OST?

Hi, thanks for all your recent work on soundtracks. I'm not sure I like the use of "OST" in every entry of a WAD's soundtrack section though, like here. It's not bothering me (much) on individual map pages, but in the listing it becomes too wordy and repetitive, IMHO. In the past, this hasn't been applied much either, usually for external titles "from Descent II" (for example) suffices, and names of Doom/Doom II/TNT et all tracks are so common throughout the wiki that just linking the track to Doom music etc. (like before your Scythe edit) sufficed, though indeed not for every subsequent use. What do you think, can such listings be condensed a bit? --Xymph (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2023 (CST)

Hello! Maybe for common Doom games' tracks it's enough to write down tracks' names and to not mention IWADs and composer? For example: instead of <"In the Dark" by Robert Prince, from Doom 2 OST> we can just write <"In the Dark">? But what about repetitive use? If WAD uses all the tracks from Doom, should I link to music for every track with different name or only for the very first? Nockson (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2023 (CST)

Composers are always credited, and since Prince wrote all D1/D2 tracks, that also helps readers recognize that the track title originates from either soundtrack without explicit mention. Duplicate links should be avoided indeed, so link only the first occurrence to the D1music, D2music, etc pages. E.g. like here. But that is just one sample, this stuff is not formatted consistently in many WAD overview pages. --Xymph (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2023 (CST)

OK, I will keep this in mind for my future edits and will fix the ones I've done before. One more question - Bobby Prince or Robert Prince? I prefer the latter, because it's formal, but I see that most articles go with Bobby. Nockson (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2023 (CST)

Either is fine, and little variation makes things less formalistic. But the score is the other way around: 95 vs. 798. ;) --Xymph (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2023 (CST)

I've fixed Scythe's page per our discussion. Is it fine? Nockson (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2023 (CST)

Works for me, thanks. --Xymph (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2023 (CST)

WF new/changed/removed custom things

Hi, perhaps you missed this request, but that info is still important to document. If the TSV format is an obstacle, just a simple bullet list would suffice too. Thanks. --Xymph (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2023 (CDT)

Hello! I saw this but wasn't able to do anything. I've tried using DMMPST, but it only gave me an info about Doom 2 maps, not the actual WF maps (I'm not giving up and will try again later). I've never heard about TSV before. What do you mean by "bullet list"? Should I just update the table in that discussion or do you mean something else? I'm gathering information for articles by using Slade and sometimes Doom Builder 2. The process is not automated at all, I just look through DECORATE etc. --Nockson (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2023 (CDT)

I didn't ask you to use DMMPST (though you're welcome to try, but better on something simple instead of WF), but to provide the precise details about the custom thing changes. Either in TSV format like in that table (which I can directly use with DMMPST), or as a bullet list (i.e. starting with asterisks). So yes, if you could update that table we can move forward, and I'll generate the updated thing tables on the map pages. --Xymph (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2023 (CDT)

Oh, I see. Will do that! --Nockson (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2023 (CDT)

Leftovers

Hi, don't forget this one for soundtrack. And this for the other project participants. --Xymph (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2023 (CDT)

Will do that later today! I didn't forget. --Nockson (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2023 (CDT)

First thing's done! About the second - I made links to different levels, is it okay this way? And also question - should I add to mappers' pages all their content in DMP2022 (like photos, sprites, music, levels for Wolf3D and Hacx etc.) or only Doom-related? --Nockson (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2023 (CDT)

I was relieved when you created the article without map links. Because IMO in recent years the DMP series has gone from bad to worse, and 2021's maps were a PITA to cover in detail. 2022 looks even worse, just doesn't meet wiki (or at least my) standards in terms of organization anymore, and I have no intention of covering the maps. So you might as well unlink them and lower the Wanted Pages count.

The WAD and each participant's maps (like for 2021, without all the other "stuff") should still be covered on the mapper pages, without redlinks. --Xymph (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2023 (CDT)

Arrgh, I've spend some time creating all these links... Well, gotta learn the hard way. I will undo that and do mappers' pages. But not today, it has to wait til tomorrow's evening. --Nockson (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2023 (CDT)

Easier in Vim, done. --Xymph (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2023 (CDT)

