Doom Wiki:Central Processing


This is the central discussion forum for wiki editing and administration activity on the Doom Wiki. Feel free to ask any questions or pose any concerns you have here, and you should receive a response shortly. Check the archived discussions for older threads. For extended discussion on long-range "to do" issues and project planning, please also visit our Request For Comment hub.

Archived discussions

Map screenshots gallery dimensions[edit]

I presume everyone agrees that the default dimensioning of map screenshot galleries is somewhat underwhelming: the thumbnails are post-stamp size, and the borders too large and uneven. Larger thumbnails (with even borders around them) would make them more useful and the page more visually attractive. For my next scripting endeavor I intend to update all existing galleries with new dimensions (and also clean up formatting issues, if any). Empty ones too, to assist future contributors of more screenshots.

How much larger? I sandboxed a few possibilities. I propose to use option 1.3, and set 1.3.1 as default in the skeleton. Any objections or alternative suggestions? --Xymph (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2017 (CST)

Suggestion: using packed galleries; or at the very least noline. See this. Currently we have too much of our real estate pixels (real pixstate?) taken by entirely useless white noise such as borders and trims. By getting rid of these, we can have less poststampy screenshots without increasing the visual size of the page. --Gez (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (CST)
Good idea, both options sandboxed, after which (for me) packed mode can be crossed off again due to the undesirable effect of centering the entire gallery within the page. Nolines mode however looks nice, with the additional benefit that the aspect ratio-dependent height doesn't have to be determined.
Quasar suggested (on IRC) to also try a large gallery, because a larger widths value might balloon it up too much within overall page context. 15 is the largest I could find among vanilla Doom maps (most are 5-10, most galleries elsewhere too). But I find with nolines mode, 160px width still looks fine. So my vote goes to option 2.2 (== 5.2). --Xymph (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2017 (CST)
The alignment can be addressed thusly: <gallery mode=packed style="text-align: left"> or by editing the wiki's CSS. I suppose something similar to {{prettytable}} would end up existing, so we'd just write <gallery {{prettygallery}}> and be done with it. --Gez (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (CST)
For technical reasons I don't understand (but Quasar does), the latter won't work, so we have to keep the gallery params simple. Given that all map screens in a given gallery (should) have the same aspect ratio, I see little difference between nolines and packed modes anyway (apart from centering), so it's easiest to use the former as per my previous proposal. Yes/no/maybe? --Xymph (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2017 (CST)
On Feb 1 in IRC, Quasar expressed his preference for option 2.2/5.2 as well, though an ongoing attack of shyness seems to prevent him from repeating that one-liner that here. %-) So that wraps up this topic, and the bot script is ready to roll. --Xymph (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2017 (CST)
Sorry slipped my mind last night ;) I have been super busy on a contract coding project that's in crunch time, so, minimal wiki editing for right now. --Quasar (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2017 (CST)
Sometimes I'm oblivious to the obvious: after some two dozen updates I realized that in nolines mode too, captions are centered. They used to be left-aligned in traditional mode, but either is a choice we could put to another vote. I'm leaning to the left. :)
If sufficient consensus is left-alignment, this can be handled in Common.css: something like .gallerybox.gallerytext {...} should do it. --Xymph (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2017 (CST)
I was fine with the captions as-is, I thought it was intentional and had already considered when I signaled my prefs. --Quasar (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2017 (CST)

Updating/adding demo links[edit]

For my next bot script, I'm considering the external links to demo sites Compet-N and DSDA. For some PWADs, all map pages in the series contain a link to the PWAD's demos page on either site. In some series, these links are broken, e.g. here and there. In other series, the links seem obsolete (here), or use a HTTP link instead of the appropriate template. For most other PWADs that have a DSDA page, no links are present here yet.

The bot script would add and standardize links on all map series' pages for which a Compet-N and/or DSDA page exists. Is this is a useful project? Are there further aspects to take into account? And is my assumption correct that this site is the obsolete predecessor to DSDA?

