Doom Wiki:Central Processing/2023

When to use "MIDI rendition of" in soundtrack info

I just wanna check before i go any further with this. I've seen a lot of articles that clarify a midi as a "MIDI rendition of " only if the original is a proper recording. If it is from a video game soundtrack, especially from the 90s or 16-bit, then the name is just listed as is, somewhat suggesting that the game actually used midi compositions or that the WAD included mp3 or vorbis ogg recordings of these tracks in their original form. Of course, that is almost never the case, and also would be highly illegal in many cases. So is it ok to just let this bit of ambiguity stand? Or should a "MIDI rendition of" be used as a default whenever the track listed is in fact originally not a midi?

As an example: in the Sunlust article, a track from Streets of Rage 2 was listed as a "MIDI rendition of..." but a track from Secret of Evermore was listed without that info. Both are tracks from 16-bit consoles that don't use MIDI. I added "MIDI rendition of" for all tracks in question for that article just for consistency but i'm not sure whether it would not be better to rather just remove that info for all tracks instead of cluttering the text with repetition of the same phrase over and over, even though it would technically be correct to do so.

The Pleiades article also highlighted a case where it is useful to clarify a MIDI rendition for pieces which are in the public domain and so could be included as proper recordings (depending on the recording in question of course).

So what's the stance on that? --Gregor (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2022 (CST)

I guess I opened a can of worms. :) I know little about old discussion/choices made in this area, but just noticed something that seemed inconsistent. Please also keep in mind that WAD soundtrack lists are not as tightly defined as map lists or many other parts of the wiki, not in the least because they are often not tightly defined (if at all) in the source documentation, i.e. the WAD's .txt/credits file(s).

That said, it seems to me that previously released rock/pop/film/etc. music are always MIDI renditions, unless indeed stored in MP3/Ogg formats. But for music from other, especially older, games that can vary, and I don't know how to treat those. Personally I only verify soundtrack lists to the point of having valid links and reasonable formatting, and otherwise pay little attention to them. And the Pleiades mess immediately cured me from one attempt trying anything more. ;-)

Given limited time/energy I would shy away from prefixing MIDI tracks with the 'rendition' phrase on loads of existing WAD/map pages. There are plenty areas in the wiki that should have higher priority. But I can't really address your policy/stance questions. --Xymph (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2022 (CST)

AS far as I'm concerned, MIDI rendition / MIDI sequence / whatever you wanna call it ought to be specified every time a music track like that is utilized, because then you can have cases like DUMP 2 where they're using .spc files and such instead of .midi files - they are simply different compositions you can think as covers. But obviously, midi sequence is not necessary to specify if the tracks in question were originally midis to begin with. The reason there's so much inconsistency simply comes down to different authors being involved for different pages - the way of the wiki, as it goes. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2022 (CST)

I don't think that the "MIDI rendition of" phrase needs be used as the default way for non-MIDI soundtrack sources. As long as the usage is consistent within the article it's ok. It does make sense to include it where it helps to avoid ambiguity. In the Pleiades article the listed classical pieces could have been included as proper recordings (since they are all in the public domain), especially given that it is a mod for ZDoom, though i don't know if even ZDoom supported none-MIDI formats as early as 2000. In this case, the added "rendition" phrase helps to clarify what kind of version of the pieces you actually gonna find inside the wad.
What i do consider problematic is if an article is inconsistent in its usage, like the DBP37: AUGER;ZENITH article, where it lists some songs with the MIDI rendition prefix and others without, even though all except two tracks have none-MIDI sources and so would qualify for the prefix. Either use it for all or don't use for any of them. That's my stance on this. So that's the one case where i think it should be "corrected". --Gregor (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2023 (CDT)

Just to add to the above. Like I posted on the Talk:Sunlust page, I think it makes more sense to assume MIDI as the default format for most Doom soundtracks and point out exceptions where the included track is not in MIDI format rather than the other way around, so as to avoid cluttering the soundtrack list with "MIDI rendition of" before every entry. There are exceptions of course where non-MIDI formats are the default instead but these are most likely GZDoom-exclusive mods and even then it's the exception rather than the norm to have the majority of the soundtrack not in the MIDI format.
As a compromise, one could clarify the file format by prefacing the soundtrack list with a line like "All music tracks inside the WAD/PK3 are in MIDI format (except where noted otherwise)". That way information about the file format for each track is included while avoiding any visual clutter. --Gregor (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2023 (CDT)

Linking ZDoom forum

Is there a template for the ZDoom wiki like there is for wikipedia? --Gregor (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2022 (CST)

We have a large Templates arsenal, including lots of External link templates with several ZDoom-related ones. --Xymph (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2022 (CST)

Possible For MoonMan mod to be here

well ThL2 (talk)

We're not interested in that kind of content, no. --Quasar (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2023 (CST)

If Hdoom can be allowed so can MooN Mod too? How about the Kek Doom mod —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThL2 (talk • contribs) .

The year of release for projects that have a year in the name

Hello everyone! I am now in the process of cleaning Doomworld Mega Project articles and one big thing that I see is that most of these articles have wrong year of release listed. Example: DMP2013 is listed as 2013 WAD, but its first version was actually released in early 2014. When I asked Xymph about it, he mentioned the exception implemented by Eris Falling. I want to discuss this topic. I'm okay with exceptions like this, but I think that they should be part of wiki rules or listed somewhere publicly available, not on the certain user's personal talk page. So, two questions are: should we keep this exception for year-numbered projects, and if so, how can we make this exception publicly available? --Nockson (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2023 (CDT)

I didn't reply so far because I don't really have an opinion either way. I was kind of hoping Eris Falling would chime in with more discussion how this came about, but it looks like Eris isn't regularly active, at least not here in Central Processing. --Xymph (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2023 (CDT)

Gaming Wiki Network

I just found out about the Gaming Wiki Network and I figure it might be of interest here. A couple of our affiliates and network links are also affiliates or members over there (IFW, SEIWA). --Gez (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2023 (CDT)

Looks to be a worthwhile initiative. Perhaps Doom Wiki should sign up there? --Xymph (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2023 (CDT)

Extquote template issues

When i use the extquote template {{Extquote|quote|attribution|source}} for sources outside the wiki it doesn't seem to work correctly. I insert the source as a url behind the attribution and have the ref section at the bottom of the page. But it doesn't display the source over the attribution as i understand it should do; instead it just ignores the source and renders it like no source was given. How do i use it correctly? The wiki page doesn't go into a lot of detail in what exact format the source should be given.

Also, is there a way i can keep the "Articles with unsourced quotes" category from being automatically added to an article that uses either the quote or extquote without filling the source field? I understand that this kinda defeats the point of having such a category, but it makes it look like the quote is lacking essential information, even though it is intentionally left unsourced (since the source is already provided through the author field for instance or by a separate citation). --Gregor (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2023 (CDT)

Alright, i figured out the problem. For the source field in the template:extquote, you have to use the {{cite web text|...}} template rather than {{cite web|...}} for it to function correctly, otherwise it will produce a citation within the citation, resulting in an empty ref entry. I don't know why the template behaves this way, maybe its a custom change to this wiki? But whatever. At least this way it works as intended. --Gregor (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2023 (CDT)

To answer my second question, with the quote template one can use the nosource=true command in place of the source field text to prevent the article from being listed under the "Articles with unsourced quotes" category. As a result, the {{cite web}} template can be used in the attribution field (following the author/source) to achieve the same effect as if placing it in the source field using the {{cite web text}}, so long as the nosource=true command is provided in the source field. However, the extquote template will ignore this command, so a source has to be provided to prevent the article from being categorized as an "Articles with unsourced quotes".
I think it would be helpful for future reference if this information about the nosource=true command and the idiosyncrasies in the usage of the {{cite web}} template would be included in the articles for the quote and extquote template. --Gregor (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2023 (CDT)

Problems with all-caps filter

I had to junk the soundtrack section in a WAD article that I recently created, as some of the song titles were in all caps, as were a couple of lump names from songs found in other WADs who's names I could not immediately source. The abuse filter prevented me from creating the page. I know I could always create an account, but I perfer to work semi-anonymously on this wiki for various reasons. I get why the filter exists, but in this case it seemed to be a bit overzealous. 23.251.65.173 01:54, 23 May 2023 (CDT)

Not sure why soundtracks would cause a problem unless they contain specific profanities. There is no generic restriction on all-caps words, there are plenty places with those around the wiki. Just lowercase/capitalize them and try again. --Xymph (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2023 (CDT)

Guideline regarding capitalization of map names

Throughout this wiki title case is enforced for map names. So first and last word are always capitalized, as well as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, pronouns and long prepositions (five or more letters), etc; while articles and short prepositions, and coordinating conjunctions (but, and, or) are always lowercase. The exact definitions are actually pretty numerous. However, the use of title case is not mentioned anywhere in the Doom Wiki:Policies and guidelines section as far as i can see. I think that should be added. --Gregor (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2023 (CDT)

Just saw the same topic was already opened on the Doom Wiki talk:Policies and guidelines page earlier this day. It's more appropriate to discuss this there. --Gregor (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2023 (CDT)

Limit removing

I recently noticed that the article for limit removing WADs does not have a hyphen in its title, as is the case for Category:Limit removing source ports, whereas there is a hyphen in the category Category:Limit-removing WADs. Would it be a good idea to move the first two pages so they are hyphenated, or should I wait for discussion/consensus first? Sena (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2023 (CDT)

Better wait. Moving a category leaves a redirect that remains in use on all pages in the category, and is rendered in italics. That is rather undesirable. As for the dash/no-dash inconsistency, I don't know how what came about and just got used to it. --Xymph (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2023 (CDT)

Heretic/Hexen capitalization issues

I've noticed that most of the Heretic/Hexen pages don't follow the DoomWiki's capitalization rules. So here's a table with my renaming suggestions. I also showed how, IMO, these names should be used in the text of the articles.