DBPs

I would like to note that the amount of work needed to cover the entirety of the DBPs, considering we are talking about semi-speedmapping events, is outrageously large, and has always remained off the side for the wiki for this reason. I don't think we are even close to being in the position of covering all of them considering how much work there still is to do elsewhere, so I would kindly ask you to put this project on hold indefinitely. There are many other things to focus on, i.e. Old Still Life, Down the Drain, other WADs featured in the cacowards (cyber's colonoscopy is the one DBP that feels like it could have a feature article as a result), some older WADs mentioned here such as Enjay ZDoom 2001, Realm of Shades and whatnot. Not that you should be in any rush to do so, mind you, because you've done a ton of (good I might add) work lately and it pays to slow down a bit - take it from experience :)

Cheers! --Dynamo128 (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2023 (CDT)

Hi! Thanks for kind words, but what if I want to cover that specific series? Yeah, I know that most work will lay on Xymph and his bot, but at least I can create stub articles for most important DBPs or the ones I like (and they can remain stubs in the long perpective, no rush here). I know that there are more important mods to cover, but for me the wiki-activity is a way to relax from daily troubles. I don't want to work on something I should, I want to work on something I like or has an interest in. And I will continue to do so.

P.S. I have plans to work on cacowards' red pages, I'm already doing this: created articles for two parts of TurboCharged ARCADE and It Only Gets Worse. Next on the list should've been Call of Dooty 2, but I've got distracted.

P.P.S. I wanted to make an article about DBP16: Cyb's Freaky Colonoscopy but I stopped because it is still not fully released (being v0.99a). --Nockson (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2023 (CDT)

Given the circumstances, I would recommend doing what Death Bear has been doing with the PUSS pages, that is, creating articles for them but without redlinking the maps. That feels very appropriate given the speedmap-y nature of the DBPs, but also allows to have pretty comprehensive coverage of what each one is about, its theme, its authors, its music credits, and whatnot. --Dynamo128 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2023 (CDT)

Like the PUSS series, covering each release with an overview page is not really a problem. But for all huge (semi-)speedmapping series goes, that the work volume caused by creating articles for all maps is beyond the threshold of at least Dynamo and myself, in terms of what we're able and willing to work on. Additionally, I feel those map articles have less value to the wiki than those of notable and standalone projects, especially the ones mentioned in the Cacowards. With all these series it seems to me that more isn't always better, often it's just... more.

So far DBP WAD coverage was sporadic by various contributors, more or less starting with #37 because of its Caco mention, and for that reason I was willing to spend the time/energy on creating its map articles. After considerable hesitation, this eventually extended to the other existing DBP articles because there were just a handful. But given your apparent plan to cover all installments, I regret that now. That work volume just doesn't scale anymore.

Elsewhere, we have put considerable effort into covering notable releases and thus lower the wanted pages count to below 1400 last year. More recently articles were (prematurely) created for WADs that aren't out of beta yet, so the redlinks count grew back over 1500 again. Now with your DBP template and #27 map links, that is going in the wrong direction even more. The template itself is fine and will eventually be clean once all installment pages are done, but increasing the redlinked maps count is unnecessary and frustrating. Yes you are correct that at a wiki, you are free to work on anything you like as long as it is meaningful content to the wiki. But doing so in a way that pushes a lot of undesirable work onto the plates of others is not really appreciated. ;-)

So here's my proposal: we revert DBP27 map redlinks and don't redlink future DBP maps (unless there is good reason to make an exception). When you create more overview articles (for DBP or otherwise), I link the WADs on all participating mappers' pages (easier with script). And if you create a WAD article which does deserve map articles, I also link those on mappers' pages (again easier). Thus we help each other out instead of both doing (too) much work. --Xymph (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2023 (CDT)

Fine with me! I will revert redlinks now, then. edit: DONE. --Nockson (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2023 (CDT)

A reminder, you don't need to wikilink DBP articles, this is more quickly done via bot script, with much less Recent Changes clutter (unless you use the Show Bots version). --Xymph (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2023 (CDT)

Re. title screens, these are already prepared by Matador, just seem delayed a few days. So you can save yourself the effort. --Xymph (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Thanks! BTW did I made images right this time with size, palette etc? --Nockson (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Yes, it looks completely fine! Thanks for taking the time to set that process up. I do recommend setting up PNGout.exe via SLADE 3 to further reduce the file size if you so desire, but it's fine as is at the very least. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Sorry, I forgot I promised those TITLEPICs yesterday, I'll upload them now. I don't have ones for 56 & 57, so those could be worked on. 48 doesn't have a titlepic so I don't know what to do about that one. I just have the NSFW one for 44, so it might be better to use the clean version for that one. --Matador (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

DBP 56 and 57 titlepics done. I will upload SFW version for DBP 44. --Nockson (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Only DBP48 still doesn't have one now. --Xymph (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (CDT)

Mapper pages with few/no covered works

So far I was basically the only one creating mapper articles, and I have been using a notability threshold of at least two covered map pages in distinct projects, i.e. usually in two separate CPs, plus at least several other released maps not (yet) covered. This is because about most starting mappers no additional information is available, so a wiki article becomes really thin if there aren't sufficient works worth noting yet. Thus mappers like shibainumaster and CittyKat112 were on my waiting list with one map each so far.

