Talk:Entryway/FeaturedArticles

From DoomWiki.org

This sub-article serves as a forum for discussion and nomination of articles for featured status on the main page.

List of featured articles[edit]

These articles have already been selected as featured articles. It is desirable that a new nominee is not one of these.

Future plans[edit]

After we upgrade to MediaWiki 1.25, it will be possible to denote featured status using the new "page icons" feature in that version. I was hoping this rollout would occur back in May, but there are various obstacles remaining to be overcome. --Quasar (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2015 (CDT)

2014-08[edit]

I'd like to kick off nominations for a new featured article to start as of August 1, and would like to start a monthly at-least rotation. Having Doom 4 featured on our front page during the reveal and QuakeCon events has actually boosted our page rank for that article above the other wiki's version for many Google search queries. I think this feature is a good opportunity to promote and make more visible our unique work. Articles should be of high quality, up to date, and have a stable reviewed version in order to bare minimum qualify. I would also suggest they should be TOC-bearing articles (having at least 4 major sections), and should have an article-top picture at the least. Feel free to nominate an article you feel deserves a time on the front page here. --Quasar (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be interested in getting the ball rolling, I am nominating The Ultimate Doom. --Quasar (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Stairs create unknown sector types: It's one of the most mysterious bugs in Doom, and the article covers the topic well. It deserves some extra attention, IMHO. --Jartapran (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I could roll with that if it gets the most votes ;) --Quasar (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Knee Deep in ZDoom seems like a nicely-fleshed article, my only gripe being the number of red links. --Chungy (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
+1 for KDiZD. It's probably safe to de-link some of those people, as its probably not likely they'll have pages. I just wish there were a nicer way of wording that. --Eris Falling (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Remove the giant list... or maybe don't put the full list... or split it in columns... As it is I don't think it's good enough for it to be called a "Featured article" --Kyano (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Since the article was vastly improved with everybody's efforts, I'll cast my vote here and it wins the nomination for August. --Quasar (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Previous discussions have suggested Ouch face, Shotgun, Doom rendering engine, E1M1, and E1M4.  I would strenuously oppose the last, citing the crap LMPs.  :>
Others I think are comprehensive and clear, but not drowning in detail, and with at least one good image: Aliens TC, Mega Man 8-Bit Deathmatch, Intermission screen, Aspect ratio, Damaging floor.  (My sticky fingerprints are all over some of these, so take with a grain of salt.)    Ryan W (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

2014-09[edit]

Did a month really already pass? Time to think about this again. I'm going to re-nominate Mega Man 8-Bit Deathmatch from last month's suggestions, since it is on our list of pages with poor SEO and could use the boost. I've just completed a basic rewrite, but it could use a bit more work as there are a series of empty sections, such as "Weapons", which do not elaborate on the mod's content at all. --Quasar (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

+1.  Also, according to the official site, version 4 was released in May.    Ryan W (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

2014-10[edit]

For October, I nominate Stairs create unknown sector types again. The reasons are the same as before. --Jartapran (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll second it. Its extreme rarity makes it one of the most intriguing Doom bugs, next to the one that made you bring up an Imp as a weapon in PrBoom-Plus. Also I juuuuust fixed this problem in a port I'm currently working on but can't yet discuss so it seems like a fresh topic to me ;) --Quasar (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

2014-11[edit]

I liked the idea of nominating Aliens TC as the featured article, so I do it this time. The topic is historically very important, and the article covers many areas of the mod. --Jartapran (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll second. --Quasar (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Loved it then, love it now.  +1    Ryan W (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

2014-12[edit]

Ouch face would be my pick for this year's last featured article. Who wouldn't have noticed the face while playing and wondered what triggers it... The article has a lot of information of the mystery. --Jartapran (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will second; it's a very popular topic known even well outside the Doom community thanks to places like ytmnd. --Quasar (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

2015-01[edit]

Thought to suggest something for a change. Cacodemon has battle information, various statistics, versions in other games and Hissy and Co. on the bottom. Pictures make it all even better. I'd say yes. --Jartapran (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That would work for me, although the phrase "Big-mouthed floating thingies" definitely needs to appear on the front page somehow as a result ;) --Quasar (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

2015-02[edit]

I couldn't come up with an article, so I had a look at Ryan W's list again and decided to nominate Doom rendering engine. The topic is essential and the article is comprehensive. --Jartapran (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2015-03[edit]

