Talk:Zork

Some external links removed....
I removed external links to sites offering downloads or "play online" versions of Zork I, II and III. Although Activision has previously made the Zork Trilogy available for free download, the company has since stated that "the company's release of the original Zork titles was a limited promotion, and that the company "has since removed them from that 'free' status." Source (see Activision response to CNET). Moreover, Activision still sells a collection of Zork games (which includes Zorks I,II,III) through GOG.com.

In short, Zork I,II,III are not currently freeware or freely redistributable; they are still commercial games available for sale. Therefore it would appear that links to downloads or playable online versions of the Zork games violate Wikipedia's policy on external links. (However, I left the link to a download for the original mainframe version of Zork up, as it was published before Infocom was founded and, according to Infocom's Wiki entry, "is generally assumed to be in the public domain".) --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" Section?
I was thinking that an "In Popular Culture" section would be appropriate -- Zork played a major role in the development of Season (1?) of Chuck, and Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory plays a game which seems to be based on the Zork. If we could get some other pop culture references, I think it would be a valid and informational section. ☠ Travis McCrea (T)(C) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It additionally plays a role in the plot of Ready Player One. Arzg (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Link to the original Zork source code in MDL
I suggest linking to the original Zork source code in MDL which is available here:

http://retro.co.za/adventure/zork-mdl/

Is it OK to link to that source code from Wikipedia? I don't know who officially owns it, though. It was never a commercial product, and was developed at MIT. As the Zork article mentions, the Zork source code was leaked way back in 1977, so the cat's been out of the bag for a long time. A link to the actual source code would be a nice thing to cite in that section.

It is fascinating to read, and really beautiful code, quite understandable even if you don't know MDL, and practically a form of literature.

I played the original Zork on MIT-DM and also the Infocom versions of course. Reading the source code is like seeing the behind-the-scenes underground rooms and passages at Disneyland!

While I was playing Zork, I found a bug. First some context: when you're battling the troll, you can give things to him, and he eats them! Sometimes he drops his axe, and you can pick it up and kill him with it. He blocks the exits until you kill him.

So I tried "give axe to troll," and he ate his own axe, then cowered in terror: "The troll, disarmed, cowers in terror, pleading for his life in the guttural tongue of the trolls."

Not satisfied with that, I tried "give troll to troll", and he devoured himself: "The troll, who is remarkably coordinated, catches the troll and not having the most discriminating tastes, gleefully eats it."

...Except that I still could not get out of the exit, because every time I tried, it said "The troll fends you off with a menacing gesture."

I figured there must be a troll flag that wasn't getting cleared when the troll devoured itself. And sure enough, I found it in the code, and it's called "TROLL-FLAG!-FLAG"!

Here is an excerpt of the MDL troll code, where you can see the bug, where it should clear the troll flag when the troll devours itself, but doesn't (well that's how I would fix it!):

                       >>)                            ()>                       >  )                            ( >)>) (                      ) (                      )>)               (> )>>

Xardox (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can give something that you don't have? I was under the impression that it wouldn't work. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can give anything that's in the room or your inventory to the troll. So if his axe falls on the floor, "give axe to troll" will work without having to pick it up first, which is supposed to work. But even before he drops the axe you can go "give axe to troll" and he'll eat it while he's holding it, since it's transitively in the room. That's the first thing I did, that made me think of typing "give troll to troll"! Xardox (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Zork III: "the second and only time"
The description of Zork III contains the sentence "Here the 'elvish sword of great antiquity' is used for the second and only time to block the beam in the Beam Room." Never having played the game, I can make little sense of this. How can the second time be the only time? Should it be "first and only time" or should it be "second and final time"? --Captain Infinity (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been years so I can't recall the sword, but that sentence doesn't make any sense so I've removed that wording, especially sense I couldn't find a source to clarify one way or the other. - Aoidh (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire plot entry to Zork III seems overly detailed, like a turn-by-turn walkthrough rather than a summarized overview of the game. Perhaps it should be trimmed down to be less detailed (and with so many spoilers). Crimson667 (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case (although almost six years late), you do not actually have to use the sword to block the beam. The can of grue repellent works just as well, for example. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary on Name
Basically, Zork was supposed to be Dungeon but TSR had it trademarked. 99.101.113.32 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User Serols reverting reliable sites
Why is Serols (talk) persisting in removing sites from the external links that have been part of this page for eternities and are proven reliable sources on the subject:


 * Infocom-if.org's entry for Zork I
 * Zork I review at Adventure Classic Gaming

Dude, are you on a powertrip? 2001:AC8:36:6:0:0:0:1E (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Serols's behavior is unacceptable (such as his violating WP:TPO), but both of you are violating WP:3R. Neither of the above links belongs in an External links section; even if they did, they would belong in the Zork I article anyway. Ylee (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ylee, please inform yourself before you accuse someone of edit-war. The IP tried on Wednesday to enter the links and latest here, he knew what he is doing, he just overwrote existing links, after my edit. Only after four warnings can you report an IP in the VM page - see here, and here are the warnings. After the fourth warning, I have not deleted his editing, you have done. Comment like - Dude, are you on a powertrip? and link-spam is for me only vandalism. Therefore, his question here on the discussion page is only cheeky. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat: You violated WP:TPO and WP:3R, which are both very, very bad things to do. The list of exemptions to the 3R ban is short and the IP editor's behavior is not on it. Your deleting his Talk comments is just as egregious. Please stop. Ylee (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read everything on this page, not only WP:3R -> Reverting vandalism is not edit warring -> Types of vandalism. You have also deleted his links. Besides, you are not accosted on this discussion page and were not bothered on your discussion page. Therefore the cancellation was justified. Thank you for bringing this back. --Serols (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

PlayStation?
PlayStation is mentioned in the infobox as well as in the list of categories at the bottom of the page. It is not mentioned at all within the text of the article. Has Zork ever been available for PlayStation? The timeline doesn't seem right... 198.202.137.38 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that difficult to find. "zork playstation mobygames" reveals: Zork PlayStation remake. Kind regards, <span style="text-shadow: .2em .2em .2em #c5C3e3; font-family: Georgia; font-variant: small-caps; color: black">Grueslayer 21:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Original combines plot elements from all 3 Zork games
One more in fact: the Sooty Room puzzle in the original is not in the Infocom Zorks. But it is in Sorcerer (where it became part of the Slanted Room puzzle). Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And the New Zork Times mentioned one more: "sending for the brochure" (which presumably became sending for the vilstu potion). Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of recent merger/overhaul of this article
A few days ago, I moved an overhaul of the Zork article that I'd been working on in article space into this page. As part of that, I merged in the articles for the three episodes (Zork I, Zork II, and Zork III) on the basis that, as the game was originally developed as a single game before being split into episodes and a good chunk of the legacy was as a unified subject, it made the most sense to have them all in one article, especially since none of the three subarticles had a ton of information that wouldn't fit here. At the time, they looked like this: I, II, and III, e.g. I was mostly reception, while II and III were mostly gameplay/plot summary. This article looked like this.