Heretic/Hexen renaming suggestions
Current name	New name	Use in text
Dragon Claw	Dragon claw	dragon claw
Elven Wand	Elven wand	Elven wand
Ethereal Crossbow	Ethereal crossbow	ethereal crossbow
Phoenix Rod	Phoenix rod	phoenix rod
Quartz Flask	Quartz flask	quartz flask
Mystic Urn	Mystic urn	mystic urn
Silver Shield	Silver shield	silver shield
Enchanted Shield	Enchanted shield	enchanted shield
Chaos Device	Chaos device	chaos device
Frost Shards	Frost shards	frost shards
Sapphire Wand	Sapphire wand	sapphire wand
Serpent Staff	Serpent staff	serpent staff
Banishment Device	Banishment device	banishment device
Dark Servant	Dark servant	dark servant
Dragonskin Bracers	Dragonskin bracers	dragonskin bracers
Falcon Shield	Falcon shield	falcon shield
Mesh Armor	Mesh armor	mesh armor
Mystic Ambit Incant	Mystic ambit incant	mystic ambit incant
Platinum Helm	Platinum helm	platinum helm
Claw Orb	Claw orb	claw orb
Crystal Geode	Crystal geode	crystal geode
Energy Orb	Energy orb	energy orb
Ethereal Arrows	Ethereal arrows	ethereal arrows
Flame Orb	Flame orb	flame orb
Greater Runes	Greater runes	greater runes
Inferno Orb	Inferno orb	Inferno orb
Lesser Runes	Lesser runes	lesser runes
Mace Spheres	Mace spheres	mace spheres
Pile of Mace Spheres	Pile of mace spheres	pile of mace spheres
Quiver of Ethereal Arrows	Quiver of ethereal arrows	quiver of ethereal arrows
Wand Crystal	Wand crystal	wand crystal

I haven't included artifacts such as the Tome of Power or the Mace of Contrition because there are two options: all caps (like the One Ring) or no caps at all (like the philosopher's stone). Let's discuss! --Nockson (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2023 (CDT)

Decided to open a can of worms, did you? :) And the above table doesn't even include Heretic ammo, Hexen keys, etc. When starting at the wiki in 2016, I wondered a bit about the different convention but figured there would be good(?) historical reasons for it. Perhaps old-timers like Ryan W, Fraggle or Quasar can fill us in. From a convention viewpoint I could understand changing to the new names, but from a practical viewpoint I'd be very reluctant of the humongous amount of work (even with the assistance of pregreplGen.php and DMMPST, which is not a given). So this discussion should not be rushed into a conclusion. But if the conclusion is to rename, then the current articles should be moved (not new redirects created to the existing articles) in order to preserve their edit histories at the (new) canonical paths. --Xymph (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2023 (CDT)

Well, I can't stop my perfectionism, it's taking over. :( I've added Heretic ammo to the table (I worked on it prior to your message). I see some strange inconsistency in names, examples: Crystal vial, Map scroll and Hexen ammo. And sorry for all the redlinks. --Nockson (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2023 (CDT)

There's another variant - presume current state as a rule and fix only the exceptions. --Nockson (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2023 (CDT)

Timon's Axe should remain capitalized. The name implies a specific, legendary axe; so it's used as a proper noun. It does not mean "the axe of this dude called Timon that we found in his shed, he wasn't there so we nicked it." We are talking about the kind of axe here where thunder roars and lightning strikes when you lift it above your head.
I think the same could be argued for the Mystic Ambit Incant. That's not a generic item name like "flame orb" or "silver shield." Sounds like the name of an ancient magical scroll, full of arcane writings. The fact that it appears multiple time in the game could be chalked up to video game logic. Not sure about the Ethereal Crossbow and Phoenix Rod. Again, if we're talking about specific, legendary weapons, so not a generic name for a class of crossbows that the elves from Heretic liked to use, but rather a unique, magical crossbow given to the Chosen one in the temple of yada, yada, yada. Same could be argued for the Serpent Staff and Sapphire Wand, though i'd say the names imply a somewhat more generic nature of these items. Kind of a grey area there. But Timon's Axe is a pretty solid case in favor of capitalization. --Gregor (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2023 (CDT)

Agreed on Timon's Axe. I've removed it from table. About Incant - yes, it sounds like a special thing, but I'm not sure. About crossbow, I see an analogy here: plasma rifle is a futuristic rifle that shoots plasma, ethereal crossbow is a fantasy crossbow that shoots ethereal arrows. --Nockson (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2023 (CDT)

Ok, i checked the manuals for both Heretic and Hexen to get to the bottom of this, since according to the guidelines the author's intent when it comes to naming things should be respected wherever possible. The names of all the weapons and most items in Hexen are used as proper nouns including Serpent Staff, Sapphire Wand, Frost Shards, Mesh Armor, Platinum Helm, Dark Servant, Quartz Flask, Mystic Urn, Flechette, Chaos Device, Banishment Device, Dragonskin Bracers and Falcon Shield. "Torch", "Crystal vial" and "Mystic Ambit Incant" are the only ones that are left unclear. I'd argue that a torch is a torch is a torch..., but who knows.
For Heretic, Dragon Claw, Phoenix Rod and Enchanted Shield are all clearly capitalized. Curiously, the manual calls it "Elvenwand" rather than written as two separate words. The manual also lists both the Ethereal Crossbow and the Gauntlets of the Necromancer as simply "crossbow" and "gauntlets," but it is clear that the gauntlets' full name as it appears in-game is a proper noun, so again, it doesn't make sense that Ethereal Crossbow would be the one weapon with a fancy name that isn't meant to be a proper noun. The "Staff" could be the only real exception here, since it isn't capitalized in the manual and also is only weapon without a epithet like "ethereal" or "elven." It seems to be nothing more than a simple staff. Couldn't find any official documentation for Mystic Ambit Incant, Greater Runes and Lesser Runes, but i think, given the evidence, there is a clear desire from the developers of both games to have these weapons and items be seen as legendary stuff with unique names from the days of yore. So I'd say these should also be capitalized for the same reasons.
Finally, the ammo for the Heretic weapons is still a bit of a grey area since the second word at least, like in Claw Orb, could be seen as nothing more than a common descriptor, so it could be rendered as Claw orb instead. But if that's all it comes down to, i think we can simply leave as it is. The only things that may be worth changing would be the capitalization for "Staff" and "Torch" and changing "Elven Wand" to "Elvenwand" instead. --Gregor (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2023 (CDT)

Well, if you check HERE the manual for the Ultimate Doom (starting at page 11), you can see that everything is also capitalized (Plasma Rifle, Ammo Box, Radiation Suit, Health Potion, Former Human Sergeant etc). Another thing is this: in Heretic if you pick up any item the message is shown in the upper part of the screen and it's written in all lowercase no matter what item you take. --Nockson (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2023 (CDT)

Commercial Games Generally Like To Gratuitously Capitalize Everything, so we haven't always gone with author's intent for those. Otherwise we'd never write "Doom", but only "DOOM" in all-caps and it'd get old fast. Also yes, the in-game styling is affected by game fonts not having proper caps support; Doom's is all in upper-case while Heretic's and Hexen's is all in lowercase. So the way things appear in-game is not a valid indication of intent, and so the text strings from the code aren't either. That said, the Gratuitous Caps in Heretic and Hexen do kinda fit with the general Ye Olde Medieval Fantasy aesthetics, though. --Gez (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2023 (CDT)

I personally think it would be good to standardize the capitalization in these to be more in line with Doom stuff, but that's just me. --Dynamo128 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2023 (CDT)

Well, we had a discussion connected to this topic over here on the guideline's talk page a couple of weeks ago regarding map titles, where i argued for a more uniform approach across the wiki with using title case for all map names, independent from their styling in the documentation, apart from special exceptions where deemed appropriate. Quasar summed up his stance on the matter like this:

"So the only rule I'm going to support is that the capitalization used is the one used by the author of the mod in its official announcements or documentation."

Even though it is not the exact same topic, i do think it has relevance for this discussion as well. Because if that's the rule/guideline (from now on?), then i think the fact that the manual capitalizes these items does matter. The way Doom monster and weapon names are handled should perhaps be considered the exception to the rule rather than the rule for everything else to follow; an example of "accepted usage." --Gregor (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2023 (CDT)

Here's Heretic's level designer Michael Raymond-Judy's opinion about the manual: "...some [ideas for the world, creatures and background story], sadly, was made up by the people who later wrote the manual/hint book. I say sadly because they pretty much made things up as they wanted without asking anyone here, and a lot of what they made up just didn't fit with the "reality" we had created behind the game. Like the second Highlander movie, I just try to pretend it never happened..." (LINK) It looks like the manual was made by some outside people not connected to developers. Manual itself states in credits: "Package/manual design: The Richards Group/R&D". --Nockson (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2023 (CDT)

Just to weigh in on this from an old-timer perspective many of the Heretic and Hexen items were considered legendary or mystical in nature given the fantasy bent of the series so we never made a call on which should be capped or not and just kept them all that way. Reminder that the current lowercase consensus for Doom evolved over time and that early on there was pure chaos with no consistent styling. I'd suspect at one point caps for Doom items were more common than lowercase but I never ran statistics on that. I have no real issue with this changing now so long as the items that are clearly legendary items remain capped, as that is in fact a style rule in English writing in general and not specific to this wiki. --Quasar (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2023 (CDT)

Restart

I've thought a lot and want to restart this thread. I've gained some information from last time, and am also better prepared in terms of the rationale behind the renamings.

Heretic weapons and ammo:

I think that all articles about weapons and ammo from Heretic should be renamed and written in lowercase letters, i.e. dragon claw, ethereal crossbow, firemace, phoenix rod, staff, wand crystal, crystal geode, ethereal arrows, quiver of ethereal arrows, claw orb, energy orb, lesser runes, greater runes, flame orb, mace spheres, pile of mace spheres. My rationale: none of these weapons are considered special, they can be found everywhere. Phoenix rod is simply shaped like a phoenix, and the same goes for dragon claw. Ethereal arrows are just a kind of fantasy ammo, similar to Doom's sci-fi plasma cells. None of these weapons can be considered unique, with the exception of the firemace (because it is rare), but it has a very generic and uninteresting name.

I see four possible exceptions:

• Hellstaff - must be capitalized because it contains the word "Hell";
• Inferno orb - same goes here, "Inferno" should be written with a capital letter (but "orb" should not);
• Elven wand - "Elven" should be capitalized because it is a race (but "wand" should not);
• Gauntlets of the Necromancer - sounds like something special (typical fantasy X of the Y thing), although they can be found at almost any level. I'm not sure about this one, but inclined to not capitalize.

