Talk:ZDoomGL (v1)



I disagree with this name change, because it does not reflect reality -- no ZDoomGL version was ever called ZDoomGL v1, and if you want, as it seems, to use this monicker for Kokak's port then I suppose Timmie's version will be ZDoomGL (v2), not to be confused with Timmie's other port, ZDoomGL v2 -- or would it be ZDoomGL (v2)v2?

This kind of sweeping changes should probably be discussed before being enacted. If you really want to have separate articles, I suggest ZDoomGL (Kokak) and ZDoomGL (Timmie) instead; I feel it'd fit better with the wiki's disambiguation policies. --Gez (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2020 (CDT)

I heavily pondered on opening up a talk first (and seeing your Talk entry, the lession is that i should have). However, my analogy for using v1 is two fold, and its mostly aimed at reducing the complete and utter confusion these two versions have made. Timmie repeately states it is a full on rewrite that has practicaly nothing in common with Kokak's version, so a split is in my eyes a necessity.
I derived at the given name by the following: Kokak's version targets ZDoom 1.x, Timmies ZDoom 2.x. So naturally, v1 would be a good reference (For us) that its based on ZDoom 1.x. It should be short as to not detract too much from the name, and functional - so v1 to me was the natural deduction. To make it more distinct, i felt the brackets made the most sense there. I felt this was the most elegant way of labeling them with the least amount of harm done. Users would be able to tell the difference when they read the article as it will be explained there. It would be more clear for both users and editors alike (Which is the whole idea behind this).
And although there was a planned ZDoomGL v2 by Timmie, it actually was re-started twice - So what would that be, v4? Retroactively, logically, that particular rewrite should be (v3).
So basically, in this special case i request some leeway in the naming process for the sake of clarity - I am well aware that it does not reflect reality, but both port's development/feature history is alternate universe levels of confusion. When these pages have a proper source port page, it should be clear. Is that rewriting history? I suppose it is, but it is for the greater good - I wouldn't have attempted this if i knew a better formulation.
I could settle for the seperate name change suggestion, as using the name would atleast make it clear from who it is, but it won't look pleasing to the eye in every article it is referencing.
EDIT Gave this some additional thought: one possible solution for this could be to redirect them smartly - So for example, ZanZan needs ZDoomGL 0.66 - Reference it as ZDoomGL (Kokak) | ZDoomGL so that it still shows as ZDoomGL in the text. I feel that could be a nice compromise for both your and my points of view. -- Redneckerz (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2020 (CET)