 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Number of levels in the DOS version edit
Until just now, the article stated that the DOS version has 10 levels. This is wrong; level 10 "The Crossroads" (reachable via a secret exit from level 1) has an exit to level 13 "The Coven", and I'm sure that on another level I saw a set of three exits, which according to their labels go to levels 50, 70 and 90. Using the warp cheat and requesting level "99" results in one going to level 30.
Another dubious claim in the article is that "there is only one Dragon in the game, next to the final mirror [teleporter]". Level 13 has (in a sealed-off area behind a breakable wall) a creature which, to juudge from its appearance, I'm sure is a Dragon. — 94.197.16.166 (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Sources edit
@Shaddim, do you have more sources for this article? Because it's going to need more than the few added (significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?)) czar 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Czar, there is no clear definition what constitutes "enough" sources for significant coverage. We have a secondary coverage as required by the guidelines. Also idsoftware/Carmack works should be consider per se a notable part of the game history, I see little point in removing them. In general, in case of doubt (about notability) we should go for "keeping" articles... in the end, Wikipedia is not on paper. We really should use this to our all benefit. cheers Shaddim (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't have any more sources, the next step is AfD, where other editors will make very clear cases for how "enough" functions in this context czar 09:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- May I ask the question what is your motivation in removing this (and other) fleshed out article? I have problems spinning my head around your motivation. Do you disagree that id software / Carmack were highly important for the video gamign history and their early works are part of it? What is the harm in keeping this existing article? Shaddim (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't jump to personal motivations. I was most likely cleaning out some backlog of pages tagged for cleanup, found this one, searched for more sources, found none forthcoming, redirected it, had a discussion upon your revert, and now open the discussion for outside input. We only allot separate pages for topics that meet the criteria mentioned in my first comment above. The idea is that secondary and reliable sources would have covered this release if it was important—it isn't for us to individually determine which games are important and which aren't. Instead we take our lead from the sources. My linked question mark above explains this in more detail czar 09:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I see you prefer to avoid to answer. Also, you try to obfuscate (even neglect) the freedom we have as editors. No, the policies are not clear cut and object to interpretation and consensus for the the editing authors. What about finding a compromise solution or agreement (as it is the vision of WP) instead of escalating instantly? Shaddim (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- This will be my last reply on this thread at risk of repeating myself. I did more than most by even bothering to ask whether you had a reason for reverting the redirect. I'm not the arbiter of how Wikipedia determines notability nor am I an audience for bargaining over what is acceptable. If you think we should start carrying articles that lack sources for even the most basic of information, start a public discussion where you'd have wider feedback. The policies do not need to be "clear cut" for editors to evaluate whether it meets the spirit of the notability guideline, which was developed through a consensus process. It's not like notability is some slippery slope by which no notability guideline can be enforced because there is no definitive bar. The linked guidelines make sense, and at the very least, they're not in question—you either have enough reliable sources to justify a separate article, or you merge the article into a place where it fits, or the article is deleted.
czar 09:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, you try to present the situation as if there would be a clear cut for inclusion and notability (despite what you try to indicate... as there are secondary reliable sources). As you said yourself there is no clear cut, so we should give articles some slack. But, it seems you are interested in the most restrictive possible interpretion and not in a constructive consensus on articles discussion pages by the contributing authors. I improved th article, add a source and you insist on removal with the previous argumentation. I see a problem here. Shaddim (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- This will be my last reply on this thread at risk of repeating myself. I did more than most by even bothering to ask whether you had a reason for reverting the redirect. I'm not the arbiter of how Wikipedia determines notability nor am I an audience for bargaining over what is acceptable. If you think we should start carrying articles that lack sources for even the most basic of information, start a public discussion where you'd have wider feedback. The policies do not need to be "clear cut" for editors to evaluate whether it meets the spirit of the notability guideline, which was developed through a consensus process. It's not like notability is some slippery slope by which no notability guideline can be enforced because there is no definitive bar. The linked guidelines make sense, and at the very least, they're not in question—you either have enough reliable sources to justify a separate article, or you merge the article into a place where it fits, or the article is deleted.
- Well, I see you prefer to avoid to answer. Also, you try to obfuscate (even neglect) the freedom we have as editors. No, the policies are not clear cut and object to interpretation and consensus for the the editing authors. What about finding a compromise solution or agreement (as it is the vision of WP) instead of escalating instantly? Shaddim (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't jump to personal motivations. I was most likely cleaning out some backlog of pages tagged for cleanup, found this one, searched for more sources, found none forthcoming, redirected it, had a discussion upon your revert, and now open the discussion for outside input. We only allot separate pages for topics that meet the criteria mentioned in my first comment above. The idea is that secondary and reliable sources would have covered this release if it was important—it isn't for us to individually determine which games are important and which aren't. Instead we take our lead from the sources. My linked question mark above explains this in more detail czar 09:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- May I ask the question what is your motivation in removing this (and other) fleshed out article? I have problems spinning my head around your motivation. Do you disagree that id software / Carmack were highly important for the video gamign history and their early works are part of it? What is the harm in keeping this existing article? Shaddim (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't have any more sources, the next step is AfD, where other editors will make very clear cases for how "enough" functions in this context czar 09:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