Now you're plowing ahead on these, and BiZ and Snowy44 with zero covered works. With half a dozen+ maps in total, this is not a huge problem, but I do feel it is premature. Just like this thin mapper article. The wiki does not have to cover everyone who ever released something, as that itself isn't very notable -- hundreds of thousands of maps have been released by thousands of people, but that doesn't mean they all meet our criteria for people articles. See also this older discussion, back when the threshold still was at four covered maps.

So please think more carefully whether there is sufficient substance for a person article, and like the guideline states, "If in doubt, don't create the article." Btw, the case of BiZ is remedied by all their DSDA records, will update those links in the weekend.

Lastly, as mentioned above, wikilinking a new article everywhere can be done automatically, saving you work and everyone else Recent Changes clutter. --Xymph (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (CDT)

This is the core of my problems with this wiki (no offense). I used to edit ru-wiki, there are a lot of great and detailed guidelines for everything - articles, templates, categories etc. Here the guidelines are pretty shallow (again, no offense, I know that FAR less people contribute here) and a great deal of guidelines is hidden in old talk pages that are difficult to find. When I created those mapper pages I thought that each of them having 5+ projects (not maps) is enough. I will consider what you told me in future edits! --Nockson (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2023 (CDT)

I understand, but that's just how things usually are these last few years: few active admins and experienced editors to discuss policies and guidelines, and even fewer results getting documented in the pertaining policy sections. Things just organically move along, and sometimes silently evolve (like that decreasing map threshold). And the editors that are more active, just focus on day to day activities, noteworthy new content, maintenance, reviewing, etc. – that usually takes plenty time/energy already. It sure burns me out occasionally when my backlog grows too big too fast... like this past week... --Xymph (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2023 (CDT)

Your last edit - did I do something wrong? I just tried to cover some Cacowards runners-up and an Enjay WAD, as Dynamo128 suggested... --Nockson (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Tracking updates

Speaking of Recent Changes clutter, what goes for MF38 and Endless01 goes for you too. ;-) Thanks for reducing everyone else's (or at least my) read-load.
Btw, I do need to commend your efforts to learn and improve, e.g. cleaning up all those DBP articles after I did a couple, and in other tasks earlier. Thought I'd mention that, lest you think I'm only grumpily bringing up topics that don't go so well yet. :) Thanks for your contribution to the wiki. --Xymph (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2023 (CDT)

Sorry, will do! I'm glad to help! --Nockson (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2023 (CDT)

Help with music identification

Hey! Thanks for all your help recently, but I did notice that many of your edits involved correctly assigning music tracks to maps, or identifying them yourself I assume. If so, would you be able to help me in identifying some of them? Here are some projects that need identification: Baculus, The Joy of Mapping 1, The Joy of Mapping 2, Remain 3, Demons of Problematique 2 and Titan 2. Any help here would be appreciated if you have any time to spare on this :) --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Hi! Of course, I will help! And by the way, could you please tell me what I did wrong with Enjay ZDoom 2001 titlepic upload? --Nockson (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Three things. The first is that it's way too big: it's over 500 KB, whereas my version, as you can see, is 40KB. Second: it's in the wrong palette, not even sure how that happened. And third, it's not upscaled properly and it has blur as a result. The way I do it is, I take the titlepic, upscale it in GIMP using the "Scale image" function, using these settings: https://i.imgur.com/sK0Sj2D.png I imagine you used Cubic interpolation, which is what makes it have that blur. I also make sure to crunch the image filesize down using pngout through Slade 3, but provided it's a paletted image (in the right palette) that's an extra step the image can look right without.

EDIT: Also, make sure you are working on the direct lump (usually TITLEPIC, the 320x200 doom graphic inside the WAD) rather than a screenshot - a screenshot should only be used in the case of a title map, which is a rare occurrence (but one that I did for Time Tripper, for example). --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2023 (CDT)

Morior Invictus map titles, where do they come from?

