Talk:NetHack/Archive 1

Spoilers
There ought to be spoiler warnings here somewhere, as some of the gameplay features mentioned here do not appear in the game's documentation. --Anon.


 * Good point. Added the warning under Notable creatures. --ZeroOne 10:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are too many spoilers
There are too many spoilers mentioned in this document. Part of the charm of the game is not knowing what to do, how to act etc. There are frequent references to things (I am trying to stay vague) that are really hard-won valuable items of knowledge. It is obvious that the writer is a well seasoned expert, and knows too much about the game. A lot of the enjoyment of finding out these things would be ruined after reading this doc. There is plenty of other information that could be put into this article without the spoilers.


 * A non-spoiled NetHack article would be quite the challenge. Also, I would not suggest anyone to play unless they had 50 pages of spoilers printed out :p Perhaps some spoiler guideline for this article would be in order- nothing that is not in the Guidebook? --Philip Nilsson 07:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have moved the spoiler tag to just above the "Game" section; not perfect, but some of the information in that section could be considered a spoiler. As Philip Nilsson says, it would be rather difficult to play the game without at least mild spoilage! --Lan3y - Talk 00:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * If they did not want to be spoiled, they would not have looked it up. HighInBC 06:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. If they did not want to be spoiled, they would not have read the spoiler files. Reading an encyclopedia article is an entirely different matter; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers --Pak21 09:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If we don't give away *any* information about what goes on in-game, there's not a lot to talk about. Wikipedia is not being an indiscriminate collection of information here - all the "spoilers" given are there as examples. If we listed the effects of all the potions (for example) then it would. Shen 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Shen here. The spoilers aren't gratuitious, they are quite educational, and readers are fairly warned. --maru (talk) contribs 21:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of the spoiler template
I reverted the removal of the spoiler templates which was cited as "incorrect usage". The spoiler template information page is currently is currently a disputedpolicy and in my opinion it's much better to at least have some warning, even if it's usage is deemed incorrect than none at all Entro-P 08:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made an attempt to enclose only those sections actually containing spoilers with correct spoiler and spoiler-end templates instead of simply deleting everything. Entro-P 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am continuing to improve the correctness and relevance of the spoiler tags within the NetHack article. There are some that keep simply removing these tags. I will continue to simply revert these removals unless someone helps improve their usage or offers a (better) alternative. Entro-P 07:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

some more on spoilers in article
Wikipedia has an official policy guideline regarding spoilers at Spoiler. In summary, it says that spoiler warnings aren't needed because people expect encyclopedia articles to give plot details. However, I think it is pretty clear that Nethack article should make all attempts to not use spoilers as the loses from not using spoilers are smaller than the benefits of not using them. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You acknowledge the existence of the policy and then pretend that it's somehow okay for this one article to violate it. What makes NetHack any different on this point from any other game, film, or novel? Ntsimp (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy guideline says nowhere that an article has to have spoilers. The article is not violating any policy. The question is if my removal is valid or not. I suggest it is: 1) the article contains basically the same content as before and 2) it has gained the quality of not having any spoilers which is desirable in this case. It is desirable because not having the spoilers does not detract from encyclopedic value of the article while keeping it spoiler-free maintains the enjoyment of the game for those that wish to play that way. If for some reason a spoiler truly added to the encyclopedic value of the article then it should be added. In this case, I would argue that the quality of the article is higher now than with the two minor deletions and the Use common sense rule applies to the deletions. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think it matters or one of us would have reverted your edits. Be Bold Jason Quinn. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." That's what the policy says. I'm not planning to revert, but I want to know why NetHack should be an exception to the rule. Ntsimp (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nethack has a well-established set of players for whom even accidentally reading a spoiler would ruin multi-year commitments. These people are among the expected readership of the article. It would violate the culture around Nethack and therefore the Wikipedia Common Sense policy to allow spoilers in sections where there is no need for them to be. We could go round-n-round on this issue. You could always say "go by the letter of the policy" and I could always say to trump the policy with the other policy. I could even argue that including spoilers violates NPOV as it is not taking into account the view of the spoiler-free audience. I've been reading the archives for the Spoilers policy guideline change and it would be an understatement to say that new policy guideline is not universally liked. I will be working to help change it myself as I think it is a terrible document as written. Lets just agree to disagree on this specific example as the edits themselves seem to not be that controversial and we are now discussing the policy itself. But feel free to join me at the policy discussion page. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to correct myself and state and Spoiler is not a policy but a guideline. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected as well. Ntsimp (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dungeon hack
Dungeon Hack is NOT a clone of Nethack - it's an effort by SSI to create an easier and more randomized version of the Eye of the Beholder CRPG (the engine is the same in both games). --Anon.

Poor screenshot
The screenshot should have a status line giving the character's name, class, strength, dexterity and so forth. Also, Angband isn't a Nethack variant (it derives from Moria) - I'll change this. --Ekaterin.

