Talk:Encyclopedia Daemonica

From DoomWiki.org

Revision as of 00:58, 12 December 2019 by Ryan W (talk | contribs) (HTTP->HTTPS in google.com link. See here and here.)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Edit-paste.svgThe content associated with this talk page was considered for deletion, and either was deleted, or was kept after a period of discussion. This page has been retained for historical reference regarding the deletion process, or in case of future restoration of any deleted content.

Interesting.  Was this a long-term community collaboration or a widely acknowledged "notable" fanfic (of which there are surely many, some more solidly built than the licensed novels)?  If not, I think it runs afoul of our original research policy: see the bibliography on page 64, which seems to consist mostly of forum postings.

The actual PDF should probably be deleted as a copyvio.  Although it uses id's material no more often than our articles do, I don't believe fair use can be claimed because it is being used to illustrate a derivative work rather than to illustrate an explication of the published games.    Ryan W 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Hello there,

Actually, forum postings were not used, but rather the information from the websites (that host the forums).

At least within the whole PlanetDoom community (and a few other websites) it is considered to be a "notable" fan fic. It was in the PD news when it first came out, and more than 600 people downloaded and read it.

The forums are mentioned as the "support group" that helped in the project's development.

The thing is absolutely free to distribute anytime & anywhere - GDFL.

If there is anything else to make the thing better compliant - tell me.

Demon! - Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria 83.143.252.179 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the PDF includes resources taken from the original doom games which are copyright ID Software, all rights reserved, and so which cannot be distributed under the terms of the GFDL. -- Jdowland 13:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest that.  :>   Further, I think it violates fair use for us to host it rather than just linking to it, because the id resources are not being used to illustrate a description of anything published by id.  It sounds as though it is indeed notable, in which case choosing another site should be no problem, right?.  IANAL, but even if the graphics were removed, it could be argued that sections II and III are a little too close to paraphrasing.    Ryan W 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

I just noticed the first edits on the page - yes, it is more accurate if the thing is noted as "fan fiction". I fully agree.

Nice job, guys :)

(L. O. Ivanov) - 83.143.252.179 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)