Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Doom community people"

From DoomWiki.org

(growth of this page)
(Re: List of Doom community people)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
This page just had a lot of names dumped into it. It seems to me to serve little purpose (see discussion above), but if the concensus is that it is useful, should it not be split into past/present or similar? -- [[User:Jdowland|Jdowland]] 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 
This page just had a lot of names dumped into it. It seems to me to serve little purpose (see discussion above), but if the concensus is that it is useful, should it not be split into past/present or similar? -- [[User:Jdowland|Jdowland]] 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 +
 +
:The more of these bios I read, the more I wonder how much sense it makes to do them. Unless we somehow get a <i>whole bunch</i> of contributors from various different time periods who can help fill the gaps in our historical articles (I hope it happens, but I'm not holding my breath), any selection of "the most important people" and "their most important accomplishments" is probably going to turn out incredibly subjective, and its degree of completion will be heavily skewed toward the present day (when Doom is presumably less widely played than ever). [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] 22:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:57, 18 June 2005

What are the advantages/disadvantages of a list like this, vs. the auto built one at? - Jdowland 11:31, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Because this lists people whose articles haven't been written yet? Bloodshedder 11:38, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
indeed it does - however if they're noteworthy enough to be listed, surely they're noteworthy enough for a page - Jdowland 14:07, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
Even if they are noteworthy enough for a page, that doesn't mean the page has been written yet (or ever will be). Bloodshedder 20:06, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
Until it is, what's the use of having their name in this list? -- Jdowland 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

growth of this page

This page just had a lot of names dumped into it. It seems to me to serve little purpose (see discussion above), but if the concensus is that it is useful, should it not be split into past/present or similar? -- Jdowland 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The more of these bios I read, the more I wonder how much sense it makes to do them. Unless we somehow get a whole bunch of contributors from various different time periods who can help fill the gaps in our historical articles (I hope it happens, but I'm not holding my breath), any selection of "the most important people" and "their most important accomplishments" is probably going to turn out incredibly subjective, and its degree of completion will be heavily skewed toward the present day (when Doom is presumably less widely played than ever). Ryan W 22:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)