Talk:Doom (1993 video game)

Template:Maintained Template:V0.5

Can someone tell me what happened?

Why does this article have (video game) in the title now?

As usual, I'd like to ask to leave a copy of the reply to my talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess because thre is a movie with the same name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.72.198 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Cus theres a movie based off of the doom 3 game thats titled just DOOM. Not that im putting any changes, but heres a site to show you about the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419706/ --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify the role of NeXTStep in Doom development?

To the best of my recollection I played this game before Dec. 10, 1993 on my NeXT cube. Why is the following link not referenced? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_of_Doom

User:Datarimlens134 06:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

The link is referenced, at the top of the Development section.

Doom was developed on NeXT workstations, and then ported to DOS for the main release. It's pretty unlikely that you played it before December 10th unless you somehow got ahold of a pre-release version. Bloodshedder (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that article does not mention the alpha/beta releases. I had a copy of an early one, it had jump, crouch, and a menu option for hi-color (which crashed the system). None of the monsters moved, walking backwards downstairs while crouching crashed the game (too lazy to fix?) 203.32.16.176 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly notable or encyclopedic.  Xihr  02:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Many games have things that don't work perfectly in their pre-release stage. Dream Focus 03:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, The Doom 3 Screenshot Isn't From The Actual Game

Look at the GUI for the character's stats. It's from some lame ass mod. And then pistol is textured slightly different. Can someone please replace it with an actual screenshot from the game? 76.101.72.59 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see that the “lame ass mod” is the Doom 3 alpha if you look at the image’s file name, but I suppose an alpha screenshot isn’t the best image for this article. If nobody objects to replacing this image or finds a good screenshot to use in a few days, I’ll find one myself. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. —LOL (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? i ddint see a doom 3 scrn sht. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are two years late to the conversation stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.57.130 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Doom really the first Ethernet deathmatch game?

I think the PC (MS-DOS and Windows 3.x) versions of Spectre and/or Spectre VR had a network multiplayer mode similar to deathmatch, even if not called "deathmatch", before Doom was released. Brolin Empey (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

split off Doom 1 or Doom series

This article is two in one, there should exist a Doom 1 article and a Doom series/universe article, instead this conflates the two. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, though we should probably try to make sure there aren't too many Doom related articles. One article for the franchise in general, and then any articles for particularly prominent stuff (mostly product lines). I'd say Doom II and Final Doom should appear in the Doom (video game) article instead of separately. More links should be provided to the pretty solid Doom Wikia site instead of making sub-articles (like the one about the making of Doom... which seems too arcane for the Wikipedia to me). Add-ons don't really need their separate article either; a good mention/explanation in the game article should be enough. This should work out well by using the External Links section which already deals with various Doom subjects in this Doom (video game) article. Who is like God? (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking at the content of this article, there appears to be very little which would be suitable for a split-off "doom (universe)" article or similar: perhaps sections of the introductory paragraphs; coverage of the novels at the end of "Clones and related products" (but not that there are already several sub-articles for this heading). -- Jon Dowland (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so little if you start to add info from stub-like articles that describe franchise material to the main (franchise) article, taking the essentials (some might not be too notable). Naturally one would have to rework the content, though, since it's not just a matter of moving things around. The story related section is too wordy. In the end an article dealing with Doom and Doom II would work out fine, as they share the same engine, roughly the same resources, and the same storyline. Another article dealing with Doom stuff in general (as opposed to the core games in-depth) would also make sense. Who is like God? (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

featured article de-nomination

Someone who cares should populate the relevant links section of the template above and dig out when and why the article was de-nominated. -- Jon Dowland (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The information is contained here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doom (game)/archive1. Essentially, multiple problems were referenced, including referencing and use of images. As it stands, the article needs heavy amounts of cleanup before it can stand a chance of passing renomination. Luckily I have a lot of the original manuals and expansions for the game and am happy to take this on if people feel it's desired. Gazimoff (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Links Section

Hello.

