Talk:Doom modding

We currently have two lists of "popular" WADs, given with external links. There are two problems here: "popular" is vague, and mere lists of external links are discouraged. Instead of the list of links format, we should make a list of important WADs along with one or two paragraphs of text for each describing them, preferrably motivating why they are special.

Now, how to determine importance? Popularity is nearly impossible to measure, so some kind of additional justification of substantiality is required. Megawads and TCs aren't that controversial, but in general I think both uniqueness historical significance is required. If necessary, it could be pointed out in the article text that it is difficult to decide which ones are important, and provide a hint that there are other lists out there, which are to be provided in the external links section. This should be OK; for comparison check jazz standard, that article has the same problem.

I would consider the following megawads and TCs to be worthy of inclusion:

• All TeamTNT megawads (should also be listed on TeamTNT)
• Requiem, Memento Mori 1&2, these being the "classic" megawads (are there others?)
• 10 sectors, for the unique theme, and being created as a major contest
• Aliens TC and Star Wars Doom, for historical significance
• Doom64 TC, for replicating an entire game (and there apparently being no legal trouble, oddly)
• FreeDoom, for uniqueness as a project
• Hell Revealed, for being the (infamous) WAD for expert players
• Maybe Classic Episode and Alien Vendetta, mainly because they are featured on Compet-N
• Batman TC, for being a (what is widely considered a quality-)rendition of a well-known franchise, in the format of a full TC

Now, single-level WADs are a bit harder. There are way too many WADs to even try a listing based on which are considered "good" without either listing too many (possibly a thousand) or violating NPOV in being selective. "Popular" can't really be measured (I did refer to popularity in some of the motivations for megawads, but those are IMO much less controversial). There are plenty of opinions on which WADs are good, but no professional or outstandingly significant reviewers around whose authority can be referred to. Doomworld's 100 top 100 WADs may be considered somewhat authorative, but 100 is way too many to list here.

What we can do, however, is list WADs which are of historical significance. SargeBaldy suggested UAC_DEAD.WAD on IRC, which I'd agree about. What others are there? Well, the Harris levels. That's two. Can we make a list of some 10 particularly important non-megawad/TC WADs about which something interesting can be written? What about infamous WADs? The Sky May Be, Nuts.wad? (For The Sky May Be, the Something Awful review would be justification ;) Suggestions, please.

Links to external lists of WADs: there are of course too many "Bob's list of the 10 top WADs!!!" lists. We should definitely link to Doomworld's list, though. What others may be considered authorative (in some sense of the word)?

- Fredrik | talk 23:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have read that "opost21" (for Doom 1) was the first user pwad that rivaled the original levels in quality. I have played the level and consider it a good one, for its time, but like you I don't know on what authority it could be deemed historically significant. Ray Spalding 01:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- Skari u how | talk 18:43, 25 Jul 2014 (AEST

I added UAC Military Nightmare to the WADs section, one because it is amazing, and two because it is very infamous. It also got a Cacoward and spawned the Terry-WAD saga.

In addition to the above, things that should be mentioned in this article are:

• Legal problems: id Software's policy on non-commerciality and TCs getting foxed. Unfortunately I know nearly nothing about this.
• Editing details. In addition to listing editors, go into more details about what things can be modified, how levels are edited (they are edited in 2D), limitations, what limitations source ports remove. Links to editing tutorials. Maybe a Wikibook on Doom WAD making, along with one of those neat {{wikibooks}} links at the bottom?

- Fredrik | talk 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking about porting over the technical stuff on the Doom Wiki over to here under it's own section. Good idea? -- TheDarkArchon 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Could someone who knows about intellectual properties and laws develop reasons why the official doom wads are not free? It's more than just a matter of selling them. It's more likely to a symbolic action keep the copryright on the arts and characters or something like this. 132.203.32.206 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can I add Myhouse and talk about it's connection to house of leaves? I think it's worthy for the connections and popularity, as well as the high quality modding and story telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutalisk666 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the moment, the list of WADs is exactly not what we need; a directory of external links (WP:NOT) with no verification (WP:V) and very few with assertions of notability (WP:N). Some such as the Aliens TC are bound to have some reliable, independent coverage somewhere, but otherwise the list should be stripped. Marasmusine (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've made a start on some references. The embedded external links should be removed, too. Marasmusine (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Batman Doom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I edited the following this: 1) id never allowed add-ons for money, regardless of profit (it was stating otherwise; it seems some people incorrectly concluded that because the CD WAD compilations existed, id really allowed them in some way), 2) the definition of total conversion was not properly contextualized, 3) HacX, which used to have an article but doesn't anymore (as it's comparatively non-notable as a commercial release and game) is a TC, so it's on the list now, so other articles linking to HacX can now go to the list here, 4) Freedoom is not a TC because its essential purpose is functional instead of "thematic" (to create a free Doom, not to create a "new experience") and it does not alter behavior in any way (to allow full compatibility), so I moved it to miscellaneous, where it makes more sense. Who is like God? (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image Image:DEU.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I put this on the main Doom discussion page but then I saw this entry for WADs themselves and thought this would fit here as well.