GUI screenshot?
Would it be worth including a screenshot of the GUI version? --Lan3y
 * But which would be added - there are so many GUI versions. Entro-P

There is the one an only NetHack.app —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gürkan Sengün (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Creatures
Added infamous creatures. Please add more. --Anon

Links to characters
I have restored the links to the characters. I find they make interesting "what links here"s. --Error 02:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What about Hearse as well as the public servers? --Anon

Nethack-originated monsters?
I've yet to get past the sixth or seventh floor in this game so I must ask, are there any monsters in Nethack which are SPECIFIC to Nethack, ie invented by and original to the Nethack development team? Not counting monsters of a humorous or satire-influenced nature- I mean serious monsters. --I am not good at running 18:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Quantum mechanic, for example, might be considered humorous and/or satirical though (just to find a monster whose name begins with q is a challenge, cf. Angband's quylthulg). --Silvermane 18:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the QM mentioned in the article...Along with the box :)

Mythology in NetHack
Rather than a haphazard list of notable monsters, I would prefer to see a separate article, Mythology and fiction in NetHack which links the various monsters and settings to their origins. -- jet 57  (u∴t) 10:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 09:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC).


 * UPDATE: I've started this article! Please help flesh it out.

Do hacked binaries exist?
Do hacked binaries exist? --Anon


 * Yes! Half the fun of NetHack is applying interesting patches to the game to improve the game experience. And you have to fight the urges to make it like Slash'em. --Philip Nilsson


 * What's so bad about Slash'em? --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Links to public servers

 * notdot.net UF NetHack Server recently created a NetHack server for the User Friendly comic, whose author alludes to NetHack in quite a few of his comics.  <-- removed, because the site states, "The UF NetHack Server is currently offline. It will return as soon as I can assemble a fully functioning telnet menu system for it, instead of the kludged-together garbage it was running on. Watch this space!"


 * antisymmetric.com NetHack Server  < removed.  antisymmetric.com is currently down, and to the best of my knowledge has not had a public nethack server in over a year.

rast, 3-20-05


 * I posted a link to alt.org's public server, but it was removed. I don't understand what the reasoning behind that was. The site is up and running at the moment.. --katt 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Slash'em
I wonder, why is there no reference to Slash'Em? I stick to vanilla myself, but I think it should be in this. --Nazgjunk||(talk) 22:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but there seems to be a reference to Slash'em in the Other Versions section. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Chastity?
I can see how speed running can be a voluntary challenge, but how does chastity work? Unless there's a lot to the game I haven't seen yet, I don't see how that can be a challenge... --maru (talk) Contribs 05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sex with either an incubus or succubus (as appropriate for your gender) is an easy way to gain levels in the mid to late game :-) Cheers --Pak21 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol. It's also an easy way to lose certain things too...  Btw, is it really true that when your character hallucinates, you'll sometimes see pokemon?!  Maybe I just have to get high more often in Nethack....  -- Solberg 09:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Solberg


 * Use Excalibur or another energy drain preventing item. I've been hallucinating far more often than I should and I think I've seen a Pikachu. Certainly I've encountered a great number of impossible things including a Vorlon. --Kizor 15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just done a sourcedive on do_name.c, and there's no Pikachu (as of version 3.4.3). The only Pokemon reference listed is nyaasu, which is a reference to the Japanese name for Meowth. Apparently. Lots of amusing faux-Latin names for hallucinating coyotes (a la Road Runner), though. :) Kinitawowi 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I remember a pokemon in there somewhere, also of note is the fleet of spaceships from the hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.205.237 (talk)
 * This is the list and I'm afraid nyaasu is the best pokémon you're going to get... Shen 13:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'm almost certain I've seen pokemon in Nethack while hallucinating... but then, I saw pokemon in Half-Life 2 whilst hallucinating, too --Huffers 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

rv POV
Pak21, I agree with your reverting for POV reasons, but I would not call it a minor change by any means. Kizor when you undo a revert it is good to give a reason. --HighInBC 21:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, maybe the sentence is a bit POV, but in essence it is true. NetHack is clearly the most popular and most played Roguelike game. I don't have any source for this, but it's kinda obvious, IMHO. --Conti|&#9993; 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps... enduring would be a better word? As for popular or preminent, I would need some kind of citation to feal good about it. However I will be making no further alterations to this particular datum. HighInBC 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we could use the Salon article as evidence- I know of no other Rogue-like game which has anywhere near so much publicity. --maru (talk) contribs 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm convinced. --HighInBC 22:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry. When Pak first reverted me I gave my justifications on his talk page as I undid it. When you did, well, it was late and I was tired. Of course I should've done so publically in the first place. --Kizor 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, the sentence is probably true, but that's not good enough for an encyclopedia. If we're going to be claiming something like that, we really, really need an external source for it, and I have to say that I don't think that a Salon article from 2000 is good enough evidence for any current claims given we're now in 2006. Apologies for the minor edit tag: too many vandalism reverts... Cheers --Pak21 10:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this still isn't verifiable, but I've been involved with Nethack for awhile and I can say with personal certainty that it is by far the most popular Roguelike. One good indicator is the number of posts on rec.games.roguelike.nethack versus all of the other roguelike newsgroups.  -- Cyde Weys  10:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced HighInBC 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in no way saying that NetHack isn't the most popular (or whatever) Roguelike (hey, I'm a rather keen Nethacker myself!), but I still don't feel we can put state that it is in a Wikipedia article unless we have some kind of evidence that it is. Cheers --Pak21 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We can say it has the oldest and most used usenet group of all the rougelike games. Google groups has archives back to june 1994. HighInBC 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Date links
See Manual of Style (dates and numbers) section 1.2.2