Heretic items:

These can be divided into ordinary items and artifacts. The former ones should all be renamed, and the latter ones should continue to be capitalized. My rationale is the following: by "artifact" I mean everything that was written with a special "addition" in the manual, apparently indicating the person who created/used them (for example Darchala's Chaos Device). These additions make items special (but, as I wrote in the previous discussion, some of the information in the manual was made up by its authors, who did not consult with folks at Raven).

• Rename or write in lowercase: [[bag of holding]], crystal vial (renamed in 2005), enchanted shield, map scroll, mystic urn, quartz flask, shadowsphere, silver shield, torch.
• Keep: Chaos Device, Morph Ovum, Ring of Invincibility, Timebomb of the Ancients, Tome of Power, Wings of Wrath.

Hexen weapons:

This is a special case because many of Hexen's weapons can be considered special. List:

• spiked gauntlets - article was actually renamed by Ryan W on March 18, 2018. And I completely agree - these are just gauntlets;
• sapphire wand and serpent staff - for me they're closer to Heretic's ordinary weapons (like Elven wand) than to something special. Rename;
• spells are IMHO nothing special and should be renamed/written in lowercase: frost shards, arc of death (renamed by Quasar on April 18, 2016), firestorm;
• Hammer of Retribution, Mace of Contrition and Timon's Axe sound special and should be kept;
• ultimate weapons are obviously unique and should be kept: Bloodscourge, Quietus, Wraithverge.

Hexen items:

• ordinary items that should be renamed/written lowercase (pretty obvious cases): [[amulet of warding]], dragonskin bracers, falcon shield, fléchette, mesh armor, platinum helm;
• not-so-ordinary items but that IMO should be renamed/written lowercase: [[boots of speed]], [[dark servant]], [[disc of repulsion]], [[krater of might]] (same as mystic urn);
• artifacts that should be capitalized: Banishment Device (same as Chaos Device), Icon of the Defender (same as Ring of Invincibility), Mystic Ambit Incant, Porkalator (same as Morph Ovum).

Please share your thoughts! --Nockson (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2023 (CST)

Just caught up with this, all seems fine and in good order to me, but perhaps some people who are more directly involved with Heretic/Hexen work on the wiki (if any) can weigh in? From me though, the only words are, "yes please". --Dynamo128 (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2023 (CST)

I also meant to follow up on this when it was quiet enough. While I kinda like Ye Olde Medieval Fantasy aesthetics for names, as a wikipedian I understand the desire for consistent styling. And from that angle, I think this new scheme and rationale are more solid than the first proposal. So while I'm not strongly in favor (because of the amount of work in updating everything), I'm not against it on principle either. The only change I'd make is to lowercase "inferno orb": as the large ammo type its connection to the meaning of "large uncontrolled fire" is much stronger than to a Hell-ish location. --Xymph (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2023 (CST)

I largely agree with Nockson's list above, but also share Xymph's view that "inferno orb" should be lowercase. That item is not unique. Gauss (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2023 (CST)

I think these are mostly fine too, but I do disagree about the styling of Bag of Holding and the items "Boots of Speed", "Disc of Repulsion", and "Krater of Might". In my opinion these all imply unique and special items that are correctly capitalized. It would be something different entirely if they were called "speed boots", "repulsion disc", and "mighty krater". That would describe generic items. But written in the form "X of Y" emphasizes their unique nature. It's not just any krater we're talking about. It's the "Krater of Might". Same with the "Boots of Speed". One can imagine another, similar item being called "Boots of Power" (thunderclap!). But whether the attribute is speed, might, or power shouldn't matter. What matters is the implied legendary nature of the items.
And under the same rationale, the "Bag of Holding" should also remain capitalized. Yes, in the end it's just a medieval-sounding name for backpack, but the styling does imply unique, legendary status. So the same rule should apply, just like for Timebomb of the Ancients, Ring of Invincibility, Tome of Power, Krater of Might, Disc of Repulsion, and Boots of Speed. Talk about consistency. --Gregor (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2023 (CST)

I have to disagree about the discs. Sometimes you can find several disks placed in a row at the same time, which hardly makes them unique. Krater and Boots seem pretty rare, so I OK with keeping them, but bag IMO should not be capitalized. It's just a bag with supplies, nothing special here, simply a backpack reskin. --Nockson (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2023 (CST)

I don't think its useful to argue about whether or not an item is special or generic based on how frequently it can be found in the game, since all items can be found more than once. This is about consistency first and foremost. In my opinion, basically all items and weapons that use the "X of Y" form should remain capitalized, excluding any generic descriptor like "quiver of ethereal arrows" and "pile of mace spheres". But I don't see why the name Bag of Holding or Amulet of Warding implies less uniqueness than a Krater of Might or a Tome of Power. These are all deliberately formal stylings of the names for these items, and I think that's what matters, not the specific function of the item they describe.

Sure, the Bag of Holding is just a fancy name for a backpack, and they could have just named it "supply bag", in which case no-one would argue about it being written in lowercase. But it was written in this overly formal style, obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek, and part of the joke is that it now implies this legendary item, even though it's just a bag with some supplies. And the fact that the Disc of Repulsion can be found all over the place, can simply be put down to video game logic, where good game mechanics and balancing is far more important than logically consistent world building and storylines. Again, IMO it's more about the form the name is written in and the nature of the item thus implied than the function or the availability of the item itself. --Gregor (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2023 (CST)

The legendary angle appeals to me too. (And Nockson hinted at it for Gauntlets of the Necromancer above as well.) It seems to me we're in consensus about ammo/armor/health objects going all lowercase, and only are debating whether some special items get changed. Perhaps it helps to see all of them together in the new style, so I updated the DMMPST tables. I like this (intermediate?) result for the most part, just am not sure about lowercasing dark servant and dragonskin bracers, as those seem just as legendary in nature as the "X of Y" objects. --Xymph (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2023 (CST)

Looking good! Though I must admit consistency is definitely a problem. Now I agree with Gregor. Looks like we should capitalize anything that has X of the Y or X of Y construction. And I'm still not sure about the Arc of death spell. I want it to remain lowercase but consistency... --Nockson (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2023 (CST)

I agree with all these except for bag of holding, I don't think holding counts as anything legendary, it's just another way of writing holding bag, I think. It is a minor thing either way. --Dynamo128 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2023 (CST)

I still don't quite see why "Bag of Holding" cannot be considered a legendary item. Again, it's the naming formula more than the pure function that implies its legendary status. Yes, it's another way of writing holding bag, but the two terms are not identical in meaning, because they imply a difference in nature of the item; and the developer deliberately chose to go with "Bag of Holding" because it gives the item a more legendary feel. If we are in agreement that the legendary nature of an item determines whether or not it should be capitalized, and that the "X of Y" form does imply such a nature, then "Bag of Holding" as well as "Amulet of Warding" should both be capitalized. --Gregor (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2023 (CST)

Lowercasing bag of holding just like all other ammo items is fine with me, keeping it capitalized as a legendary item too. But can legendary status be inferred without the "X of Y" construct too? Dragonskin Bracers could be viewed as Bracers of Dragonskin, not just any average material but Dragonskin(!), and unlike the other Hexen armor items it isn't used immediately but carried in the inventory. Dark Servant is so special it summons one of the tallest, heaviest monsters in the game. If Bag of Holding and Amulet of Warding are legendary because of naming convention, then I'd say the other two are too due to the special power they grant the player. In other words, most items in class 5 then remain capitalized, except map scroll, quartz flask, and mystic urn. And if the inventory aspect is taken into account, at least the latter could remain capitalized too as it is fairly rare and...<drum roll> Mystic(!). Okay, I guess this isn't making things much easier... should we take a vote on the items of contention? --Xymph (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2023 (CST)

I would prefer we figured this out logically instead of just basing it on whatever gets more votes from among the four or five of us. --Gregor (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2023 (CST)

I am of the opinion, as I stated above, that the form of the name is the decisive mark, not the function of the item. Not because I think that names are more important than the function, but because it seems to me that that is what the developers wanted to imply by making use of the pseudo epic-sounding "X of Y" form for certain items. So it's not that a Bag of Holding is more special or powerful, but that the name, rather than being a plain descriptor of its nature, has this epic, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek, tone to it that IMO warrants capitalization. Having said that, a Dark Servant being capitalized makes sense too, if this term is seen as a proper noun rather than a generic one. Dragonskin bracers on the other hand seem generic to me. They could have been styled as "Bracers of the Skin of the Dragon", but they weren't. Just like a holding bag would have essential meant the same thing as "Bag of Holding", but it would have lacked the implied high-fantasy epic tone of a "Bag of Holding" ("I bestow upon thee this Bag of Holding! May it lighten your burden, brave youth, as thou ventureth forth into darkness on your path of valor, etc."). --Gregor (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2023 (CST)

Alright. That leaves Arc of death vs Arc of Death - the former is how it's styled in the article. But in use it's a spell and the arc is just the effect, not a physical object like the Mace/Hammer. So it could just as well be fully lowercased, like frost shards and firestorm. And regarding weapons, I think hellstaff can also be lowercased. The word Hell is not a separate, proper noun here and in the article it is already written lowercase in quite a few places. --Xymph (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2023 (CST)

I agree on both. --Nockson (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2023 (CST)

I agree on hellstaff. With "Arc of Death" vs "Arc of death" I would have to argue that for the sake of consistency it should also be styled like the other "X of Y" terms (apart from the generic descriptors like "pile of maze spheres"). It doesn't really make much sense to capitalize "Boots of Speed" but not "Arc of Death". Besides, the name doesn't imply a short circuit, not just a deadly arc, but the "Arc of Death". --Gregor (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2023 (CST)

Fair point on the boots comparison. Okay, if that was the last item under discussion (I don't recall any others), then the renaming can be put into effect. I've updated DMMPST and will re-do Thing tables all over. Perhaps Nockson would like the honor of moving/updating the pertaining articles, since it was your project to begin with? --Xymph (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2023 (CST)

Hell yeah! Gonna do it soon! --Nockson (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2023 (CST)

I'm done with renaming! I hope I haven't forgotten anything. Gonna fix the pages today and tomorrow. --Nockson (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2023 (CST)

You forgot to change "Arc of Death". --Gregor (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2023 (CST)

My mistake. All good. --Gregor (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2023 (CST)

Wrap-up

See wrap-up of the above discussion.

