Talk:Doom (video game)/Draft

Enough edits
Can we please try to get enough edits on this article to get it out of '4' status? Someone will come along and mark it for 'speedydelete' if we don't --Eric M Gearhart 09:59, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * This article is not based on the Wikipedia article. It was written from scratch except for the two last paragraphs in the "Graphics, realism and violence" section. If someone feels motivated, they can rewrite those paragraphs and uncheck the "content is from Wikipedia?" flag. Fredrik Johansson 10:13, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Masters of Doom
I have in my possesion the book "Masters of Doom" which goes over the history of id software, and I read it about a month ago. I'll add to this article shortly where I can with references from that book --Eric M Gearhart 09:59, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I think I've already included most of the relevant information from Kushner (except some on the early development history), but go ahead if you find any gaps. Fredrik Johansson 10:13, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The reason I made the comment about the book is a lack of references through the article, and the lack of a References section. There are several articles that cite references through them if you need to see how it's done, such as Linux or PHP. Also User:Eric M Gearhart/Sandbox has examples --Eric M Gearhart 12:04, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Private email reference
The part about Lotus Development is based on a private email exchange I had with a former employee. Here's the message (verbatim except that I've corrected the years):

I worked for Lotus Development from Feb [1994] to September [1995], providing telephone and email support to users of Lotus products (primarily 123 and Notes) During that time Doom hit the world in it's inimitable way. Lotus Developemnt policy on Doom was a tad schizophrenic. Officially, it was not permitted to install Doom on any Lotus PC, in practice, this was ignored, but network games were banned until 6pm. (There was a very fiercely fought Lotus League of Doom and then Doom 2 players (which I won one year and came second one year), as well as a very active MODding community) However, in Support, we quickly started to use the 'Doom standard' when checking users' problems. If their PC had problems running Doom, we could pretty well eliminate many of our 'cold' questions, and get straight down to memory configuration problem analysis. If their PC could run Doom without any issues, then we had to follow a much longer route to solving their problem.

What would be the proper way to reference this information in this article? - Fredrik Johansson 17:14, 22 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I think correspondence such as this would go into the "Topic informant" section. Another possible way to reference this in the article is by creating a page under the Doom article, something like Doom/Letter from employee at Lotus Development. They were talking about something similar to this over at Talk:Tux, because Josh Williams had the same questions about talks he had with people involved Eric M Gearhart

templates
Chris, would you take a moment when you can spare the time and redo the delete templates? Daniel redid them a couple of months ago, coming up with this baffling green one that *also* shows up from time to time. It tells me to delete the *discussion* talk, then tells me to (I guess) delete the redirect instruction from the top of somewhere or other.

So what does *that* mean? That I'm NOT supposed to delete the page on which I find the green template? BUT sometimes I've seen a page that had BOTH the green template on it AND the pink Speedy Delete template.

If you have a delete template on a page that is NOT SUPPOSED to be deleted, please make sure it SAYS, in LARGE letters, NOT TO DELETE THE @#$%^&* page!

Thanks for any help you can give the poor old Constabulary! Hayford Peirce 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes not a problem. Basically if someone puts the template on a talk page, the links on Category:Speedy Deletion Requests and Category:Call for Constables link to the main article instead of the talk page. The green template is supposed to let you know that it is the talk page that you need to delete, not the main article. Once you have deleted the talk page, you are then supposed to delete that green template from the main article, but leave the rest of the article intact. If an article has BOTH the green template and the pink Speedy Delete template, then you are supposed to delete both the talk page and the main article.
 * I'll see if I can come up with something a little more obvious for you.
 * PS, this is an odd place for this conversation. Feel free to move it to my talk page. --Chris Key 18:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I've changed the green template a bit. Take a look at it here and let me know what you think. --Chris Key 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks terrific! Even I can understand that, and, I think, I could *still* understand it after three or four martinis.  (Not that I do much Constabulary work under those conditions, hehe....) Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PS -- somewhere there are a bunch of deleted pages that shouldn't have been deleted, then. What I've done in the past when I saw this green template was to 1.) delete the Talk page 2.) delete the Redirect line and Save 3.) Then delete the page, whether or not it had a red template on it. Guess no one noticed that the page itself was now missing.... Hayford Peirce 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service. Let me know if there are any other annoying niggly bits of CZ that I may be able to quickly improve for you. I guess that you are right and that in the past nobody noticed when you deleted the page itself. I noticed with Doom, but only because it is on my watchlist. Oh well, I'm sure somebody will find them all eventually and fix them. --Chris Key 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you *sure* that Doom isn't supposed to be Dune? Hayford Peirce 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst Dune was a very fun game, it was completely and utterly different from Doom. Promise! --Chris Key 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. I wuz thinkin' of the *book*, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 21:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was based on the book ;) --Chris Key 04:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Hayford: The green template was the result of problems posed by "to delete templates" that led to the main page instead of the talk page. (And you liked it then.) I used it several times, and -- as far as I can tell -- you did it right and left or deleted the main page as requested. --Peter Schmitt 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Peter! I imagine that if I *had* deleted some main pages by mistake whoever put the template(s) there would have noticed and told me.  At least I hope so.  The new template ought to solve the problem. Hayford Peirce 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)