2.0 talk:Levels

Version 2.0.5 Levels

Shoud Frost Columns be put in the list yet? SpiritCrusher doesn't think so, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be there. -Blahblahbal 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not yet a part of the game. It's ok to have a page for it when we know it will be included, but it would be misleading to list it as already featured. Someone who doesn't know about Frost Columns Zone would ask himself: "Why is this level in the list but not in the game?" --SpiritCrusher 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. That makes sense. --Blahblahbal 22:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it here for now. Inuyasha, a dev, edited it, and didn't mark it for deletion. –SonicMaster 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: To avoid confusion, I mean to keep the article here. –SonicMaster 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blue Mountain Zone

Where should BMZ2 be put? It doesn't belong to the single player campaign as it's not included in the playthrough and it's also not a secret level because you cannot unlock it. -SpiritCrusher EDIT: Same for Special Stage 8 aka Original SS7.

Blue Mountain is avalible in playthrough if you go to red valcano you can acsess it and playthrough it. Special stage 8 should be with tag/special stages either or. --This was done by Eggmanfan you have been warned 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC) -The wizard fan needs food slightly/Eggmanfan

If playing the single player campaign, it is skipped. And why tag? - SpiritCrusher

Because it is the only one that has a no-tag sector -Eggmanfan --This was done by Eggmanfan you have been warned 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrapped Stages

I thought there should be a section for scrapped, canned, deprecated or otherwise canceled stages. I personally know little to nothing about all of them except a couple match levels (Zero Ring and another) If there was a section for it, it might help encourage making articles for these. JEV3 13:33, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

I think this is what you want: http://wiki.srb2.org/wiki/Category:Historical_Levels --Christmas Mode will NEVER Die! 17:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This didn't exist back when JEV3 wrote that comment, so... --SpiritCrusher 17:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that about a few minuets ago.*Anime-Sweat-drop*--Christmas Mode will NEVER Die! 17:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, important line of thought.

Alrighty, currently all the map articles are named based on their map number, not their level name. I suggest reversing that for one simplistic reason. Map numbers aren't permanent. We change them every release, especially for the multiplayer stages. I think we should rename the articles to the zone name, setting up redirects for the map numbers that will point to the actual stage. This will lead to a more permanent basis for naming articles, and allow us to have articles on stages that, for whatever reason, aren't currently in SRB2's rotation. (Zero Ring Zone could use an article, for instance)

Complete

DarkWarrior and I did the moving and redirecting. Should be complete. Say if you find anything not working right -Mystic 17:02, 14 March 2007 (PDT)

Reasoning

If you'd like my input, the reason I actually named these "MAP01 (SRB2)", "MAP02 (SRB2)", etc., is for a number of reasons:

To follow what the Doom Wiki does. The reason they do it is because multiple games can share the same map slot. Therefore, they do it like "MAP01 (Doom II)", "MAP01 (Doom 64)", "MAP01 (TNT:Evilution)", etc. An SRB2 version can actually share the same notion, I think, as in "MAP50 (SRB2 v1.09.4)", "MAP50 (SRB2 v1.04)", etc. Actually, what would be even more useful is if both the map numbers and map names, as well as the version, were in the name. Something like "MAP91: Meadow Match Zone (SRB2 v1.04)" or "MAP91: Thunder Citadel Zone (SRB2 v1.09.4)". This is actually how the Doom Wiki really does it.
To allow for multiple games to have their own level entries, like "MAPAA (Mystic Realm)", or "MAPC0 (Chaos Zone)".
To go along with how Things, Linedefs, and Sectors are all listed by their number. On another note, remember this: they too are temporary. They're going to change completely come v1.1.

I think what needs to be decided is what degree of importance that the map numbers and the level names have. Should one be listed? Should the other? Should both of them be (which, considering your words, would only be a viable option if the version were included as well)?

Another thing to consider is historic maps, which I believe the naming is especially important for. If we wanted to make map pages for historic maps (like Demo 3's multiplayer maps, in which a lot of them are not used anymore,) how would we name them? A lot of them don't have names. Would we name them, like, "MAP08 (SRB2 Demo 3)"?

Yet another thing to consider is the maps that are recurring across all SRB2 versions, like GFZ1. Are the differences across the versions worth it for there to be separate map pages for each version, like "Meadow Match Zone (Demo 3)" or "Meadow Match Zone (SRB2 v1.09.4)"? An especially good example for this case would be Red Volcano Zone. Surely, the differences between the current version and the one that will be in 1.1 will be quite vast. Another good example is of the CTF maps Lime Forest Zone and Dual Fortress Zone. Are they different enough from their Demo 4 counterparts to call for separate pages?

How about adding these elements only when necessary? For historic maps that don't have names, list the map number and version, like "MAP08 (SRB2 Demo 3)". For completely different maps that share the same name (like the special stages, which are all named "Special Stage 1", "2", anyways), perhaps they could be "Special Stage 1 (SRB2 Demo 4)" and "Special Stage 1 (SRB2 v1.09.4)"? And as for the rest, just have the level name and that would be that? Personally, I don't think the majority of differences across versions are important enough for there to be separate articles for each version of a map. Maybe a "History" section within the one map page would suffice. With Red Volcano Zone (and other cases, for that matter,) if the differences will be vast enough for there to be separate map pages, that would fall under the completely different maps scenario, and it would be the same way as the special stages (though I don't really think that would require a new article either, unless the final RVZ were really, really different.)