Note: updating the tables of actual demo runs in the Speedrunning sections is not within this script's scope. It might be in a future one. --Xymph (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2017 (CST)

Useful: sure. doomworld/sda precursor of dsda: indeed. Appropriate template: don't forget about {{competnmap}} and {{competnftp}}. And do definitely replace all http/https hard links by templates because that's the only way to avoid issues such as the compet-n database jumping around from to and then to -- and completely changing the way individual demos are accessed in the process, heh. --Gez (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2017 (CST)
Thanks for the quick follow-up. competnftp is intended for directly linking demo zips in Speedrunning tables (so falls outside the current scope) but competnmap looks useful indeed, now that I found examples of how it's applied and the resulting output (wasn't clear to me at first from the template's instructions). Originally I had hoped to need only a wad ID in my .ini file per PWAD, but on DSDA some demo collections are distributed across level-specific pages (with a predictable pattern in its map IDs, it looks like), while for Compet-N's level-specific pages the map ID is less predictable unfortunately. So I guess I've got my work cut out for me, once again. ;) --Xymph (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2017 (CST)
No, it's a VERY useful project.  :D   I seem to recall this being the consensus for format at the bottom of a map page (but then we couldn't figure out multi-map runs and the project bogged down).  If it's easier, the bot could start with WAD file names instead of IDs, and parse the source of these lists.  Compet-N's scope is much smaller, never changes, and uses scrambled IDs as you noticed, so I assume it's faster to simply compile those once manually.  For individual file links, it would be progress if the bot could verify they used the correct templates and weren't dead.    Ryan W (usually gone) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (CST)
Thanks. I saw that, and I aim to use that ordering convention on all pages (also on those without Compet-N link but with misc. other links). No that wouldn't be easier, all my scripts start with .ini files to which I simply add a DSDA wad ID field (and a Compet-N one in the 11 pertaining ones, which is already done). The script builds the parameterized template(s) from those ID(s) -- the harder part is putting them into the External links section (which can be missing, empty, contain old-style links to replace, and other links not to be affected).
What "individual file links" are you referring to? If in the Speedrunning section, then see above -- otherwise please elaborate. --Xymph (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2017 (CST)

The new bot script is mostly done and during testing the following questions (and possible topic for debate) came up:

  1. On DSDA, wads with a large number of demo entries get a page per map (e.g. Alien Vendetta (2nd release)), otherwise one overview page for the wad (AV (1st)). The threshold appears to be around 600 demos. The bot script can handle both cases (linking individual map pages to individual DSDA pages), but once it has been run over a wad's map pages and that wad's demo set grows beyond the threshold at some point in the future, it would ideally need to be run again. Does anyone know the exact threshold, and is there a way to find out (except checking manually) when a wad's demos page has been reorganized into subpages?
  2. {{competnmap}} accepts various no...= parameters to disable demo categories. I understand their use in case a category is unavailable (because identical to another category, see section one). But categories shouldn't be disabled just because no demo entries for them have yet been submitted, right? E.g. multiple cats are disabled for E2M8 and MAP30, but is that because they are fundamentally impossible to achieve or "merely" practically very/too hard? For this demos layman it is difficult to determine why a category isn't available for, say, quite a lot of Hell Revealed maps, and to configure / handle that in the script. So I am not going to cover the no...= flags at all, and leave them for manual edits by other enterprising souls, or possibly myself. Is that okay?
  3. I discovered in the HR series that the two demo site links are included not in the External links section but elsewhere: e.g. MAP01 at the end of the Routes and tricks section, and MAP06 directly under the Speedrunning header. This happened right at page creation by Fredrik in 2005. To me the Speedrunning section actually seems quite a logical place, but perhaps there is a later policy to put all such links in the EL section? Does anyone have a strong opinion either way? If we want to change the section for the demos link(s), now would be a good time to decide, then I can still augment the script and apply the new choice in all map series.