Voodoo doll causes me divided feelings. The topic is very intriguing, and the article covers a lot, but I don't know English well enough to tell if the wording is appropriate. I'd still like to nominate the article. --Jartapran (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I had time to test the content properly today and found something dubious. Maybe some other time. --Jartapran (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd have no problem putting this on the front page.  IMO featured articles need not be perfect, just comprehensive and with cleaned-up formatting.  If the language is a bit cagey in places, it's because the technical concepts are themselves subtle, as Quasar alludes to here.    Ryan W (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Since Jartapran had reservations about voodoo doll we talked about it and have decided to go with The Ultimate Doom due to its 20th anniversary being next month. Hopefully this isn't offensive. We're already 3 days late in changing it. --Quasar (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

2015-04[edit]

I've thought afterwards that I was unnecessarily stubborn when I did not restore the nomination of voodoo doll last month. Ryan W made sense in his post above, and thus, I would like to nominate voodoo doll again and promise I will not withdraw it this time. --Jartapran (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

+1, and I believe gamers have thicker skin than Jartapran thinks they do.  :>     Ryan W (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

2015-05[edit]

We haven't had a website article as a featured article yet. Thus, I'd like to nominate Doomworld; it's a long-lived site and still significant in the Doom community. I'm only afraid the article might be too short.

If Doomworld is not fitting, I would bring up intermission screen from the top of the page. The article has a nice range of sections, and the thing itself is an important element in the Doom series and in Heretic. --Jartapran (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

+1 to intermission. Nothing against Doomworld but I've had enough accusations that this place is run in accordance to DWF views on things already without running what to the casual eye would look like a banner ad for it :P --Quasar (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
[dw]I don't know why anyone would think Doomworld and the Doom Wiki had a working relationship...[/dw] --Linguica (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Working relationship, yeah, of mutual benefit. I'm talking about a misconception that exists that we'd only cover things that are considered important or good in the eyes of forum regulars there, and are therefore just a "Doomworld community" take-over of the original site. Just a thing that has come up once or twice, and was definitely never our intent in the formation of this fork. I'm not opposed to Doomworld eventually being a featured article, I'd just rather it wait a while longer, given I *just* started the @doomwiki twitter feed that'll be attracting some new attention hopefully. --Quasar (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
+1 for Intermission screen.  Very comprehensive, style/formatting in great shape, mixes prose with data fairly smoothly, and variant/port info doesn't overwhelm the original narrative (quite a feat for us sometimes).    Ryan W (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

2015-07[edit]

I'd bring up Strife, as the article is comprehensive. In addition, it is the central hub of wikilinks to Strife-related stuff that has got a lot of new content lately. If one of the purposes was to show our unique work, selecting this article as a featured article would help in that, IMO. --Jartapran (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2015 (CDT)

Seconded, especially since that other site has been for quite a while now going around and pushing links on other sites like tvtropes bragging about how they have more Strife content than we do, which is totally laughable considering the huge number of articles I have personally authored, for which they don't even have vague equivalents. --Quasar (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2015 (CDT)
+1.  Really shows the amount of effort that's gone into it since the early days.    Ryan W (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2015 (CDT)

2015-08[edit]

Lost souls are pesky bastards, but I think they're an interesting type of enemy. The article is comprehensive, it introduces different versions of the monster and also has considerably many links to articles that concentrate on the monster's various oddities. I'd show a green light to this. --Jartapran (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2015 (CDT)

+1.  Since the SEO rewrite, I can't find a thing to complain about here — it appears we've finally documented all version differences, and eliminated paragraph-long redundancies vs the bug articles.  Hooray!    Ryan W (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2015 (CDT)
Consider it approved :P --Quasar (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2015 (CDT)

2015-09[edit]

I want to renominate Doomworld for this month. --Quasar (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2015 (CDT)

+1. For the same reasons as previously. --Jartapran (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2015 (CDT)
Sounds good to me. --Chungy (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2015 (CDT)

2015-10[edit]

I'll nominate Chocolate Doom for the month of October. --Chungy (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (CDT)

I also nominate Chocolate Doom, rather well written. GhostlyDeath 12:34, 19 September 2015 (CDT)
+1.  Much more complete than I remembered, and describes development history without its bogging the prose down (a feat we don't always achieve for ports).    Ryan W (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2015 (CDT)

2015-11[edit]

Nominating Requiem, one of the most complete and detailed megawad articles on the wiki, complete with encyclopedic citations. --Quasar (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (CDT)