Links to years should only be done if it is on topic with the subject. HighInBC 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess most of us know what the MoS says; what happened today is just a bit of an edit war between Bobblewik and Ambi, both of whom probably shouldn't be doing it. Cheers --Pak21 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My policy is to treat bots like humans. Bobblewik made a change and justified it, and Ambi made a change and did not justify it. HighInBC 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You fall into a pit! How pitiful. Isn't that the pits?
This bit needs modifying; the full message (of a pit (viper|fiend) dying on falling into a poisoned spiked pit) wouldn't occur barring some exceptional circumstances, as those two creatures have intrinsic poison resistance. The only way to get that combination of messages is to be poly'd into one, and then lose the poison resistance to gremlin attack... Kinitawowi 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true, if the fall itself kills you you get that message also. Say you had only 1 hp and fell in, it does not even need to have spikes, any pit will do. HighInBC 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you'd get "You fall into a pit! How pitiful. Isn't that the pits? You die...", which isn't the message quoted in the article. And even if you did it by polyself, you'd automatically "return to human form" at that point anyway. The upshot is that the message isn't the one that's quoted in the article, which therefore needs changing. Kinitawowi 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty
I can't think of a good way to phrase (or source) this, but might it be worth mentioning that while NetHack is considered by some to be one of the hardest games around, some seasoned players disagree with this point of view? (While I can't give a specific citation suitable for an article, the most common reason cited in my experience is the fact that beyond a certain point, the game becomes highly formulaic and short of gross error on the player's part, beyond said point, it is nearly impossible to die.) Of course, in the interest of not spoiling people, I will neglect to state exactly what those conditions are, but anyone who's ascended or even come close to it should have an idea. ;) UOSSReiska 08:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That game is so hard to win, I can very close once, then a giant J killed me. HighInBC 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, certain people ascend a very high proportion of the games they play... --Pak21 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, my ascension rate is fairly sucky. Once you've gotten a couple down, though, there are a number of things you can recognize and act on in the early game which make your success rates jump significantly.  Much more of my deaths nowadays are random bad luck than actual playing errors. My own record UOSSReiska 23:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some doctors succeed at almost every brain surgery they do. That do not mean it is not difficult. HighInBC 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite needed for Deux Ex?
I've read the email in question. It's very cool. What precisely would be acceptable as a citation? A copy of the email? :)

Send an email to me with the answer. I rarely log in these days.

NathanZook 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Amulet of Yendor
It has been propoesed to merge Amulet of Yendor with Roguelike. I suggest that it should be argued vigorously...Garrie 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with NetHack General Public License
Deleted the tag suggesting a merge with NetHack General Public License .There was no mention of any reasons for this on either talk page. If someone wants the pages to be merged, (which they very well could be) they should really bring it up on the talk page before tagging the pages. The suicide forest 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned ?
"still being actively developed, with new features and bug fixes regularly being added"

This is definitely NOT true, the current version is more than 3 years old. No news since 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ketsa (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The DevTeam adds updates on a whenever basis. The site has had updates and the DevTeam has occasionally hinted at future updates. The game has gone longer than this without updates. The suicide forest 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See NetHack 3.4.3: Known Bugs; the latest bug fix on that page is from 17 July 2006, so IMHO it hasn't been abandoned. --Kjoonlee 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So we could change the sentence to "no longer being actively developped, while bugs are still being fixed." Ketsa (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? If bugs are still being fixed, then it is still being actively developed. Ntsimp (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a Dev team and they are making the next version... Garycompugeek (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof by assertion is not a reference type accepted by Wikipedia ;-)
 * 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)

