Deathmatch WADs

What deathmatch WADs do you think we should list here? I'd say at least British 11, dweller2, Execution, Judas, the TeamTNT WADs (Bloodlands, Grievance & Pursuit), Vex-Doom and the xfire series should be listed. Janizdreg 18:22, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

? and squares

The notation doesn't work, in Firefox I see question marks ? and in IE I see squares looking exactly the same. I'm using Unicode in all browsers. 08:11, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I have problems in some situations, although I don't have the energy to examine all my locales right now. I'm open to suggestions on how to re-write the page, avoiding these problems. -- Jdowland 08:31, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Just choose something esle, something that will show up OK on all browsers. Why squares? Why don't you choose *, !, @ etc. instead? Or letters - like A, B, C? 09:13, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Questions / Critical comments

I'm not quite sure on your notation, does ☐ represent "starts only" i.e. yes, although not tested and not primary purpose? Also I'm not sure about the idea of marking things a "joke wad" since some things, for instance, Action Doom, could arguably be considered a joke wad because it's primarily an attempt at humor but at the same time enough effort was put into it that many people would say it wasn't. I'm curious what other people think. Sarge Baldy 15:56, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, ☐ means that it works but it’s not meaned to be played like this. I think that for joke WADs, it should mark the WADs that fit in the article. Ducon 01:03, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
That byte (or bytes) doesn't display properly in my browser. It seems the page is being sent as UTF-8 so it's probably kosher but maybe annotating in the ASCII subset would cause the fewest problems for people. I'll have a play with my OS encoding settings. Jdowland 07:46, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Does it look like a square? Its supposed to look that way :-) 11:39, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
In IE/win32; yes. In firefox/win32 and firefox/linux with some latin charset for the latter, no, it varies between a square with hex numbers in it and a question mark. If it's nothing more complex than a square, can I substitute it for some ASCII char? Jdowland 16:41, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
No, this site is coded in utf-8 (you should get a unicode font). Ducon 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I see, so it's use unicode for the sake of it, rather than because it's useful? Jdowland 08:00, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Unicode IS useful. :-) You can write in english, in french, in arab, in chinese and you even can see maths or misc symbols. Look at the Doomworld forums, they accept japanese or other characters. You want some unicode fonts? Ducon 12:11, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I know unicode is useful - thanks, I have unicode fonts (my locale isn't UTF in linux however). My objection is using it where there is no apparent gain on using something from the ASCII subset, such as this example. Jdowland 16:43, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)
My locale is utf, but how can you do this in ASCII? Ducon 01:26, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Wikimedia is utf-8 compliant. Ducon 11:50, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
What do you mean by "fit in the article"? Sarge Baldy 10:26, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
In the JokeWAD article. Er… ☐? ☐ is neutral, maybe but maybe not, ☑ is yo, meant for it and ☒ is no, don’t even think about it (for example no deathmatch starts). For jokeWADs it may mean that the WAD is a bit jokey but not like nuts or mockery. Ducon 11:50, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)

article aim: list all wads? only noteable ones?

This page is growing too large to be easily readable. Should we not use the categories system to auto-generate a list of WADs which are note-worthy enough to have their own articles? -- Jdowland 11:43, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe this this page should be replaced by a category and sub-categories. Ducon 17:29, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Given the discussion at the top of this page, I suggest we have our first VFD :-) -- Jdowland
I dont think there's any need to delete it. I think it should be a useful quick reference list of popular WADs and their download links. Note that there are WADs listed here which havent been written up yet: the red links give a good incentive to people to write articles. Fraggle 10:51, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Co-op thing

I added an extra column on to the table to show co-op status of the map. This is because, especially with map packs with scripting, it is entirely possible to have a level pack that works in SP but not in co-op (Even in Vanilla it's possible through lack of starts). -- TheDarkArchon 01:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.  There are also levels that work in co-op but not solo (because it takes two people to open the exit room).    Ryan W 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Legality of Robocop

From license.txt:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may create a map editor, modify maps and 
make your own maps (collectively referenced as the "Permitted Derivative 
Works") for the Software.  You may not sell or distribute any Permitted 
Derivative Works but you may exchange the Permitted Derivative Works at no 
charge amongst other end-users.

