Difference between revisions of "Doom Wiki:Central Processing/2013"

From DoomWiki.org

(Security problem on Special:Userlogin)
(Password field of Special:Userlogin)
Line 297: Line 297:
  
 
Can we change this ourselves in the script of the page (I'm not an admin so I can't tell), or would I need to ask the Wikicities people about it?    [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Can we change this ourselves in the script of the page (I'm not an admin so I can't tell), or would I need to ask the Wikicities people about it?    [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 +
 +
:I think it's a Wikicites problem. I can't change it. [[User:TheDarkArchon|TheDarkArchon]] 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:16, 1 February 2006

First half of 2005

Editing tricks

It might be a good idea to start writing up editing tricks - Doomworld has a section about them here. Perhaps we could see about getting permission to include these here on the Wiki, or at least write up the same tricks included here. Fraggle 07:42, 13 Jan 2005 (PST)

I think it would be a good idea, and I am willing to start off with some things like hills\craters, etc. More tutorials would be nice for those new. I remember how big a help the zdoom tutorials were. Jehar 5\11\05

I found the files with the editing tricks I found by myself time ago (about 6-8 years!). Some of them appear on doomworld, some others don't. Most of them are cool. The problem is, they are written on spanish. I should translate them first.
I also found a level I built to show many engine bugs, are you interested on it, too? CarlosHoyos 22:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WAD file uploads

JasonR has now enabled support for WAD file uploads (example: Media:Test.wad). This should be useful for editing tutorials. Just remember that all WADs must be put under the GFDL, so original creations only and no id content included. .lmp files are also allowed now, which means walkthroughs can be uploaded (but again, mind copyright) - Fredrik 13:04, 13 Jan 2005 (PST)

But there are LMPs with no bundled documentation at all (like the one under E1M1: Hangar). Are they therefore copyrighted correctly by default, or should I delete them? Ryan W 20:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Writeups on people

#doomroom

Doom Wiki mentioned

Jimmy Wales mentioned us in his lecture at Stanford:

WikiCities is a separate for-profit company, that I own, and I don't usually talk about it in my Wikipedia lectures, but basically the idea there is, we've got all these great people in the community that know how to run a community. And there's all kinds of communities that could be formed that don't fit the educational non-profit mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. So, like one of the early active communities we've got is Doom. All about the Doom video game. We've got encyclopedia articles about Doom, yes, but there's tons of things people can collaborate on about Doom that don't really belong in an encyclopedia. And so that's a place for them to do that.

- Fredrik 19:42, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)

That is so cool :-) Fraggle 10:18, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Heh that really is pretty neat :) --Insertwackynamehere 21:41, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
OMG FAME!!1 \o/\o/ TheDarkArchon 19:14, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Crazy level stats

So, I've gotten a program working to calculate area and volume for a level. Examples of useless trivia that can be computed:

  • Average sector volume
  • Amount of volume occupied by monsters
  • Ratio of bounding box volume to used volume
  • Volume used in outdoor areas
  • Inter-WAD rankings

Any other good ideas? Updating existing level pages is a lot of work, so I'd rather finish the table layout before starting. - Fredrik 22:11, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Zdoom automap map layout images

Related to the above. How do I configure Zdoom so that the colors of the automap match the pastel colors of the DoomWiki map layouts?

Source Ports section

The Source Ports category is a bit messy in it's current state. The Scripting Languages and ZDoom subcategories both contain some articles that are already in the Source Ports category. But, some of the articles that are in the Source Ports category aren't in the relevent subcategory.

For example, ACS is listed under Source Ports and ZDoom, but not under Scripting Languages. Should it be in all three categories? DooMAD 01:23, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

ACS should probably be listed under Source Ports, since it is not tied to ZDoom (ACS is from Hexen). Doesnt vavoom have ACS support?
It should certainly be listed under Scripting Languages. Fraggle 10:18, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
It should be in hexen and zdoom categories, then. hexen isn't a source port. -- Jdowland 19:16, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots category weirdness

Screenshots don't appear in the Screenshots category unless they've been edited, even though they get tagged to that category on upload. Is this supposed to happen? If not, what, if anything, shall be done about it? Draconio 20:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map layout images

What program was used to make the map layout images that appear with the articles on their respective levels?