I tried adding some very useful links to the Quake 3 article, but someone keeps removing them saying wikipedia is not a repository of links. In this article there are loads of similar links and have been for ages. So how do I stop that person removing the similar links from the Quake 3 article? Ben 2082 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate informations as well as spam, hoaxes, inappropriate formatting, etc. may have not been detected for years mainly due to Wikipedia encyclopedic nature, wiki-based editing system and continuous changes in its guidelines & manual of styles. For external links to avoid read WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. And please move Quake 3-related discussion to the proper talk page. Thanks. Visor (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note #1 (name casing)

I edited the first note and added links to reference the information, but looking back now the note still does not seem entirely convincing to me, as it contains many external links just to substantiate something that might not be relevant to many. As it was before my edit, the "reference" was an explanatory note (annotation) without sources attributing a loose statement to John Romero and making risky assumptions (at least that the official position of id on the matter is not known). I also added that the all-caps use is primarily brand-related (referring to the trademark or game as a product) to the article, because rather than wondering what is "official" it's best to simply note why and how variants are used.

From what I see, the original note came up after a long discussion editors had on whether DOOM or Doom should be used for the Wikipedia, and to me it reads more as a note to editors rather than one to readers in general; "leave/use the Doom variant because you can't prove the DOOM one is official". But in the end, the reason the Doom variant was chosen is because it suits the naming conventions of the site, unless I have the order of events wrong and it was one of the articles that helped establish the corresponding part of the adopted conventions. Regardless, this is pretty established by now, so using Doom doesn't need justifications.

Thus, one option would be to simply eliminate the note altogether. Another, to add the "name controversy" subject to the article adding in any necessary references in the usual way, but to me that may be a touch arcane. Any thoughts... suggestions? Who is like God? (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Boxart

That Image:48-front.jpg image which I uploaded, I added it here. Why did you revert my edit? Fangusu (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because an image for it exists already which is of a suitable low-resolution for fair use. Also, 48-front.jpg is not obviously named, and looks like it has been resized from an original smaller image, as it has pixelization artifacts. Bloodshedder (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image discussion

There's been quite a bit of back-and-forth over the image. I've put it to the version that was the "original" (for this particular proposed change) as far as I know. Let's try to get a consensus here instead of continuing to switch it back and forth repeatedly.

1. Image:Doom-boxart.jpg – "Original"
2. Image:Doom.jpg – Possible replacement (Image was deleted because it's a fair-use image not used in any articles: can someone find the website source from which it was uploaded?)

When the second image was first uploaded it had a watermark that made it unsuitable, but now either one would be appropriate for use. Here are a couple of arguments I have seen presented (please correct me if I misstate your position): Fangusu has pointed out that the original image specifically references "The Ultimate Doom," rather than just Doom, and as such believes that the second image is preferable. Bloodshedder thinks that the overall quality of the second image is inferior due to some pixelization artifacts, and as such, prefers the first image. To my eye, the first one shows the details better (for example, I can see a bit of the guy's face in the first one, whereas the visor appears opaque in the second), but I also like that the second one doesn't have that black border. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what have you decided? Fangusu (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my decision to make. It's up to the community to discuss it and come to a consensus. It's only been a few days, so the discussion is still in progress. Monitor this page if you want to find out what the final conclusion is, and to contribute any thoughts you have on the subject. Be patient, it may take a little while for people to discuss the matter and figure out what to do. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The reversions have been primarily regarding the image's caption, which was overlong and contained undue deference to the artist rather than just simply identifying it as the cover art for The Ultimate Doom, as it is part of the lede.  Xihr  21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How the hell does spelling out the name of the artist violate NPOV? Fredrik Johansson 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I have uploaded that deleted image again, and I have added a proper image source for it. Fangusu (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's create a seperate article for The Ultimate Doom. Then we can have both the images on this website. Fangusu (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Making a separate article for the sole purpose of including an image you want makes no sense at all according to any guideline or policy I'm aware of.  Xihr  07:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any decisons on the images yet? Fangusu (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

While the "The Ultimate" caption is a disadvantage, the overall higher quality as remarked by Icarus and Bloodshedder makes me prefer the first one. Huon (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm for the DOOM image; I think it's better to show the original DOOM game art and not that of the later retail release. The quality of the DOOM pic may be lesser but it certainly serves its purpose. I don't think an article for The Ultimate DOOM is needed (it would just be a stub anyway). Who is like God? (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Who is like God?. I think we should use the original DOOM image. Fangusu (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do need to remove one, as two very similar pics look pretty redundant. We could leave the "ultimate" pic for now and continue to discuss the matter. If it's common practice to include only the box pic and no caption for game articles on the infobox, we could shorten the info and make it a mouseover instead of a caption. I think it's fine that it mentions the author, but the descriptive part is pretty unnecessary (unlike in the screen shots where the captions associate some game details). Who is like God? (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the caption is indeed playing a role in the article as it is. Without the caption, you have to read the whole plot section just to know something pretty central and simple about the game; that it's about a marine battling hellish invaders. So either the caption needs to stay in the infobox or this has to be addressed somehow (such as by adding this to the root section of the main body of the article). Who is like God? (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is an image discussion, and that one file got deleted. I have uploaded it again, and I have found the source for this image. Queen of smart alecks 02:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Current image File:Doom-boxart.jpg