What is wrong with those map titles at Morior Invictus? Where did you get all these titles from and why change them when the maps were already properly named using the info from the .txt? Tons of weird acronyms and pig-latin (it seems) for what purpose? You should probably correct them ASAP, since they are red links and incorrectly named, and I don't think the bot should proceed to fill the map pages until the titles are properly fixed. Endless01 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2023 (CDT)

From the Dehacked patch. These names are actually shown in-game and in CWILV. Txt-file contains their translations from latin. --Nockson (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2023 (CDT)

The WAD file also contains the original names in the .txt, shouldn't you proceed with the original ones the contributors used? IMO, it seems confusing and unnecessary, plus you would have to change the map titles in each contributor page that uses the original English titles, which is already one of the tasks the bots does automatically once all maplinkgen links are done. I think an alternative would be using parentheses () to indicate the alternate title, if needed. Endless01 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2023 (CDT)

Aren't the actual names shown within the game more important than their other versions from the external file? And I see from the DW thread, that the project leader did this on purpose (maybe to keep in line with the latin title of the wad). Anyway I will wait for Xymph's comment on this. --Nockson (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (CDT)

First, please get it out of your head that "the bot" or "bots" exist, or do anything by themselves. As explained multiple times, XymphBot is a merely bot account, not an automatic or autonomous entity. Many individual scripts need a .ini file to begin with, and I manually fire up each script.

Second, in-game map names take precedence over any documentation, which more often than I care to remember, is inconsistent with what a mod uses in-game. In this specific case, each map page can mention the alternate .txt name, but that will have to be done manually - I don't have a script for such concoctions and will not write one. --Xymph (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2023 (CDT)

'Shrinked'

To clarify: it is very welcome to reduce the dimensions of large images, both for reasons of fair use and to save disk space. But it isn't necessary to mention that (as opposed to titlepics where the aspect ratio gets corrected), and the correct verb would be shrunk. ;) --Xymph (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2023 (CDT)

I'm sorry! I saw "shrinked" somewhere a long time ago and somehow my brain remembered it as the correct form. As always I will stick to this guideline in future edits! --Nockson (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2023 (CDT)

Mod coverage and disk space

As noted before, the server is slowly running out of disk space, the images tree has grown to 53 GB by now. Since you seem unstoppable and are adding not only Cacowarded mods but also (seemingly) random others, I'm afraid you're going to have to slow down and refocus on contributions that do not result in the addition of many images to the wiki. Because eventually there will be no more options to free up disk space, and there's no indication if/when the disk space situation will be addressed in a more fundamental way. Then all uploading will need to be blocked, and that would be really frustrating for the wiki and everyone. Without the unrelenting influx of mods, at least that point can be postponed -- and allow normal, incidental image uploads to continue -- as long as possible. Thanks for understanding. --Xymph (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Hey, I can explain why these mods aren't random (for me at least). BOOMER - IMO it has a big chance to find its way into Cacowards 2023 (several people already suggested it in the mentionation thread at DW), so I've created page for it in advance. DMAX2021 - I just have a soft spot for WAD series, if there's one I want to have all. Speed Master - well I'm from Russia and this is a mostly Russian mapset, and you know... Anyway, I understand your point. Tell me what to do: stop uploading and work on the things I like/find important or stop uploading and work on caco articles only. --Nockson (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

That's up to you, as said the disk space situation is only helped by "contributions that do not result in the addition of many images", i.e. series of map views or screenshots. One-offs like a logo will be fine for a longer time this way. Caco mapsets normally get map articles, so those are better backburnered.

A particular area needing help is the addition of officially released CPs to all participating mappers' articles, like this (because Walter forgets, Buildcat doesn't appear to have time, and it cannot be automated). For some releases like D5DA3 this is a real grind, and I'm too tired for it. --Xymph (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Hey, I've done with the D5DA3. Throw me some more CPs to handle, I'll do them too. And you can keep doing this in future - I'll be glad to take the burden off your shoulders (some of it at least). --Nockson (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Thanks. There's the already linked OHM 1, and the preceding OHM 2. There may be more on idgames that I lost track of. Btw, it's better not to add beta CPs until they have a "final" release. Betas are more likely to get slot and map name changes, and keeping track of those in existing wiki coverage is more painful than just postponing coverage until a (hopefully) stable release -- which doesn't always happen on idgames anyway.
And another of Walter's "forgetful" single edits. --Xymph (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Understood! Can you please link Sesamia via your bot now? I think I will create some more mapper pages today - I'm checking people from DMAX2021 and 2022 now. And yes, I use the two maps rule! --Nockson (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Plus at least a handful of others. Which is intentionally a vague notability criterium, yes. --Xymph (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Oh my! All of the mappers added by me today have two covered maps plus a few other releases each. Or should I count only idgames uploads as releases? Can you please give me precise criterion to stick by? I feel like I did something wrong now... --Nockson (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