--Xymph (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2017 (CST)

For those not aware, Andy Olivera takes questions here.  (If you post, be comprehensive; he only seems to visit on Sundays.)  What follows is merely my own speculation.
(1) It's plausible that the number is not exact, Andy having to set a flag manually which causes the page to divide.  (The database backend has many such "features", which is one reason an upgrade will eventually be needed.)  That said, would we necessarily have to check manually?  Could the bot log which WADs are close to the threshold, then read this page periodically to note when they acquire new files?  (Easy for me to say, obviously...)
(2) Correct; the community's default is that a category exists even if empty.  Over the years, Compet-N maintainers have unilaterally declared certain categories impossible, and although I appreciate their reasoning (MAP30 Tyson!), I think it creates unnecessary work.  There may be isolated cases where XymphBot could implement a parameter, e.g. nonmc if a map has 0 secret sectors.
(3) I can't believe the two HR maps are anything but an oversight.  Collecting all external links at the bottom of a page is one of our strongest style conventions.  The "FTP" links are a rare exception to keep all the data about individual runs together (the alternatives are awkward — the reader having to scroll back and forth to make sure he's clicking on the intended link, or else we add explanatory text to the external links section which is completely redundant with the speedrun section).  As far as I know, everyone who has manually maintained demo links has followed this precedent.  I can see an argument for extending the exception to movie files (which may need their own tables, so again, gather systematically presented information in one place).  Given the mess I made when I tried it, however, I'm uncertain where consensus lies.  Brief previous threads are here and here.    Ryan W (usually gone) 23:00, 22 February 2017 (CST)
1. You know about the "many such features" and "needed upgrade" because there's a description of the database backend? Where? (Sorry, didn't read through the 60-page thread...) As far as bot interaction with DSDA goes, that would be a separate script. Moreover, instead of processing its website HTML (which is feasible but cumbersome), I would prefer to work directly off a database dump that I could load into my own database server and then query from a script. I'll contact Andy whether cooperation in this area is possible. Ideally, this future script would generate the Current DSDA Records table in its entirety (and ditto for Compet-n tables), but given the various notes, exceptions and other intricacies that can occur, I'm not sure whether that is feasible in a sufficiently automated way.
2. There are about two dozen secret-devoid maps among the 11 mapsets supported by Compet-n, so while the existing script could indeed run DMMPST and check from its output whether a map has no secret sectors, that looks like quite a bit more work than just manually updating the pertaining pages after the demolinkBot.php run, using info I already have from earlier secretBot.php runs.
3. The two HR pages were merely examples of having the demo site links there with and without Routes and tricks info, but I suppose I could have mentioned that the same was done on the other 30 pages. ;) It is however the only map series to do this that I've found so far. So EL section it is then, I won't have to overhaul the demolinkBot script, and will manually delete the links from the HR pages' Speedrunning sections after the bot run. --Xymph (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2017 (CST)
Well, I did read it  :>  and it seems obvious that Andy can't do everything he wants, or that others request, due to infrastructure issues.  (Upgrading was later mentioned more visibly.)  I didn't suggest a dump because I have some idea how much legwork can be required, but I wouldn't discourage you from asking either; we are a community of volunteers after all.  I am sure no one, even those as intelligent as Fredrik, imagined in 2005 that we would reach a stage of maturity allowing an automated process to add data and standardize formatting with very little scandal (thus the HR links appearing in a different section was far too marginal to attract comment, let alone remediation), but here we are. :D    Ryan W (usually gone) 18:10, 23 February 2017 (CST)

External backups[edit]

For those interested in the resilience of The Doom Wiki, there is now an independently-generated backup of all page contents, page history and all images on - There have been others there in the past but I don't think they were complete, and they certainly were missing images. -- Shambler (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2017 (CST)

I'm a big fan, as you know.  :D  One more pointer.    Ryan W (usually gone) 16:51, 7 March 2017 (CST)

Layout of wad template[edit]

In a recent IRC chat with Quasar, he expressed his dislike (which I share) of the {{wad}} template's layout – primarily its horizontal width and structure – and we came up with the idea of redesigning it into a vertical layout. Besides a custom table with some colored backgrounds like the current template, I also thought an instantiation of {{infobox}} might fit the bill. Both approaches are sandboxed here. The custom table approach includes a variant based on feedback by Gez, and all three have been tested on mobile (which, incidentally, doesn't display the original template very well).