So now there's an edit war in progress over this same issue. It is true that NetHack is still being actively developed, but as the DevTeam is a secretive cabal, this truth doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. So how can we change the wording to address this? Discuss, don't edit war. Ntsimp (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing like a drive by anon to stir up trouble. I could teach everyone the devteam secret handshake but would require absolute secrecy and names of first born. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Overstatements abound. The anon-IP edit called for one thing: a reference. How do straightforward requests such as these raise the hackles of others to produce phrases such as "edit war" or claims that the result of such an edit does nothing but "stir up trouble"? Like it or not, Wikipedia aims to uphold at least a few standards, one of them being verifiability. I don't understand removing the Fact template twice. I don't understand the smug attitude. The original edit was perfectly valid from the perspective of the casual reader, the intended audience of Wikipedia. Please think on this and consider undoing your undo. D. Brodale (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that such a bold statement needs to be supported by a citation and I don't see what's wrong with the citation needed template. It's not like anybody's trying to change the actual intro.  That said, is O'Reilly Media a reliable source?   -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lighten Brodale, simply a little humor. Not gonna find many (any) peer reviewed sources for an old open source game like this.  Best that can typically be done are article reviews and programmer info pages.  As for the fact ref about the dev team... not sure how you get a secretive cabal like them to impart any information. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence given that the DevTeam exists, let alone does anything actively. The citation needed tag is appropriate. Check Wikipedia's verifiability policy - the standard is "verifiability, not truth". –  j ak s mata  21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have the game without the programmers so Nethack is proof of their existence. They also released a server patch last year that changes the colors of inventory items based on holiness.  Perhaps I can find a citation from the main web site. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to [] scroll to bottom - nethack news. Dev team has been busy porting to different systems and compiling bugs out. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the DevTeam exists, what I said was that there's no evidence given [in this article] that the DevTeam exists. That's why someone added a "citation needed" tag, and that tag is valid per sources cited.
 * As for the source you mentioned, it shows that the DevTeam (although unnamed there) is active as of 10 December 2007, not "currently" as the sentence in question reads. –  j ak s mata  21:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I saw evidence that you contributed productively to the article in question rather than babysat a watchlist for changes with which you personally disagree, then there would be no need to remark at all. WP:SNOW does not apply here. No one is asking for sole verification of development status straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Retreating to the modus operandi of NetHack's development team as a reason to not question stated claims is unproductive. Even weak verification, such as that which you've supplied above, would be of some assistance within the article (rather than here on Talk), though I'd be wary of original interpretations of how "busy" development is. Regardless, I still believe that your position does not excuse twice slapping down a relatively minor and valid request for evidence to support the claim in question. D. Brodale (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the article and not the editors however I have contributed productively to the article, that's how it got on my watch list. I disagree with you.  WP:SNOW applies in many ways.  From your own example to "a snowballs chance in hell" to get information from the dev team.  It sounds to me like Jaksmata would only be satisfied with a live video feed of the dev team activly working on Nethack code. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this for an alternate wording:
 * NetHack is open source and has been developed for longer than most computer games. Originally released in 1987, its most recent version was released in 2003, with additional changes and information released as recently as 2007.[1] New features and bug fixes are added by a loose but secretive group of volunteers, commonly called the DevTeam. [...]
 * The [1] above can be replaced by the reference given by Garycompugeek (the NetHack home page). –  j ak s mata  22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me and will stop this silly thread. Well done Jak. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your video comment was very amusing :-) (Where's Big Brother when you need him, anyway?) A video feed would satisfy me, but a quote in any reliable source that says "actively working" would too. It doesn't seem impossible to me to find a magazine article that mentions the game and the DevTeam... I'll look when I have time, but I can't right now. –  j ak s mata  22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh humor. Does the soul wonders.  Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously.  I'll help you look for a reference. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a ref from a 2006 review stating the claim. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, right now I'm editing from behind a great firewall, and that site is blocked... I can't see anything there - it's a problem I deal with frequently. I'll take your word for it. –  j ak s mata  18:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the suggested 'alternate wording' above, the current article gives the (misleading) impression that Nethack is definitely being actively developed, whereas this is unverifiable at best, and regarded by many as doubtful. I think the wording of the article should better reflect that. 90.216.3.38 (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dungeon length
It is currently mentioned that "The dungeon spans over 50 levels, most of which are randomly generated." This could be misinterpreted to mean that the dungeon spans over a length of 50 levels total, which is certainly NOT the case. As we know, the deepest level in the main branch is always Moloch's Sanctum. The highest dungeon level number this can be on is 45 and the deepest is 53. Therefore, the dungeon spans over a depth of 45-53 levels.

However, I'm not happy with how that sounds either, since there are other dungeon branches (the mines, sokoban, quest etc.) I think this should be reworded to either reflect that there are many more dungeon levels than 50, or that the main branch is 45-53 levels deep (though this may be spoily for the unspoiled). Opinions? ahpla 14:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on how you want to think about it, the Planes could be considered as much a part of the linear dungeon span as Gehennom, adding five more levels to the total.
 * Dylan O'Donnell's Gazetteer notes: "The Mazes of Menace consist of eight branches, containing between them up to 81 individual levels", which may be a more interesting metric to cite. Colin Watson 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dylan O'Donnell's Gazetteer notes: "The Mazes of Menace consist of eight branches, containing between them up to 81 individual levels", which may be a more interesting metric to cite. Colin Watson 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Help needed
Could someone add that thing below to the text?

DlNhDlNh 12:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! This timeline is actually originally created by myself for Wikihack. I now added it under the Development header here since it does illustrate the long history of NetHack quite well, I think. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This really could use some padding on the left of it. It's interfering with the content of the page too much imo Entro-P 19:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added it myself, 8 pixels left margin so that the [edit] links are not right on top of the timeline Entro-P 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