Current image problems:

• image is not from Doom, it's Ultimate Doom, title "The Ultimate" removed in editor;
• image modified;
• image has wrong description, it is not box art or cover art, it's a poster (see external links section);

Check original covers here and here.--Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Character name & story

Among other touch-ups I removed the nameless/anonymous adjective from space marine in the story section as it's better dealt as part of the game design. I added the corresponding information (with a designer reference) to the gameplay section, as the lack of a name is a feature aimed to affect game immersion. The story section also said the marine was working for the UAC, but there is no indication. The story merely says the UAC is a supplier (of technology) for the military and that the marine is stationed in Mars, where the UAC has its operations. Who is like God? (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've further changed the description from "nameless" to "unnamed". "Nameless" means that the person (or thing) in question doesn't have a name; "unnamed" means that it has a name which we haven't been told. ("Anonymous" could probably have either meaning.) -- 93.97.40.177 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Source Ports

I had a look at the "Versions and ports of Doom" wiki page. It doesn't cover the Windows source ports, such as Doom Legacy, DoomGL, ZDoomGL, GLDoom, and the history of each source port, and lost of source port code, etc.

Should that go there, or can we add some stuff in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwan1980 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Doom source port? Bloodshedder (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The problem was, Doom source port is not even linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(video_game) it should at least be in the bottom table called "The Doom series and related topics", in a line category called "Doom Source Ports" or something. Also, Bloodshedder, I registered on doomworld forums, and clicked on the activate email, but I still can't post to any forums. Is there anything else I need to do, or is this a bug?Andrewwan1980 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Doom source port is linked under the Continued Legacy section. It is also linked to twice in Versions and ports of Doom, in the introduction and later in the article. As for your forum problem, your account is shown as active and you have made one post. Bloodshedder (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

December 1993, DoomDOS avalibity

What was the avalibilty of Doom in December 1993 after it's launch on 10th December 1993, if anyone can give me some info, give us a bell. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No joy at the moment? When anyone's got any joy on the sucsess of the DOS version of Doom during 1993 then please give us a bell. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PC Zone magazine of March 1994, p133, says that a "Jay" from ID software uploaded it to the action/arcade forum of compuserve on 10th december 1993. There was a delay in uploading all of it because so many users were asking for the game that compuserve's disk (yes, they wrote "disk", singular!) had become filled up with their requests. The game was divided into 3 parts (3 separate zip files presumably). Meowy 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Shareware and its distribution

I've change the text that used to read "Distributed as shareware, Doom was downloaded by an estimated 10 million people within two years". Onlythe initial few levels were distibuted as shareware - I think it might have been the first 4. Also - this was long before broadband - most shareware at that time was distributed on floppy disks or as Cd cover mounts on magazines. Meowy 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction - there were 9 levels in the shareware release. Meowy 19:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dungeon Crawler vs. First Person Shooter

There were several references to Doom as a [Dungeon Crawler]. This seems inaccurate as far as I can tell. That term, as well as wikipedia's article on it, refers to a type of role-playing game. The term first-person shooter seems to be a more accurate description, so I've updated the text to reference this.Caidh (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dungeon Crawler is completely wrong and should be considered vandalism. 74.72.93.158 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I had just happened upon the page today - I didn't notice the change to 'dungeon crawler' was only recent. Should have just reverted instead of editing. Thanks for those who fixed it (since I missed one spot).Caidh (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. i dont thats vandalism. or at least not intentional vandalism. I think it was what somone put on here based on opinon. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing Sun Workstation Reference

I am removing the Sun Workstation bit at the beginning of the article. I have found no information supporting the claim that id Software released a Sun version of Doom. The only Sun executable I've found is a third-party program not released by id Software.

