Talk:Fast doors reopening with wrong sound

I hesitate to mark this a stub, because I think it does describe everything that a player is actually going to see when the bug occurs. IMHO it would be wonderful, however, if this article bore a strong resemblance to Barrel suicide.  :> I did look at the source code, but my C is not what it once was, and I couldn't find the mistake. (In fact, I couldn't find anything that even looked like the citation in the PrBoom documentation!)

Also, I defined "blazing door" because I wasn't sure that that really needed its own page. Reasonable people may disagree, of course. Ryan W 02:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this should be marked as undisputed in the bugs list, because it could be argued that they did not add a check to see what type of door it is when the door opened before closing because they felt it sounded right that way. It doesn't cause problems and there is no positive evidence that it's an omission. Who is like God? 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Undisputed" doesn't require evidence, only a consensus interpretation (by the source port community) of "not done on purpose".    Ryan W 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is to add "undisputed" to anything that can not be interpreted other than as a bug. The door case is similar to the invulnerability colormap bug, as it can be argued that the authors left it like that because they liked it. Either can naturally be seen as bugs, but might not be taken as such by users, even those familiar with the code. What would be the "source port community"? Who is like God? 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions here, "can not be interpreted other than as a bug" is a highly subjective criterion.  Your technical credentials may be more impressive than mine (actually, I know they are); I suggest however that disputed/undisputed not be assigned by one person's opinion, but rather based on the 11 years of precedent among people who have worked extensively with the code.  A few of those people contribute here, but most do not, so we cannot assume that wiki consensus reflects programmers' consensus.    Ryan W 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why the determination, if questioned, has to be backed-up like any other edit on the wiki; someone even doubted the usefulness of the table because whether something is a bug is somewhat subjective. If anyone disputes a bug with a reasonable argument, either in talks here or on posts elsewhere and the like, then it's disputed. If you believe my argumentation is incorrect or invalid, I sincerely welcome you to note how. If my edit was wrong, I don't mind it at all; we just change it back. When there is a doubt, I think "disputed" is a safer choice, as "undisputed" needs a greater consensus (no one with a good amount of pertinent knowledge doubts it's a bug). "The door is fast, but since it doesn't fully close, it never gets the momentum or required spring to open back that way when stopped midway, so it makes the slow noise". Usually, aspects that are called bugs because they don't imitate a supposed expectation or reality, are disputable. I'd say the same thing for the one about corpses going "oof" when they fall. You could argue the guy is still barely alive, for example, but terminally wounded and not strong enough to move (the corresponding player still sees through the avatar's eyes, after all). Who is like God? 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with these statements, but I don't see how they support removing the table or giving non-technical arguments (like mine) equal weight with the judgements of experienced port programmers.  Admittedly, few programmers are also writers, so it is almost impossible to create a bibliography of their opinions.  *If* the articles were complete enough to include all the information in the table (most are still stubs), and *if* we maintained a list of bugs that didn't have articles yet, and *if* we maintained a list of oddities that didn't meet the notability standard (Quasar's example: the Doomguy's top speed stays the same no matter how much equipment he carries), then maybe the table could be replaced with categories.    Ryan W 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on in-game experience and reasoning you can still make an insightful and convincing argument using the technical info already available as described by programmers, often without contradicting it. Sometimes programmers don't see some things (or some things from some point of view) until some player or user points them out. A more knowledgeable person is more likely to emit a more applicable opinion because of his expertise, but it doesn't mean that a particular interpretation, addition, or difference by a less knowledgeable person is necessarily invalid or inferior. As for the removal comment, I didn't mention it to support removal, so I don't see how either, heh. Who is like God? 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)