One by me, in my possession. Fredrik 17:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is the script based on wad2pdf or is it an independant script? Ducon 19:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's based on Omgifol 0.2, which I still haven't released. Fredrik 19:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When it’ll be released, I’ll send a link for it in linux-gamers.net. Ducon 16:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31980 - Fredrik 23:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Done. Ducon 04:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


Format of recent changes page

What do all those exclamation points mean next to the article titles? I can't find it anywhere in the wikicities help. Ryan W 20:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It means the edit has not been marked as patrolled. If you click the "diff" link on a change, at the bottom of the Current revision gray box, there's a link to Mark as patrolled. Bloodshedder 13:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aha... thanks. :> Ryan W 02:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Any registered user can mark an edit as "patrolled", meaning they have looked at it and seen that it is not spam or vandalism. The idea is that others looking for such stuff can then skip looking at the same article. Further info is at [1]. radius 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Procedure for clashes between games (doom/heretic etc.)

Some pages are likely to clash. E.g. E1M1 describes doom's first level, not Heretic's. which is E1M1: The Docks. Should we consider using disambiguation pages and namespaces? Note that megawad level-descriptions will clash unless the level's have been explicitly named too.

Making disambiguation pages of the ExMx and MAPxx pages seems like a good idea. Fredrik 21:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Before somebody starts in on 68 new small articles, does Wikicities have any sort of automated tool available for disambiguation pages? (Maybe they would be too ugly to leave permanently — things like this are obviously hand-tuned — but it would solve the problem in the short term.) Ryan W 23:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For levels named ExMy, I think I'm going to put a one-liner at the top for now, since we've only listed two such sets of levels so far (I know there could be more, like Aliens TC, but there aren't yet).    Ryan W 19:56, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

User comments

I think we should allow, and encourage, user comments in articles as well as entirely subjective articles -- this isn't Wikipedia after all. I think there would be no harm if people are allowed to post subjective reviews of WADs and source ports, anecdotes, etc. The NPOV policy from Wikipedia is good, but there's a difference. Wikipedia requires that opinions and facts have been published elsewhere, but original research is not a problem on the Doom Wiki. To keep NPOV, we should just separate comments from facts (e.g. a "Reviews" section is added to a page about a WAD), and signed. Of course, this shouldn't be used for discussion about articles. Thoughts? - Fredrik 18:47, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yup, a newstuff 1994 WADs review? ;-) Ducon 20:08, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking something along the same lines. I'll keep my eyes open for an opportunity to test this concept -- Jdowland 20:22, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Beat you to it! - Fredrik 20:53, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but I think this should only be for WAD reviews, etc. Factual articles (eg. monsters, weapons) I don't think should have comments like this. Fraggle 08:18, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't think of any good use of user comments for that kind of articles. Fredrik 09:10, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
How about an "add your comments on this wad" template? My only concern is that this may clutter the pages up a bit. Fraggle 23:27, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Second half of 2005

Adamizer writeup

Is this worth keeping? Fraggle 08:41, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he meets the (admittedly vague) standard for being eligible to have an article. Bloodshedder 13:55, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Me (Jon) neither. Suggest we write up some kind of criteria for people articles. Other trivial ones include Areith and Zorcher.

Deletions and moves

I'm getting disheartened at the number of very short, badly written articles that are cropping up. Most of these appear to be vanity articles. As such, I think we could use a procedure for nominating artices for the dust-bin. I'm not comfortable simply deleting the ones I don't think belong here, in case anybody else disagrees. Hence I stuck together Template:Vfd-person. I'd like to put together Template:Vfd too, but perhaps we need to iron out a deletion policy. I am still thinking about the best way to go about this, any opinions? -- Jdowland 13:57, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

- Spammers strike again. This time from IP 12.201.71.78 >:( TheDarkArchon 20:32, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Doom Wiki Image at the Top Left

This Doom Wiki is really cool, but in my opinion, I think you guys could get a better image for the top left. Maybe something like the Doom guy's face when he's smiling, despite being badly injured. Or something from the game. It would just give a better impression when people first come here (sorry to whoever designed that image!). Doomjester 14:31, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Oh no! I want my Hissy, but with a transparent background! Ducon 16:55, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Offline Wiki

IMO we should have an offline wiki-feature similiar to the one UnrealWiki has. Janizdreg 19:05, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Doom RPG

The release of Doom RPG brings us a whole load of new information to add into the Doom wiki. I don't have a copy yet (I need to upgrade my phone), but I've added some of the information from the official website to the monster pages about the different monster classes.