Capitalization of custom names for weapons and monsters

Ok, since we've been having fun recently around here opening up a bunch of metaphorical cans, I'd like to take the opportunity to open up a particularly large one myself that has been on my mind for a while now and I need some clarification going forward.

A good example to illustrate my point is from the PS1 game Soul Reaver. I don't know if anyone remembers this one—Nosgoth, vampires, Kain, Raziel, The Elder God, etc. It's not really important. It's about the name Soul Reaver and what it is used for. You might refer to the title of the game itself or by extension the series—in this case it is obviously capitalized. But you could also refer to the protagonist Raziel, who The Elder God turned into a literal reaver of souls, his soul reaver, which then of course must be written in lowercase. However, there is also Raziel's spectral sword that is central to the plot, which is called Soul Reaver as well, but here is must be capitalized because it is the name of this specific sword. While the name also describes the function of the blade, it is first and foremost the name of that specific weapon and therefore a proper noun.

Returning to the Doom universe, for a weapon like the Wraithverge from Hexen, we are not describing its class or type, it's a proper name as well, just like the Soul Reaver. Think of Anduril or Narsil from the Lord of the Rings, or the Peacemaker from Jak II. These are all weapons that have a proper name. Unlike the rocket launcher or plasma gun, where the name is simply a descriptor of their generic nature and function, just as with 'soul reaver' when used to describe Raziel as a literal reaver of souls. Same for the super shotgun since it is just an alternate way of saying "very powerful shotgun". But a Waithverge is not a verge of wraith, it's not a class of weapons, it's the specific weapon the player finds that has been given this name, a sort of demonic BFG. So it's the name for this specific demonic BFG, the Wraithverge.

Now, for monster names the situation is more complicated. Again, a monster like the devil, or super imp, from Valiant is not an actual devil. It's an imp variant with a fancy name. So you could argue that the name is used as a proper noun here as well. The name of the diabolist from Ante Mortem is not meant to imply that he's a literal devil-worshipper (he's a demon after all, so it's a bit of a given). What he is is a type of arch-vile. The name "diabolist" doesn't describe its nature or function. Same with monsters like the "death incarnate". They are not literally death incarnate, it's just a descriptive name chosen by the creator of the monster. They are called Death Incarnate. Could have just as well been named Hellraiser or Doominator. You get the idea.

Of course you could also argue that the rule doesn't apply here because there is more than one death incarnate, diabolist or devil. So it's the name of a species of demons rather than a specific demon given a name. So then it's not a proper noun anymore and case closed. BUT. It is nonetheless confusing as hell to the reader to refer to something as death incarnate when you're not actually wanting to imply death incarnate. I want to refer to a custom monster named death incarnate not literal death incarnate. But how can i distinguish the two terms visually on the page if i can't capitalize the name of the monster? Can we put quotes around it, "death incarnate", or quotes plus caps as in "Death Incarnate?"

But to summarize: for custom weapons with fancy names it seems pretty clear that they should be capitalized since they are used as names for a specific, unique weapon, not a generic descriptor of a weapon type like a rocket launcher, pistol, or chaingun. The same i think holds true for boss enemies. It's the Icon of Sin, so it's also the Behemoth when we're talking about one specific monster given this title (see the Archangelus of Eviternity). For species of demons it's more of a grey area. I personally would prefer to capitalized them as well unless the name serves as a literal descriptor of their nature or body. It's a fact that most mod authors capitalize the names of their custom monsters in their official documentation, so there is a clear desire from the author's side to have these names visually emphasized and distinguished from the literal nouns that are used. But it obviously clashes with the guidelines of this wiki and would open up a HUGE can of worms in regards to the vanilla bestiary. So, yeah.

Anyways, that's all I had to say. Is my assessment correct, right on the money, way off, utter nonsense, kinda right but not quite? Let me know. --Gregor (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2023 (CDT)

I don't see what the actual issue here is? Names of specific individuals are proper nouns and proper nouns are capitalized in English always, period. There is sometimes debate at most over whether a phrase constitutes a proper noun or not. "Spider mastermind" is the best example of this to come out of classic Doom because while it seems to have been thought of as such at first, there are later many "spider masterminds" so it loses its uniqueness quickly. That being said however it is again treated as a proper noun for the singular Spider Mastermind of Doom (2016) and Eternal's continuity. So now it's not even consistent across the series which is lovely. At any rate your decision on the matter should be based on the rules of the English language and whatever context is available to indicate if something is or is not a proper noun. The generic names of species are not proper nouns, which is why a word like "imp" is NOT capitalized. A diabolist may just be a type of demon, or it could be a specific group of demons calling themselves "the Diabolists", see the difference? --Quasar (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2023 (CDT)

Where to request page?

Hi, I wanted to know where page requests were handled. I've wanted a page on "Mars 3D/Mars: The Ultimate Warrior", a low-budget Taiwanese FPS released in 1997 that uses several graphics from Doom, Heretic and Hexen, along with a modified version of the .WAD format known as .MAD. Where do I request this? MargaretThatcher (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2023 (CDT)

There's no place to request a page directly (at least not to my knowledge), but rather, Special:WantedPages lists the 'most wanted', based on the pages that have the highest number of redlinks. But the best guaranteed method of getting an article made is to just make it yourself. Sena (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2023 (CDT)

Citing wikia pages

So Nockson removed a citation to the metroid.fandom wiki i posted from the Attack on IO article. I understand that linking to pages of the doom wikia is a no-go for obvious reasons. But there are plenty of wikis on that site, some of which are the go-to places for their respective communities with a wealth of info regarding those titles. Are we not allowed to use that info in citations just because it's posted on the "wrong" wiki? Sounds like politics to me. I think the fact that the info is accurate should be the decisive point, no? Or are we just gonna categorically dismiss all of the info over there as worthless or untrustworthy just because fans of those games posted it on a site that the Doom wiki has had a past with? The guidelines say you're not allowed to link to sites whose primary purpose is advertisement, but i don't think you can categorize the metroid wiki as being primarily ads. Fact is, the page I linked to on the metroid wiki contains no visible ads at all. So in this case, I'd say the link and the info is valid and should be reinstated. Opinions? --Gregor (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2023 (CDT)

There's actually a free Metroid wiki. Unfortunately it isn't as thorough as that other one. The ads on fandom sites are pretty aggressive, pop up windows, auto play videos and stuff. That's why I only enter these sites with AdBlock on. And yeah, I saw some useful info about Heretic and Hexen there recently, but I won't link that and will try to find another source. P.S. What's the point of providing sources for the music? It's the first time I saw that here. --Nockson (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2023 (CDT)

Ok, I have to admit I forgot that I have adblock on at all times, so I have no popups as a result. The situation is different with it turned off... Still, the info is valid. And it's not an External link for further reading, but only for people that want to confirm the source of the info, and for those cases I think it's still fine. You're not catching a virus off that site or anything if you visit.
With regards to the use of citations for the composers: the soundtrack for both Super Metroid and Castlevania is credited to two composers in most sources but the individual pieces weren't written as collaborations (like Lennon/McCartney were always credited together even though most Beatles songs were written by either one of them alone), the publisher/developer simply didn't care to give specific credit to who wrote what, so those information for each track are often difficult to find credible sources for on the net (and for Castlevania III such info simply isn't available at all). But i want to list the composer for each track whenever possible, so in order to justify the fact that I left out the second composer of the OST that is normally listed alongside the actual composer of the piece in question, I wanted to provide a source that identifies them as the composer of that specific track. And yeah, i looked at the other metroid wiki as well, but like you saw for yourself, that wiki is unfortunately not nearly as comprehensive when it comes to info on things like soundtrack. So I chose the more in-depth source. --Gregor (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2023 (CDT)

I can replace the link in the Attack on IO article with another source I found, it's about the official soundtrack album that the wikia article is using as a source because that one has the individual song credits in it. But more generally, are the guidelines excluding any fandom.com wiki from being linked to in any shape or form on this wiki? Or is it more of a case-by-case situation with some leeway? That's really the core question here for me. --Gregor (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2023 (CDT)

Apparently using AdBlock has been against their ToS for a long time, but nevermind that. ;) I can't find where he said it but ISTR that Quasar is against adding new fandom links and in favor of using alternate sources whenever possible. There are no fandom links left, and almost all wikia links are in old discussions, not main space. I suppose Quasar's opinion does not equate formal wiki policy, but one specific reason for that is to not help improve their SEO, as they don't deserve that. --Xymph (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2023 (CDT)

Ok, I didn't have the full picture, thanks for providing a bit more context. So fandom/wikia sites are just generally off limits. Gotcha. --Gregor (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2023 (CDT)

I remembered I had already done some scripted work to find all such links, and this actually stemmed from a #doomwiki discussion, hence I couldn't find a link for Quasar's comments. Also, LinkSearch uses http: as default protocol if unspecified, so the above two paths are not the complete story for existing links: a small dozen fandom ones do exist too (and conversely, no https: entries for wikia). Additionally, a variety of interwiki paths are used as well. So these entries, at least the main space ones, are to be replaced by equivalent free wiki sources, if possible. --Xymph (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2023 (CDT)

Doom Wiki feature for Indie Wiki Buddy

Hey all. I'm the creator of Indie Wiki Buddy, a browser extension that helps redirect people from Fandom and Fextralife wikis to their independent counterparts (including, of course, Doom Wiki). I'd like to start featuring some wikis on the homepage, promotional banners, etc. (example image here). I'd love to include Doom Wiki, as a shining example of a long-lived independent wiki. Let me know if that'd be all right. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:56, 26 July 2023 (CDT)

Should be fine. We're extremely pro-working-together when it comes to the wiki scene. I spearheaded efforts in the past that resulted in our affiliates section existing on the homepage for example. If you need to make use of any logos etc. they are all licensed under dual CC-BY-SA 2.0 and GFDL. Our preferred way to be mentioned is as "The Doom Wiki at DoomWiki.org" --Quasar (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2023 (CDT)

Excellent, thanks. Speaking of working together, I also happen to be NIWA's current Coordinator - so if you ever need to chat about anything related to NIWA or its members, feel free to reach out to me. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:05, 26 July 2023 (CDT)

Map with 27 co-authors

Today, Tribute Quilt was uploaded to idgames, and I'd like to put credits on whoever's pages, but considering the map is made by 28 different people, it seems a bit impractical to post the list on every page --ViolentBeetle (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2023 (CDT)

A one-liner "title (ig template)" suffices, no co-authors. Like for all these {{patchwork maps}}. --Xymph (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (CDT)

Page for "Can It Run Doom?"?

