Hey, good work on those fragglescript functions. It would be helpful if some of them had examples, though. Keep up the good work :-) Fraggle 11:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wiki splintering[edit]

Hello - with no disrespect intended, why have a seperate wiki for doom legacy? Would the legacy specific information not benefit from the audience, proof-reading and cross-linking that this wiki enjoys? -- Jdowland 20:11, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

We've already made a custom skin for the wiki, so that it complements the main Legacy website. I doubt anyone would want this wiki turning bright green. Some of the Legacy exclusive information is already on the Doom wiki, but in a less detailed form, so I'm sure we'll still benefit from the involvement of the rest of the Doom community. That, and all the other source ports seem to have one, heh. -- DooMAD 20:29, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Hmm yeah but the zdoom one doesn't even cover how to play multiplayer (if it's even possible), not a great example of how best to use them :) Re: theme; I was wondering the other day to what extent we can customise this one anyway... I'm not sure we have much flexibility since we have to present the adverts etc. (RE: legacy site... that brings up painful memories of when I was webmaster, a shortlived experience indeed) -- Jdowland 21:27, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
We certainly hope to document everything, but it's understandable that things sometimes get left out. The "documentation" category is our most comprehensive so far, the Console subcategory alone has 18 articles in it, heh. I think multiplayer will come under the "configuration" category, which has all the guides on how to setup and configure Legacy, but that one still needs work.
As far as the theme on this wiki goes, I think there's a section in the CSS file to set the colours of the ads. You can also replace user.gif, the little icon next to your username link, with something more Doom-ish. SysOps can edit MediaWiki:Monobook.css, but you have to change the image paths to /skins/monobook/ or they'll break (Took me a while to figure that one out, heh). -- DooMAD 22:12, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Reviewer status?[edit]

Hi there; welcome back.

When I made this proposal, you were one of the people I hoped would sign up.  It's entirely your choice of course.  But you of all people would know what it takes to maintain a solid web site.    Ryan W 03:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on Quasar's talk page. I'm assuming the role is basically just to tidy up articles, make sure they meet the relevant criteria and then mark them "approved"? - DooMAD 10:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what people have been doing so far.  If tidying a certain page is too much work at that moment, or you think merging/deleting should be considered first, just leave it alone.  (Which doesn't show up in the log but eventually we'll skim all the easy cases off, turning Special:UnreviewedPages into a handy to-do list.)    Ryan W 16:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You should now have reviewer access SpiderMastermind 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I just have to stop editing while half asleep and making noob mistakes, heh.  :) - DooMAD 19:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As you probably know, I was confused in September and meant to ask you about "Editor" permission, rather than "Reviewer" permission.  I am not a bureaucrat, so I cannot complete the swap, but in the interest of combatting stagnation, I have taken the liberty of appointing you an Editor.  Recommended reading is here and here.  Thanks again for your help.    Ryan W 04:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll certainly try to dedicate some time to clearing the backlog, although reviewing seems to be a little more subjective than I thought it would be, due to there being different gradings for each section. I assume we mark it as a minimum of "Sighted, Basic, Acceptable" if it's anything but complete crap? Or is it best left unreviewed if there's doubt as to the overall quality? - DooMAD 16:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed subjective, and people have advocated both of those methods.  The Doom Wiki rarely achieves a general consensus (on anything), because abstract discussions are very boring, so there aren't yet standard guidelines for Editors to follow.
I personally fall on the conservative side.  We have had a lot of misinformation and vanity editing over the years, which seems more likely to mislead the reader than base vandalism, because it's not obviously wrong.  Therefore, I won't review a long article or an extensive revision unless I have time to double-check a couple of the stats or citations or whatever.  Others argue that if an error is that subtle, it can be left there a few more months, and in the meantime having "John is ghey" all over a page will hurt us much more in the long run.  I guess I rationalize my approach by noting that an Editor can't mark an article unchecked once it has been checked.  If a handful of Editors are active, a change only has to get past the most permissive one.
HTH.    Ryan W 17:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you asked that DooMAD, because I was wondering the same thing when I was looking through it. Anyway, good to know. - Nuxius 21:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Title italics[edit]

Hello, DooMAD. The decision with my MAP14: The Inmost Dens contribution was based on an edit Gez made in the article Key a month ago, As he's an admin, I assumed that he's aware of the possible style instructions so I decided to follow the style from that edit on. This time I got corrected by you so I'm a tad confused. Is there a specific guideline for the usage of italics? --Jartapran 23:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, italicizing titles of works of art is just one of these conventions found in about all manuals of style. (Sub-parts get quotes. A book of poems, or a music album, would have its name italicized; a single song or poem would be in quotes. I guess for Doom stuff the equivalent would be italics for the games themselves, and quotes for episode and level names? E.g., "Thy Flesh Consumed" from The Ultimate Doom or "Dead Simple" from Doom II. I tend not to use italics when referring to the games in a more general way, like the engine, or using Doom regardless of which IWAD is used, using Doom vs. Ultimate Doom to refer to engine or IWAD versions, etc. Final Doom I guess wouldn't get an italic treatment because it's a commercial package of two independent works. Like I wouldn't italicize the Master Levels for Doom II or the id Super Pack. I neglect quotes around sub-elements because they'd just clutter the articles.
No, map articles generally do not have italics or not. I don't think it really matters much either way. --Gez 00:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just changed it back since it didn't match the formatting on the other surrounding map articles and felt it best to keep them all consistent in lieu of any formal policy on italics. Conversely, we could edit them all to have italics, but that would be more effort, heh. As Gez says, it's not overly important. - DooMAD 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)