We are the featured Wiki

A bit slow off the mark here, but we are the featured wiki on Wikicities for this month. Fraggle 11:11, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nice! Fredrik 23:26, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
hoorj...who nominated us? Anyone? Bloodshedder 01:08, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I did. Fraggle 19:51, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Let's just hope it doesn't attract more malicious users. - DooMAD 13:43, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Good work everyone! -- Jdowland 17:48, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

WAD template

Can someone create a WAD template, to create a skeleton for a WAD page? Something like { {subst:WAD}}. Ducon 14:57, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, might be a good idea. Especially if we create an infobox with fields for the most basic data (author, release date, etc). I think the biggest failing of the Doom Wiki so far is that we haven't gotten far cataloging WADs (we should have an article on each one of them!). A template allowing a basic stub to be created in a minute or so (counting the time needed to look up info in the idgames database), without thinking about page formatting, would certainly help. Fredrik 20:46, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I tried such a template: { {WAD skeleton}}. Ducon 19:44, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I renamed it { {map skel}}, and created a { {WAD skel}} for WADs. Ducon 16:21, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Strife Characters

I did some work with the new Strife characters - putting them into categories and mentioning that they are from Strife. A new template must be made - I couldn't be arsed to make it.

Illdo 12:06, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You can use the WAD template, like the Scythe 2 templates. Ducon 16:18, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Doom Fun?

Is it relevant to create a Doom fun section, a section where Doom fans and fun pics are commented, inserted, or at least mentioned? I think about impse and this folder, Hissy, pink fish and all this kind of Doom trivia. Ducon 16:21, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It gets my vote. TheDarkArchon 21:18, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

that stuff gets stuck in Category:Community. Jdowland 21:49, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Go for it! - Fredrik 06:44, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

1000 articles

Congratulations, everybody! - Fredrik 06:44, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Wow brilliant, congrats all -- Jdowland 19:33, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Who wrote the 1000th article? --- TheDarkArchon 22:03, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Er... well, I think I know who unwrote it.  So now we have another chance to answer your question.  :7    Ryan W 06:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Did you know?" broken?

Is it just me or is the "Did you know?" box is broken? All I see in it is the last one added (About NiGHTMARE being a joke). TheDarkArchon 19:45, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What is missing? I see the NiGHTMARE thing + a link to More Trivia - which is what I was expecting. -- Jdowland 10:11, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

First half of 2006

Doom Wiki's first birthday

The doom wiki is a year old from yesturday. HAPPY BIRTHDAY! -- TheDarkArchon 15:01, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

happy birthday :) -- Jdowland 21:47, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Happy birthday DoomWiki! Congratulations to everyone for their work on this wiki for the last year. I hope the next year is a successful one for your community. Angela (talk) 17:38, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Custom Search Icon?

I was looking at the current featured Wikicity (Wikifur. No, I'm not a furry.) and noticed that it's search box had a custom logo instead of the generic Wikicites logo. Any chance of one coming here? -- TheDarkArchon 23:38, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the current featured Wikicity anymore... for everyone's reference, the Wikifur wiki is http://furry.wikicities.com/ . -- Jdowland 20:07, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ok on further investigation, it looks like the method of customizing that box differs for Mediawiki versions 1.4 and 1.5. I think we're on 1.4 still, and that furry one is on 1.5, although I can't figure out how to tell the version.