The question/phenomena of "Can it run Doom?" is certainly a Doom related topic, but there doesn't appear to be a page for it here. Can someone make a page for it, covering its history and notable things that have run (or displayed) Doom? --Nanashi (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2023 (CDT)

Buildup of pending changes

I've recently made some changes that I understand as placing more burden on the approver than when I add a bug to some pwad map article. Given that my first of these odd pending changes, an edit to change the target source port for Sacrament, is steadily racking up weeks of age, I'm wondering what the process is, and why I haven't been hollered at to discuss any of it. The changes aren't that important, but I'm getting to be disappointed with the radio silence while my minor contributions get handled within a few hours. Did I miss anything in the FAQ? Are you hoping someone else deals with it? Is there a secret panel of experts being consulted? Is it a passive-aggressive way of telling me to keep working on a bad change until it no longer sucks? I'm just left wondering to myself with nothing to go on. In any case, thanks for taking the extra time with inexperienced wiki users like myself when we're being a piece of work. Inuk (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2023 (CDT)

I personally did not see them, in August I was really busy doing a large batch of edits myself, and even when I visited the Sacrament page a few days ago I failed to spot there were pending changes - they display automatically for registered users so I already saw it was Boom-compatible without realizing it was an unapproved edit. I'll go through them now and check. None of it was meant to be passive-aggressive, please understand that the wiki's pace can at times be glacial, as it is ultimately a hobby, and a few people who also approve content were I'm guessing on vacation for August and July. --Dynamo128 (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2023 (CDT)

Alright, the last thing to cross my mind was that nobody saw what was only coincidentally icky changes. I always imagined that there's a backlog page for approvers, but if the recent changes page is the tool they have then it makes good sense. Inuk (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (CDT)

Process is a big word for a small ragtag group of editors looking (ir)regularly at pending changes. Each has topic areas they are familiar with, and others they are uncomfortable with. I check almost every edit in recent changes, but feel unqualified to approve some, and when nobody else touches them either, then the pending changes list slowly builds up. The current backlog isn't even so bad, there were times it had dozens of entries pending for many weeks or even months. Eventually it's Quasar who clears the backlog a few times per year, but he hasn't be active much in the past 1-2 months. And besides that list, there are also the new (or sometimes ancient) but unreviewed pages where progress can be even more glacial. Such is wiki life. --Xymph (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2023 (CDT)

Featured screenshot for levels

When I've played through a WAD, I like to go back to its Doomwiki entry some time later and go through the levels on there. Just for fun and to remind myself of the great time I had playing it :) Now, I don't usually remember map names and sometimes it's a bit difficult for me to bring to mind a level from its wiki entry, especially if there is no screenshot. I would like to see a screenshot of the level featured more prominently on a level's page. Maybe at the same place as the title screen image on a WAD's wiki entry (e.g. Speed of Doom). Perhaps a good image could be the starting point of the map, or the most notible section of a map. I think it should gives a level's wiki level a bit more soul instead of "just another level". Maybe this is just me though! :) --Ecotip (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2023 (CDT)

I'm sorry, but can you be a bit more specific? You want more level pages to have screenshots? Plenty of editors have added some, but understandably due to the nature of the work involved, quite a few wads don't have them yet. --Dynamo128 (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2023 (CDT)

I'm suggesting a more prominent presentation of a screenshot of a level, presented in the right sidepane of the level's page. Not sure if I have permission to do so, but I could try it for a page and see if people like it. --Ecotip (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2023 (CDT)

Single-level PWADs already have the {{wad}} template with that easy screenshot option, but a title screen takes precedence if present. Map pages that are part of a multi-level PWAD however need the navbox in the top-right corner and the map view image at the start of the Walkthrough section. There is little or no vertical space between those on the right side (remember the navbox can vary hugely in height), hence screenshots are best placed in the Screenshots gallery. The actual page width (depending on browser window or device screen width) also affects vertical placement of elements on the same side. What could look good for you doesn't always look good for a lot of other visitors, so it's better not to overload the right side. But perhaps you have another idea than I'm thinking, so yeah you can experiment - it can always be reverted. --Xymph (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2023 (CDT)

Correct license for gameplay mod logos

I wanted to add the mod logo to the Æons of Death article but I realized that I don't know under which license. For a gameplay mod it seems I can't just choose the "Other PWAD" option under Screenshot that I would use for a WAD's TITLEPIC lump. Although technically speaking a titlepic is not a screenshot either but in most cases either original artwork or a modification of someone else's original artwork or a photo of some kind combined with either original or modified artwork. As far as I can see, uploaded logos to wiki use either the "Other Fair Use" options, one of the other more specific copyright options—like I did for the Voxel Doom logo where it was clearly id Software's copyrighted Doom logo with some simple text overlayed—a GPL license (why would you release artwork under a software license??), Creative Commons, etc. How do I know which one to use? Do I need to contact the creator of the image or is there a fallback solution? --Gregor (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2023 (CDT)

Almost all mods are going to be fair use. If there's no license published with the mod, then it's fair use only as everything is, by default, copyrighted. --Quasar (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2023 (CDT)

wiki dumps

I've completed my annual dump of the wiki for archive.org: https://archive.org/details/wiki-doomwiki.org-20231010 The number of images on the wiki is now so large it's proving interesting :-) For practical reasons I zip them up for archive.org and only upload one file (images.zip): for the 2023 dump, this is now 6.1GiB. -- Jdowland (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2023 (CDT)

Creating category page

I recently added a category for platforming, but it didn't function correctly at first after I created it. Is there something to observe other than just create the page? It also took quite a bit of time before a lot of the linked articles I added were listed in there afterwards. Do these type of pages just need longer to update or is there another reason for this behavior? Also, what are the rules for what categories have to be added to them? I just went with PWADs because it is listed in most category pages (at least the ones I checked). But it was really just a stab in the dark... --Gregor (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2023 (CDT)

Category updates (and various other background jobs) happen every 15 minutes via runJobs.php from cron.

Categories should be added to at least one parent category that makes sense, but normally not to a subcat that is under the same cat to which you already added the new one. See also the guidelines and Special:CategoryTree. --Xymph (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2023 (CDT)

Titlepic license and public domain images

Not to open a can of worms, but why exactly is it standard to pick the {{Screenshot-pwad}} license for titlepics? These images are almost never actual in-game screenshots and often don't even include any id Software owned artwork - most of them are either original artwork or modified artwork of some sort, or a combinations of the two. So what's the reason for this modus operandi?

Also what do I do when the reproduced image is in the public domain, like with the titlepic for Four Perfectly Fine Lemons, which uses a rendition of Several Circles by Kandinsky? None of the available option for public domain images seem to work for this case since I'm not the creator of this painting (so I'm not releasing it into the pd), neither is the mod author nor did Kandinsky release the image into the public domain himself. It naturally entered the public domain because of the time that elapsed since the creator's death. Maybe an option for such a scenario could be added? Something simple like "This image is in the public domain." --Gregor (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2023 (CDT)

This is just my opinion, but when you're uploading an image and you have to choose what type of file you're uploading, the drop-down menu doesn't have an option for titlepics. The closest I saw was "Screenshot", which will pick {{screenshot-doom}} or a similar template. Plus it's not always easy to verify if a titlepic is copyrighted or public domain, so I think you have to err on the side of caution in those cases.

As to your second question, would {{PD-Art-100}} be of any help here? I know it's not exactly what you're looking for. Gauss (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2023 (CDT)

I'm just saying that it is an odd choice to license title screen images as screenshots, when they are very much not, instead of as fair use images. I just want to understand the rationale behind it, since a lot of the time the titlepics reproduce copyrighted artwork from another party entirely unconnected to id Software, like the titlepic for Altars of Madness, which reproduces part of the album cover art from the album of the same name by Morbid Angel.

The public domain template you posted could actually work for the Kandinsky image, since the painting by Kandinsky hasn't really been altered in any significant way apart from what is necessary due to the limitations of the Doom picture format, specifically change of aspect ratio, lower resolution and reduced color depth; but for a public domain image that shouldn't really matter since there is no copyright holder anyways. I would prefer that the license included these kind of modifications as well though. Otherwise it sounds like it needs to be an actual photograph (which wouldn't work in most source ports) to qualify for that license. But it's curious that this template (along with several other I didn't know were available) isn't accessible from the dropdown menu but can only be found through the Copyright and image templates category page. That's good to know.

But in general, is there a reason other than accepted practice to upload title screen images under the {{Screenshot-pwad}} license instead of deciding on a case by case basis what is the most appropriate license for each image? And also, isn't there a potential legal risk in falsely applying the screenshot license indiscriminately to all these titlepics? --Gregor (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2023 (CDT)

Self-promotion

Recent attempts at self-promotion by various Doom people have led me to the following thoughts:

• The practice of not-yet-notable mappers listing their work on their user pages should be prohibited in rules. The user page is for Wiki activity only. If a person doesn't meet the notability criteria (which are currently very loose), they should not have a Wiki page, regardless of whether it is located in the main or user space.
• Attempts at self-promotion while simultaneously failing to meet the notability criteria should be a valid reason for speedy deletion. I propose to create a special criterion for this case or add a special quick voting mechanism so that the votes of at least 3 active editors are sufficient for deletion.

What do you think? --Nockson (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2023 (CDT)

I don't see anything wrong with people talking about what they've done on their user page. A user page (i.e., User:WikiUserName) is not an article page. And notability is always a thorny issue. You'd get a situation where some people are allowed to talk about their works and others aren't, based entirely on whether a jury deems them notable? Nah, that doesn't sound good. I agree that self-promotion can be annoying, but one person's own user page is specifically where it's harmless. --Gez (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2023 (CDT)

I agree with Gez concerning your first proposal - I feel like a user's Talk page is pretty much their turf and they can post whatever they want (apart from grossly offensive or discriminatory content, etc).