The doom source code license and the GNU GPL don't contain anything particular about new wads in Doom, so I see this as the only possible source by which the Robocop wad could be "illegal". And while this quote certainly makes it illegal, it also appears to outlaw any wad file that includes something other than maps. Even if "maps" is considered to include the textures and flats in maps, certainly any wad which replaces menu graphics, sprites, sounds etc would be categorized as illegal.

I'd just like some concrete source on why Robocop is any more or less illegal then a load of other pc/tcs, because without it there's no reason to single it out with the "technically illegal" comment. Goyuken 03:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a new topic (see the Raphael Quinet story here); you may want to ask at Doomworld in hopes of finding more experienced observers.  For bonus points, try searching old forum discussions and/or Usenet threads first, to confuse yourself further.  :>
My understanding is that all third-party mods are arguably copyright violations unless they explicitly disclaim ownership (very rare, and the readme file might get separated from the WAD anyway) and the author of the editing program has signed the "Data Utility License" (most did not, I imagine, especially the newer ones).  Additionally, some modders do things that would be copyright violations even in freely licensed software (such as inserting ripped sprites or sound effects).  As elsewhere on the internet, this may or may not attract comment from the copyright holder.  I have not looked at either of the Robocop files so I don't know if the latter point applies.
All this is typically ignored by the community at large, as you say, unless a major problem appears to be brewing (e.g. the aborted Star Wars TC).  It might well be ignored here also, if not for Wikia's insistence that we be somewhat careful.
In any case, only the engine was GPLed, not the entire program, so the more restrictive license still applies, does it not?  Even if the source release was deemed to alter the licensing conditions, does that apply retroactively to existing PWADs?
Ryan W 09:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Making a derivative work you have limited copyrights conditioned by the authors of the original thing. As for using graphics or other resources from the games, you can as long as the patch wad requires the game the stuff is taken from to run (which is the basic condition id demands, in addition to non-profit use of the resulting add-ons). This was confirmed during the development of KDiZD when they emailed id Software about it. I've never played the Robocop TC or been familiar with what it uses, but, by its theme, it sounds more likely to violate the copyrights of the owners of the Robocop franchise than id's. Who is like God? 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of super shotgun pwad (moved from User_talk:Fraggle)

hi. um why did you remove my super shotgun for doom 1 and ultimate doom patch wad?

Vsa7a 09:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)vsa7a

PWADs that include graphics and sounds from the commercial Doom releases are illegal because the content is copyrighted. Generally you should avoid linking to such WADs in the future. -- Janizdreg 01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

what? thats BS. all it is is take doom II's super shotgun and make it usable in doom and ultimate doom to make it easier. its the same game by the same copyright holders! theres not a way to take for some other use or some other nonsense. it sure in hell makes the game easier and more flexible as well as its better than that one wad which is posted with no way or link to download! -- Vsa7a 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my main reason for removing it is that I didn't consider it notable, List of WADs isn't a list of every single WAD file ever made; it it was, then there would literally be thousands of entries in it. Instead, it's a list of fairly notable WADs that people have made for Doom. Not to denigrate your WAD but it's really just a fairly minor hack to put the Super Shotgun in Doom and not really comparable to other entries in the list; GothicDM, Eternal Doom, KDiZD, etc.
I should clarify that I don't think you did anything wrong by adding your WAD to the list, because we don't currently have any solid criteria for what should be in it. But I think we should take the opportunity now to set some guidelines for what's in that list, to stop it ballooning. Fraggle 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

