Talk:Doom (video game)/Draft

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition A first-person shooter video game developed by id Software and released in 1993 that changed standards for interactive entertainment and came to define the emerging FPS genre for years after its release. [d] [e]

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#References 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


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 {{speedydelete}} 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)

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)

Reference formatting and additional nomination

Is reference formatting considered a copy edit? The references just aren't in reasonably standard CZ format, although I suspect they can be fixed quickly.

With those cleaned up (which I can do if the Constables permit), I'm willing to add my nomination as a Computers Workgroup Editor.

As an aside, much of video gaming has great relevance to the Military Workgroup. When players go every day to their consoles in Nevada and play a hunt-and-shoot game, then go back home, isn't that much like Doom? Oh -- those are real targets in Pakistan? Some can shoot back? Ender's Game, anyone? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to the references being cleaned up. I believe that as long as it is just a formatting change, as opposed to adding/removing/changing, then it would be considered a copy edit. Final call goes to the Constables however. --Chris Key 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the answer. Go for it Howard. --Chris Key 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, made the changes and added my name to the template. I assume the version has to be updated, but not the date?
Be sure to approve Doom (video game), not Doom in general. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Howard. The version has to be updated. Technically the now date has to be updated to the date of the nominated version, however the date is the same as the last nominated version so no change is required. I have updated the metadata. --Chris Key 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP credit

As far as I can see, WP credit is still needed. --Peter Schmitt 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that must have been unchecked by accident. --Chris Key 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a larger import from WP (see [1]). Frederik claims that it is his own work, and promised to edit it, but left afterwards (as it seems). (I do not say that this necessarily should prevent approval, but it should be known, and checked.) --Peter Schmitt 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What I miss

While the development (= history) of the game is extensively described, almost nothing about the game itself is said: What is the story? What are the basic rules, skills needed, choices between strategies? What does the player know about how the game reacts? Or whatever may be applicable for this game. --Peter Schmitt 22:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, if that's the case,then I really don't think (speaking purely as an Author and not as a Constable) that this should be an Approved article.
And how much of it has been brought in from WP? How much of it did he write at WP? Hayford Peirce 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would be a clean split, but perhaps this should be viewed as a top-level article, with subsequent History of Doom and Doom Play as Version 2. Don't ask me to comment on the play -- while I'm quite good with a real rifle, there's something wrong with my eye-hand coordination for video games. I suppose I could write about Nethack. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
First the easy question. As stated at the top of this talk page only two paragraphs actually came from WP. These have been altered a little, but not much. However, they are but a small part of a much larger article and in my opinion not enough to worry about for now.
As for gameplay... all of the Doom series pretty much shares the same gameplay - and it is very simple gameplay at that. Pick up guns, shoot everything that moves, walk to the exit. There is nothing special about the gameplay of Doom compared to any other first-person shooter. There are obviously differences between the games, but they minor enough that I believe that the discussion on gameplay should be held at Doom (series). This article is to discuss the unique points of the specific title in the series. If someone really wanted to, then I wouldn't object to a short summary of the gameplay being added - but I really don't think it is necessary, and definately not essential.
As was quite common at the time, there is almost no plot. The majority of the plot is given on one page of the manual, and there are a few short blocks of text spread throughout the game. There was no introductory cutscene or even block of text to the game... players had to finish nine whole levels before the first block of text. Also, much of the article talks about Doom conversions. This was a major key to the success of the game. Fans were, for the first time, able to create their own levels. It could be argued that a short summary of the original plot should be included, but I don't believe it is essential. Perhaps on the wishlist for version 2.
Essentially my reasoning for approving the article as it stands is that the important things about Doom are how it affected computer gaming as a whole. It set the standard for FPS games, its almost unheard of for the time success, its longetivity, its fan base and the modifications they provided. There is nothing special about the gameplay, and the plot is really not important. My feeling is that the article is at a very good point that describes everything that is important about the game, and should therefore be approved. --Chris Key 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Okie, everything you say makes perfect sense. But maybe you (or Howard or someone) could add a couple of sentences to the lede paragraph *telling* the reader what you've just told us. Ie, that the plot, etc., really isn't important, that the game is important because of what it represented, not what it actually did. Hayford Peirce 01:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no problems doing that, but of course then I would have to withdraw my support for the nomination from the lead position at least. I am not sure if Howard would be willing to take the lead on this one or not. Hmm, perhaps another solution presents itself. If Peter (or another editor) would also be willing to support the nomination as Games/Computing editor then I could add in a few paragraphs giving a very brief overview of the plot and gameplay. As I said before they aren't essential, but they couldn't hurt. The other two alternatives are to leave it as it is and make changes for version 2, or to make the changes and leave it unapproved. --Chris Key 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You've got the mechanics right, Chris. It's your call. D. Matt Innis 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is a big enough omission to cause the prevention of approval. Here is what I shall do. Tomorrow I shall make edits to the article to add a brief summary of plot and gameplay. I shall not nominate that version for approval however, as from that point I will have made a significant edit. At that point if Peter or another editor is willing to join as a third editor, then we can update to the new version as a three-editor approval. If not, but Howard is willing to take the lead, he is welcome to switch mine and his names in the metadata and update to the new version. If neither of these occur then I shall keep the nomination as it is currently, and the new edits shall be part of the draft for version 2. --Chris Key 01:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I certainly prefer such a summary. A top level article should provide information for those not acquainted with the game. As the article is now, it targets almost entirely afficionados who are interested in all these details. For a future split I would like a summary (for new-bies) in the lead, and a rather brief summary in the body of the article, with accompanying pages (or subpages) on details (of development, etc.) --Peter Schmitt 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond, I'd like to point out that (unlike with with some games) I am not biased on this article. I don't like the game, and never did. However, I am well acquainted with it.
Personally I don't agree. We currently have 750 words on the game design, a similar number on how it's release and the multiple modifications that produced for it (an important factor in the games success), a few paragraphs on how it affected the industry as a whole, a few paragraphs on some of the influences it caused on the world as a whole, a few paragraphs on the game's success, and a couple of paragraphs on how it still survives today. None of this seems excessive, and all of this would be of interest to someone who is interested in video games... and I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that most readers of the article will have an interest in video games. I also don't think that length of the article is an issue, especially for one with such historical importance for the industry. We certainly have longer articles. --Chris Key 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