- Razor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.36.217 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Razor, can you provide more information on what 3rd party it was and at what date it released the software you found? Because I clearly remember playing Doom on SparcStation on 23 December 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

True Third Dimension Spatiality - A Milestone That Must Be Expanded Upon

Doom was the first game to feature a digital representation of true third dimension spaciality. One could argue that Wolfenstein 3D was the first third dimensional video game but I would disagree. While it was the first graphics engine that represented the third dimension, the player could only move on a flat surface, going left right, forward and backward. This is the definition of 2D space, no "depth," no change of altitude. Many video games that are 2D platformers featured in a 3D graphical representation (Super Mario Bros. Wii) are referred to as 2.5D. Wolfenstein could be described in the same way, although from a first person, three dimensional vantage point (although the player can still only move in 2D space).

Doom was the first truly 3D game and must be recognized as such. I've edited the main article to include the line "[...]pioneering immersive 3D graphics as well as true third dimension spatiality, networked multiplayer gaming, [...]", but I think this groundbreaking, easily overlooked aspect of Doom is what truly makes it a milestone in video game history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alloy14 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

actually Doom was 2D as well - although you could appear to change altitude it was still a 2D engine, so there are no tunnels going underneath sections of the map for instance, and no bridges. this makes it possible to show entire levels on a 2D map, also its much faster to render (i first ran doom on my trusty 386, with the screen shrunk down to postage-stamp size). I thought Quake was the first true 3D game. Doom is really still in the Wolfenstein league. alexander110 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's questionable which was the first truly-3D game, but Driller (1987), Elite (1984) and Knot in 3D (1983) have all been nominated for this honour. — 93.97.40.177 (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessed as C; lacks references for a lot of content, including Gameplay and almost all of the WADs section; Controversies section also lacks references in some parts; conventional Reception, such as reviews and "top games" lists, are sorely missed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we mention that only 2 people out of 10 million players killed anyone?

• In the section about the Columbine shooting section, can we mention that only 2 people out of the 10 million Doom players are known to have shot anyone? Or that the two kids doing the shooting are notable as being the only known people, out of 10 million Doom players, to have ever actually killed anyone? Or that the controversy was just an excuse, something people could blame it on? I removed mentions of it in another article not related to this already. [1] Perhaps mentioning this in the Columbine massacre article only. Does it need to be here? Dream Focus 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should. There's no POV being pushed by the coverage in the article right now, and the event was a major story at the time. I don't see what it adds to say that "only 2 people out of the 10 million Doom players are known to have shot anyone." That feels like a POV, to me (a subtle one, surely). I also don't know why you removed the similar mention in the FPS article, and I am going to revert it (just FYI), although I'll avoid an edit war should you decide to undo my revert and will take it to the article's talk page. Why are you removing this obviously noteworthy event from these articles' controversies sections? Both articles discuss controversies, and Doom's supposed involvement with Columbine is both very, very notable and warrants inclusion as a controversy. I completely agree with you that the controversy is and was absurdly ridiculous, and if the articles were actually saying that Doom was somehow at fault for Columbine, I'd be right there with you in deleting it. But I don't see how the articles are saying that, and I don't think adding the disclaimer you mention above is anything but putting a POV on this. Wikipedia shouldn't be siding with either side of this debate and simply pointing out that the debate existed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

External Download Links

I see that there is no external link to a shareware download of this game. I posted a link to the DOSome Games page for it, but it was deleted because I posted several similar links on the same day and it looked like link spamming. I believe it is a legitimate link because it is the most accessible version of the game that I know of. If anyone disagrees, please tell me on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll put the link back up so that everyone can enjoy.

Lmaxsmith (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this section by searching the word download. The article mentions the game's source code was released, does that mean that download links could be legally shared? Where can I download this game? If there is a Linux version I'm sure it's freeware now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.92.24 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Could it be expanded? I don't know of any reviews from when Doom was released and I'm pretty sure that more than 1 person reviewed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burned Toast (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "wad" extension.

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.