Another thing that could be done is creating redirects for the MAP numbers of each version, when applicable. Like, "MAP05 (SRB2 Demo 3)" redirects to "Meadow Match Zone". "MAP99 (SRB2 v1.09.4)" would also redirect to "Meadow Match Zone".

I'm not suggesting that any actions take place right now. This is all only input.

--Digiku 04:03, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

The reasoning behind the map name changes was that SRB2's map order changes (At least, according to Mystic). So changing the names to appropriate titles rather than by map numbers would make things a little bit more organized. I do agree with you on ordering by version, but only to a small degree. If a history section is set up, all past maps should be named according to version number. Naturally, this would include 1.09.4's levels,once 1.1 comes out. ~DarkWarrior

It seems to me as if by, "I do agree with you on ordering by version," you were referring to my numbered list up top. If not, correct me.

I apologize for not making the following point clear: up top, I was explaining my reasoning behind the initial naming. I recognize Mystic's point and agree with it. I actually propose something we can do about names in the third-to-last paragraph (starting with "How about adding these elements only when necessary?" --Digiku 09:00, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

I'm a big fan of "use complexity only when necessary". I suggest any articles about maps from before the era where we started naming them use the scheme shown above, but any map where the stage was named have its article located at the name of the zone. In the case of having more than one stage with the same name, the more commonly known one would get the name and have a disambiguation page. -Mystic 12:09, 21 October 2007 (PDT)

Zero Ring????

What happened to Zero Ring??? I loved that level, so now I need to load Chaos Zero 64's RetroPack. Just..... What happened?

It was scrapped, probably due to balance or gameplay problems. It may have been to small, the pit in the middle may have messed it up. I enjoyed it too, except for the pit. I'm sure an admin or an oldie can elaborate on this, but for now, suffice it to say its been scrapped. JEV3 13:33, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

Category?

I can't seem to add categories into this document. It should be part of the SRB2 and Levels categories. -Mystic 19:51, 24 October 2007 (PDT)

Done. --SonicMaster 18:52, 26 October 2007 (PDT)

Concerning "X Y Zone" names; general note

Greenflower Zone, Techno Hill Zone, Flame Rift Zone, etc., need redirects to the Act 1 of their levels. All of the names, even the ones I didn't mention.

An easy way to do this is to use the "Create redirect" link on the left menu; it's in the "toolbox" box.
Navigate to the page you want the redirect to move to (e.g. go to Greenflower Zone Act 1), and then click the "Create redirect" link and tell it to create the page e.g. "Greenflower Zone".

Sound doable? --Digiku 09:04, 27 October 2007 (PDT)

Sure thing. ~DarkWarrior

Where's SRB1?

Shouldn't there be a spot on this list for SRB1 levels? Heck, it should be its own category on that Levels table thing-of-a-jigger. ~Spazzo^{Talk • Contribs} 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that too, but I haven't got around to do it yet because I would have to change every of the templates, create a new one and list the levels on the Levels page. Guess I'm gonna start anyway. - SpiritCrusher EDIT: Done. Started adding the templates into the level pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritCrusher (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Condensing SRB1 Remake into one article?

I've been wondering for a while what we should do with the articles for the SRB1 Remake levels. They're all extremely short and not very informative, to the point where I wonder if it wouldn't be better to condense all the information into a single "SRB1 Remake" article instead of having separate articles for every level. This would allow us to write about the SRB1 Remake from a more general point of view, which I think would be much more informative. From what I can see, the only information that the current articles offer is this:

The map numbers and names. Already in the Levels article and could easily be listed in the "SRB1 Remake" article as well.
Screenshots of each stage. See above.
The music used in the levels. Already in the MusicSlots article and could easily be listed in the "SRB1 Remake" article as well.
The fact that some levels have new visuals or background scenery. I think a summary of these visual changes in a general overview article would actually be more informative than mentioning it for every level specifically.
The fact that all bosses are missing. See above.
The fact that the player changes to Knuckles midway through and back to Sonic a little bit later. Would also be much more informative if mentioned in a general overview article.
The "Technical Data" sections. Now this is the only thing that would be awkward to list for every level in a single article, but I honestly question whether we need this at all.

Any objections? --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 05:49, 3 December 2011 (CST)

All that I think needs doing with this idea is have the technical data separate from the main article. Otherwise, no objections, Your Honour. Ah2190 11:12, 3 December 2011 (CST)

What do you mean by "have the technical data seperate from the main article" exactly - putting them into a different page from the rest of the SRB1 remake level stuff, or just not having them at all? --Monster Iestyn ^Talk12:35, 3 December 2011 (CST)

Well, if the data is kept, then it would most likely be on a different page. Ah2190 20:36, 3 December 2011 (CST)

What sense would it make to have the technical data for the SRB1 Remake levels on an entirely different page? If we'll keep the technical data (which I don't think is happening), then it should be on the same page. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 03:55, 4 December 2011 (CST)

Fair enough. Ah2190 06:13, 4 December 2011 (CST)

Personally I don't see a need for the technical data. Having everything on one page would just be better organized and easier for viewers to read, anyhow. -Mystic 16:44, 3 December 2011 (CST)

Technical Data is already stashed inside of an infobox table that shrinks shut by default, so this is not really an issue. Mr. Mystery 17:26, 3 December 2011 (CST)

There are 28 SRB1 Remake levels. Each Technical Data section consists of two infoboxes. That means that if we were to put all this information on one page, we'd have 56 infoboxes, which would amount to a lot of space even when closed. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 18:23, 3 December 2011 (CST)

Done. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 14:29, 12 December 2011 (CST)