Signing with timestamp[edit]

~~~ Your nick (as defined in preferences, default is a link to your user page)
~~~~ Your nick and a timestamp in UTC
~~~~~ Timestamp in UTC only.

--Splarka (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC) <-- made with 4 tildes.

material in this wiki[edit]

Hi, material contributed to this wiki must be licenced under the GNU FDL, as indicated by Doom_Wiki:Copyrights, which is displayed prominently below the edit box. You cannot impose additional restrictions on your contributions beyond this (such as, insisting on an external link being present in the article). If you aren't happy with the terms of the GFDL you should not have submitted your content. -- Jdowland 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Although not specifically from the Doom Wiki, the following should probably be required reading as well: Ownership, Contributors' rights and obligations. -- CODOR 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So add them to the project page(s).  (It should be remembered, however, that the details of Wikipedia policies/guidelines are not binding on this site unless specifically referenced by project pages.  They should be viewed as no more or less authoritative than any other 1.0 article on Wikipedia.)    Ryan W 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody can impose such restrictions anyway, because the open-content format allows another editor to come along five years later and delete the links.  Having said that, Tony8669 makes a salient point in that our 'encyclopedic' style requires us to have citations, and that we sometimes do so unevenly.  For instance, pages like this include no information about how the map was generated.  And how were these statistics obtained — by hand-counting in an editor, with a tool like DMPSMU, or from an existing secondary source?    Ryan W 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that citations are necessary or useful for quantitative data that can be checked or generated by anyone who has a copy of the game (e.g. we don't need to provide evidence there is a cyberdemon on e2m8, you can go and check) -- Jdowland 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but would the same reasoning apply to the number of vertexes and sidedefs?  If someone succeeds in computing the volume of each level (after quite a long and tedious programming project), is that considered common knowledge as well?  I think a certain amount of explanation could be useful for the less obvious data, even though it is probably not required by our copyright policy.    Ryan W 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)