commented out timeline
I commented out the version history timeline, since it is off by several years, and I don't think we should include erroneous info. This appears to be a bug in the table code, not misinformation. Unfortunately, it's beyond my ability to fix, but hopefully somebody can take a crack at it. --142.103.211.144 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot see what you mean. Can you point out a place where "it is off by several years"? --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the time-line either. It's been criticised and checked quite thoroughly on the NetHack wiki by the NetHack community before it was added to WikiPedia as well. Entro-P 09:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect we've got a formatting issue in the anon's browser. Could you (the anon) please put a screenshot somewhere, indicating the problem? Anyway, I'll re-add the timeline for now. Cheers --Pak21 10:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I was on a monitor that made the white lines less obvious, and I thought the position of the version numbers was supposed to line up with the release dates, rather than being positioned at the middle of the lifespan of the version. Since I seem to be the only person this confuses, I'll apologize for the mix-up and be on my way. --142.103.211.144 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I should admit that I had the same confusion when I first saw the timeline. It doesn't make much sense to put the version name in the middle of the lifespan of a version. Software doesn't have a lifespan: those older versions still exist and I presume they could be played. Perhaps they even are played by someone. The point is that software has only one important date, the release date, and that is what the timeline should be focused on. -- Lilwik 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The version labelling would be made clearer if put at the date of release IMHO. Additionally, the "2" from the year labelling from 2000 onwards seems to be cropped off and needs to be moved a few pixels to the right. Could someone do something about this? -- Seanqtx 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue with the number 2 was already fixed in the timeline in the article, just not in this one here. I updated it now. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Double Pitfiend/viper quote
I removed one of them, but my edit was reverted. Is there any special reason why the quote shoul be in this page twice? Martijn Hoekstra 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two different situations here, both using similar but different messages. Why shouldn't both be included? Ntsimp 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why either should be included, if they're just arbitrary examples of the easily explained concept that "some interactions are rare and occasionally amusing". If the pit fiend situation is particularly notable within the NetHack community, it should be covered by a prose explanation, as the cockatrice is in the "notable creatures" section.
 * I've created a Wikiquote page for NetHack and moved all the quotes from this article across. --McGeddon 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags in this article
If there is detailed information in this article which would harm normal gameplay at beginner level, please consider removing it. Do not use spoiler tags in this article. They are unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, people should expect an encyclopedic article, if you put something they should not expect then ask yourself "is it encyclopedic", but don't put a warning down. H 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SPOILER recommends using spoiler tags rather than simply deleting neutral and relevant information "because it's a spoiler". The article is perhaps bordering on being too much of an unencyclopaedic game guide, in places, but it would be useful to have some illustrative examples of the game's complexity, particularly the more notable monsters.
 * Given that the article currently does include information that would harm normal beginner gameplay, spoiler tags should remain in place until we've reached some consensus as to whether or not the information needs to be there. --McGeddon 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to have this information? Is it original research?  Does the information really harm game play for beginners? --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one have never seen any bit of info that "spoils" the game. What is more I cannot see why such information would be necessary. If it is encyclopedic then people coming here should expect to find it. What specifically is the information in question? ( H ) 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers do not belong on a list of characters, especially when there is nothing to be spoiled on it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a game guide. It's not up to us to determine what hurts a player playing or not. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The monster list gives away spoiler information that should normally be discovered by players playing the game. Specifically from the Monster Spoiler for creatures like the xorn. People unfamiliar with the game and it's history should NOT be editing this article as they have no clue wtf they are talking about. As such I'm reverting more spoiler template removing. Entro-P 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've ascended before and played nethack for years, as well as other roguelikes. Please don't make personal attacks. Given your announcement of a plan to edit war, it's likely to get you blocked. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually know the game rather well. Wikipedia is not a game guide, if there are spoilers they are most likely unencyclopedic. It is really not for you to decide who should NOT be editing this article either. ( H ) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The spoiler tags have been in this article for months and months. I do not understand this recent spate of spoiler tags are bad. It makes no sense whatsoever. Entro-P 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If people look up Nethack they are going to learn about Nethack, there is no point in warning people of this. Spoiler warnings are for places where a spoiler would not be expected, it is expected here. ( H ) 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NetHack has a long history and a well documented listing of what information is considered to be a spoiler. As such, information well documented to be spoiling information should be marked as such. Entro-P 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not r.g.r.nethack, but an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not use spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have re-added them again, even though there is no consensus here to do so, please don't do that. ( H ) 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The spoilers were there to start with and have been there for quite some time. They only started getting removed in the last 2 days. The page should be left as it was until consensus is reached. Entro-P 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were there, but the question is: should they be there? What encyclopedic purpose do they serve? --Tony Sidaway 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They give warnings to prospective players about which information may spoil the game for them. That is the purpose of the spoiler tags. Entro-P 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * People can expect such information here, there is no reason to think the spoilers will be a surprise here. ( H ) 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is a discussion here, and the discussion favors their removal. You may wish to read WP:3RR. ( H ) 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly it seems to favor removal because more more anti-spoiler people drifted here over from RfC than pro-spoiler people. Entro, I nevertheless implore you to read 3RR: its enforcement is very stringent, and you'll be cheerfully if briefly blocked for an infraction. --Kizor 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Anti-spoiler discussion here is actually split between "Wikipedia shouldn't ever have spoilers" and "I don't understand how this information is a spoiler". I don't hold either of these opinions and think we just need to pare out any unencyclopaedic information in the article, and see if anything left would be considered a spoiler. But I won't get into an edit war with people who think we should unspoiler the article before improving it. --McGeddon 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of a claimed "spoiler"
This sentence was edited down by McGeddon:
 * The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse appear at the final level (the Astral Plane). Death, Famine, and Pestilence attack the player, who at this point is considered War incarnate.

