Talk:NetHack

Sources tag?

D. Brodale, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you feel this article is insufficiently sourced. I suppose the YAAD, YASD, and DYWYPI sections of the article are undersourced, but I don't see how they can be improved, and I would rather not cut them entirely. Other than that, I honestly have no idea what you want us to do, unless perhaps you want us to cite some sort of peer-reviewed walkthrough of the game. If you feel that the gameplay-related parts of the article lack sources, I again have no idea how this may be corrected, assuming that Wikihack is an unacceptable source. Inyssius (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there aren't third-party sources for a lot of the article. If there's no way to get third-party sources for some information, then that information can't stay. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Therefore, if you want to have it kept, you'd do well to try to find sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to review WP:V on the subject of sourcing. Nethack certainly has some geek culture surrounding it, and there must be some reliable, independent sources available on it. Maybe something of Google Scholar or Google Books? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it's unclear to others that I agree with the sentiments of both Nyttend and Martijn Hoekstra above. I saw no need to "me, too" the above replies at the time, but in partial response to the query below (and also to those in the main article's editlog), consider this a belated "me, too" to the points raised above. The tag in question is meant to highlight a standing deficiency in the article. Let's not lose our collective heads over it. D. Brodale (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PrimarySources tag

"Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page." Right, let's discuss it then. Would whoever applied this tag please explain how it's appropriate to software, in particular to open source software, or else remove it? If you tag one piece of open source software like this you're on a slippery slope to tagging everything, since the primary source for information on an open source program is the source, and very often there quite simply isn't an independant corpus of discussion in the way there is on the bible or Malthus. MarkMLl (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NetHack being open source software. Please read the linked Wikipedia articles that explain what is called for in the editor hatnote. The intention was never to prompt removal of the article, but rather the improvement of such by supplying sources distanced from the subject in question. Please don't misconstrue the meaning of the hatnote, attribute malice to other editors, or ramp up the rhetoric when perusal of the linked explanations makes it quite clear what has been asked for. If it's still unclear what "primary sources" means in this context, that can be discussed. However, the above comment doesn't express that effort has been made to comprehend standing Wikipedia discussion of sources. Hint: there's at least one non-primary source in the External links section. Others exist, as well, for NetHack. The hatnote is a call to improve the article by incorporating such. D. Brodale (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: It's usually best to draw attention to queries such as this by posting to the specific editor's Talk page (if urgent attention is required). We all don't trawl individual articles on a daily basis. Or, at least, I don't. To reiterate: there is no jihad against open source software here, and I'm unaware any slippery slope has been trod upon. D. Brodale (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you D. Brodale for your response. Nothing urgent here. No hostility. Some things (like open sourced software) are difficult to source because they are always changing. In the case of a game like Nethack this is even more true. Aside from game reviews from magazines the source (nethack official webpage) itself is the best place to get information. Its true no article is perfect and all may be improved but is the tag really necessary? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. D. Brodale (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of term 'hack'

The intro says, without citation: "The "hack" element refers to a genre of role-playing games known as hack and slash for their focus on combat."

I thought it came from the MIT usage of the word 'hacking' to mean crawling through basements and attics. Would somebody please find out which is right and cite this? - David McCabe (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. Notice Hack being the unofficial sequel to Rogue and the Hack and Slash page link. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Rating

Examining the current assessment scales I feel this article should be graded a B with High importance. The article has been complete for many years and is the father of the dungeon crawl. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to bring this topic up with the folks associated with the Wikiproject Video Games, as both measures are relevant to that project and its goals and relate to its assessment department. It would seem that the largest obstacle for B-rating, by the relevant criteria, is the general lack of suitable references among other things. "Father of the dungeon crawl" is a gloss that doesn't meaningfully convey the point you're making relative to importance, though I'm sure if you talk to WP:VG membership involved with assessment, or draw them here for same, it would generate useful discussion. I do hope you understand that neither measure is a reflection on NetHack itself, being "primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and [they] do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole", per the assessment FAQ. D. Brodale (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogame assessment

I've kept the rating as-is, this is very much a start-class article. If the game's claim to fame is being a derivative/child of Rogue, which is High importance, then a Mid rating seems reasonable. Even mid-importance is a step above the majority of articles - there are about 9 Low-importance articles for every Mid. A good example of a B-class article is Silent Hill Homecoming. If the article were cleaned up it would have a robust gameplay section and a few stub sections, that's not a C-class article let alone B, and it still needs cleaning up anyway.

Some points to consider:

• Quality references and well-developed sections on gameplay, development and reception are the key to higher ratings and better articles. Development information here is negligible, there is no reception to speak of.
• Gameplay has been scattered across numerous unnecessary sub-headings which artificially stretch the article, which is worsened by having numerous small paragraphs of no more than a few sentences. Cleaning the excess headings out, merging paragraphs and some rewording to avoid redundancy would make reading the article much easier.
• The interface info doesn't currently justify a separate heading, particularly when it contains a large redundant image (screenshots work fine) and a large amount of the text is little more than a key for this image. There's cleaner and simpler ways of describing the (ASCII?) graphics without going into "this is a chest and this is a door...".
• Solid referencing from secondary sources is hardly there, a wiki is being cited as a source, most of them which are there are just verifying that different ports exist. Even to get to C-class a video game article needs to have much better sources in place. One of the strongest sources you could wish for (Salon) is currently languishing in external links, external links should be kept to a minimum and used for further reading, not potential sources.
• The infobox is the software variant rather than the video game variant, the image within would more ideally be a logo for the game (if one exists) or a snapshot of the title screen.