what? it says 'list of wads' and you saying it cant accept a simple hack that includes doom more altogether. and it has to be 'notable' and such. well how about the wads that dont even work or are inaccessible? such as the last one ZooW: Alien Dimension Jimi 2004 Doomsday how is that notable if it just sits there and looks pretty? thats whack! if you really want to make it 'list of notable wads' go ahead change the name and tell me where is this fabbled wad archive of idgames or show me something else thats related of an official doom place to put a simple element that belongs in the game altogether....notability my ass -- Vsa7a 08:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's just an indiscriminate collection of information (literally a "list of WADs") then in my opinion this page isn't really a useful resource. By contrast, a collection of notable WADs is something that is potentially useful to people. It's quite likely that there are other WADs in the list that don't belong here and should be removed if we set some notability guidelines.
I appreciate that you're probably proud of your mod and want other people to play it, but please try to get some perspective - it should be obvious that your mod doesn't "fit" with others in the list that consists of some of the most well-known and highly-rated Doom mods of all time. As I said before, you haven't done anything wrong - we just need to set more clear guidelines for the purpose of this page and what belongs here.
As for the idgames archive, you can find more information here. I hope this is helpful :-) Fraggle 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

you know what? i think there already is a 'list of notable wads' or a list of that nature around on doom wiki such as the 100 wads, infamous wads page or the cacowards to name a few. sure there must be wads on 'list of wads' that dont belong by common sense since it apparently doesnt work or has no link nowhere to be found. so i see no reason the wad i posted as a minor hack would be undid or is to be deleted. btw i should add it is not actually my wad as im posting it on behalf of someone but surely the concept of bringing both doom 1 and doom 2 at least the weapons part together brings more versatility and playability. sure its obvious that it isnt a brand spanking new exceptional wad like all the rest of that junk or such extra rubbish but it sure in hell beats them all in simplicity and above all it works. as for that idgames archive sorry i tried putting the wad there but it seems to suck and not work. i guess ftp doesnt work very well and i really dont have the patience and am too damn lazy to figure that out. Vsa7a 23:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've already stated, you've done nothing wrong by adding your WAD here. At present, there are no guidelines as to what should appear on this page because its purpose is not well-defined. My goal is to define a purpose for what is included on this page. My comments are not intended as a personal attack on you or your the quality of your WAD. I simply think that in the history of all Doom WADs ever made, it isn't particularly notable or important, and that I think we should redefine this page to be a "list of notable WADs"; otherwise, the page itself has no real purpose. Fraggle 19:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

im sorry but im not taking it as a personal attack or attack towards my wad. all im saying is it seems like you reacted to change something into something that already exists and kinda serves no real purpose anyways no matter what it is. a list of notable wads would not be necessary nor does it serve any real extra purpose considering there already are lists of wads so mentioned here and there only in different seperate lists like i had said above. you might as well take one of those existing lists and combine them all together and delete this 'list of wads' rather than changing it into something called of bad riddance containing rubbish. also can you tell me if you know of a place to put wads other than id games archive since it requires crappy ftp. i would appreciate it. Vsa7a 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the legality of this WAD a bit more. Vsa7a is correct in that it's perfectly fine to use Doom II resources in Doom, but I'm rather sure it's illegal to take content from a commercial, copyrighted game and release it as a free download without asking a permission for it from the copyright holders first. As another example, you probably wouldn't extract the Doom II levels and distribute them as a free download, right? Doing the same thing for a weapon included in the game is essentially the same thing - in other words, you are illegally distributing parts of a commercial game for free. -- Janizdreg 15:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

that is like using the copyright to making excuses rather than no harm done using resources within the same company. saying just because you cant mod the levels to doom means you cant take a weapon from doom is like you would make the excuse on why robocop is illegal. there is a big difference between the two and hell i doubt anyone would bother to mod the levels of doom II to doom and vice versa considering its an unnecessary pain and doom nowadays is sold in the whole package including both. besides i like ultimate doom with its original levels and with a doublebarreled shotgun and without any pain enemies such as archviles. -- Vsa7a 16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Following my comments above, I think we should define some notability criteria for what is included in this list. If there are no restrictions on what is allowed, it may as well be a list of every WAD in the idgames archive. I think that if this article is to be "useful", it should be a list of notable WADs, rather than simply a list of WADs (perhaps we should change the name!)