+1, wow, what a lot of info on obsolete environments.  :D    Ryan W (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2015 (CDT)

2015-12[edit]

Nominating Artwork of Doom, I assume it's not too presumptuous to nominate my own article. Feel free to veto if you think the article isn't mature enough yet. Fraggle (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2015 (CST)

I wouldn't veto but I would use the opportunity to resolve the few minor issues left (aside from a few nitpicky style things, the preponderance of images leaves the last few far from their subject matter - I solved this for the modeling section using a gallery, but there are not enough pictures in the other topics to use this strategy for them - a gallery with one image in it is kind of pointless). --Quasar (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (CST)
I want to add more pictures to the article anyway. By nature of the subject matter it makes sense for it to be an image-heavy article. Fraggle (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2015 (CST)
Cool. If you think that'll be done before Dec 1, I'll second the nomination. It's a good opportunity to showcase our bleeding edge work. --Quasar (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (CST)
I've added a significant number of extra images to the article, and I think it has improved it substantially, so PTAL. If you're still hesitant then I'm happy to wait until January and work on this some more though. Fraggle (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2015 (CST)
We're late already (my internet has had problems this week so my access has been limited more than usual) and there are no competing suggestions; I think we're good for this. I'm more impressed with it with each addition. --Quasar (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2015 (CST)
The quality of the article is good and well written, however the article is almost only a week old (as of this writing) and as such I would vote no for this. The article may still yet improve greatly in the future and may miss its chance to show how much better it is if it is accepted now. GhostlyDeath 15:12, 24 November 2015 (CST)

2016-02[edit]

Polyobjects were a grand addition to the engine. The article's content is highly technical, but I think that would make it a freshly different featured article. Any reader can learn how polyobjects were born and how they basically work. The linked ZDoom Wiki article contains simpler information for potential "newcomers" who would like to use polyobjects in their level design. Now that many of polyobjects' original limitations have been removed, they can offer a lot. --Jartapran (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (CST)

I'll second, though I am biased for being close to the subject matter ;) --Quasar (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (CST)
Unless somebody can find a decent picture that illustrates polyobjects, this is going to be difficult. Neither of the pics on the article are suitable for use in the Featured Article box due to aspect ratio. --Quasar (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2016 (CST)

2016-03[edit]

I'm not sure what to suggest this time. I've thought about Freedoom for long though, so I nominate it. The idea of the project is very interesting, and I think the article's length is sufficient. I already added a short paragraph about the latest version, so the article should be up to date at least for its essential parts. --Jartapran (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2016 (CST)

Seems like a shoe-in to me. I have no better ideas. --Quasar (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2016 (CST)

2016-04[edit]

I nominate Wall wiggle bug, a beautifully illustrated technical article. 187.181.141.75 14:40, 3 March 2016 (CST)

I like it.
For another future entry, I humbly submit Usenet groups, which I recently expanded with quite a lot of annotated history. --Xymph (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2016 (CST)
OK, I second the Usenet groups nomination for April. --187.181.141.75 06:12, 8 March 2016 (CST)
As far as I know, a featured article should have at least one image. Could a good one be uploaded before April? If not, I'll give +1 to Wall wiggle bug. --Jartapran (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Featuring that article next month is (and has always been) fine with me. My suggestion was for a future month.
The lack of an image is a fair point, but I'm not sure a suitable image to illustrate a text-based medium like 1990s Usenet exists. I don't have anything in my archive, and a google-image search didn't turn up anything either. --Xymph (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
It's hard to imagine any suitable picture either and I don't want one added spuriously just to satisfy what is a suggestion for the featured articles corner. It's nice to have a pic there but not required. If we want to go ahead with Usenet groups I would not object on that grounds alone. --Quasar (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
In that case, I don't oppose its selection at all. +1 for Usenet groups. --Jartapran (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Well I meant in the context of it being next month's featured article. I think there is confusion going on here. Do we want wall wiggle bug this month and Usenet nominated for next month? Or forget wall wiggle bug for now, feature it next month, and do Usenet now? I don't care but this is supposed to be consensus driven and I am not trying to reverse that. --Quasar (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I don't want this to be too official but I believe each user is supposed to have one vote. User 187.181.141.75 supports Usenet groups for April in the third post of this thread. Thus, the user cancelled the original vote for Wall wiggle bug. I support Usenet groups for April too. Xymph and you suggest it for May or another future month. If you two have nothing against selecting Usenet groups for April, I think we do have a consensus here. --Jartapran (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Now I get it, the words "for April" can be interpreted in two different ways, and I have no way to see which one the user meant. I guess I've finished. --Jartapran (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I apologize for the confusion I may have caused by adding an alternate suggestion to a nomination I agreed with. I suppose reading the 2014-08 outline beforehand would have remedied my inexperience with the nomination process, then I would have put mine under a 2016-05 header. I propose to stick to Wall wiggle bug, then there's (at least) a month to come up with a picture for Usenet, in case anyone has a bright idea as yet. --Xymph (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by my bad English. It's not my first language. I indeed cancelled my vote (Wall wiggle bug) for April in favor of Xymphs's article Usenet groups (recognizing his fantastic work in this wiki). I foward my suggestion (Wall wiggle bug) for the next month (May). I didn't know about the picture requirement either, sorry.
So +1 on Usenet groups and -1 on Wall wiggle bug. 187.64.34.154 08:06, 31 March 2016 (CDT) (PS: I am the user 187.181.141.75 above)
PPS: My original intention in changing my vote was to avoid an impasse, not to create one. Sorry if I created a mess. 187.64.34.154 08:16, 31 March 2016 (CDT)