Further, an old and ugly {{Pwad infobox}} template exists which is used only once. I plan to replace it with the wad one after this here discussion is wrapped up.
A related layout aspect are the Top100 boxes which are competing for that same area of pages, e.g. Caverns of Darkness. The vertical wad box will push that down.
On a final note, Eris Falling pointed to his drafted people infobox.


  1. Since source ports (e.g. ZDoom) already use an infobox instantiation, should WADs (and people) follow suit, or would one of the layout 1 variants be preferable?
  2. Does anyone have further tweaks/improvements to suggest to the chosen approach?
  3. Should some fields from Pwad_infobox, like Modes, Levels and Resources, be incorporated in the wad template?
  4. Gez proposed to drop the caption under the image, but not all WADs have a title screen. In such cases a gameplay screenshot could be used, but then a caption would be appropriate. Since wad's caption parameter is already optional, I think this is covered - agreed?

--Xymph (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2017 (CDT)

While I can see the appeal of having all infoboxes be derived from infobox, I do like the special treatment the current template gives to the Top and Caco rows, when present. The cacoward icon notably doesn't look good on a white background. The infobox template doesn't allow custom styles and it's enough of an unwieldy mess not to want to add that feature to it. --Gez (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (CDT)
Agree that the infobox doesn't look too pretty for WADs. The Gez variant of layout 1 is the nicest by far to me. Regards additional features, I think including the primary game mode might be a nice touch - especially in the event that DM WADs start getting their own articles (like splitting out the 32in24 stuff maybe?) Number of maps and resources probably aren't required IMO. --Eris Falling (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2017 (CDT)
I am in favor of "New test layout 1, per Gez". --Quasar (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2017 (CDT)
I'm fine with that one too, so that seems like sufficient consensus. In chatting a little more about it, Quasar suggested to bring back the background color in the field headers column, to visually separate the box from page content. That's here with one consistent color, as we think the gradient approach of the original template is a bit overkill.
I'm not in favor of adding more fields. If there are no more follow-ups in the next couple of days, I'll update the template to this new layout and resume adding the several dozen titlepics I've queued up. --Xymph (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2017 (CDT)
Yeah, I like that one. --Gez (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2017 (CDT)
I am in favor of "New test layout 1, per Gez", except I think the cacoward bit looks better on a light background per 3 (honestly!) -- Shambler (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2017 (CDT)
Both Caco and Top100 images are anti-aliased for use on a dark background, so I'm afraid you stand alone in the opinion. :) --Xymph (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2017 (CDT)
Cacoward.png doesn't appear to have artifacts on a light background to me. It looks like the border is feathered. Is it using PNG alpha channel on the edging? Top100 does indeed look bad. -- Shambler (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2017 (CDT)
Caco doesn't have artifacts, but the horns blend in with the background. --Gez (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2017 (CDT)
To me, the last style looks the most polished (very subjective!), but I suppose such tiny text is a deal-breaker for mobile.  Of the remaining options, then, I also like New test layout 1, per Gez, +background color; the shading definitely makes the enumeration appear less... flat.  I suggest changing Link1Link 1 if multiple links are indeed implemented, for grammar.
The idea of displacing navboxes (e.g. Cacoward years) bothers me slightly because it compresses or pushes down the most important text section, the WAD overview, but I don't have a good solution yet.  We've always resisted the Wikipedia approach of collecting navboxes at the bottom, presumably in deference to our readership's attention span.    Ryan W (usually gone) 14:42, 25 March 2017 (CDT)
Sandboxing Link1/2 was just to show the visual difference between http and idgames links, I don't intend to add a secondary link parameter to the template. I agree the new vertical orientation of the wad box, especially in combination with a Top100 box, can lead to awkward page layouts, e.g. this extreme example. Don't know what to do about it either, except to prune superfluous rows from the wad box, which I'm doing now. This is also one reason why I didn't favor adding more fields.
Speaking of parameters, when iwad="Doom", a non-existing "Doom WADs" category is added, while an (equally non-existing) "Doom II WADs" category is not added with iwad="Doom II" (see Darkening 2). I don't quite follow the logic (nor the reasoning behind it) of the category ifs & switches there – perhaps you or Gez can look into that? --Xymph (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2017 (CDT)
I think I fixed the switch — please double-check a few categories next time XymphBot uses the template.  It is still the case that arbitrary values, such as iwad="Hunt the Wumpus", do not assign categories.  (Hopefully the emergence of a new IWAD would be a news item anyway!)  Such categories seem a bit pedantic to me, frankly, although the information should absolutely be included in some form because most ports will not inform the user of an incorrect IWAD, other than possibly exiting with a resource error leaving newbies helpless.    Ryan W (usually gone) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (CDT)
I (human) will keep an eye out for it. :-P XymphBot doesn't operate on WAD overview pages. Thanks for the follow-up. --Xymph (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2017 (CDT)