In terms of how a WAD can be classified as "notable", I think it's possible to set some guidelines based on citation of sources. For example:

  • Inclusion in the Doomworld top 100 WADs
  • Won an award in the Cacowards
  • The subject of a Doomworld news post - here's Plutonia 2, for example.
  • Referenced by some other news source.

One thing that I do think is rather tricky is that there may be WADs that are considered "notable" but possibly don't meet any of these criteria. This may particularly be the case with newly-released WADs that are obviously notable in some way but have not yet been the subject of awards or a major news post. We could perhaps extend the criteria to include "evidence exists of significant discussion related to the WAD". Then again, it may not even be necessary. Fraggle 00:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

not sure where my last comment went. I think the article should be removed. Notability of a WAD means it is due an article, not a line in this table. Half of the table's utility would then be provided by a category: WADs or such like. The remaining utility, about WAD status etc. (SP, MP, etc.) would be lost, or it could be partially replicated using more fine-grained categories (Cat: single player WADS etc.) but I just think this isn't the right place for that kind-of information. -- 11:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC) (User:Jdowland)
At present, we don't have any notability guidelines for WADs that may appear on the Doom wiki. Personally I'm not sure that it's necessary to restrict what WADs may have articles on the wiki as a whole. My only concern at the moment is setting a clear purpose for this page.
Regarding using categories, it's an easy and "obvious" choice to make, but I think it's actually nice having information like this in a tabular form, which you don't get with categories. You'll notice that it's actually possible to sort by name, author, release date, etc. which can be useful in different situations. Fraggle 19:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel too ignorant of our community-wide communication channels (especially the ones from the Usenet era) to judge Fraggle's list below.  On this wiki, however, one key argument for keeping this article has been "it's a good way to organize all our red PWAD links".  If we adopt a notability guideline as discerning as this one, a full list would basically be available by combining two or three lists compiled by other sites.  Therefore, it seems like we wouldn't need this article just to finish a reasonable set of stubs.
If we do keep the article, should we add a "Awards" column, so that we don't need to maintain duplicate lists in Cacowards and Top 100 WADs of All Time?  (Or is that what Vsa7a is suggesting?)    Ryan W 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes Ryan W thats what i was talking about a full list would basically be available by combining the other lists. you dont need to mess with that sort of stuff here and simply put guidelines of notability discerning such. Vsa7a 10:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Discussion seems a bit slow, and it occurs to me that the reason may be that I'm not proposing a clear course of action.

I propose that we rename this page to "List of notable WADs" and apply the following notability criteria:

We should add references to existing WADs to demonstrate notability and remove any WADs that do not meet the criteria.

