Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hell lord"
From DoomWiki.org
(editors -> level designers (whoops, should have noticed that)) |
(→Policy discussion) |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:: The obvious objection to this scheme, apparently, is that [[:Category:Strife|Strife only gets one article]]. [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | :: The obvious objection to this scheme, apparently, is that [[:Category:Strife|Strife only gets one article]]. [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ::: Brief remark: Yes, policy seems sound, but I would strongly object to it wrt Strife. Not sure if rewording to find a better fit or simply have Strife as a named exception. -- [[User:Jdowland|Jdowland]] 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:05, 29 November 2006
- Not about Doom, it's about some fan game. Belongs in an article about the fan game, not as an article itself. Delete. Bloodshedder 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Our written policy is extremely vague on this point, but I agree that you are describing the existing practice. Delete. Ryan W 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fraggle 15:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. An additional note: The fangame the monster is from is not finished yet. -- TheDarkArchon 12:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Bloodshedder. The article for the game it is from is not particularly developed yet. If it was large and becoming unwieldy, I would reconsider. -- Jdowland 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Policy discussion
We would certainly keep an article about a source port if it was in public beta, and we kept this one (after some discussion), which is not even at that phase. So I still agree with Bloodshedder. (For a PWAD, maybe not, since the bugs tend to be a lot less subtle.) Ryan W 16:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This brings up another issue: mod and source port specific items, like Turbosphere. I made a quick edit to the written policy about monsters, and I think items like these, much like monsters, should be kept in the main article (in this case Skulltag) and should be turned into redirects. Discuss? Bloodshedder 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- In this specific example (skulltag items), agreed. Regarding a consistent policy: I'm quite happy with the "benevolent dictator" model that we use now (but then I am a benevolent dictator, so I suppose I would be...) -- Jdowland 12:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've also been happy with it hitherto, but this site might outlive all of the current editors' tenures, so we really ought to write things down just in case. In fact, I also had thought to expand the policy page, believing that all of our admins agreed on this issue already... don't they?
- So far, I would describe our existing practice as follows. One article per game or source port, except when:
- The game is in the Doom series or is an officially licensed port which differs considerably from the original (e.g. Doom 3, Doom RPG, Doom 64).
- The game is based on the Doom engine and id actually helped develop it (e.g. Hexen), rather than just taking a licensing fee.
- The available technical information becomes so extensive that a single article would be very unwieldy (e.g. ACS, Amulets & Armor Thing Types). Some editors want this to occur for all games eventually, so that we can be a comprehensive technical resource for programmers as well as for level designers.
- The game is a TC which happens to be an IWAD instead of a PWAD, but which works perfectly well with existing ports (e.g. Chex Quest, Freedoom). These are treated like other TCs.
- The obvious objection to this scheme, apparently, is that Strife only gets one article. Ryan W 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Brief remark: Yes, policy seems sound, but I would strongly object to it wrt Strife. Not sure if rewording to find a better fit or simply have Strife as a named exception. -- Jdowland 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)