new doom 2 rpg screenshot category[edit]

At the moment, there's Category:Doom RPG, a Category:Doom II RPG, a Category:Doom RPG screenshots but no Doom II RPG equivalent. I'd like to introduce a Category:Doom II RPG screenshots, any objections? I'd also like D2RPG to be added to the copyright drop-down when you upload an image. Not sure how to achieve that. -- Shambler (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2017 (CDT)

If the plan is to create articles as we have for Doom RPG (levels, characters, monsters), then no objection from me at least.  :>   An important task, given that the primary material eventually becomes inaccessible.
The drop-down is MediaWiki:Licenses, which can be edited by any admin.  To populate the category you must also create a template.  This may however be controversial, as the drop-down is commonly viewed as bloated and confusing already with the present number of entries.    Ryan W (usually gone) 00:48, 29 March 2017 (CDT)
Perhaps the existing Doom RPG line could be edited to reflect it covers both games. What is the reasoning for when to combine and when not to combine games in the license list? -- Shambler (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2017 (CDT)
This is a question about 2008  :>  but I believe we were trying to minimize the number of new templates, for later maintainability.  We combined templates when the copyright holders were likely to be identical, e.g. Heretic and Hexen share a category, which in hindsight is ridiculous.  More recent updates, like this, were mostly because the volume of one type of image was becoming too large to categorize manually, so a new template was created even though it extended the drop-down.  I don't know whether that applies to Doom II RPG, but our coverage of the series is still very incomplete, so perhaps it will.    Ryan W (usually gone) 09:24, 31 March 2017 (CDT)

Setting up edits for Dystopia 3 add-on level[edit]

Requesting some assistance here. Those of you familiar with Dystopia 3 may know about the add-on level for the WAD. Not sure how I should integrate it into the wiki, would like to seek some guidance before I commence editing:

1. How should the article be titled: say, MAP01 (Dystopia 3 Add-on level) or MAP01 (DYST301.WAD)?

2. How would you like the Dystopia 3 levels infobox to be modified to accommodate the add-on level, if desired?

--15FiftySeven (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2017 (CDT)