Accept. Fraggle 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Accept. Russell 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Object. Separate 'list of notable wads' already exists. Delete this if you must of the whole list instead of changing it into something of lesser importance. Vsa7a 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not true. Firstly, there is no "list of notable WADs" article - I'm going to assume you're referring to the Top 100 WADs of All Time and Cacowards articles. The top 100/Cacowards entries in the list above are examples of things that would demonstrate the notability of a WAD. I'm perfectly happy to add other criteria to the list if they're sensible suggestions for how notability can be determined.
You also seem to have missed the last entry in this list, that of news posts on Doomworld and other websites. There are entries within the list as it stands which this affects: for example, neither Freedoom or Community Chest appear in the Top 100 WADs list or in any of the Cacowards, but are notable by these criteria because there have been news posts about them. It's therefore demonstrable that a list of notable WADs would be more than just an aggregation of other lists. Fraggle 01:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no article titled exactly 'list of notable WADs' yes but there are articles of such that you dont really need a big list to put them all such communities together it would look like the 'trashy' big list of all WADs you fear anyways. Vsa7a 10:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As I've already explained, a list of notable WADs would be more than just an aggregation of other lists. I've even given multiple examples to demonstrate that is the case. Fraggle 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Object. I believe that the list of wads covers the majority of "notable" wads. They may not be the very best wads ever to every individual in the Doom community, nor have they all won awards from one or more of the many Doom sites out there. But they are the wads that I have seen discussed and talked about the most over the years. Certainly there may be a few entries on the list that aren't actually "notable" and some wads out there that should be included, but some margin for error is unavoidable. That said though, one shouldn't be afraid of removing some of the wads that have sat in the list for a long period of time course in the name of correction.
If the articles title is changed to something like "notable wads", I believe one would have to follow up with an introductory paragraph stating, coincidently something along the lines of what I have suggested above (i.e. that the term "notable" can mean many things).
With regards to the vote, I vote against a field explaining exactly why each wad is "notable" because that would be akin to listing specific criteria a wad must meet to become "notable", which as I have stated in my opinion above, I believe would be a bad move. Verm 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, your objection isn't against changing the page title, but rather against the use of notability criteria? (correct me if I'm wrong) I understand the desire to avoid getting bogged down in fixed rules, but I'll try to explain why I think it's needed.
If we don't define what a "notable" WAD is, then there's the problem of disputes over whether WADs in the list really are "notable". For example, someone might make the argument of "supercool.wad is notable! My friends and I play it multiplayer all the time!" It would be incredibly tedious if we had to call a vote every time there was a conflict over notability.
Conversely, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that if a WAD really is notable, it should be possible to find evidence of it. Things like the top 100 WADs list and the Cacowards are an easy way of knocking down a large number of these; if it's in one of these lists then it's obviously notable. If a news website like Doomworld makes a news post dedicated to it, that's evidence that it was obviously considered notable enough to be reported upon. It might be possible to find other reasonable examples of notability (and I appeal for suggestions!); a large thread on a Doom forum dedicated to a WAD would probably be reasonable proof of notability, for example. However, if it really isn't possible to find any evidence whatsoever of notability, I have to question in what sense the WAD really is notable.
Perhaps a good compromise would be to add an extra item to the end of the list, such as "some other evidence that the WAD is considered notable by the Doom community at large"? What do you think? Fraggle 13:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, my main point was to say that any mentioning as to why wad X is notable would have to be very carefully done so as not to suggest that it is the set in stone criteria for any wad to be considered notable. Hence is it worth it.
To be honest, the most reliable way in my opinion is to probably to call a vote each time a wad (or a group of) is added/removed. It would be tedious on a regularly updated list indeed. But don't think this list would be updated often enough to become tedious. Verm 10:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, ideally I guess we would vote on every WAD added, but in practise I don't think it's really a practical thing to do. Firstly the Doom wiki is far less active than it once was; hardly anyone has even participated in this discussion, for example. Plus it seems needlessly bureaucratic to impose something like that; I think it's not unreasonable that we should be able to at least set some basic criteria or guidelines for what is considered notable, and judge WADs by those criteria.
I'm also not convinced that it isn't updated often enough to become tedious. Several WADs have already been added this year; plus, wouldn't we need to retroactively vote on all of the existing entries in the list? Fraggle 13:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Fraggle.  My rough estimate of the Doomworld coverage described above (which wouldn't be the only way to get on the list of course) is an average of three new WADs per month.  Our editors just wouldn't bother to keep up with the polls, especially those who only log in once a month anyway.  Also, without clearly stated general criteria, new and unreleased WADs would become magnets for vote stacking.    Ryan W 14:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Jägermörder"?

I'm intrigued by the two "Jägermörder" WADs on the list. I know that "mörder" is German for "murder" (same pronunciation and meaning as English, different spelling), but what does "Jäger" mean? Perhaps, if these two WADs are notable enough to be on this list, they should have their own article(s) here. — RobertATfm (talk) 13:17, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.