But I do agree with the second proposal - self-promotion isn't nearly as much of a grey area as notability. If a mapper is creating an article about their own work that isn't especially well-known/received, then they are self-promoting. If this was allowed in the past, that doesn't mean we have to continue to allow it going forward. If we don't want self-promotion on the wiki, then we should think about adopting a (near) zero-tolerance policy toward it - map makers should simply not create their own articles, neither about themselves nor about their work—unless their work is already clearly notable (a mention somewhere in the Cacowards is always a good marker everybody can agree on).

Now, with regards to notability, we do have the definition of notability in the FAQ that lists three criteria for it: popularity, acclaim, and historical value. And I think these are good, valid points to use as a baseline in any decision making about determining notability. I would personally like to add a fourth criterion here that a WAD can also qualify as notable for by being significant within the context of a specific genre or category of Doom gameplay or modding. For example, I recently created a Platforming WADs category and added articles for some WADs that are specifically notable from within the context of platforming in Doom, though not necessarily notable outside of it. But of course, notability can't be defined exactly (let alone numerically) and there will (and should) always be a healthy margin for interpretation when it comes to something so subjective. However, that does not mean that no guidelines for notability should be applied at all and the only criterion for inclusion we are left with is whether or not a WAD has a stable release. I don't know how far things listed in the FAQ are counted as official guidelines (I was under the assumption that they do count), but given that there is a desire from the editors' side to have some form of notability standard be applied for the creation of wiki articles and the fact that notability is already rather neatly defined in the FAQ, I don't see why these points can't be officially adopted and, as a result, enforced. They are also not in disagreement with the existing rule under guidelines that states: "If a game, WAD, editor, or utility exists only in source/demo/beta form, but is available to the general public and meets all the criteria below, then it can be included." The emphasis here is on can, not must or should. So if a work does not meet any notability threshold, it can be excluded based on these guidelines. And finally, in the case where a WAD very clearly does not meet any notability threshold AND also constitutes a very obvious case of self-promotion, I think the situation is rather straightforward and a speedy deletion vote as proposed by Nockson is called for. --Gregor (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2023 (CDT)

Okay, I've looked through the guidelines again. The only line (that I was able to find) related to contents of a user page is this: "Your User: page can say anything you wish, subject to server performance and applicable law." I think this should be corrected ASAP. You see, most people who have never edited any wiki will not see the difference between pages in main and user space. I've seen some people linking from the main space to their user page or adding categories such as "Mappers" there. I believe that self-promotion must be fought wherever it occurs. These people don't care about the Wiki. They're here because they think having a DoomWiki page will make them notable, when in reality it's the other way around.

Getting back to the point - we can use Wikipedia's guidelines on user pages: "User pages are pages for organizing the work users do on Wikipedia, as well as speaking to other users. ... Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project." Imagine if someone used their user page as a pseudo-article about their first map? Something clearly needs to be done about this. --Nockson (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2023 (CDT)

The current guidelines do have a thing against linking to user page from the main namespace. Any such inappropriate link can therefore be removed. --Gez (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (CDT)

← ← ←
(Gregor wrote: "...a user's Talk page..." Small correction: this is not about talk pages (used to communicate) but the main User page.)

In a few recent instances where a new contributor created their own person page in main space with few or mostly unnotable works, this was promptly moved or copied to their User page. The body-of-work type list was preserved, not as explicit approval of this kind of usage for their user page but so as not to be completely unwelcoming to such newcomers. But any links from main to user space and people categories on the user page were immediately removed per the guidelines. In fact on October 11, I did a clean-up pass on old redirects from user pages to main space, which are also against the rules (simple wikilinks are okay). And that was also why I needed to fix {{Competnuser}} the other day, as I belatedly noticed my speedrunners page showed up in Compet-n players.

We are not responsible for other people not seeing the difference between person pages in main vs. user space, or outside links to them. Within the wiki everything meets the current guidelines or can be quickly resolved under them. Nockson does have a fair point that wiki's are not general websites and that a few users may believe that having a wiki page makes them notable. The Doom Wiki is however a core part of the wider Doom community, so the question is whether a user page can cover a person's community activities or should be restricted to wiki activities like on Wikipedia. In many areas Wikipedia is understandably more strict than the Doom Wiki, but like others above I'm relucant to apply similar limitations here -- as judged by which jury?

Currently half a dozen pages with a body-of-work list exist, where the first three (Mrchris, Matador, Kaapeli47) also have a very similar main space article. So this is really about the three person pages created this month (quickly moved to user space) and which did indeed have a whiff of self-promotion, especially in connection with the WAD articles two of them created (The I.M.P. Act, OVERLOAD).

In short, I don't see body-of-work lists on user pages as harmful to the wiki, and if (per Nockson's example) a user page is written up into a map article, then this can be addressed via {{SpeedyDelete}} reason 8 "Inappropriate use of user pages" or the page can be moved to a sandbox path below the user page.

For mods I second Gregor's reasoning and am okay with adding the fourth, context criterion. Got a proposal how to word it?

The guidelines against self-promotion should however be easier to find. It had been so long since I read the FAQ that I had forgotten it already had relevant entries on this. Linking the FAQ from the people and WAD criteria is a suitable way to improve visibility without duplicating rules. So that's what I did just now, hope this is okay with (uber-)admins.

To deal with clear violations of either guideline, I agree on adding a speedy delete option. How about "17 = Clear self-promotion of person or their mod."? --Xymph (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2023 (CDT)

"...this was promptly moved or copied to their User page." - Sorry, but I think it was a mistake. The correct solution, IMO, would be to move this content to the user's sandbox and place a link to it on their page. This will make the user's page more difficult to confuse with the real article. It would also be a good idea to import this template from Wikipedia and place it on similar user pages.

"...as judged by which jury?" - According to the rules that need to be updated. I'll come up with some ideas in a few days and post them here.

"...this can be addressed via SpeedyDelete..." - I don't understand what the difference is between turning a user's page into a map page or an article about a person? Why are you ready to tolerate the latter and at the same time propose to speedy delete the former? Currently, the rules allow the user to do almost anything with their page. This is why I suggest using Wikipedia's rules about user pages.

I also fully agree with the new speedy deletion criteria. --Nockson (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2023 (CDT)

←←←
(Xymph wrote: "For mods I second Gregor's reasoning and am okay with adding the fourth, context criterion. Got a proposal how to word it?")
In keeping with the wording of the other three criteria, how about something like "contextually significant (Jumpmaze X, Doomer Boards Projects)"? Besides that, I also agree with the new speedy deletion criterion. Seems useful and reasonable. I don't know how quickly something like this can be implemented. If it can be done relatively quickly I would hold off on opening a deletion vote for OVERLORD as it would very clearly qualify for the new criterion. --Gregor (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2023 (CDT)

Speaking about the notability criteria, the first one should also perhaps be revised not to be quite so demanding in its definition of popularity. "Incredibly popular" is a bit much to expect, I think. That would really only allow for seminal works like Valiant, Brutal Doom, Eviternity, and MyHouse to have their own articles. I understand that these criteria were formulated in the early days of the wiki when the landscape still looked different in terms of the sheer number of significant wads being created every year. So one could get away with being a bit more picky about what qualified as popular. Nowadays though, a "hugely popular" or even a simple "very popular" probably better describes the practical threshold for inclusion based on this criterion. --Gregor (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2023 (CDT)

The volume of text makes it impractical for me to answer to everything but I would like to add a few thoughts:

• While I agree that self promotion is not desirable and should be discouraged, at the same time I think we shouldn't conflate the desire to self-promote with the somewhat naive enthusiasm that a few newcomers to the community have, where I think they legitimately thought they were helping.
• In terms of self-promotion, the worst example on the wiki is likely Mike MacDee (Impie)'s works: not only are some of them excessively detailed (such as Project Einherjar having multiple pages for its episodes in a way that literally no other mod does), but the notability threshold was barely ever met for some of them as they are mostly of dubious quality and significance. The author even went out of his way to promote his own fanfic on the wiki for some reason. If there ever was a target in need of cleanup for notability, I would say the extra episodes for Project Einherjar would definitely qualify. It's maybe too late now to remove some of the less notable works which have pages and everything, but I am bringing this up because Impie is ranked second in terms of mapping output on this wiki for no reason other than self-promotion, when other very prolific mappers have comparatively very few pages on their works for the simple reason that they didn't self-promote and making so many pages was felt to be excessive. And I think that's just unfair.
• I would like to place a strong emphasis on historical significance, particularly when it comes to WADs from the 90s and early 2000s. A WAD that would be good to fantastic in 1994 would not make much of a splash today, which is why its release date should count towards the notability. But I think everyone already agrees on this part.
• I feel much less strongly about self-promotions on user pages. For one thing, they are not parsed by the regular search function, making their usefulness as self-promotion a lot more dubious (even though I suppose they would show up on google). I am of the opinion that anyone can do whatever they want on their user page, and I have a neutral stance on whether that information should go to the sandbox section instead.
• Regarding the proposed fourth addition to notability, how about expanding it to being notable also to a particular sub-community? A lot of Skulltag or ZDaemon mods for example would fall into such a category. Odamex CTF by itself is not a particularly notable WAD in Doom modding in general or even compared to some other CTF WADs, but it is an extremely notable WAD within the context of Odamex and thus worth covering for that reason alone. Willem Sitters's maps (even though articles don't exist yet, but will soon) are not that well known in the broader Doom community but are extremely important for the Risen3D scene. And so on and so forth.
• Also, another thing that is maybe obvious but bears specifying: I indeed oppose the idea of modders creating pages for themselves or their own work, but I am not opposed to the idea of them expanding said articles with more detail, because after all, in a niche community such as Doom, who would know these works better than the creators themselves? So I think we should treat these two aspects very differently and encourage the latter.
• I fully agree with the new speedy delete proposal, perhaps an admin i.e. Gez would like to weigh in on this?
• Regarding Wikipedia, that website needs to use different and more stringent rules owing to its much greater and general scope, I don't think it should serve as an example to follow in every situation, we can afford to be slightly more loose and lenient if we so choose. I say this as someone who is also an extremely active Wikipedia editor, with over 1,000 edits there, so I would say I'm familiar enough with the place to be able to comment on this aspect.

