Edit-paste.svgThe content associated with this talk page was considered for deletion, and either was deleted, or was kept after a period of discussion. This page has been retained for historical reference regarding the deletion process, or in case of future restoration of any deleted content.

I noticed you added the telefrag screenshot back to the article. Unmaker suggested that the picture does not depict a telefrag, and I concurred after making a test (see the screenshot below). I expected Axdoomer to reply to the matter, but he never did. Thus, the matter was left aside, and the validity of the screenshot has remained uncertain since. Now that you put it back to the page, I think it should be settled.


The zombieman§ stands behind an invisible wall in the modified E2M1 (so he was stationary when the screenshot was taken). When I surprised the monster by teleporting behind it, he didn't become telefragged. And considering that the gibbed player stood further away from the teleporter pad than in my picture, and telefragging doesn't include momentum, I agree that the phenomenon in the picture isn't a telefrag, but something that Axdoomer inadvertently thought to be one. I believe that what actually happened in the picture was what Unmaker said: the gibbed player flew through the teleporter and still had momentum left when he arrived to its destination.

§ I also tested with Our hero, and had the same results as with the zombieman. --Jartapran 19:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) That's excellent reasoning, and this may be one of those topics (few) which really needs a video rather than a single frame to be demonstrated.  Possibly I have been grasping at straws to avoid nominating images for deletion, because people find that unpleasant.  :7     Ryan W 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree. --Quasar 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Quasar.  I saw your first reply, and it is probably correct but IMO not relevant.  :>   Ideally an article should be self-contained, which means the first screen shot should be a direct, immediate depiction without requiring the reader to visualize unseen events or ponder technical details.    Ryan W 19:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't read Jartapran's post fully enough to realize how well he'd tested it, and was trying to rationalize how it might still be a telefrag, so I was most likely wrong :) It remains vaguely possible that the shot is a telefrag in a source port that has wider players for some reason, but, we wouldn't want to use that as our example even if it were the case. --Quasar 19:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If I were a newbie who had only DMed and was reading up on the classic maps, I might even think the dead player was gibbed by a rocket and flew in from the left after the teleportation.  DM moves pretty fast after all.  (No, there aren't multiplayer weapons on E2M1 but you get the idea.)    Ryan W 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Now I'm not that sceptical about the authenticity of the picture in question. I had done some inquiries after it was uploaded. The telefrag logic in the code checks if the colliding entities' boundaries overlap, but they should not necessarily occupy the exact same spot. If so, then we have a nonzero vector along which the damage will be inflicted (and momentum add is directed, according to P_DamageMobj). I'm not sure if the engine will permit the actual movement (it may consider the entities being stuck in each other at this moment), so probably my assumption is wrong.
But there is one more thing. Just at the time of the debacle I was playing Memento Mori 2, and something uncannily similar happened to me on MAP16. I took the teleporter after the blue door and arrived on top of the column at (480, 160), only to telefrag a hapless imp (who happened to teleport up there before me). Astoundingly, his remains were flung quite a distance away, clear off the pedestal. I was playing under Prboom+, and complevel was set to 9, I think.
So I am kind of at loss now, but I agree that the screenshot in question doesn't exactly portraits the subject, too much leeway and ambiguity. Unmaker 20:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It'd be smart to say that "most of the time" the object should not have momentum inflicted on it, due to being inside the inflictor. Doom is excellent about not making things absolute, though. For every law it tries to enforce, it creates accidental exceptions. --Quasar 22:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't seen the discussion about that. I know it's been months. Yes, this is a real screenshot. I was deathmatching in E2M1 and recorded a demo. Player 3 (brown) stomped on Player 2 and his shredded corpse was thrown away. If you look correctly, you'll see a pixel from the brown player's gun at the right of the teleporter's green wave. I couldn't take a better screenshot where we could see player 3 because player 2 is thrown away so fast, he goes out of the screen so there's no point. If we could see player 3, I guess it would be much clearer that there is a momentum. As far as I remember, there are no rocket launchers in this level, so it's impossible that he was killed by a rocket. I'll do a video right now. --AXDOOMER 6:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC-05:00)
Me again. Some explanation I wrote somewhere else: Teleportation set thing's momentum to zero, so any momentum caused by a rocket's impact or a rocket's explosion applied to a player would be zeroed after teleportation.
Here's a piece of code from Doom: thing->momx = thing->momy = thing->momz = 0;
I uploaded a video to Youtube regarding this issue a few minutes ago (Link: I only have this explanation for the player being thrown away (, but it's only based on testing and not on the source code. I could reupload the image, but I see it says it was removed for "Copyright Violation", so I'll just wait.
--AXDOOMER 7:09, 16 september 2014 (UTC-05:00)
I had a severe flaw in the test I only now noticed, so I owe everyone an apology. I admit your screenshot was correct. At this point, I don't oppose re-uploading the screenshot and using it in the article, but I cannot comment on the copyright violation marking. --Jartapran (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion for undeletion of the screenshot. It was not removed as a copyright violation, but because screenshots are only fair use if they're being used to illustrate something in an encyclopedic context. Otherwise, we have no real legal reason to have them available. Now that it is accepted that the illustrated phenomenon is genuine, we can put it back in its rightful place. --Quasar (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Per that thread, the Telefrag article has since had a video added, which strikes me as a much better way to demonstrate (a still image would look like any other gibbing).  It seems therefore that resolution has finally arrived.    Ryan W (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

id logo removal[edit]