It now reads:
 * Three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse appear towards the end of the game.

I've two problems with this:
 * the statement is now inaccurate. There are four horsemen and the article says there are only three;
 * wtf: how can this harm gameplay? Why is it described as a spoiler? --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try to be civil.
 * The horseman "War" is considered to be the player, so presumably does not appear - I haven't reached this level of the game, so if that was a bad wording, feel free to correct it.
 * If "at the end of the game you become War incarnate and must fight the other three members of the Four Horsemen; when this happens, you are on the final level" isn't a spoiler about events that would normally be unknown to the player, I'm not sure what you think spoilers actually are. --McGeddon 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please explain to me what it is about this bit of in-game trivia that make you think that earlier gameplay, or enjoyment of the game, will be harmed by it. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends on how the level plays out, but I'd say that both "the final level of the game is called X" (if you haven't seen this level yet then you're not near finishing the game; if you're on it, the game is about to end) and "you become War incarnate" are surprise-spoiling plot reveals. If they're major plot elements we should write them in full and spoiler them, or put them into a "plot" section; if they're just a minor, trivial cameo, we should either write it in a way that avoids giving away any spoilers, or remove it for being game guide material. --McGeddon 08:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no known evidence of anyone getting to the Astral Plane without reading any spoilers anyway; the story of an unspoiled player who got part-way into Gehennom before their cat brought an abrupt end to the game by treading on the keyboard attracted considerable attention on RGRN, and there were still quite a few non-trivial discoveries and gameplay to pass from there. Even if a superhuman managed that, there are in-game hints that would clue them in first: for instance, when you get to that level you're told that the High Temples are here (and "End Game" has been in the status line for a while); the conclusion of the quest for nearly all the possible roles involves being told to go to the Astral Plane to win; asking the game to describe the Amulet of Yendor will mention the Astral Plane; and so on. As Gwern already alluded to, becoming War incarnate is a detail that isn't exposed in the game interface itself anyway, aside from by omission (the other three horsemen show up as monsters but War doesn't). I don't see anything in the original text that could be a meaningful spoiler to a non-hypothetical player. Colin Watson 17:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Sidaway here. So far this just seems like a cute name change and commentary on the fact that (probably) by the time you've descended and gotten that far back up again you've killed so many and so fierce monsters you could be considered the horseman of War. It's not an important revelation like in KOTOR when you discover that you are actually Darth Revan. --Gwern (contribs) 01:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I'm thinking we could remove both the Notable NPC section and the Notable creatures sections wholesale. They don't really add anything to the article, and I'm not really sure what criteria is being used for inclusion, either.Chunky Rice 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say the cockatrice was the only really notable creature (I'm sure it's come up in multiple reviews and articles as the best example of NetHack's complexity); the rest could easily be boiled down to a paragraph explaining that NetHack includes some mythological references, though. --McGeddon 08:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A link to Mythology and fiction in NetHack should be plenty, which we already have. ( H )  13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a video game guide
In all the arguing about spoilers, one point seems to be being overlooked: WP:NOT: "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."

In the spirit of this, I've removed the sections on how to detect cursed items and similar gameplay instructions. This goes way beyond what should be discussed in an encyclopedia article. Elrith 06:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that point has already come up a couple of times. The issue is whether any of the encyclopaedic content left afterwards would be a spoiler. --McGeddon 08:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest note a spoiler?
Is my note about cursed wearables a spoiler? If it is, feel free to revert, but this is something that a player who has even tried to play it knows...--Alexia Death 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO it is not a spoiler at all as that information is given in the NetHack GuideBook Entro-P 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm with all my playing nethack Ive actually never read the guidebook... I guess I must now. Whats the OR tag about?--Alexia Death 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Savescumming?
I think the word savescumming is being misused. It appears parenthetically in this article like this: "Expired characters can't be revived by anything excluding editing the actual save files (savescumming)," in the middle of the introduction to the Game section. However, savescumming does not mean editing save files; savescumming is about restoring from the same save file again and again until you achieve optimum results. The save file is not edited; it is just reused.