I'll add more thoughts if they come to mind but hopefully this is helpful to iron out a few of the details being discussed here. --Dynamo128 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2023 (CDT)

With regards to the point Dynamo raised concerning the scope of a potential fourth criterion, I just want to point out that I think the wording I proposed—"contextually significant"—already allows for sub-communities to be covered by it. Something that's important within the Skulltag community for instance would qualify as contextually significant. However, I would add one condition to it, that the genre or sub-community for which the mod in question is significant should itself qualify as notable first. If a mod X is to be considered notable for being part of Y, then Y itself must also be notable to allow for that rationale to make sense. In particular, Y should meet one of the other three criteria for notability (popularity, acclaim, historical value) to qualify as notable. I think this way it works quite well as a criterion—not too lenient but also flexible enough to be useful.

The other point I wanted to bring up is in relation to mod authors creating their own articles versus contributing to existing ones. I think that notability is again the key factor here. Because otherwise a mod author could just create an article under a different account name, or have a friend create the article for them and then expand it. That would circumvent the self-promotion restriction but still be self-promotion, just in a less obvious way. If on the other hand, all articles that are created must meet at least one of the notability criteria, while that doesn't solve all potential problems connected with self-promotion, as an author might still contribute to an existing article with the express intent to self-promote, at least the existence of the article itself isn't in question at this point and makes sense from the perspective of the wiki. It becomes a problem about the quality and intent of the content—not whether the article should exist at all. Long-winded way of saying, I agree that authors can contribute to existing articles that cover their work as long as their work meets at least one notability threshold—otherwise the article in question shouldn't exist in the first place. --Gregor (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2023 (CDT)

I agree with all of Dynamo's comments. The "contextually significant" entry to notability in the FAQ is fine, but I don't feel like that needs to be fenced off very strictly. Every sub-genre or -culture is part of a bigger one, and recursively requiring a context to be notable itself can make things more complicated than necessary. Every article can still be debated for its own merits. The entry has been added.

Re. Impie, the fact that his covered mods have map pages is not only due to him starting to cover some maps, but also due to me completing all such series via normal XymphBot processes, for consistency's sake if nothing else. This is probably a factor not mentioned so far: guidelines for covering mods according to notability were adhered to more strongly a decade or so ago, simply because of the excessive human effort required to cover map series if the bar were lowered too much. With the automation progress made there after 2016, the wiki can cover a wider array of mods influenced also by practical aspects (server resources, my time/energy) and not just strict principles. I don't think pragmatism is a wrong direction as such (and I have already drawn some practical lines myself) and this comprehensive mod coverage also distinguishes us from the 'other' wiki (which doesn't even have real Cacowards coverage after 2014 or so) as the community wiki par excellence. But I'm no fan of removing long-established articles with good information like English Wikipedia is doing, so pruning the episode articles for Project Einherjar and Strange Aeons would be a bridge crossed too long ago IMO.

Btw, early this month I opened a discussion/deletion vote on one such article that is waiting for participants. --Xymph (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2023 (CDT)

← ← ←
So I've been asked to chime in again. On the issue of people creating pages for their own works -- while I agree it can go too far (fanfiction isn't really in this wiki's focus AFAIK), I'm reticent to ban it outright. Thing is, a wiki only contains what its contributors put in, and sometimes nobody gets around to fill in notable works. If it's the author who ends up doing it, is it bad just because it's the author? For the new speedy delete category, I'm not against it in principle, but hope it'll be used responsibly, only for truly egregious cases. --Gez (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2023 (CDT)

Just to chime in myself, I am not in favor of any additional restrictions on user page content. Listing things you've done there whether or not the wiki considers them notable has always been fine and I don't see any possible issues. A User page cannot be cited, it cannot be linked from mainspace except in the most rare situations, and it is absolutely not suitable for use as evidence of notability because anyone can make them and they are not held to the accuracy standards of mainspace. I don't see any need for more strict policy in mainspace either. What we've had for years is working fine. Self-creation of pages is heavily discouraged but it is not disallowed for reasons already mentioned here, such as consistent overlooking of works otherwise considered notable in the community. --Quasar (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2023 (CDT)

Okay, the template has been expanded but should primarily be used for the obvious cases of mod self-promotion, not for the notable mods that would be covered anyway and that its author just happened to beat another editor to. Most participants above are against restricting or labeling user page content. Self-promotional person pages in main space could be speedy-deleted or moved to the pertaining User area (depending on the circumstances) so as not to stifle their "somewhat naive enthusiasm", as Dynamo put it and as I did a few times this month. I hope this correctly summarizes the gist of the above discussion. (Note that the speedy-delete process allows anyone to raise a discussion and call for a normal vote as yet.) --Xymph (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2023 (CDT)

I did not agree that this is a suitable reason for speedy deletion either. That's a complete circumvention of the usual process of determining consensus about what is or is not notable. By having this as a speedy deletion reason you are saying there is no need to ever debate any notability dispute, in effect. That's what we want?? This is completely unprecedented in the history of the wiki's administration and sounds like the kind of thing that was used to scaremonger about us moving off of Wikia back in 2011 by comparison to previous policy. I can see if it's going to be restricted to the utmost painfully obvious and egregious examples of bad content, but the first time I see this applied to something worthy at all of debate I'm going to feel vindicated in asserting that it's a slippery slope to admin overreach. --Quasar (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2023 (CDT)

Not to belabor the point, but the added reason for speedy deletion is self-promotion, not lack of notability. So a lack of notability alone only allows for the normal deletion vote. And a speedy deletion call can always be downgraded to a normal deletion vote if there's disagreement. In fact, the way Xymph phrased it above, only the combination of blatant self-promotion AND a clear lack of notability will qualify for the new criterion. Also, the added context threshold for notability makes it easier to argue for the notability of an article. So I don't think this will lead to notable work being deleted without discussion. What it does, is allow for those truly egregious cases to be removed more quickly and with less hassle. --Gregor (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (CDT)

Given that until now speedy deletion was only for the utmost trivial of issues where discussion is pointless entirely because they are effectively routine maintenance tasks, this is a dramatic expansion of the power of the utility. It runs counter to the terms under which speedy deletion as a policy was accepted in the first place, if you care to go back and read the discussions on that at the time. It was only adopted under an agreement that it would not, in fact, be expanded to cover any type of content where discussion, even if minimal, might be warranted. To me this seems to be based not only on a false assertion - that we are apparently overrun with such content to the point that it's an administrative issue - but is reaching toward giving power users more influence by-proxy, so that they can tag certain things they happen to not personally like as speedy delete and then get an admin to do it for them without any thought given. I don't see that as appropriate, it's not how things have been done here in general ever before. Speedy delete is precisely dangerous because it doesn't provide for a necessary chance for there to be any disagreement. Speedy delete means that, if I as a singular admin look at the page and, even if I know nothing personally about the situation, decide I also don't care for it, then it's gone, period. If nobody got to weigh in yet well, too bad. I need to see all these supposed cases where the normal deletion process did not already work for such articles before I'm going to agree that speedy delete is even valid for this purpose. --Quasar (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2023 (CDT)

Some very good points here. After reading up on it, I understand Quasar's reluctance to agree to the new speedy deletion criterion. The bottom line for me is that articles of non-notable work (→not meeting any notability threshold + subjective margin) that constitute a clear case of blatant self-promotion should be deleted. Whether this happens through a normal deletion vote or speedy deletion is secondary to me. The normal deletion vote however can sometimes drag on for a long time and end without sufficient people voting on it, creating a deadlock in certain cases. I think the idea was to add the criterion to avoid exactly those types of situations where the case is clear but not enough people vote on it. Maybe the alternative proposal by Nockson to an additional speedy deletion criterion in the OP is a better solution. "I propose to create a special criterion for this case or add a special quick voting mechanism so that the votes of at least 3 active editors are sufficient for deletion." --Gregor (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (CDT)

In Quasar's Oct 29 response, he did not comment on the speedy delete topic, which I took as a "no objection", and went ahead as five other editors agreed (with the stated reservations about its use). So I was a little surprised by his Nov 2 (10:53) follow-up in the opposite direction. The 21:53 response helped me understand that stance better, as did reading up on the policy talk page. The thing is, in practice "speedy delete" meant to me not that the actual delete happened any faster than after a normal deletion vote, but only simpler, without being blocked by a lack of discussion and votes. In recent years I had grown accustomed to few (or sometimes no) admins looking after pending (speedy-)delete nominations regularly or timely. That is why I would prune speedy-deleted pages/files (via XymphBot) after at least three (often more) months of "no discussion/objection" (see the Delete log). This way most nominations didn't drag on for many months or several years (a few did as I don't review the queue that frequently either), while still offering ample time for occasional passers-by to raise questions or change the speedy delete template into a regular one. The fact that an admin can swing by and delete such a page within days of its nomination simply hadn't occurred to me (until Quasar pruned the image with that absurd filename on Nov 2).

For examples where the normal delete process drags on a year, see the two templates and this image. I understand and agree with Quasar's point that the speedy-delete process should be used only for trivial maintenance tasks, and that the wiki should operate by consensus as much as possible, also noted in the policy and its discussion. The question then comes back to whether user and mod pages created by the pertaining user themselves are to be viewed as (blatant? subtle? how can you tell?) self-promotion and whether dealing with that is trivial maintenance, or should still always be debated. I can see Quasar's slippery slope too, but if there is a regular discussion and vote, what turnout is required at minimum? 3 editors? 5 regular users? Something in between, or more? Conversely, Quasar, the mod that prompted this topic is OVERLOAD (along with person page moved to user space User:EPICALLL) - how do you feel about this being nominated for speedy delete under that new criterion?