These were okay, just pointing it out in case more mapper articles are planned with fewer other maps besides the two+ covered ones.
Edit - Consider this: when looking at a person's body of work, does it have sufficient substance to be notable? If in doubt, postpone the article until it does. The nature of the maps also counts: a map in a polished, well received CP (not yet covered) carries more weight than "my first forums map" or an entry in the umpteenth speedmapping PWAD. Thus IMO, this one is premature, because no works outside the two CPs, this was premature because no covered maps, and this will probably never get additional works because the person was only active in the previous century. :) --Xymph (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Hey, the third one isn't mine! But I see the point. And I wanna add - though DBPs are kinda speedmapping projects, a lot of them are of very high quality. And I don't quite understand why DBPs are not featured in every year's caco (well there is some politics involved but whatever). That's why I wanted to create full pages for some of them complete with maps. --Nockson (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Is Valhen_Saipiam (MAP10 in Chill Zone) the same as Valhen? --Xymph (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Yes. I'm fixing their page now. --Nockson (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2023 (CDT)

Good catch on realizing OHM was already listed everywhere, I wasn't aware it was normally written in full words. But this WAD still should be listed at other participants with similar map lists. --Xymph (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2023 (CDT)

Done a few people. Please check my edits and tell me if everything's OK with the format. Then I will continue. --Nockson (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2023 (CDT)

Format is the same as for the initial one, and thus okay. --Xymph (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2023 (CDT)

← ← ←
Back to the original topic, the disk space situation has been resolved at last. --Xymph (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2023 (CDT)

This is great news! Thanks for letting me know. --Nockson (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2023 (CDT)

Regarding DeHackEd

Hi. You may have noticed that I made some changes to the mapping table you created for NOSP3. I very much appreciate that you decided to create this table, however, the IDs were wrong, because the way DeHackEd works is not immediately obvious, and here I will try to explain how to do it properly.

In the DeHackEd page, you will notice a list of all the IDs. These IDs that DeHackEd uses, for the purpose of the mapping table, need to be replaced by their respective DoomEd nums that map editors use. So, for example, let's say on the DeHackEd file you run into Thing 20 (Cybruiser): on the page I linked, thing 20 corresponds to DoomEd num 7, and so that's the number that should be used.

There is, however, one exception. In case the DeHackEd section for a specific actor has a field called ID # = or ID =, then the number followed by that is what should be used, ignoring the DoomEd num.

Hope that clears it up, let me know if you have any more questions. --Dynamo128 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2023 (CDT)

Hello! Thanks for the help! But there's one thing that I didn't understand with this NOSP3's table. Astral cacodemon replaces the helper dog (thing 140), so it should have number 888 in the table. But for some reason you've set this number for the evil marine (thing 249). And for the caco you've put number 151, which I can't found in the table in the DeHackEd article. Can you please explain this to me? --Nockson (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2023 (CDT)

Oh my, now I understand. Should've read your message more carefully. Thanks again! --Nockson (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2023 (CDT)

Editing help

Just wanted to say, thank you very much for your continued contributions and for your help earlier with the Psychedelic Eyeball pages! --Dynamo128 (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2023 (CDT)

My pleasure! I enjoy editing the Wiki, it gives my brain a little rest from everyday worries. --Nockson (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2023 (CDT)

You mentioned not minding "monotonous activities". Recently an anon added Junkfood 2 maps to only two of its many contributors. I waited a while but noone seems to be picking up the rest, and grinding through the whole list is too much for my taste. Perhaps you can handle this? And similarly large CPs in the future? I'm not sure there are no other leftovers in this department, but it would be helpful to keep an eye out. Thanks. --Xymph (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2023 (CDT)

Okay, I'll do that later today. And yes, feel free to throw me such tasks, I will do them in my free time. --Nockson (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2023 (CDT)

Here's another grind, if you're up for it. --Xymph (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2023 (CDT)

Done! My God, that was a lot of maps. --Nockson (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2023 (CDT)