Contributors interested in building the article up should take a look around the videogame project's Good Articles for examples of layout, sourcing, article sections etc. Hope that's of help. Someoneanother 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It does and thanks. My confusion was brought on by the incorrect assessment that has been with the article for years and I was trying to see what had changed. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd party refereces boilers still needed?

I'm tempted to remove the "more 3rd party" references boiler. Does anybody feel that it is still necessary? It's kind of always implied that better references are needed for every article. I think the boiler now detracts from the article more than it tries to help. Other opinions? Jason Quinn (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

iPhone/iPod Touch versions

This might be splitting hairs, but there is no NetHack port for this platform, only a port of Rogue. Any objection to my removing the iPhone/iPod Touch mention, and maybe someone over at Rogue can add these ports there? Deltwalrus (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not splitting hairs, so it seems a valid concern. There still does not appear to be a port of NetHack to Apple's iPhone/Touch platform, though progress appears to be underway in some quarters. It may be best to remove mention of such from the main article, or at the least, to reword any claim about availability. D. Brodale (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Y2K Bug

My apologies if this has been covered in the past;

Shouldn't there be a line or two that reads something along the lines of

"Towards the end of 1999, the DevTeam issued a minor revision of the game from 3.22 to 3.23 to fix issues surrounding the Y2K (99/00 1999/2000 clock bug). Although the Y2K Bug turned out to be a largely over-ratted issue, the revision was necessary to fix an issue with (from memory) calculating the phases of the moon plus (again from memory) a year 32,000 bug on the Unix Platforms."

The above I feel has importance as it is one of the only examples I can think of where Y2K bug was (at least in part) the reason given for an upgrade.

Thanks for listening, --Timelord2067 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure if you have a valid source that states this feel free to add it. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NetHack 3.3.0: Main Page has some of the info; I guess the details can be found in the mailing lists or other documentation. --Kjoonlee 23:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I know there was some mention on the rgrn at the time which made mention of it, there is a Y2K statement on this page http://www.nethack.org/v330/info.html#Y2K that states (paraphrase) NH322 & earlier are not Y2K compliant due to the two digit year issue - NH 323 will enable games already started to be finished. It goes on to say both NH 3.3 & NH 3.23 are Y2K compliant.

I will have a search through the rgrn and see if I can find mention of it there (and the announce pages too). I'm not online daily, so it's a work in progress... --Timelord2067 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NetHack was originally created without a graphical user interface

Is this true? I have never heard of a command line version of NetHack. I am guessing that this implies that the ASCII graphics do not count - I dont agree, the original interface is graphical although crude. Comments anyone? Mtpaley (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To call that a GUI is an abuse of the term. What, did the original Unix boast a GUI? Did ENIAC have a GUI since you could look at its guts and see what it was doing? TUI, sure. Even this description may not be flawless, since perhaps one could play Nethack the way the original teletype printers work: print one snapshot every command (although it'd be tedious to do something like $nethack up; nethack up; nethack up; nethack right...) But 'GUI' is right out. --Gwern (contribs) 18:04 2 June 2009 (GMT)

NetHack Still In Development?

It's been around 5 years since the last official release. If a game is developed in a forest, and there's no one around to play it, does it count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.196.99 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's still an active playing community, and "still in development" doesn't mean that the game's not stable, it just means that the DevTeam might come out with a new release or patch or etc. at any time. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But considering the article seems to place the fact that it's 'one of the oldest computer games still being actively developed' in such importance, it's relevant whether that's accurate or not. And really, there's little to no evidence that Nethack *is* being actively developed. The possibility of it isn't enough for such a definitive statement on the main page - some mention of the ambiguity at the very least should be made.Contributions/212.219.74.10 (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the dev team released a patch last year on the |public server and continue to release port varients. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't interpret "The DevTeam" way more loosely than anybody else you've got your facts wrong. The DevTeam hasn't released any source code in five years. Claims of ongoing development by the developers themselves aren't usually valid citations for Wikipedia. --Bhaak (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought my facts were your facts... "There are some hints about the current development version, as one can see when reading Usenet postings by Pat Rankin (a member of the DevTeam). The last released bugfix is from 10 Dec 2007 and is linked from the homepage. Also, usually the DevTeam reacts to bugreports in reasonable time (at least the two times I reported a bug). But why they are taking so long to release the next version, nobody but the DevTeam knows for sure. --Bhaak (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)" and I have never claimed to be a member of the Dev team. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what on-going development really means. The DevTeam hasn't disappeared. They still react to bugreports (you get a reply or they update the buglist on the homepage). They also claim to be still working on the next version. And for me as a person that's enough. I have no doubt that they do. But for Wikipedia I am not sure if this is enough and the claims of the developers alone surely aren't a reliable source. That's the problem. --Bhaak (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So why not say that the Development Group say that development is ongoing? --Dannyno (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fair, or just add a section that talks about how this issue is a source of nethack community debate. There have been several different threads on rec.games.roguelike.nethack over the years that can be cited. Wikipedia doesn't have to definitively say that it IS or ISN'T continuously developed. In fact, I'm not sure who is claiming that it IS still being developed, since the dev team doesn't make that claim on the official web page... 152.3.196.99 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)