I'll go ahead and call it for Usenet groups for this month then unless a bunch of people vote in the next ~12 hours ;) Wall wiggle is a good candidate for the future though IMHO. --Quasar (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2016 (CDT)

2016-05[edit]

Due to the impending release of Doom (2016), I am suggesting that the featured article block be pre-empted (as has been done in limited circumstances before) by a special feature for it once the release date hits. Because of this, I suggest that Usenet groups stay where it is until then, and then that the special feature remains in place until June, when normal featured articles can resume. --Quasar (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (CDT)

Seems appropriate indeed. --Xymph (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2016 (CDT)

2016-06[edit]

If we choose a regular featured article for June, I re-nominate Wall wiggle bug for that. I agree it is a beautifully illustrated technical article. --Jartapran (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2016 (CDT)

I wouldn't dare confuddle the matter with any other suggestion. ;-) Seconded. --Xymph (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (CDT)
Seconded. --Quasar (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2016 (CDT)

2016-08[edit]

I nominate ZDoom for August's featured article. Surely it deserves that. --Voros (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2016 (CDT)

I suppose this'll win by default as we forgot last month and we're already late for this one. Let me review the article and make sure it is suitable (ie. if it needs any quick revisions to be up to par). --Quasar (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2016 (CDT)

2016-09[edit]

Cool. How about making Doom 64 September's featured article? --Voros (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2016 (CDT)

Works for me. At least the proposal was timely enough this time around. :) --Xymph (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2016 (CDT)
I'll also vote for this, it's an overdue feature IMHO. --Quasar (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2016 (CDT)

2016-10[edit]

Who votes for the iconic Cyberdemon for October's featured article? --Voros (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2016 (CDT)

Certainly acceptable to me. --Quasar (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2016 (CDT)
So iconic it's long overdue. I applied some fixes/updates to make it ready for prime time. --Xymph (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2016 (CDT)

2016-11[edit]

Probably going to get burned to the stake for this, but we all know Brutal Doom made a big impact outside the Doom community. So yeah. Brutal Doom for next month's featured article --Voros (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2016 (CDT)

I didn't catch up on the apparent controversy, but I liked it. Btw, your screenshot is large enough at 300px, IMHO. --Xymph (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2016 (CDT)
We're impartial here so it's not at all an unacceptable suggestion. However, is the article up-to-date and high enough quality to be featured? That'll need some consideration in and of itself. Some of the related articles like Project Brutality are currently a mess that don't conform to the usual consensus methods (ie., the article is using a section per custom item when tablifying or listing out some of that info in a single section would be more brief and more readable). --Quasar (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2016 (CDT)

2016-12[edit]

The idgames archive has been and still is a pivotal part of the Doom community since the very beginning, so I nominate it for December's (or another future month's) featured article. Like Usenet earlier this year, it is hard to illustrate a text-only medium with an image, but I hope to have remedied that in an indirect way now. --Xymph (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2016 (CST)

+1.  One of the wiki's strengths is the ability to feature something other than a gameplay object; this article seems lucid and thorough.  (One possible small inaccuracy has been posted to the talk page.)    Ryan W (usually gone) 15:49, 21 November 2016 (CST)