Plus, I am fairly sure that Nethack deletes all files for a character when he dies, so no amount of editing can bring a dead character back. -- Lilwik 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're completely right, so I fixed it. Ntsimp 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mindflayer image
There's no way that it's fair use to use a copyrighted picture from Dungeons and Dragons in an article about Nethack to illustrate the appearance of the character depicted. -Chunky Rice 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? I'm not saying that you are wrong, but surely we deserve at least a word of explanation. Is it because in Nethack, a mind flayer looks more like 'h' than it looks like that nice picture? -- Lilwik 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The image in question is used to illustrate the monster mentioned. You can't have any idea of what a Mindflayer actually looks like by just looking at an "h". See also the snippet of 17 USC § 107 here. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's fair use policy is that a copyrighted work should, by and large, only be used to illustrate an article about that work. There are exceptions, if the image is independently notable, for example, it may be fair use to use it in an article about the subject.  But that's not the case here. -Chunky Rice 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:NONFREE for the policy page. -Chunky Rice 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are somehow confused. The example you gave as an "exception" is not an exception at all; it is just saying the same rule in a different way: that a copyrighted image should only be used in an article about that image. Another problem is that I see ten criteria in WP:NONFREE and none of them says that a nonfree image can only be used in an article that is specifically about that image.
 * On the other hand, it does say that the image needs to contribute significantly to the article, and I'm not sure that is the case here. After all, we don't fight those tentacle faced creatures in Nethack, we fight 'h's.
 * Another question: Is it possible to get a free image of a mind flayer? This image is not free, but does Wizards of the Coast own the very concept of a mind flayer, or is that public domain like the concept of a unicorn, so that any editor could draw a mind flayer and release it freely? -- Lilwik 23:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well. Note the difference between "work" and "subject."  i.e., you can use an image of a painting to illustrate/talk about the painting, but not the subject of the painting.  Think of it this way.  We might be able use a screen shot of the Fonz to illustrate an article about Happy Days, or the Fonz, but we shouldn't use that image to illustrate an article about, say, leather jackets, or even Henry Winkler. -Chunky Rice 00:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you are correct; I misread what you said, and in retrospect your meaning is clear. However, I don't see what in WP:NONFREE leads to your interpretation of the policy. To me it seems to say that we can use an image so long as it contributes significantly to the article and it isn't excessively large. There are 10 criteria for use of nonfree images, and I think the ones that apply in this case are:
 * No free equivalent. Is there any way we could get a free image of a mindflayer? I guess not, but in the case of Nethack, an 'h' might do perfectly well.
 * Significance. The image has to help the reader understand the subject of this article. The image shows a mindflayer, that's without doubt, but nothing that looks like a mindflayer actually appears in the game, so the relevance is in doubt.
 * I see no criteria that supports your interpretation of the policy. -- Lilwik 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look further down the page for the images section and the section of examples. A free drawing a mindflayer could certainly be made. -Chunky Rice 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That only works of Wizards of the Coast haven't managed to extend their rights to every image of a mind flayer in existence. If I draw a mind flayer, I wouldn't be surprised if Wizards of the Coast would automatically own it just because they own all mind flayers everywhere. Plus, I don't have the skills required to draw a mind flayer, so even if it is possible to create a free image of a mind flayer, I don't know where one is available. Until a free image becomes available, we can't really use that argument to exclude this nonfree image from the article. -- Lilwik 04:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't hold the copyright to a concept. They only hold the copyright to that specific image (and any other images that are theirs, there are a few on the illithid page). If someone wants to draw a mindflayer and release it under a GDFL-compatible license, then we could put that on Wikipedia and use it just about anywhere just fine. Unless someone here can draw well, I guess our friend the mindflayer will not be gracing this article. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is that? If there is no free image available, then it is within the rules to use a nonfree image. Also, for example, doesn't DC comics own every image of Superman? You can't publish a gallery of Superman artwork without being sued by DC, or at least giving them some of the money you make. -- Lilwik 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to reply to a one bit: to use a non-free image, it must meet all of the 10 criteria listed at WP:NONFREE, not just some of them. In particular, I note the test of criterion 1 (replacability) that states that "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion." We can clearly replace this image by somebody else's free drawing of a mindflayer while having the same effect, so this image is not acceptable for use here. Note that it is not acceptable to use a non-free image just because a free one doesn't happen to be available: it must be fundamentally hard to acquire a free image to allow the use of non-free images on (the English) Wikipedia. Cheers --Pak21 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to point out the same thing, that all 10 criteria must be met. Claiming one or two of the criteria isn't nearly good enough to justify infringing WotC's copyright on that cool illithid image by copying it into the NetHack article to represent a mind flayer. I would argue that at least three of these criteria are simply not going to be met in this situation: 1. No free equivalent. If we must have an illustration of a mind flayer, why not a free one? Is this the only image that has ever been produced? I play in ASCII, so I don't know the answer, but doesn't there exist a mind flayer graphic in one of the various free NetHack tilesets? If not, what's stopping someone who wants to include an image from creating a free one? The D&D picture isn't iconically associated in the public consciousness with NetHack, is it? There's no particular reason why we must use that picture instead of a free one. 3. (a) Minimal use., particularly the part that says, "one is used only if necessary." 8. Significance. How will the infringing image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot", especially since it differs so much from any of the ways NetHack itself portrays the mind flayer? Besides, albeit an undeniably notable NetHack creature, the mind flayer itself isn't a significant enough part of the subject to justify this. This article has stood without an image of a mind flayer for a long time. I don't believe it needs one now, but if the consensus is that it does, let it be a free one, not one copied without permission or legal right. Ntsimp 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are both talking about free images of mind flayers as if they are not fundamentally hard to acquire. If that's really true, then I challenge you to get one. I don't think it is as easy as you suggest. SheeEttin said, "Unless someone here can draw well, I guess our friend the mindflayer will not be gracing this article," because it is next to impossible to find such an image. We'd have to make it ourselves, and likely no one here can do that.
 * It's true that I excluded many of the criteria, but I certainly didn't do it because I was under the delusion that we only needed to satisfy some of the criteria. I did it because I thought it was perfectly obvious that the mindflayer image satisfies all but a few of the criteria. The mind flayer image is almost acceptable for this article, but those last few criteria are the killers. I don't think there is a free equivalent, but I have to agree with Ntsimp about the lack of significance. -- Lilwik 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Challenge accepted and trivially won (that's the Vulture's Eye image of a (master) mind flayer, a free image licensed under the NGPL). --Pak21 11:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done. Now we have a free image of a mind flayer if we really really want one. But it sure is a bad one. If I didn't know that one of those little pictures was a mind flayer, I would never have guessed. I even tried fiddling with the brightness and contrast, but it just gets ugly, not more clear. I guess that just means that I should stay away from playing Vulture's Eye. -- Lilwik 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ill try to draw a free mindflayer tonight. --Alexia Death 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Mindflayer.jpg - well its not as good as the most popular one on the net, but its free...If someone wishes to work on it I CAN provide xcf. CC Attribution-Share Alike applies. --Alexia Death 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. I think it is especially good around the face and tentacles. The rest of the body going down to the legs seems to mostly take up space to my eyes. I'm not familiar with the license being used, but would you agree to allow it to be cropped to just the upper body? I don't mean to devalue the work you did on the legs and floor; it obviously took some effort, but I think it distracts from the key points of the image. -- Lilwik 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The license says basically that as long as you attribute the author(s) and share under same conditions, you can do what you want with it. I ran out of steam with the background:(--Alexia Death 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it too. Well done, Alexia Death. And while I still don't think the article needs a mind flayer illustration, this whole episode is a great illustration of the principles of free content Wikipedia is based on. It's not necessarily "fundamentally hard to acquire" free images; look how quickly two showed up here. But even if it were, these are still rules worth following. It's not worth it to make Wikipedia legally vulnerable&mdash;even if only hypothetically&mdash;by re-using someone else's copyrighted material without permission, just for the sake of illustrating one creature from a very large game that doesn't show any picture of it. I'm more convinced of this now than ever. Ntsimp 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * pictures are nice. I found out how mindflayer looks like. its always been an 'h' for me:)--Alexia Death 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. I personally would prefer a different sort of background (not the kind of platform/backdrop you have there) but whatever. I certainly couldn't draw it that well. :P Anyway, off to list Image:Illithid.jpg for deletion. We don't need it any more. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ive updated the image with a newer version...--Alexia Death 08:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