And all you other active editors, please review the delete nominations and chime in. --Xymph (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2023 (CST)

As an admin if I find that a speedy-delete nomination fits the suggested category, I can delete things instantly. That's how it essentially works. There's no mandated delay or need for discussion. The fact it usually happens slower than that, particularly where I'm involved, is that I'm an anti-deletionist in general. I tend to think things might have a use and want to determine that isn't the case first. My opinion is still that speedy delete is not justified in the case you point out. A regular deletion template has been used for cases of non-notable works, and it didn't matter who created it. I don't understand the sudden concern with who is creating an article. "Don't self promote" is a rule of thumb not a rule of law here, according to the policies and guidelines. I didn't see that those were being amended. I didn't comment on it before because I missed it and didn't realize it was a suggestion. I only just have limited time for this lately. Super-long conversations are going to fly by me. --Quasar (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (CST)

Alright, the template text "If you disagree with the speedy deletion nomination..." suggests there should be a window of opportunity to raise concerns, but I suppose with the trivial maintenance type of deletes that wasn't an important factor. The sudden concern arose from three user and two mod articles being created by those pertaining users in October, but indeed this was quite rare in preceding months/years. So I think wrapping up this extended discussion is best accomplished by revoking the new speedy delete criterion and starting a normal delete process on that one mod. It may take a long time but I also don't feel like this wiki needs a new, third delete-voting process. If the other editors participating in the above discussion can live with this outcome, then I will soon revert the SD template and initiate the normal delete. --Xymph (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2023 (CST)

As I stated above, it doesn't matter much to me whether the SD or normal deletion process is used as long it leads to a decision, not a stalemate. Having said that, I still think Nockson had a valid point for initiating this discussion in order to push for an update on the deletion voting process. I think it would be useful to have some clarification on that matter before wrapping up this discussion. That's also something I was wondering about myself. What's the minimum number of votes that are necessary to complete a discussion on a deletion? What constitutes consensus? And shouldn't there be a timeframe established for it? Any other form of voting in society is bound to a specific time period after which the vote is closed, whether you voted on it or not. Xymph mentioned to me that he normally waits three months before deleting SD requests. I think that's a pretty healthy timeframe for active editors to read up on the topic and make up their mind on whether they want to chime in or not. No vote to me means no objections, and the deletion can then go ahead after a set amount of time has passed. I don't see much benefit in a deletion vote that can take years to "complete". Especially, if at the end, we're still left with the issue of admin overreach if it's just down to an admin to decide when a discussion is closed.

With regards to OVERLOAD, I just like to point out that we already had the discussion about it on EPICFALLL's talk page and the consensus was that the mod does not meet any notability threshold and constitutes a very clear case of self-promotion. I don't think there's any disagreement on this. I don't see any reason therefore for another discussion that "may take a long time" as Xymph suggested. I'd say anybody with an opinion on it already voiced it, so there's no reason to wait much longer in this specific case. --Gregor (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2023 (CST)

On #doomwiki Quasar provided a quick answer about the voting turnout, majority, timeframe: "there's never been a firm definition of those things, as there isn't on the wikipedia model that it adapts; a "reasonable" number, amount, etc". So there. --Xymph (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (CST)

Levels by editor

I came up with a "new" way to categorize levels/WADs - by the editor used. Does anyone else think this is a good idea and actually useful? If yes, what is the correct name for it: "Levels by editor" or "Levels by editing utility"? --Nockson (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2023 (CDT)

Don't find that particularly useful or interesting: the result and how it's used (e.g. which port) matters, not how a mapper arrived there. Also, while for single-author projects the editor may often be documented, in CPs lots of mappers may use a variety of tools but this is usually not documented per map. And even then, would wiki visitors select levels/WADs because they were built in one editor and ignore those built in others? Seems unlikely to me. --Xymph (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2023 (CDT)

Page Suggestion: Elemental Damage

This page would cover the following elements.

Heretic/Hexen:

• Electric (Used by Arc of Death)
• Fire Damage (Examples)
• Ice Damage (Examples)
• Poison (Inflicted by Serpent Staff and gas clouds from the Cleric's Flechette or Mushrooms)

Strife:

• Disintegration (Inflicted by Mauler and Sentinel projectiles)
• Fire (Inflicted by Phosphorous grenades and Flamethrower puffs)
• Poison (Already covered in Poison bolt)
• Spectral (Inflicted by Sigil's projectiles. Enemies with this element are Spectres, The Entity & its sub-entities, and Macil after you retake the castle)

Would be a convenient crossroads page. MargaretThatcher (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2023 (CST)

I don't think the page is needed considering said information already works well in the articles related to such topics. --Dynamo128 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (CST)

Hotlinks to files hosted on Discord's CDN will eventually become ephemeral and rot

As far as I am aware, many people within the community use Discord and its CDN to host archives, WAD files, screenshots, and so on, whilst hotlinking them elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this practice is on borrowed time, thanks to the gradual implementation and enforcement of three new parameters (they have already existed since September or so) in the URLs.

https://i.imgur.com/mY9VYnZ.png https://i.imgur.com/zNbhyTN.png https://i.imgur.com/fzqyUit.png

Fortunately, there exists only one affected page on the wiki.

https://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.discordapp.com&namespace=&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

--Pringao friki chalado (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2023 (CST)

Thanks for the heads-up, we should then be disallowing such temporary links in the future. As for the one patch link copied from the release post, that can be removed from the wiki, or replaced if someone comes up with a new location. (Hint: download while you can and upload to another service?) --Xymph (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2023 (CST)

Done. I didn't even know a single Discord link existed on the wiki until now, so I am at least not surprised to see it was just one. I've always seen Discord as disposable hosting for quickly sending files and nothing more than that. --Dynamo128 (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2023 (CST)

Suggestion: "On this day" section on the front page

Was looking at Wikipedia and realized how much I enjoy reading the "On this day" section (where it tells you some historical events that happened today). I propose we do something similar. I have a few suggestions:

• Release Dates for games (Dec 10. for Doom 1), mods (Jun. 2nd for Knee-Deep in ZDoom), and tools (Jun. 19th for DeHackEd)
• Noteworthy community events (Apr. 30th for the DWIronman League's "you humor me greatly" incident)
• Important social media posts (Apr. 21st for the 2015 Doom source data release)
• Development/business incidents (Jul. 7th for Tom Hall's resignation from id)
• Births (Oct. 28th John Romero) and deaths (Jul. 31st for Ty Halderman)

I feel it would help create repeat visitors (everyone loves fun facts, especially tight-knit communities centered around 30-year-old games).MargaretThatcher (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2023 (CST)

Wikipedia can get away with having such a feature because it has a virtually endless supply of information it can display in that sense. For what it's worth, on the DoomWiki, I'd say this largely goes against the current procedures for (not all but most) featured articles, since these often get picked in lieu of anniversaries. As a result I don't think we need such an addition. --Dynamo128 (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2023 (CST)

WAD criteria versus helpful walkthroughs?

Hi, before I forget, this is the first time I've done anything more than a minor edit to the Doom wiki so I apologize if I mess anything up. I'm a frequent user of the Wiki, primarily for WAD lists and notes on secrets or tips for particularly confusing maps. (Thanks to whomever wrote the 10 sectors MAP24 entry, for example, that's why I was here.) I saw the discussion about self-promotion and how it relates to the wiki's desired notability for WAD entries, but it got me thinking. For me, and a lot of other people who I talk about Doom with, the Doom wiki is valuable for having those walkthroughs/secret lists for as many WADs as possible, since the other options are seeing if anyone has a recording on YouTube and scrubbing through that manually, or popping open an editor and looking at the secrets that way (which I don't even know how to do.) In other words, when I recommend Doom to new players, the Wiki is the first place I recommend they check if they're stuck.

This seems to suggest a problem to me - the use of the Wiki as a repository for playthrough information about as many WADs as possible is resisted by the idea that WADs with entries here need to be notable. The notability criteria makes sense from the perspective of an encyclopedia/research resource of course, but I can't think of anywhere else on the internet that's as well suited to help people out with tips for actually playing Doom. I've made some small (anonymous) edits in the past to help make pages clearer (for example, I added the information that MAP24 in 180 Minutes Pour Vivre had a Porcupine Tree MIDI as its soundtrack), and I've always thought that if I ended up playing a WAD that wasn't covered here that would be a good excuse to learn the tools used here for making WAD/map pages and try and get it covered. But if notability is a concern, I frankly don't have any idea how to tell if a WAD I'm playing is notable, it's just something I was playing and I would figure other people might appreciate help for secrets/the maps in general.

So I guess my question is, has the idea of using Doom Wiki as a repository of walkthroughs/tips for Doom maps in general been considered? Or is the intent to keep it as a focused critical source with attention paid to notability for WADs first and foremost?

(And just to avoid any questions, I'm not "EPICALL" and I don't even really know who that is or what Overload is like as a WAD. I just saw the conversation in the recent changes panel and clicked to read it. I signed up because asking a question on here felt like it should be done with an account, not anonymously like my minor edits before.)

Uh, thanks! -- Arivia (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (CST)

Hello and welcome! I came here at the beginning of the year for a similar reason: I wanted to know what music tracks were used in some of the Winter's Fury levels. I didn't find this information here, so I got it myself. And then I thought, why not add this information to DoomWiki? So, I signed up, started editing, and here I am, with over 4,000 edits and almost 100 articles under my belt. So what you wrote about is a very good reason. But! There simply can't be a Wiki page for every level of every PWAD ever released. Given the number of active editors, this is simply not possible. This is where notability comes in – it helps us choose what exactly is worth writing about here. And it usually works: if you play something interesting, popular or unique, there's a very good chance it has a page here on DoomWiki. And if not, you can always create one yourself, given that it is notable, meaning that someone other than you will need this information. --Nockson (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2023 (CST)

Yes, Doom Wiki is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and a walkthrough site as a side effect. And until 2016, it covered mere dozens of PWADs (along with the IWADs) because it requires a lot of human effort already just to create series of map pages completely and consistently, let alone write up gameplay info. Since 2016 the wiki has grown a lot, covering hundreds of PWADs due to extensive scripting via my bot account. But it still takes me time (for complex projects up to several hours) to prepare, configure, and run the scripts and generate the map views -- often in tandem with Dynamo to crop the maps and create custom things tables. There are only so many hours in the day and we have lives and off-wiki projects, so unlimited PWADs coverage remains impossible. That too is a major reason to stick to the notability angle. --Xymph (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2023 (CST)