Talk:Bruiser Demon (Beastiary)



I agree that this should be deleted as per our policy. Also, in general a WAD with nothing but a lone monster that can only be used via cheat codes is hardly a definition for a notable WAD. IMHO, as a rule of thumb a WAD that should be documented on this wiki needs to provide some accessible stand-alone gameplay. The notability of plain resource WADs is next to impossible to define, and in turn having articles for each and every small resource WAD would be unnecessary and cluttery to say the least. Therefore, documenting and listing resource WADs is a task I'd rather leave to the resource websites themselves. Sites like the Realm 667 beastiary and Afterglow's textures page already handle that stuff very well anyway. -- Janizdreg 01:37, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. GhostlyDeath 04:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete.  Janizdreg's second sentence seems common sense to me.  If we could ever hammer out a general guideline for PWAD notability, then articles on resource WADs would dry up — too difficult to document a strong reaction from the Doom community.    Ryan W 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not just a description of a resource WAD, but a description of a somewhat-commonly used resource. So that information would need to be duplicated in each PWAD's page. Or are you against this too? PolicyNonsense 06:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
To clarify my point: This is not an article about a random resource WAD. This is the article about a resource itself, used in several WADs, which do have articles. What useful purpose does removing the information relevant to several well-known WADs serve? Admins don't care - they can always view it anyway. PolicyNonsense 09:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What does being an admin have to do with it?  Deletion discussions are about whether the topic is part of the encyclopedia as a whole, which means, visible to the whole world.    Ryan W 14:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I meant that for an admin, deletion doesn't prevent access to content of a deleted article so he's more inclined to delete it (thinking "We can always restore it later"). What about my original point? PolicyNonsense 14:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Any admin who advocated deletion for that reason would be a threat to the wiki's survival.  I hope that is not happening.  (And deleted pages don't just pop up like normal pages, if you must know — you have to dig around a bit.)
Your original point is one I hadn't considered.  Although non-descript PWADs have been known to have articles here, all four of those are arguably notable, and in this article the strategy sections obviously differ from the regular Baron/Knight material.  Perhaps the discussion closer will decide that, although Janizdreg's general premise is valid, this is one of the rare exceptions.  (Or not, because he/she doesn't want that Cacolantern mess to start up again...)    Ryan W 15:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Does having many articles present a problem in general? Even if they aren't linked from anywhere (and this article should be linked from WADs' pages) they still show up in searches. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PolicyNonsense (talkcontribs) 18:20, 9 September 2011.

If the wiki were to start having articles on common resources, then what would be the guidelines for it? Would texture pack qualifies? Realm 667 has at the moment about 220 monsters, 120 weapons, 100 pickups/powerups/etc., 110 decorative objects, 25 SFX generators, and 68 texture packs. Should that translate into over 600 articles? Let's also keep in mind that there are already limits to things that we are covering. For example, even though it isn't an official rule that I can see, deathmatch-only maps do not get articles. They could, maps do get articles after all; but they don't. Not even DWANGO5 MAP01. Maybe it's just that nobody wants to write articles about them. There's a lot of articles that are needed at the moment (nearly 3000) with nobody to write them without adding extra resources to the mix. Besides, the info might not be valid anyway — the monsters from Realm 667 are often enough updated with tweaks and changes (go here and look at threads tagged "[APPROVED] [UPDATE]"), and anybody using them in mods is free to modify them further. Contrariwise, the standard monsters from the game are not going to be modified (unless you play a mod that specifically changes them of course) so their description is fairly stable. When we say the Baron of Hell has 1000 hit points, it's a known quantity. When saying the Bruiser has 3000 hit points, however, there's a need to clarify that in ZPack and Stronghold, it's not the case. And who know what else? You'd have to keep track of all mods that use the resource to be accurate; it's just about impossible. Just like the Baron article doesn't keep track of all mods that feature Barons. If anything, the article could be reduced to a few sentence in the Realm 667 article, listing quickly a few of the more popular monsters hosted here. Either that or simply a mention in the KDiZD article since it's where it made its debut. --Gez 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

DM articles are rare because DMers would rather DM than write documentation.  :>   For the same reason, our mapping tutorials remain rudimentary, despite the unquestioned importance of the topic.  Moreover these "limits" remain a matter of opinion, because discussing them is so stultifying that we never reach a conclusion.
All that said, your reasoning is persuasive for this case.  Differences between monster incarnations could be dealt with in the WAD articles, if they actually affect combat.  On the other hand, popular/notorious resource WADs should be covered here (D1GFXD2 comes to mind).    Ryan W 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
>Should that translate into over 600 articles?
No editor is obliged to write those.
>and anybody using them in mods is free to modify them further
Usually by modifying hit points and nothing else.
>Let's also keep in mind that there are already limits to things that we are covering
Lack of articles is IMO not a valid reason to delete other articles.
>There's a lot of articles that are needed at the moment (nearly 3000) with nobody to write them without adding extra resources to the mix
So, trash someone else's work just because you want contributors to do something else? I find this offensive.
>the monsters from Realm 667 are often enough updated with tweaks and changes
And so are ZDoom mods in general, which doesn't prevent the wiki from having articles on them.
>Just like the Baron article doesn't keep track of all mods that feature Barons
Can't see how that's similar, but there's four mods for which the information in the article, as far as I can see, relevant. A notice can be added that the article is about a monster as it appears in such-and-such mods. There's no need for exhaustive list, as long as there are at least two notable mods.
PolicyNonsense 08:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is one of scope. There needs to be clear limits to what is within scope and what is outside scope. If this article stays in, then it means that individual monsters are within scope and they should get their own articles. You can say nobody is obliged to make them, but then the wiki loses in cohesiveness. And no, the mods that have articles here, ZDoom or not, are generally not frequently updated. Only exceptions I can think of are vanity articles created by a mod author to promote themselves, and Aeons of Death. --Gez 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So, after several years and further consideration, the deletion nomination is hereby removed. --Gez (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2016 (CST)