Thank you as always for your hard work :D Would you be interested in tackling some of the launcher redlinks? Since you have been working on utility pages quite a bit I figured that may be something that interests you, but if not or if you're too busy with other things already that's all right, I can have a look at them a bit later. EDIT: This was done and the page was brought up to speed some days ago, mentioning this in case anyone stumbles upon this talk page section. --Dynamo128 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2023 (CDT)

I may do this in the future, but for now I'm focusing on older utilities. My goal now is to create at least a short stub for every editor from the good old days. I love digging through old threads and sites and stuff like that, and I think these old programs are much more important because they helped shape the Doom community in a big way. --Nockson (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2023 (CDT)

Very well! In that case, I would recommend looking at this post which was made today: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/132222-doom-bbs-add-ons-an-800-wad-mega-dump/?do=findComment&comment=2701253 it contains some very insightful information on early Doom utilities, and I'm sure would be very useful to you. --Dynamo128 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2023 (CDT)

Oh my, a first version of DMGRAPH! And all the other stuff for my future edits. Thanks a lot! This is incredibly useful! --Nockson (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2023 (CDT)

Redundant redirect pages

Are you sure we need redirect pages with no difference other than a single letter being lowercase? Obviously I can only speak on my own behalf, but that seems unnecessary and redundant to me. It feels like you only created the two pages in order to fight against the search being case-sensitive. If the same were to be done for every other page that doesn't show up in the search bar because of improper capitalization on the end user's end, half of the wiki would be just redirect pages, and something tells me that's far from an ideal situation. --MF38 (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2023 (CST)

Oh, sorry, my bad! I could've sworn I've seen redirects like this before, but I couldn't find any now. Thanks for the note, I won't be creating such redirects in the future. --Nockson (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2023 (CST)

I whipped up a quick script to scan the database for redirects that are case variations on the same path. While redirects resulting from moves to lowercase common nouns are more, uhm, common (Ammo Satchel, Argent Energy, Assault Rifle, Blood Punch, Blue Mana, Bullet Clip, etc.), redirects to capitalize nouns/names also occur pretty often (10 sectors, Argent facility, Baron of hell, Capture the flag, Chaos device, Demon key, Doom season pass, Doom64 super ex plus, etc.) -- and that's ignoring stuff that's mixed caps to begin with, like port/tool names (e.g. Zdoom le). So while there's no need to create lowercased redirects from capitalized words (the search results page will show matching titles anyway, ignoring case), they are not harmful either. --Xymph (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2023 (CST)

Soundtrack formatting

I disagree with your recent edit of the Bourgeois Megawad. I don't know what got you the sudden idea but this type of formatting for soundtrack sources—inside round brackets with italics around them—has been accepted practice around the wiki for quite some time. It does not italicize non-core games since the italics are put around the whole source info including the brackets, as a way to distinguish this information from the title and composer of the song, NOT to imply a specific type of source, as in non-core games. It's simply a form of styling. Also, it is quite normal to list Doom and Doom II as soundtrack sources - and why wouldn't you? Otherwise TNT and Plutonia shouldn't be listed either, as they too are IWADs, and apart from that, the reader should not be expected to have memorized every name of every song from Doom 1 & 2 in order to know the source. After all, the wiki is here to provide information so people don't have to memorize stuff like that. So there was really nothing to correct there. Which is why I took the liberty of restoring the previous formatting and source info. --Gregor (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2024 (CST)

And I disagree too, it is one of a few accepted practices, not a golden standard (otherwise it would be a part of wiki guidelines). The other practice is one that I saw when came here and that I use in all of my pages and when adding a soundtrack info: AA by BB, from CC (sequenced by DD). And no matter what practice you use I completely disagree with usage of italics. What's the point to use italics to as you say "distinguish this information" if you already distinguished it by putting it into brackets? And about "from Doom" - it just a common sense and in some way an implemetion of the following guideline: "For something related to Doom or Doom II in general, it is unnecessary to add "In Doom, ..."". Because we are talking about mods for Doom (it works the same for Heretic, Hexen, Strife etc). If the mod uses some content from core game there is simply no need to point that fact. For example, when describing custom monsters we don't write that "it is recolored imp from Doom" we just write "it is recolored imp". --Nockson (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2024 (CST)

There have certainly been valid arguments presented from both sides. I feel like this could warrant a discussion of its own in Central Processing if one type of formatting were to become standardized, but for now, just for the sake of providing another perspective, I haven't specified e.g. (from Doom) in my own soundtrack edits if a track is from a Doom game. Usually I just wikilink to the music page of the respective IWAD a MIDI came from and no one has complained about it. That said, I see Gregor's argument for specifying a music track's origin even if it is an IWAD - as for the style, I have no strong opinion on whether the stuff in the brackets should be italicized or not. --MF38 (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2024 (CST)

Well, first of all, I did not say it was the gold standard, I said "[I]t's simply a form of styling." I do think it results in a cleaner, more readable look than your preferred styling precisely because it visually distinguishes the source information (which is secondary info in my opinion) from the title and composer. And I don't see the use of italics here as problematic or ambiguous since they are clearly used as a styling device that is put around the entire statement. I will admit I'm partial to this form of styling since I originally introduced it but other editors have adopted it and I myself use it in all my articles without ever hearing a complaint.