For 1.5, You would edit Mediawiki:Sidebar I believe. -- Jdowland 20:26, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We're on 1.5 now. Look at the top of the screen. -- TheDarkArchon 09:27, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, my edits were failing yesterday, I guess I caught the middle of the upgrade :) Looks like the search box is not defined in Mediawiki:Sidebar after all. You need to browse around Special:Allpages, Mediawiki namespace, to find the relevant page. -- Jdowland 10:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On an upgrade related note, what's with the exclaimation marks next to edits? I've noticed this on the ZDoom wiki and haven't understood what it meant -- TheDarkArchon 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

See above.  ;>    Ryan W 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You could just have asked! Setting the search logo requires uploading a new image for Search logo.png, as so. -- GreenReaper 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.5: info links for non-image uploads

All links of the form [[Image:MonsterFlee.WAD|file info]] now appear to be broken.  They can be fixed by adding a colon, like links to categories: [[:Image:MonsterFlee.WAD|file info]].  But should I do this, or is it a bug that the Wikicities people intend to fix?  (I can't find a reference to it on their MediaWiki 1.5 help pages.)    Ryan W 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I added this to the appropriate talk page on Wikicities.   Ryan W 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: the instructions on Special:Upload now refer to a non-existent copyright checkbox.  (Also, if the above problem was intentional and not a bug, said instructions will have to include the new colon.)    Ryan W 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Redlink template

This article contains an excessive amount of links to non-existent items.

Articles on the subjects of the red links are requested.

Use {{redlink}} in articles that have a lot of links to non-existant items. E.G Bugs. -- TheDarkArchon 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this idea: An article with lots of red links has nothing wrong with it, so I don't see why it should be modified to include a template. Where is the precedent - I don't know of any other wikis doing it (certainly not wikipedia). For redlink-resolution, Special:Wantedpages is less intrusive on other articles. -- Jdowland 23:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would we need a precedent, and why doesn't Special:Wantedpages list red links which only appear once (i.e. almost all of the items TheDarkArchon is concerned about)?
US$0.02: I'm ambivalent about this template.  (You might guess that from my contributions page, which states that I proofread the template, then added red links to List of Doom community people.)  On the one hand, wikis by definition are works in progress, and as Fraggle sometimes says, the only way to get good articles is to let everyone write about whatever currently turns them on.  On the other hand, in this wiki, articles on highly technical or esoteric subjects (such as node building and Strife) have often received a lot of attention at the expense of topics more digestible to the average reader, and this template would help to combat that phenomenon.
I guess if I had to choose, I would say that we have too few active editors to be able to enforce any sort of policy on which areas of the wiki get the most aggressive updates.  Most people seem to spend about a month contributing information about what they happen to like most, then disappear.   Ryan W 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some articles which are nothing more than lists (List of doom community people; Bugs) that have a high red-link density. But I object to those articles on other grounds: IMHO the category system should be used for all such articles which are otherwise content-less. -- Jdowland 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But then articles without content wouldn't show up in Special:Wantedpages, since they contained the text "[[Category:whatever]]".  Or should they all be marked as stubs, perhaps?    Ryan W 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Articles without content (but which exist with a category) should not exist, imho, and therefore would not be listed in a category. If I come across such an article, It'd be immediately tagged {{stub}} and so you could find it at Category:Stubs instead. They would therefore only show up in Special:Wantedpages if they were referenced or linked from other content-articles, which in my view, makes Special:Wantedpages more relevant than if they are listed in otherwise-content-less list pages. But this is just my opinion :) I value the opinion of major contributors like yourself, and I'd like to hear from other regulars to see if there is a majority concensus. -- Jdowland 11:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
But your method would remove articles from Special:Wantedpages, since they would contain the text "{{stub}}".  Assuming that you had deleted the "list" articles, there would then be no distinction between articles with 50 red links and 2 red links, and articles with only one red link (or none, as with Uwe Girlich) wouldn't show up in any list/category unless there was a strict policy about putting all red links into Category:Stubs immediately.    Ryan W 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, whatever the admins may think of the redlink template or the "list" articles, I daresay there should *not* be red links in protected text.