I was watching the DOOM post mortem on GDC (http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014627/Classic-Game-Postmortem) by Tom Hall and John Romero and Tom Hall specifically states (about 5 minutes into the presentation) that the "where's all the data" definition was after the fact and that really the name came about when the team was defining file structures and John Carmack asked for an extension for "a bunch of lumps". Hall said he thought for a moment and said, "A wad?" and the name was used.

So what I'm wondering is if the current text in the beginning of the article which says "WAD" is "an acronym for Where is All the Data" should be changed. Not that that isn't true, but it seems to mean that the extension came from that phrase when in reality the phrase came from the extension.

-madpanic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.18.23 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

So .WAD is really an acrostic, not an acronym. Mind you, it's an acrostic anyway, since the word "wad" existed long before Doom. -- 93.97.40.177 (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The cite given for WAD meaning where's all the data is not a good cite. Look at the other definitions there and there are many that are simply humorous. I'm not saying that's not what WAD means, but if it does, you need a much better source, as this is like taking a comedian's word that PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals.68.51.193.141 (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Those are the appendices of the Doom Bible, written by Tom Hall.--Drat (Talk) 03:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doom WAD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193812/http://5years.doomworld.com/doombible/appendices.shtmltohttp://5years.doomworld.com/doombible/appendices.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201110939/http://www.jeshimoth.com:80/jutegyte/blasphemer/tohttp://www.jeshimoth.com/jutegyte/blasphemer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom WAD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415232414/http://www.rome.ro/lee_killough/articles/doomconf.shtmltohttp://rome.ro/lee_killough/articles/doomconf.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Doom modding at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Doom WAD → Modding in Doom – Per consistency with Modding in Grand Theft Auto and a title that people can actually understand, as for the unintiated, "Doom WAD" sounds like nonsense. Doom WADs are, essentially, just mods. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Support; the proposed title is certainly clearer and more recognizable. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose (EDIT: Neutral / maybe move to Doom mods instead). These are universally known as WADs, and readers interested in the topic will know and expect it here. It's not 100% identical to modding as well, a WAD can "just" be a custom map. Saying "it sounds like nonsense" could be applied to any and all specialized knowledge whatsoever and is a weak argument; maybe shortstoporCaro-Kann Defense sounds like nonsense to the uninitiated too, but they shouldn't be moved either. SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

WAD is a narrow term that refers just to the package file format; modding is a broader term that covers modifying the game in general (which of course includes the WAD but isn't limited to it). In this case the article covers more than just the file -- e.g., it touches on things like various level editor software -- so the broader term seems preferable. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Its origin is the file format, sure, but that's ultimately a bit of trivia - Folder (computing) is based off physical manilla folders, but that's not really relevant. That said, doing a quick search on recent WADs seems to uncover a mix of both "mods" and "WADs", so possibly Doom mod / Doom mods might also be acceptable. (e.g. this Google search shows both "WAD" and "mod" to describe it). SnowFire (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Support: I was initially quick to oppose, but after scanning the article, I see that it is actually more about the modding of Doom than about the file format itself. The title and language basically serve to emphasize the format, rather than what it is about as it should. Had it cited many other games or programs as using the WAD format, I could see the reason to keep the title, though it would need to be renamed to ".WAD", "WAD (file format)", or something like that. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 05:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Trying to move this to its conclusion. ZXCVBNM, given your request to move Dropping outtoDropout (education), would you also support SnowFire's suggestion of Doom mod instead of Modding in Doom here? Dekimasuよ! 02:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I think it's a totally different scenario here. I greatly prefer either Modding in DoomorDoom modding. The problem is that a Doom mod is not separate from a mod, we are not redefining the word here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Weak support of OP per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, but strongly prefer Doom modding or as second choice Modding of Doom – the former per WP:CONCISE and RECOGNIZABLE and the latter, as a second choice, just for proper English and logic (modding is modification of the game by parties external to it, not modding in the game by its characters!). Regardless, rewrite the article to match, so it's not constantly saying WAD this and WAD that. WAD is just a filename extension for mods of Doom, Hexen, and other related games, just like ESP for Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout, and various other games using the same basic engine as Skyrim. While Doom mods would also be WP:CONCISE, it's flawed in several respects, the most trivial one being WP:PLURAL and the most important being that the encyclopedic topic here is modding of the game (a human activity and subculture); this is not just a list of mods. I only offer weak support for the original proposal on WP:CONSISTENT grounds, because this and similar articles should actually be moved to titles of the form "Game modding" (or, at worst, "Modding of Game"). While they should ultimately be CONSISTENT with each other regardless, let's do Doom modding and then move the other to Grand Theft Auto modding. There's no hurry, so that can be done in a second RM, or just with a bold post-RM manual move. PS: It's weird to me that Skyrim modding, Modding of Skyrim, Modding in Skyrim, Skyrim mod, etc. are all redlinks. Skyrim is the most-modded game in history, so it's odd that we have no article on it. Actually an article on The Elder Scrolls modding, more broadly, would be more appropriate and practical, unless and until there's too much material for one page. There's a lot of continuity between the Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and Skyrim Special Edition modding communities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Support Doom modding per SMcC.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think we should add Brutal Doom to the list of selected WADs, since it's one of the most popular Doom mods out there, it already has it's own page, and it's mentioned in the Doom series template. HaveYouHeardAboutTheBird (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I made a change to MyHouse.wad's section, and marked it as a minor edit by accident. It's not a minor edit. MarinaTheRanger (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply