Doom Wiki:RFC/Missing PWAD articles
From DoomWiki.org
 | Request For Comment |
RFC
The following PWAD articles are linked from the ZDoom Wiki and therefore count against us by being 404s:
- The Adventures of Square
-
Astrostein -
Astrostein 2(redirected, see below) -
Astrostein 3(redirected, see below) -
Cheogsh -
Cheogsh 2 -
Community Is Falling 3 -
Dark 7 -
Diaz -
Doom Raider: Crypt of the Vile -
Happy Time Circus -
Khorus (WAD) -
Nimrod: Project Doom -
Project MSX - Real World (no plausible assertions of notability; see below)
-
Temple of the Lizard Men 2 -
Tribute - This is not the best wad in the world -
Unloved -
Valhalla
Please prioritize creation of at least stub-quality articles for each of these after verifying their notability (almost all are Top 100 Wads or Cacoward winners/runners-up), and then either (if created) strike through the link in this list, or change the link to a {{deleted}} template so that it is not an active hyperlink.
Discussion
Astrostein mods
Notability seems pretty dubious. Many people apparently thought they sucked, at least for gameplay (though the third was better). We have precedent for putting a whole series into one article when they have a lot in common (Torment and Torture, 32in24). Further opinions are welcome, but if I had to decide now, I'd redirect all three to WolfenDOOM (Doom). Ryan W (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2016 (CST)
- I would be OK with that. They could always be split off into their own articles if someone who's a fanatic about them has enough to say on their behalf. A redirect is a good interim until and unless such should happen. --Quasar (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2016 (CST)
Real World
Again, notability looks slippery. Of course it's difficult to prove a negative, but so far I'm only finding stuff like this. Was the thread starter garnering consensus, or were they just hoovering up every WAD on one person's favorites list? (I have the same question about our list, but that's another discussion.)
A prominent community member did review the sequel and said it was nothing special, consisting largely of elaborate homages to stock maps. Looking at this file, I'd say the same: some blueprints are almost exact copies, and a few levels are so small and blocky I can't believe someone had the nerve to release them in 2003 (according to one idgames post, it includes maps the author made at age 14).
My opinion is only that, however; I'm still baffled that Fava Beans made the Top 100. But it did. So is there another angle I'm not seeing? Ryan W (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2016 (CST)
- As we mentioned on IRC this one was a false positive that is only linked from the "automatic compatibility" page and apparently has very little notability. I can't see a compelling reason to give it an article aside from it being linked to, but as we discussed, it may be a zdoom wiki issue if they are linking to us for articles we don't intend to ever have. --Quasar (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2016 (CST)
- I would suggest creating an author stub page since at the very least Daniel's NeoDoom has its own article and then redirect from Real World to the author stub. --KMX E XII (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2016 (CST)
- Hi Kmxexii. I believe this RFC is more narrowly focused than notability, i.e. "are we likely to get 404 penalties for the rest of time if we don't have this title?". The evidence suggests not. You are however perfectly free to create an author article in the normal way, if you think he deserves one, which would then be subject to the usual discussions if anyone questions it. It seems like common sense that if an author were notable but not each WAD, the remaining WAD names would redirect to the author. Ryan W (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2016 (CST)
