I am going to open an RFC on verification of the hash sums added for Xbox 360 BFG Edition, as I am unable to verify this information on my own. I have gone ahead and marked the revision as approved for now, but this should NOT be taken to mean that I have verified the hash sums. --Quasar (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

another sub-section[edit]

I would like to propose that we leave 1.9r and UD 1.9 at the top of the pag,e add another subsection before 'older versions' with 'other versions' / console versions or some such, and put all (inc the BFG edition and xbox etc) under that section in the middle of the document. -- Shambler (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2015 (CDT) §

Works for me. The page is a mess as it is; Ultimate Doom should probably be listed first, it's the far more common WAD. --Chungy (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2015 (CDT)
Could put all the console version into a single table, too. --Gez (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2015 (CDT)

PocketPC WAD[edit]

I recently installed this on an old windows mobile and ripped the wad. The hashes that I generated for it are different to what is on this page. I got the following:

md5: dae77aff77a0491e3b7254c9c8401aa8

sha1: a89b39d91122882214c3088b8cd6b308713bd7c2

crc32: 4500749f

Where were the ones on the wiki page from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WadArchive (talkcontribs) .

Hey! good question, It was added by User:Cybdmn in this edit in 2013. It might be a good idea to ask him/her where they sourced it and what method they used to extract it, etc.
There is a general problem about authenticating these sums. We should track who sourced them or who has verifed them in some way. For now perhaps just doing so in the talk page is better than nothing. -- Shambler (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2015 (CDT)
That'll be an interesting undertaking considering how long he's been inactive for --Quasar (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2015 (CDT)