Talk:Doom Wiki


hello, I am playing Doom 3 resurrected. I am stuck, the problem is in the room in erebus dig site. the room has a an altar with a round energy source flanked by two cannons firing fireballs into a uncrossable chasm, the creature is firing fire balls at me.

 I need to know how to kill it. weapons to use also.

Any help is appreciated, as well as a internet access with this info posted. At the present , I cannot find a walk thru for Doom 3 resurrectes. many thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turok (talkcontribs) .

Someday, I am sure there will be a full walkthrough for RoE here, but today is not that day.  :>   If it were me, I would try; they cover almost everything.    Ryan W 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We have cautioned people in the past about linking to User: pages from articles in the main space.  Shouldn't that apply here as well?  Strictly speaking, an article called "Doom Wiki" in the main space would be considered 'encyclopedic' whereas this one is not, even though both might contain very similar information, and even though all statements in the main text here seem to be true, and even though NPOV might be difficult (I hope).    Ryan W 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The recent addition of the policy navbox highlights the issue — "About" is a blue link which redirects to here.  This should be a project page.    Ryan W (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is the page currently not encyclopedic? The article seems fine to me for the main namespace. What are your issues with it? --Gez (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider this page to be both encyclopedic and core to the site itself, which is why I added it to that template; Doom Wiki:About is already a redirect here. IMO, it's fine the way it is, but people coming here might be interested in those other peripherally related topics, so I feel the template is appropriate. --Quasar (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Compare Wikimedia Commons (article) vs Commons:Welcome (project).  I am not proposing removal of the current content; it properly goes in Doom Wiki:About.  Ideally, we'd also have an NPOV article describing:
  • History of the project's growth, including key people involved.
  • What we actually cover well, and what our blind spots are.
  • Comparison and contrast of scope with other community projects (e.g. we don't even attempt to mirror all the modding documentation at ZDCP sheesh).
  • Drama over alleged "Doomworld-centric" focus.
  • The fork, including perceived advantages and backlash several years on.
The reason I don't just start this now is that I've tried it before, and seen significant objection.    Ryan W (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, it sounds reasonable to me. However, a lot of the Doom Wiki links currently on the wiki would have to be judiciously repointed at one or the other depending on context. That's a lot of work alone. --Quasar (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Cart before the horse, but honestly such structural fixes are child's play after the English composition, based on my experience with this and this.  Obviously the whole thing is very non-urgent as the timestamps above show.  Still though, the wiki's history is part of the community's history and sooner or later should be written up.    Ryan W (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2016 (CST)