-madpanic24.17.18.23 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Violent video games reduce violent crime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616 number nine, original work, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 . Is it worth including in the controversies section? 750ml (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned last year in one of the sections above, we should just mention that having 2 people out of 10 million that played the game shoot up their school, would mean that obviously it didn't cause it. Mention they were just looking for a scapegoat of course. Anything to correct the idiotic misconception some might have of blaming this or other games for violence, would be great. The article already does a fine job now quoting research that says school shooters don't like violent video games, it not influencing them. Dream Focus 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yangshuo

In case of Yangshuo, as in case of any geological features, the same image can be recaptured in range of centuries, because terrain changes are noticeable at least in range of millennia. YoonioR (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And the purpose of that comment would be...? --uKER (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:YangShuo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:YangShuo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:YangShuo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Music?

Not once in the article did I see any talk of the music for the game. I am confused by this. The composer was mentioned in the mandatory info bar, however not one further reference, mention, or link to the music was in the entirety of the article. I would appreciate an explanation for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.127.245 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Doom players using up internet bandwith?

• That part of the article makes no sense. Doom didn't run on tcp/ip (internet) without extra software. It was played on IPX, Modem, or Null Modem.

IPX back then was a Novell network, and I believe antidoom worked on novell netware only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.230.62 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Yes - I concur on this. At the very least, the terminology is off. I wonder if anyone can find out who added that text and figure out if the author can add some more info/clarification and references. (I wonder, is there a diff-search?) . --Overand (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Doom: Scarydarkfast - A free published book on the game, and an useful source

Doom: Scarydarkfast (not sure about proper capitalization of the title... sometimes it's capitalized "ScaryDarkFast") is a book by Dan Pinchbeck, a quite notable game researcher (he has quite a few academic articles under his belt) and designer (member of the development group The Chinese Room, authors of Dear Esther).

The book is devoted to the game's development process, gameplay, reception, impact on game industry, and the fan community. The book has been published by the University of Michigan, and is available online for free here (on a Creative Commons license.) I think it might be an excellent reference source for this and other articles about Doom (and quite a few other games.) I wanted to bring this book to your attention, as it seems to have been mostly overlooked by the Doom community at large. JudgeDeadd (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice find. I'll try to work this in. czar ♔ 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Page move

Why was this moved from "Doom (video game)" to "Doom (1993 video game)" when there's nothing at the former title but a redirect? It would seem to be unnecessary disambiguation. czar ♔ 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Because Doom 4 is now Doom. http://uk.ign.com/videos/2014/02/21/what-does-doom-4-renaming-to-doom-mean-podcast-unlocked --Niemti (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• That link has guys saying the screenshot of the box for this other game said you got the Doom beta, so therefor it must be called Doom and not Doom 4. The official blog for the company making the game [2] call it "the DOOM beta access pre-order bonus" but don't say its going to be called Doom when the full game is released. There is no official announcement of what the game will be called. Until there is, no need to be renaming articles. Dream Focus 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's now Doom. THAT'S THE POINT. And it's goincg to be called Doom (DOOM, to be exact, but every Doom is DOOM). Doom 4 was scrapped completely and abandoned in 2011. --Niemti (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion on name change due to possible conflict with classic Doom, new Doom names.

Currently the page itself is just stated as Doom but it's later called Ultimate Doom when the expansion is added while the new Doom is seemingly just called Doom (It doesn't mention being called Doom 4 but just Doom). This is the image that can be found for the official Doom beta: http://www.push-start.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Doom_beta.jpg Anyway I was suggested the Doom 4 page be just called "Doom" while the original Doom page be called "Ultimate Doom (Doom 1)" to avoid any confusion between the titles --Ronnie42 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• The original was called Doom, that's what its famously known as. Releasing it again after it got insanely famous, with a new episode and calling it "Ultimate", doesn't change that. It was still called Doom with all the ports for various consoles. The image says "Doom Beta", but that doesn't mean it will be released named Doom. The original Doom had an early demo released where it was called Doom: Evil Unleashed. So you don't know for certain what the final name will be. The company's official website should reveal information soon. If they do confirm this, then Doom (1993 video game) is the most reasonable rename, this what they do with films of the same name. Dream Focus 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I second this czar ♔ 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the original was called Doom, I simply meaning that it may need some sort of change like mentioning 'classic','modern' Doom to avoid any confusion, so people know what to look for when typing in Doom to find information on the new/old version of Doom games since they both titled under the same name. Also agree it should be called Doom (1993 video game) to avoid any further confusion, the new Doom page should have something similar like Doom (TBA video game) --Ronnie42 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)