With regards to referencing Doom and Doom II, I don't think the guideline you linked to specifically covers the usage within soundtrack listings, and regardless, my argument remains valid: when we reference an imp, we don't need to add "from Doom" since we can simply link directly to the imp article. But since it is established practice to only link to the same article once per page (or section), this approach isn't practical for soundtrack information. Again, the reader should not be required to have committed all names of Doom and Doom II tracks to memory in order to identify what tracks like "untitled" and "Bye Bye American Pie" reference. Therefore a source should be provided for each track. Not providing such information creates unnecessary confusion, which in my opinion goes against the spirit of a wiki. Maybe a line should be added to the guidelines to clear this point up when it comes to soundtrack listings. --Gregor (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2024 (CST)

You said that it is an "accepted practice", to which I replied that my way of formatting is another "accepted practice" and there is no standard. Yet you partially reverted my edit just because you like your style better (though I must admit that I did the same with original fmtg in the article). Anyway I agree with MFG38 that this discussion should probably be moved to Central Processing to set a standard for soundtrack formatting. --Nockson (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2024 (CST)

As for the proposed formatting discussion, I'm personally fine with more than one accepted styling being used across the wiki, but I understand you are a sucker for consistency (as in many ways I am too:). I just don't know if we should really open this particular can of worms. I do think that my preferred method creates a cleaner, more appealing look on the page, but in the end there's a large subjective element here when it comes to issues of styling. I don't really want to force others to accept mine nor having to accept others unless it is "objectively" correct, if you know what I mean. So I'm not sure if there is any real benefit to be gained from having this discussion. The reason why I reverted part of your edit was because the article in question already used an "accepted" styling, so I didn't see any reason for it be converted to another, plus the removal of the, in my opinion, valid source info. --Gregor (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2024 (CST)

Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't particularly suggesting to start a discussion on standardizing soundtrack listings. From my personal perspective, all styles that I've seen them in are equally valid, and frankly I don't see any sort of consensus on the matter ever being reached because every editor has their own way of formatting the listings, as has been evidenced by this very conversation. Not to mention the workload ahead if a consensus was reached, with the number of articles and how different the soundtrack lists look between several of them. --MF38 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2024 (CST)

Dean of Doom grades

I see you started adding grades from the Dean of Doom episodes to the trivia section of covered PWADs. I don't think this is a good idea. In the end these grades are one man's completely subjective opinions. To add them to the articles implies MtPain's opinion has special significance, which I refuse to acknowledge. He has his opinion, and you might agree or disagree with it, but it has no objective authority that makes them worth adding to the articles since he had nothing to do with the creation of these mods. I also don't like the idea of using wiki articles to promote a YT channel that the creator makes money off. If you wanna add the grades from the show to the wiki, then the correct place to do so is the Dean of Doom article. --Gregor (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2024 (CDT)

I agree. While there is the precedent of Doom Underground review scores, I'd say that site is long-defunct, mostly covering old and forgotten WADs, and is mostly a curiosity nowadays. Adding the grades to the actual WAD pages feels like giving MtPain's subjective opinion undue weight here, and I agree it is best to add them to the Dean of Doom page itself instead. --Dynamo128 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2024 (CDT)

I also agree. Their grading of WADs is subjective and irrelevant to the actual WADs themselves and should be on the Dean of Doom page instead. --Blursphere (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2024 (CDT)

Wow! It seems quite strange that I have to remind you all of an obvious fact: any person's opinion about anything is subjective. It's especially surprising to hear something like this from you, Dynamo, because you write for Cacowards. Do you really consider your opinion and the opinion of your colleagues to be objective? We also have a special template to link to ONEMANDOOM reviews by kmxexii. What makes MtPain's opinion stand out, that you want to remove it right away, but keep other two? And I want to state it right now: I'm not a fanboy of MtPain, a lot of his reviews are boring to me, simply because I don't play Doom very often. I made a page about Dean of Doom and started to put information about his grades simply because of two things: 1) every game/mod IMO needs a reception section, just like game pages on the Wikipedia, it is an important part of every article which is absent from almost all our pages; 2) MtPain reviews are popular and easy to link to. If you know other reviewers, let's link their opinion too. --Nockson (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