I agree with you there: If you come across such things feel free to list them here to be fixed. -- Jdowland 11:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

List of doom community people and Bugs are convenient indexes of both existing content and what needs to be done. I personally don't see the problem with red links, or mixing red links with blue links. Fredrik 16:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm-m, do we know for a fact that all major browsers show them in red?  (That wouldn't necessarily affect the template's name, but perhaps the second line of displayed text could stand to be a bit more vague.)     Ryan W 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

interwiki

I see doom is on http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Interwiki_map ; I've submitted it to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map (this edit) -- Jdowland 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Maps in level articles

Some levels are extremely large and intricate, and I think the textual walkthrough sections (instructions, secrets, powerups) would be much clearer if they could refer to numbered markers on the map, as with (e.g.) the Prima guide for Quake 4.  Opinions?

(I realize that this is a ton of work, and difficult to do in a non-ugly way, so it's not like I'm about to change everything tomorrow.)    Ryan W 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

E1M1 map annotated.png
I've thought of it before, and came up with this when playing around. The style used here has the advantage that the markers are visible even in the thumbnail. For more complex maps, smaller markers may be better though. Anyway, I like the purple myself :) Fredrik 07:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Very pretty.  :D    And we could just add a little note at the top of the walkthrough section, mentioning the markers.
Hmmmm, one problem I see is that some editors want to write about secrets/walkthroughs, and some editors know how to work with pictures, and they might not be the same editors.  Then the writers and "illustrators" would have to agree on the number and placement of markers, which slows everything down (even if they did agree on the article's organization, which wouldn't necessarily be true).
If you're willing to do hundreds of these yourself, great, but I wouldn't want to just assume that.  :D     Ryan W 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing policies for User: pages

Certain small conflicts seem to be arising over the following questions.

  1. As long as Wikicities's content policy is being obeyed, does it matter what a person puts on their User: page?
  2. Should other users ever edit someone's User: page?  If so, when?
  3. When it comes to spam and vandalism, or things that look like spam and vandalism, are "user talk" pages held to the same standard as talk pages for other articles?  (That is, are they considered part of the User: pages, or just part of the overall "discussion space" like this page is?)
  4. Do we care if the same person creates multiple login names?  (One name plus one or more anon addresses seems to be okay, since there are situations where logging in is inconvenient or impossible.)

Since we have no policies on any of these issues, perhaps some conflict is unavoidable, but I am curious what our long-time editors think.  (IMHO they are not causing the wiki large problems at the moment... but that's why I'm bringing them up now.)    Ryan W 03:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My take:
1. Probably not, but the space of possible scenarios is too large to make general statements about. Do you have any particular cases in mind?
2. Corrections are always fine, in my opinion. But the page owner should decide.
3. User talk pages are part of the general discussion space.
4. Unless they abuse it, no. Fredrik 18:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(1):  Not really.  It's hard to think of something really troublesome that wouldn't also spill over into other articles, or violate the Wikicities policy.  (In fact, I question whether the Impse image is NSFW — would people who have never played Doom be able to tell what was going on?  But others probably disagree with me, so this actually seems like a good compromise.)
(2):  What does "corrections" mean in the context of a User page, which doesn't necessarily include factual information?  (And if somebody wrote something on their User page which contradicted a regular article, I personally would let that speak for itself.)
I think I know who Jdowland is talking about below, and I can understand his reasoning.  But that doesn't explain, for example, why this edit was made.  I myself do not write anything quite that nonlinear on my User page (I hope), but don't we have the right to do so?     Ryan W 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I recently reverted some edits to User and User:Talk pages (or maybe just the latter... I forget) from a new author on this wiki who has made no doom-related contributions at all here -- merely pasting a URL to another site on these pages.

I was a bit reluctant to revert these because I wasn't sure what the etiquette would be, but I decided to do so because if I make a mistake someone else can always undo it.

The more traditional spammers often target User pages too, Fredrik is often targetted for example. -- Jdowland 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Password field of Special:Userlogin

When I misspell my password, the incorrect password is still there after the page refreshes itself.  That seems like it would make it a lot easier for somebody to crack an account.

Can we change this ourselves in the script of the page (I'm not an admin so I can't tell), or would I need to ask the Wikicities people about it?    Ryan W 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a Wikicites problem. I can't change it. TheDarkArchon 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)