I have reverted this edit by Peter which shortened the definition mainly by removing the developer. Removing the developer would be like not mentioning the author in the definition of a novel, or not mentioning the artist in the definition of a painting. The definition is now 32 words long, which is well within the 100 allowed. --Chris Key 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more like mentioning the publisher (not the editor!) of collection. --Peter Schmitt 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No, definately not. The video game developer is the person, people or company that created the game - they are the games author(s). The game is then published by a video game publisher. In this particular case the developer and publisher were originally the same company (although it has been published by other companies since), however this is not usually the case. For example, Lego Star Wars: The Video Game is developed by Traveller's Tales, but published by Eidos Interactive and LucasArts. --Chris Key 17:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Another tuppence's worth

Looks great to me, kids. I made some edits and suggestions (the suggestions mess up the copy, sorry, I forgot how to imbed comments), and the only other thing I will add is in the section Perspective, 3rd para: these look like direct quotes, so cite the two quotes used. A fine job, IMO Aleta Curry 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Aleta. I have corrected one or two changes, and expanded on some of the others. I have managed to find a reference for the first quote, but not the second. I've commented it out (<!-- Like this -->) unless we can find it. I'll update the metadata also.--Chris Key 23:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ooh--hate to lose a good quote - mebbe get another editor's opinion, but if someone *remembers* Greg saying something to that effect, perhaps an indirect quote would work? Aleta Curry 02:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember him saying it, but fortunately I've managed to find the source! Quote back in, reference in place. --Chris Key 11:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My Blessing

Good job, I'm voting for approval.Pat Palmer 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Toward Approval

We have three editors in the template (along with a 4th showing her approval), but it appears that Howard's last approval was on June 4th, which misses these 16 edits. I'll need Howard to show his approval of those edits, then things can be locked on this version. D. Matt Innis 13:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I approve; I note that version appears to be in the template already. Just for the sake of appearances, I reentered my name. Anything else I need to do?
As an aside, while I recognize our procedure provides for three editors, is there anything like a comment field in the approval template where additional editor agreement can be noticed? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It cannot hurt to add a line with another field (e.g. "ToA editor4 = " or "comment = ") in the Metadata. It will simply be ignored by the subpages (and any other) template (unless it is changed) that uses the Metadata. --Peter Schmitt 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it'd make sense to increase the number of editors up to a maximum of say five, and adjust the templates to match. Surely the more the better. As Peter said, it wouldn't hurt to add them to the metadata now. --Chris Key 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
For that matter, and I realize this point should shift to a technical forum, my sense is that eventually, well-indexed articles may have many more than three subgroups. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that I would suggest that we wait until the EC/MC is formed and the relevant people have had a chance to decide if they are changing the entire Workgroup/Subgroup/Approval process before we even contemplate making multiple changes like this. --Chris Key 17:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Chris. It certainly is not urgent, but may easily be wasted energy. On the other hand, noting information that can be useful later is simple. --Peter Schmitt 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's 10:55 California Daylight Savings Time right now -- is the article ready to be Approved by me, or are there other tweaks to be made first? Hayford Peirce 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
All done, go for it. You may also want to protect Template:Infobox CVG which is used to generate the big box at the top. --Chris Key 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Righto! Gotta practice with the new instructions -- Matt has been doing most of it lately! Will also protect the template. Hayford Peirce 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 1.0

I was *very* careful to take an extra step to check off the Material from WP box on the Draft version before it was Moved (or was it afterwards?). Now, on the Draft version, we see the notice. But not on the Approved version. Should it be on the Approved version? If so, then I will have to add it.

Chris -- could you tweak the Instructions a little bit to make it absolutely clear *precisely* how this step should be done? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 18:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Approved version DOES need the WP box checked. I'll go take a look at the instructions. --Chris Key 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just put the box in the Approved version, then went back to look at the earlier Approved version and the statement was there. Maybe I just didn't *see* it earlier? Probably. In any case, if you would make it specific in the instruction what the Constable should do that would be very useful. Thanks! Hayford
No it wasn't there. Checking the box adds it to all pages in the history too... Unchecking the box removes it from them all. Probably not how it should be, but there we go. --Chris Key 19:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering, if maybe checking it put it in *all* the version. What a kludge this system is! And I saw that you added some stuff to the instructions -- thanks!