Talk:V64
From DoomWiki.org
What should we do with this one?[edit]
The creation of this article seemed to fly under the radars of most editors, so I figured I would present the question: what would be the wisest course of action here? In its current state, the article is just a soundtrack listing for the wad in question with little to no other context. Is it worth completing the article with all the information that's missing (which is to say virtually all of it) or would a VfD, or maybe even a speedy delete, be more so in order? --MF38 (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2025 (CST)
- I think I have found the WAD in question (Doomworld, idgames). If so, it probably just needs to be fleshed out. Gauss (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2025 (CST)
- I think that the mod is notable enough for coverage. I was planning to "fix" the article but got distracted by other stuff. I can do it, if no one else is interested. --Nockson (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2025 (CST)
- I waited for someone else to raise a discussion. ;-) That's the one, but it doesn't strike me as particularly notable, with 35 likes on the announcement, and really simple layouts for the maps (obviously, with this design requirement). To me it's the equivalent of a speedmapping project, which the wiki doesn't cover in depth. So I think it can be deleted, but if there's an argument for keeping the WAD article, then at least without map links. --Xymph (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2025 (CST)
- Simple layouts AFAIK are because of the strict design rules (64 vertices it seems? Can't access DW right now to check). I think that we can have a page for it but without map articles. --Nockson (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2025 (CST)
- I don't think the design restriction should be held against the mapset in terms of notability. We have covered other mapsets with simple layouts on the wiki before. And it's a standalone release, and not the beginning of some series we're committing to. The DW thread also had quite a lot engagement despite the relatively low like count under the OP, with some well-known mappers joining the project. I don't think it needs to be considered for deletion, and wouldn't be opposed to adding map pages as well, although I agree that isn't a priority. --Gregor (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2025 (CST)
- I waited for someone else to raise a discussion. ;-) That's the one, but it doesn't strike me as particularly notable, with 35 likes on the announcement, and really simple layouts for the maps (obviously, with this design requirement). To me it's the equivalent of a speedmapping project, which the wiki doesn't cover in depth. So I think it can be deleted, but if there's an argument for keeping the WAD article, then at least without map links. --Xymph (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2025 (CST)