Good question; it's an unusual situation.  The WAD doesn't have a replacement name string, so we go to the readme which says "Dystopia3: Re-Birth of Anarchy".  For a standalone release, we would consider this the title of the mod, not the map, e.g. Doomsday of UAC.  In this case, however, the original WAD is required, so I would consider the additional map retrospectively part of the complete work.  Thus the new article title could be MAP01: Re-Birth of Anarchy (Dystopia 3).
A link should definitely be added to the navbox.  It will then have two MAP01 links, so perhaps it's helpful to put (add-on) or (DYST301) there for clarity, similar to this format.
This post represents my usual 3 seconds of research in SLADE, so I welcome any correction by longtime fans.  :>    Ryan W (usually gone) 02:01, 29 March 2017 (CDT)
Uh... problem is that the original WAD is also sub-titled Dystopia 3: Re-Birth of Anarchy...--15FiftySeven (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2017 (CDT)
As per my last clause.  :D   Well, I personally would be fine with "MAP01 (DYST301.WAD)" which vaguely matches some precedents (I actually thought we had cases like this already, but I'm not finding any)  Perhaps someone else has a more convincing rationale...    Ryan W (usually gone) 16:33, 30 March 2017 (CDT)

Cacoward markers for people articles[edit]

Cacoward.png This person was named Mapper of the Year at the 20th Annual Cacowards on Doomworld!

Like we have for Cacoward-winning WADs, this would be an equivalent marker for winners of Mapper of the Year, Espi award, and so on. As a rough example, here's one for Ribbiks. Thoughts? --Eris Falling (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2017 (CDT)

I dunno, I find it a bit tacky when we're talking about people. Maybe it's just me. --Gez (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2017 (CDT)
Not just you.  It's reminding me of those pop-up annotations for celebrities on Japanese talk shows.  Also, doesn't it assume implementation of the person infobox?  We've never discussed that; I would be against it.    Ryan W (usually gone) 01:30, 7 April 2017 (CDT)

Doom 4 1.0 article[edit]

I've finished up my Doom 4 1.0 article on the development of the abandoned concept, based largely on material from the noclip documentary series on YouTube. I'd like input on what this article should be named when moved to mainspace. "Doom 4 1.0" is the internal name id Software has used for the former project since the 2011-2013 transition period was completed, but whether or not that's a suitable name for the wiki article is up for debate. --Quasar (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (CDT)

Seems acceptable. The alternative would probably be something like "Abandoned Doom 4 project" or "Doom 4 (aborted project)" and I'm not sure it'd be a better name for the rebooted reboot than what has already been popularized by /noclip. --Gez (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2017 (CDT)

Separate page for Compet-n demos recorded by notable Doom speedrunners[edit]

I have read articles on Doom speedrunners and I found out that each page hosted the Compet-n records that each speedrunner had on the four official IWADs, but I would like to ask two questions:
1. Is it possible to host the Compet-n records for the PWADs (such as MM, MM2, AV etc.) that the speedrunners have done?
2. Is it possible to list the Compet-n demos that notable Doom speedrunners (such as Drew DeVore (stx-Vile), Jim Leonard (Xit Vono)) have posted over their running careers somewhere on this wiki (e.g. through a subpage)?

I'm happy to try out this suggestion, and if not that's fine with me. 13:06, 18 April 2017 (CDT)

Hello, and welcome!
1. See previous discussions here and here.  I assume those users intended to add PWADs eventually, but haven't found time yet.  If you can understand the color scheme, I'm sure they would be grateful for more help.  :>  The answer to Jartapran's question in the second thread is no, IWADs aren't more special than PWADs; we simply never got around to extending the tables (huge tables may have slowed page loading as well, back then).
2. How is this different from Compet-n's search function? [1] [2]  Do I recall correctly that AdamH had a URL parameter to display current records only?  If fx implemented that, maybe we could replace the tables with links and save a lot of work (no disrespect intended to the above editors, but is there a good reason to mirror an entire database when someone else is actively hosting and updating the original?).  In any case, I can't see the advantage of subpages, which have proven awkward to maintain.  Even the most prolific runner would need perhaps 1.5 screens of records, which isn't unbalanced if we imagine that a complete bio and "career history" narrative is included above.  Someday they will be.  :>
These are just my opinions, as someone who formerly contributed to those articles but hasn't done so lately.    Ryan W (usually gone) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (CDT)