Talk:List of Doom community people


What are the advantages/disadvantages of a list like this, vs. the auto built one at Category:People? - Jdowland 11:31, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Because this lists people whose articles haven't been written yet? Bloodshedder 11:38, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
indeed it does - however if they're noteworthy enough to be listed, surely they're noteworthy enough for a page - Jdowland 14:07, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
Even if they are noteworthy enough for a page, that doesn't mean the page has been written yet (or ever will be). Bloodshedder 20:06, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
Until it is, what's the use of having their name in this list? -- Jdowland 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about switching the list and the category? so the link from Entryway goes to Category:People. This would make more sense, the list is usefull as a guide for future work - Szymanski

growth of this page[edit]

This page just had a lot of names dumped into it. It seems to me to serve little purpose (see discussion above), but if the concensus is that it is useful, should it not be split into past/present or similar? -- Jdowland 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The more of these bios I read, the more I wonder how much sense it makes to do them. Unless we somehow get a whole bunch of contributors from various different time periods who can help fill the gaps in our historical articles (I hope it happens, but I'm not holding my breath), any selection of "the most important people" and "their most important accomplishments" is probably going to turn out incredibly subjective, and its degree of completion will be heavily skewed toward the present day (when Doom is presumably less widely played than ever). Ryan W 22:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not really surprising that we can't have every piece of information from the past, but it's still better than nothing. There's also no guarantee that information provided by contributors from previous time periods would be any less subjective than it is now. In the end, this still provides a nice resource for anyone who's interested, even if it isn't perfect. - DooMAD 19:49, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Writeups on people[edit]

While some people on the front page are obviously prominent people who have made many contributions and are worthy of attention, others I've never heard of. Are we writing up everyone? Fraggle 07:50, 13 Jan 2005 (PST)

From what I understand, the person must have released several wads of some prominence. This is a somewhat subjective measure, but a good minimum reqirement could be anyone who has either gotten on the 100 best wads list, 11th annual caco awards or wad of the week for the Doomworld newstuff chronicles. I assume we want to avoid every doom wad author making a bio. Logically, we should prolly start with the most famous wad authors and work our way roughly down.Marius 08:03, 13 Jan 2005 (PST)
I agree that not everyone who made some WAD files should be listed. The list of people would become huge and meaningless. But there are also people that have a big influence in the community and have not made any WAD file worthy mentioning. They deserve to be on that list as well even though they do not meet the terms you suggest. CodeImp 20:17, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT)
We've started putting together Doom_Wiki:Criteria_for_people_articles now -- Jon


Do we intend to organize this list by first name, then last name, or by first name, then handle?  Currently it is neither; e.g., Thomas "Panter" Pilger comes before Thomas "GoDfAtHeR" Zajic, but Josh "EarthQuake" Simpson comes before Josh "Jwarrier" Gevert.    Ryan W 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't like that way of inserting nicknames; Thomas Pilger (aka Panter) seems neater and more applicable, don't you agree?
The article is just a random list, and thus not of much help other than to determine who has an article and who doesn't. It could be improved by splitting it into sections by type of member (I can think of designer, artist, programmer, speedrunner, deathmatcher, or miscellaneous). People that are notable in more than one filed could be listed in each. Perhaps each list should be a separate article, and this should be a disambiguation (optimally moved to Doom community people). If the list were split into articles, subgroups could easily be added where applicable (miscellaneous could include reviewers, musicians, sound engineers, webmasters, and so on). Who is like God? 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout is wrecked fixed in Opera[edit]

This article doesn't layout properly in Opera; the names are all crammed into a narrow column about 20 pixels wide to the left, and as a result the article is about what would take up 800 pages in length. Is there any way to improve this? --Quasar 01:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. :D --Quasar 01:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Non notable people in this list[edit]

I notice when I look at the list of people there are some that aren't notable. Like for example Cody Cupps is one person who's article has been deleted 4 times. There's also others like Alan Carr and Adamizer, for example that have had their articles deleted due to non notability. I assume that this is a list for notable people that don't have and have articles? Justice ∞ 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

These articles have to be pretty weak to get deleted IME, so feel free to remove those names.  Since we have no agreed-upon notability standard, it's definitely difficult to keep the list balanced — there are a lot of gray areas, and the information needed to start an article may only exist in Usenet postings and inside the heads of long-retired community members.    Ryan W 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorting Dutch names[edit]

It dawned on me that my name wasn't sorted like I'm used to; see Tussenvoegsel#In_the_Netherlands. So I tweaked my defaultsort and moved my entry on this list page, but then noticed a few similar cases, like Wouter van Oortmerssen, Thomas van der Velden and Pascal vd Heiden (not Jan Van der Veken and Thierry Van Elsuwé from Belgium, though). Should local or American sorting rules for last names be followed? --Xymph (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2016 (CST)

This is majorly problematic because you've been sorted that way everywhere so far, including in citations and in lists of authors. I had read somewhere else that the "de" was generally to be *included* with the sorting of last names and that's why I did it that way. There is unfortunately no way for us to look up where somebody comes from in advance and figure out how to sort their name. --Quasar (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2016 (CST)
I understand not knowing people's origins may be a general problem, and indeed the American version of my last name is typically written and sorted as "DeVries". But the defaultsort field for all of the aforementioned Dutch and Belgium people is already correct – whether intentionally or by chance. So they sort correctly in any automatic lists, and only this manual page would need to be updated to match (which I'm willing to do).
After searching for " de ", " der " and " van ", it appears that the problem in practical terms is rather small, because there aren't (m)any more people in the wiki besides the above five, myself, and (indeed) J.M.P van Waveren that have a 'tussenvoegsel' in their names. And the only citation entry I saw at first glance was myself in Timeline, which isn't sorted by name but by reference number. So I'm certainly willing to help straighten this out, if there are no objections. --Xymph (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2016 (CST)