 * Hate reignite this discussion at such a late date, but I don't think that the Mindflayer.jpg image is appropriate for this article, even if it has a free license. It's simply wrong. This article is about Nethack where mindflayers look like a lower-case "h", not this image, and hence it's misleading. Someone unfamiliar with the game (or only slightly familiar) would likely assume that this is a screenshot from the game. The image needs to be removed from the article. --D. Monack | talk 05:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At best it should be captioned "an artist's impression of", but yes, I think we can live without it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a new image for it now. Kinitawowi (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this. I'm not saying the old image should stay, but a large "h" really doesn't add anything to the article. --Pak21 (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the old image simply has to go. It's completely irrelevant to the article, and therefore also adds nothing. I know the majority of dubious images on Wikipedia are justified with the argument of "pictures are nice", but for a game like Nethack (which, lest we forget, categorically does not rely on its graphics), the only options are an image of an actual tile from one of the ports (ruled out above), a "h", or nothing. Yes, there was an element of WP:BJAODN (or whatever it's called these days) attempt involved, for which I apologise (I forgot that Wikipedia lacks a sense of humour :D). But the fact remains - it's a more accurate (and therefore better) representation of Nethack than the other image. Kinitawowi (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics
I think there was a misunderstanding in the last couple of edits. According to the Monster Manual, the quantum mechanic's only special attack is teleporting the victim away. I'm fairly sure that's correct; its attacks don't affect your speed. A quantum mechanic can only change your intrinsic speed if you eat its corpse. Ntsimp 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize; you seem to be correct. Examining the code, we find this:
 * C:\Nethack\nethack-3.4.3\src>grep uncertain *.c
 * eat.c:         Your("velocity suddenly seems very uncertain!");
 * mhitu.c:                       Your("position suddenly seems very uncertain!");
 * pray.c:                    Your("shape becomes uncertain.");
 * So, your speed can change if you eat one, your position can change if you get hit by one, and your shape can change if you pray to one? (Er, no.  That last is if you are polymorphed into something with no hands, and you pray for help.)  I've undone the error. Rpresser 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

updated the timeline
Guess no one has touched it since 2006 and there hasn't been a new NetHack since 2004! SporkHack and other variants don't count since they're not canon and IMHO tend to be a crufty assemblage of rules that simply add complexity rather than gameplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.131 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline Commented Out
I've commented out the release timeline attached to this article. There's no substantive discussion within the article of the data the timeline presents, and on its own, the timeline doesn't seem to add to one's understanding of NetHack in any concrete sense. Beyond those issues, the timeline is (and has been, judging from prior Talk) more than a bit wonky when judged for clarity of presentation and placement within the article. Heck, it's not even labeled.

I'd ask for discussion here before possible reintroduction. In particular, I feel that clear rationale need be provided as to how it might enhance coverage of the article's subject. I simply don't see that at present. D. Brodale (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)