Hello Ryan, I'm concerned for the removal of the id logo in this edit of yours. I think the inclusion of that logo there is covered by the definition of fair use and, if that's not the case, the logo should be completely removed from the wiki. --Kyano 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kyano.  Fair use is not a property of an image, but of a particular situation where the image appears.  For example, a newspaper might place the logo of a university next to a sports score, but not in the margins of articles every time an alumnus is mentioned, as that would almost always be unrelated to the content.  A more topical example is using a screen shot to illustrate a bug, on a page about the bug.  Using the same screen shot as the background of my user page would not be fair use, being entirely decorative and irrelevant to the wiki's purpose, but that doesn't invalidate the first case; they are considered separately (see the second bullet under "Common misunderstandings" in your link).
Regarding the id logo, I believe that copyrighted images should not be used when we can make essentially the same point with text alone.  Using the logo in id Software serves the main purpose of the article by helping to identify the subject, similar to the sports score example (which is not to say we couldn't be sued, but logos are routinely used this way on Wikipedia with its far stricter image policies).  Putting the logo in the template does not serve the main purpose of the template by helping the reader find the desired article, any more than text alone would do, so it seems unnecessary to assume the additional risk.
Obviously, unless we end up in court someday, all we have on this issue are opinions, including my own.  If you or StoneFrog or anyone else disagrees, I'm not sure what the next step is.  I have researched copyrights myself only because I can't afford to hire an attorney on the site's behalf, and I think the Doom community is generally appallingly sloppy about copyrights, based on (apparently) the idea that we will never have a major incident because we have never had one before.  Maybe I'm wrong though... if we could manage to hold a thorough discussion about fair use on the wiki, including some of the port maintainers who have to deal with it all the time during development, I'd certainly abide by whatever guidelines came from that.  To date, such discussions have always fizzled out.  Therefore, each of us (meaning everybody, not admins) just takes their best guess as to what will help the project.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.    Ryan W 01:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I preferred having the logo myself, it looks naked now. I don't think it was a problem. --Quasar 03:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Ryan for this explanation. I'm not in the position of choosing what should and what shouldn't be in this wiki, even though I personally think there was no problem, it's better to play safe. "I think the Doom community is generally appallingly sloppy about copyrights, based on (apparently) the idea that we will never have a major incident because we have never had one before." Yes, but we now have Bethesda. --Kyano 10:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not in that position either; no single person is (sorry if sounded like I was overruling you).  The problem is, this is one of the few issues where our collective choices aren't the final word on the matter, because the real world can intervene.  We could have a unanimous vote that our current situation was OK, but that wouldn't change the case law, or Zenimax/Bethesda's plans (as far as I know, neither is at all interested in a relationship with the community, e.g. [1]).    Ryan W 15:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as fair use goes, the image is on the wiki anyway. Removing it from a template does not change this fact, so it doesn't mitigate the risk. The id template is semantically strongly associated to id Software, so it isn't a misleading or gratuitous use of the image. Finally, even in the extremely unlikely case where id or zenimax objected to the presence of this image in the template, they'd start with a cease & desist rather than going directly to a lawsuit. To be honest, that change seemed very unnecessary to me. But I am also not sure about the rest of the change (removing {{prettynavbar}} and nesting a table inside the table); none of the other navboxes look like this. --Gez 15:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My research suggests the inclusion of the logo falls far within the bounds of trademark (not copyright) fair use for corporate logos. If there is consensus, I am in favor of restoring it. --Quasar 15:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the trademark issue should be OK either way, because we haven't modified the logo and we only use it as part of documenting the real company and its products, not in promoting our site or someone's personal project.  I suppose Zenimax could theoretically ask us to use the current logo instead.    Ryan W 16:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Gez, I was hoping you'd see this discussion since it takes me forever to figure out template formatting.  :>   I'd have rewritten it as an HTML table, only that seems to slow MediaWiki down (IIRC you and others have also objected to those as being hard to maintain).
the image is on the wiki anyway  — I'm sorry, but I think this is oversimplifying.  We have screenshots of monsters to show what they look like.  That doesn't automatically clear the image for anything, so that I could crop it, draw a crown and a goatee, and smack it on my user page with the caption "i am the imperor lololol".  Granted, the usage I removed was not totally frivolous like that and related peripherally to the encyclopedia content, but that was the principle.  Strictly speaking, if it came to a legal filing, the hosting and embedding could be contested individually.  If I make 20 copies of a CD and put them in my closet and don't tell anyone about them, that's still a violation.  Following Wikipedia, we generally ignore that point and host images locally if they have at least one agreed-upon mainspace use, because external images would be a thousand times more troublesome.    Ryan W 16:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


I believe, regarding interwikis, that the only one I ever disabled was one that would link to the old incarnation of this site. The community one, and ones to specific wikia wikis which had no known external alternative, I left in place deliberately, in part to avoid broken links. One thing I have to stress is that, for referential integrity purposes, I cannot delete rows from the table. I can only insert new ones, or change the URLs of existing ones. The best I could do to disable ones with no alternative URL would be to make them generate an invalid URL, and I don't think that would be good for the wiki. --Quasar 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever proposed losing every Wikia row, only those for the "community hub" subdomains which would have no conceivable uses in articles.  At the time, you were also willing to accept invalid URLs [2], although I can definitely see the other side of that — the result is awkward and ugly, and we should just dig up a more appropriate link in each case.    Ryan W 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)