shouldn't this be canonically SI6IL? -- Shambler (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2019 (CDT)

Other than in the URL and title of the official page, no '6' is used in referring to the WAD. It's a 'G' in all mentions of SIGIL on said page, in the download zip filename, all filenames inside the zip, througout both .txt files in the .zip, and in all text lumps in the .wad. So I'd say SIGIL is canonical and SI6IL should be a redirect. --Xymph (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2019 (CDT)
I have created it as a redirect. --Quasar (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2019 (CDT)

Is Sigil now an official expansion?[edit]

Now that Id have released it as addon DLC in their new release of Doom 1, would it be appropriate to consider Sigil an official release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

id is licensing peoples' mods to allow people to play them on the console versions of the game primarily. This doesn't necessarily make their stories and content canonical until and unless somebody from id describes them as such. This is an important distinction to make. --Quasar (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2020 (CDT)
Fair enough, but then we have to make another call. It's Romero after all, so just what do we consider canonical? Does it go to whoever happens to legally own the game at the time, or to the intent of the original creators? It's a bit muddled in either case, but whether canonical or not, it still seems to me to be official (which is itself another distinction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
It's one of the official add-ons, so yes it's official in a way. As for whether that's canonical, well, to be honest, Doom isn't a game where canon really matters much. --Gez (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2020 (CDT)