Well, first of all, I disagree that "every game/mod IMO needs a reception section, just like game pages on the Wikipedia". This is not wikipedia and we therefore don't have to follow the exact structure of wikipedia articles. Also, having a reception section makes far more sense when it comes to things like movies or video games, since there exits an entire industry dedicated to reviewing and appraising such works, which is simply absent from the Doom community. Also, I don't think we should liken MtPain's grades to the Cacowards since the latter are directly connected to Doomworld itself, the central hub for much of the Doom community over the majority of its existence (and a prime resource for this wiki). That gives them just a tiny little bit more authority than anything MtPain has to say. His show is completely separate from Doomworld just as much as decino's channel. And again, I think it would be valuable info to add his grades to the Dean of Doom article where they belong.
But secondly, and I repeat myself, MtPain's YT channel is monetized (which ONEMANDOOM is not btw), and this cannot be overlooked. Articles on this wiki about other people's work should not be used as a way of advertising for MtPain's YT channel. --Gregor (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

We at the Cacowards (very deliberately) do not give grades to WADs we cover on the Cacowards, only recommendations. We do not rate things A's or F's (especially since we retired, sadly far too late, the Worst WAD Award). So I'm not sure I understand the significance of the comparison here. I view things like the Cacowards and One Man Doom in a whole different light precisely because it does not seek to rate WADs outright, but to educate about what's out there before anything else. In fact, I'd even be willing to take out the grades from Doom Underground links, if consistency is deemed of importance here. --Dynamo128 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

I reverted my DoD edits. I don't care enough to continue this debate. --Nockson (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2024 (CDT)

Inclusion of PWAD articles to the "original soundtrack" category

Regarding your edit on the Invasion II article (and a few others in the past), I'm not meaning to start a debate, but I'm curious as to what you figure to constitute an original soundtrack as per inclusion to the category. While it is true that the music replacements in Invasion II were supplied by a fairly prolific community composer, I feel it's worth noting that the bulk of the MIDIs come from other projects that Klem was involved in. Granted, there is a possibility that the few tracks I wasn't able to identify are bespoke MIDIs by Klem made specifically for the project, but only one person would logically know that for sure for the time being. And until we get confirmation that they are, I feel that adding the wad to the original soundtrack category is premature. Maybe it's a simple conflict between our subjective definitions of an original soundtrack, but from my personal perspective, a wad's soundtrack isn't original enough to warrant inclusion to the category unless a notable portion of it is bespoke - such as Memento Mori, which was released three years prior to Invasion II and from which at least one MIDI that appears in Invasion II comes from. That said, I'll happily hear your explanation as to on what basis you add the original soundtrack category to wad articles, and if it seems like a worthy topic, I have no problem continuing this discussion in Central Processing. --MF38 (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2024 (CDT)

I'm now away from my PC, so I'm not able to use Slade to check the wad. There are three things: 1) If you say that the bulk of midis are reused then why they aren't marked as such in the article? 2) I've checked the txt file contents on the idgames and it says the following: "All the new songs, except 25,and 29". 3) Description of the category in question says this: "PWADs that have at least one original song composed specifically for it." That's why I've added the cat. --Nockson (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (CDT)

I believe what the "all the new songs, except 25 and 29" clause in the text file means is simply that the MIDIs for all maps except MAP25 and MAP29 are Klem's work, regardless of whether they're bespoke compositions or not. But neglecting to add the original sources of the MIDIs is admittedly my bad. --MF38 (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2024 (CDT)

Sigil

I included Sigil 1 and Sigil 2 text screens because although they are unofficial episodes, they have text screens at the end of each wad and its made by John Romero himself, one of the creators for Doom and Doom II. That's why I included them as separate sections rather than combined with Ultimate Doom's E1-E4. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheHolisticKnight (talk • contribs) .

That page is for text screens from official Doom engine games and expansions. Sigil 1 and 2, although made by Romero, are just PWADs and not endorsed by id in any way. If we will add there text screens from all PWADs that have them, the page will became incredibly long. That's why I reverted your edits. Feel free to add this images to Sigil 1 and 2 pages though. --Nockson (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2024 (CDT)