Template talk:Map

From Doom Wiki

The levels category is too big, imho, and not useful. Before I remove Category:Levels from this template, I just thought I'd see if there were any objections. I think levels/maps/pwads should be manually marked with applicable categories (2003 Wads, for example) and only be in a generic category like 'Levels' if there is nothing more specific.

Yeah, categories should be as specific as possible. Fredrik 17:16, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, yes, but I don't think it's the best solution for walkthrough articles.  The way we have it set up now, if a player downloads/finds a PWAD somewhere and only knows its DOS filename — no readme file, no idgames page, nothing — can they find our walkthrough in a straightforward way?  I would say no.

List of WADs is organized by "long form" title (and some people have suggested deleting that article anyway), the "map slot" method doesn't help much because practically everything is in Category:MAP01, and the other types of subcategories are based on information of purely historical interest, like the author's name or the year of release.  Therefore, I think an alphabetical list should still be maintained.  Call it Category:WADs by name, and split it into as many subcategories as necessary to get them under 200 names each (if short lists are that important).  Such structures are common on wikipedia AFAICT.    Ryan W 14:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Include "Category:" in link name?

Currently, the template produces text that reads, for example, "This level occupies the map slot MAP31. For other maps which occupy this slot, see MAP31." The problem is that this looks pretty silly if you got there from typing "MAP31" in the first place, i.e., it produces a reaction like, "See MAP31? I just got here from going to the page titled MAP31!" If you click or mouseover the link, you'll see it's Category:MAP31, which is a different title. I think the message should include the "Category:" part, so it reads "For other maps which occupy this slot, see Category:MAP31," which is more accurate. What do you guys think? - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I could live with that.  I think we've already done similar things in other articles.    Ryan W 20:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)