Talk:Zone 400

Useless DSDA archiving

Yesterday I reverted the edit adding a link to the useless DSDA archive of a single run of an older version of Zone 300. Then it was reverted, citing that Valiant has a similar arrangement.

So why not decide a wiki policy to not link to DSDA for an outdated version of any Pwad with a handful of lumps, say 3 or fewer (or whatever threshold makes sense). If the DSDA guys want to preserve every .lmp ever submitted, that's their choice, but it doesn't mean it needs to be the same here on the wiki.

It's silly to have crap links like that in articles, especially since the useless one is listed above the real one. --76.240.46.216 11:20, 13 November 2021 (CST)

You seem to have occasionally strong opinions about what should be on the wiki and what should be deleted (sometimes too much), and that's okay if you raise a discussion in advance, like here. But by already reverting the revert before there is an outcome of this discussion, you are exactly doing what you pretend to avoid: edit-warring. Please don't repeat that. There is no need to attract additional attention to a talk page that way, Recent Changes is and should be enough.

As for whether older demo versions are "crap links" and silly, I don't know. The wiki is regularly rather thorough in documenting release histories of mods, and DSDA not only carries those sparse demos for some older versions but also the WAD itself. Then it becomes rather arbitrary whether to link such versions only when the demo count goes above one or two, a half-dozen, thirty-ish or 160+. I'm leaning more towards being thorough at little expense, it's just one extra link after all. But my opinion shouldn't be the deciding one, so input from others is welcome. --Xymph (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2021 (CST)

My bad, forgot about recent changes and such; but to be clear, I didn't pretend a thing about edit warring. Anyhow, quibbles aside, whatever the regulars here at the wiki decide is what goes. I'm done with improving (and creating) articles here for the time being. (I may pop in with an edit here and there; still plenty more Doom to play and watch, which means more referencing the content here. Oh, and lest my suggestion sounds anti-DSDA, the opposite is true: I very much appreciate DSDA. I've watched lots of demos from that site recently, using kraflab's excellent dsda-doom port. It's much better than youtube videos.) --76.240.46.216 14:39, 13 November 2021 (CST)

Back on topic -- the "one or two" you linked are the links to delete - so that's this page, ALT, Valiant, etc. The "3 or fewer" demos I mentioned in the OP seems like a reasonable guideline. The opposite extreme is the older version of Scythe 2 with tons of demos; makes sense to keep that link. The one in the middle with 5 or 6 demos, sure, might as well keep it too. -76.240.46.216 14:50, 13 November 2021 (CST)

Personally I would probably err on the side of inclusionism with regard to this info simply because of the potential of automation and the difficulty that would be incurred if there were to be complex rules on this side about which articles can have demo links; that notability decision for demo tracking really is made on their side and doing otherwise here would sort of be giving rise to a new authority in the demo scene which I don't think it needs or probably wants. But that's just my take. --Quasar (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2021 (CST)

I doubt demo linking automation will ever extend to old versions of maps, but the authority aspect is a good point. Anyway, Andromeda's viewpoint is already known from their edits, and Dynamo128 let me know on IRC to lean towards this as well. So there's a majority for keeping the links to DSDA pages with older versions of WADs; Zone 400 updated accordingly. --Xymph (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2021 (CST)