 12-20, 21-30 & 31-32), but that was the point of them. Would I return the marks on Pecka's article or remove them from the pages that still have them?


 * As the second thing, take it easy.


 * It took quite a long time for me to learn to relax if something doesn't go as planned here at the Doom Wiki. Just forget if you make some mistakes and get notified about them. It's not so serious. If you refer to earlier controversies or errors like you just did (stress on the word "idiotic"), you certainly won't make collaborative work here any easier but will only gather negativity from others. They'll forget about disputes so you should forget too.


 * This is not about preaching but only about giving a friendly tip from someone who has made an ass of himself here a couple of times because of being too touchy. --Jartapran 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just throwing some nickel in here: considering there are several "official" compet-n PWADs, this colour galore thing might not seem like a good idea. You can simply point towards players' profiles in the c-n database, like this one. It's none too fanciful, but at least it has the record lmps clearly singled out. Unmaker 00:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I know this is quite a pain in the ass, as someone who basically maintained the records lists by himself for several years, but unfortunately I have to agree with Unmaker here. 10 colors?  It would take a large amount of work to design a non-awkward tabulation method and keep it updated, and in the end, we'd simply have near-duplicates of the linked pages (assuming that site stays around obviously).  In fact, should we also consider consolidating/scraping some of the existing tables, like here?  Just my 1.999999784 cents (Pentium emulation today).    Ryan W 21:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the background of the topic. I did doubt the idea myself and thus I wanted to ask an opinion from a respected editor. Since Gez didn't object to it and, in my opinion, gave valid arguments for adding such record charts, I was encouraged to start working on them. What I had in mind was to improve the mini articles some of the speedrunners had back then and I thought that adding their achievements would be a logical step (compare it to the "body of work" section level designer pages have).


 * Xit Vono has been exceptionally prolific, and there is admittedly a risk that the charts, on that specific page for example, would get out of hand if more WADs are covered and marked into the articles. Now, call me a discriminator if you wish, but I never intended to add more than the records of the four official IWADs. The reason is that the Compet-N run pages, such as UV speed, don't have any record data for PWADs either. With that being true, I assumed that it is somewhat unanimous here that these four IWADs are held in a more specific status, considering that they are official products. So, there is no need for ten colors but only for four if the Evilution records are yet added.


 * At the moment, you may criticize me for selecting "Compet-N records" as the header as it would suggest that the data would cover more than the four WADs. The idea was to, just in case, differentiate the section from other possible sites, such as DSDA. After all, the source site of the files is Compet-N. I haven't made myself familiar with DSDA so I'm not sure if such a differentiation was appropriate. If I haven't mistaken, the two sites do share a lot of same lmps.


 * If the record columns are discarded, and the reader would instead be directed straight to the Compet-N site to get information about speedrunning... why not? Anyway, the top priority was to get the records on the level (and run) articles updated because it was apparent that some of them were last verified in late 2005, which, considering the history of Compet-N is understandable. Now that Zvonimir is doing a good job maintaining the site, it was rational to update the tables on map pages. These "colors galore" speedrunner charts were only extra in the process, I wanted to be open-minded and try something different that may either be liked or not. If there will be a consensus on removing the columns, I assure you it's fine.


 * Thanks for your feedback. I certainly don't get too much it here. --Jartapran 23:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hell Revealed speedrunning
Hey, I happened to notice - after putting it on my list - that Hell Revealed is accepted by Compet-N, but the articles don't have any tables on them. Did you plan on doing Compet-N tables for HR? If yes, I'll remove it from my list and move on to HR2 instead. --Eris Falling 20:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; my Internet connection was broken for many days.


 * If it's about me, do add the records of Hell Revealed. :) My sole wish is that, for consistency, you would use the The data was last verified in its entirety on  ,  -sentence. It's the form that has been used for all updated Compet-N record tables. I'll put an example for copy/pasting: (colon ignored intentionally)

The data was last verified in its entirety on June 20, 2013.


 * In this summer, I'm busy with other stuff so I'll try to finish Requiem as soon as possible and probably have a longer break after that. --Jartapran 19:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Never looked at Compet-N, but I'll see what I can do after I finish up on Claustrophobia. Also, I noticed I've really screwed up with the Speed/Pacifist records. I wonder if there are UV speed records on DSDA that Andy hasn't marked as "Also pacifist."


 * I'm going to go ahead and assume I've made the same mistakes with NM speed and NM100S on maps that don't have secrets. I think I'll have to go over the tables again to fix these, in addition to adding the names I stored on my reference page. Ah well, now I know >_< --Eris Falling 12:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Doom23.gif
Thumbnail problems are likely only temporary, given the sitewide caching issues we have had lately. Might I suggest waiting a few days and then testing again with the older image? Ryan W 00:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)