Since then, has objected to the merge on the basis that the articles have been around for years and I did not get consensus before merging, which, fair enough, since none of the articles were being actively worked on any time recently I didn't. So, this discussion is to get a consensus one way or another- should this be 1 article or 4? -- Pres N  14:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this here, PresN. Kind regards, <span style="text-shadow: .2em .2em .2em #c5C3e3; font-family: Georgia; font-variant: small-caps; color: black">Grueslayer 14:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking for a start that for the original 3 articles, there is too much plot/gameplay, and almost no significant separate development, reception or legacy for the last two eps, the merge into one makes a lot of sense. If the individual episodes had more reception or dev info on their own, that would be different. M asem (t) 15:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that something where you would want to bring in your expertise? Kind regards, <span style="text-shadow: .2em .2em .2em #c5C3e3; font-family: Georgia; font-variant: small-caps; color: black">Grueslayer 15:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I understand PresN's thinking—the first three Zork games were, in fact, developed as a single game and then split into multiple games. And a lot of great work has been done on this article. But I have serious doubts about merging the three games into one, single page. Just as The Lord of the Rings was written as a single book and published as three, the Zork trilogy exists as three separate units. That's both a market reality (in terms of how they sold, when they sold, where they sold) and a reality in the coverage: third-party sources reviewed them and reported on them as individual games. It's convenient shorthand to refer to just "Zork" when we talk about the Zork trilogy, but these are separate games that were each widely covered in their own right. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PresN's work is infinitely better than the unmerged individual articles. I'm honestly quite shocked how much good info is here, it's often hard to get so much for such an older subject from before the internet era. Sergecross73   msg me  15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merged version looks good to me. That the separate articles have been around for years is not a strong argument. Thanks,, for being bold and merging. --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the bold merge is fine. The combined article is 32KB of readable prose, so WP:SIZE issues aren't a concern, and the article makes a convincing case the best way to talk about them is in aggregate, especially in regards to how its legacy is perceived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge - each of the original games got something on the order of 10 reliably sourced reviews, and there is more than enough material to make a full-sized article on each. We aren't talking about minor licensed cruft here. It might be a bit more work to get each individual article up to snuff, but there is no clear rationale for merging them all into one article per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NORUSH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I defer to the opinions of editors who actually put in the work when it comes to "no rush". The end result of PresN's work is one much, much better article instead of three incredibly poor ones. If someone comes along at some point and expands this article to the point they can write a good article on each episode, then that's great. Until then, the change is preferable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how NORUSH applies here- we're talking about if a merge is acceptable, not trying to get changes through in a hurry about a 40+ year old game. NORUSH in that case just sounds like "don't change things ever because maybe we'll want to change things again years down the road" - you could apply that to any edit.
 * As far as the sourcing and content goes, though, I'm generally disinterested in "maybe in the future there will be sources to support 3 other articles" arguments, here or elsewhere. Like, I'm not 100% done with this article, but at this point I'm not seeing lots of sources specific to individual episodes that aren't being used. I didn't merge them because I just really didn't want 4 articles, I merged it because, organizationally, given the content and sources that are available, it made more sense to me to keep them all together as a trio. All of those reviews mentioned are still used now- I just chopped down the lengthy pull quotes. -- Pres N  18:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is important value in completeness and comprehensiveness that also must be weighed against notability for determining if standalone or one single article makes sense. Each episode of Zork meets the GNG, but it is far more comprehensive to talk about the game as originally released, and then discuss episode specific details. It would definitely be different if the episodes were released first followed by the overall game, but instead we have the current situation M asem (t) 19:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit ludicrous to imply that I am not an editor who "puts in the work" when it comes to improving articles, although early text adventures don't appeal to me. However, I am simply saying that if they did or I one day had a change of heart and decided to work on it, making several full articles would not be an issue, so the idea of merging them is unnecessary and stifles any potential expansion of any one game. In my opinion, comprehensiveness can still mean several articles linked together by an infobox, that's what hyperlinks are for. It just makes navigation and reading easier when they are split into their respective games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is going to read Wikipedia in an online mode, so one has to consider comprehensiveness of a single article. There are still appropriate uses for hyperlinks - I would not go into a history of Infocom in discussing Zork outside of how the company's history overlaps with it. But in this case, the overlap of content between the three episodes does make a lot more sense to keep to one article and avoiding wasting the reader's time to follow hyperlinks about overlapping topics. M asem (t) 12:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge per the reasoning of Zxcvbnm in this case. I did find some more reviews for each of the games in the series, including for Zork I: PC Mag, Softalk, Softside, Family Computing, and The Rainbow, and for Zork II: Softalk, and for Zork III: Softalk, PC World. There are probably a bunch more, but I think these have plenty of room to be developed further. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reasoning. The volume of reviews for the individual games does not indicate that we need separate articles. --Macrakis (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MERGEREASON, the page is not a duplicate, the games do not overlap, and the games' articles are not one or two sentences. Nor do they require massive amounts of context to understand them. So there is quite literally no merge reason for each Zork game beyond one editor's opinion. In fact per WP:NOTMERGE, "Merging should be avoided if: the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "the games do not overlap" - uh, yes they do, that's the reason that I merged them in the first place. They were developed as a single game in 1977, and in late 1979 Lebling drew a line around half of the game map and called that Zork I because they couldn't fit the whole thing in a computer's memory. He did then go on to add bits to the second half so that it needed to be split again, and they did sell it in 3 releases, so I get where JimmyBlackwing's coming from, but the 3 episodes clearly overlap- the first 10 out of 15 paragraphs of development are about the game as a unified whole, the reviews may be mostly split but the legacy section has them as a single concept. It's reasonable to think that they'd be better as three articles (even if I disagree), but MERGEREASON (which isn't even a guideline, it's just a reference essay) doesn't apply here like that. -- Pres N  00:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Something that was cut content from a previous game is still not an "overlap". Something like a DLC or expansion pack would (possibly) be an overlap. The developers still made a judgement call about what to include in the first game and what to put in a sequel.
 * MERGEREASON is not a guideline, but not an "essay" as you claim. It is an information page reflecting current consensus, so it goes beyond one person's opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That may make sense in other scenarios, but absolutely not for Zork, given the time frame it was created (DLC? Expansion packs?), the way the game is played (the split of the three parts is nearly necessitated by how Zork is constructed as a game), and simply that the game is so far in the past that we should not expect any new information to come about as to make a potential home for episode-specific information.
 * Heck, consider that we do not have separate episode articles for the various Telltale Games episodes despite each having its own bit of reception - its because the game's larger aspect of development, gameplay and plot all overlap so having tiny, piecemeal articles on each episode would be more harmful. M asem (t) 12:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think these three articles could be recreated, but it would take a lot of work to make them nearly as nice as the main article now is. The current setup of the main article looks good, so I wouldn't recommend cutting much from it even if the three sub-articles are recreated. If editors think that the subarticles can go in significantly more detail than the main article through the sources available, then I would love such articles to be written! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Would you have an opinion on this?
 * (Since the three games were released and marketed as three individual games over the course of three years I would appreciate it very much if there were four articles of the quality of PresN's new overview article, but I won't be able to invest the necessary time myself and of course I cannot issue orders to anyone, so I'll live with whatever the consensus is.)
 * Kind regards, <span style="text-shadow: .2em .2em .2em #c5C3e3; font-family: Georgia; font-variant: small-caps; color: black">Grueslayer 22:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support retain merge. I read the opposing arguments and opinions related to merging guidelines. What's important to me is that the merge improved Wikipedia. The result is much better than the previous sum of the parts. Airborne84 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether something has been "improved" is subject to individual beliefs. I believe that, while the main Zork article was arguably made better, the articles on the sequels were not improved but in fact ignored. Is this a net improvement? Depends on your point of views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you have my point of view on record now. Airborne84 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support merger I suggest that as the editor who did the scholarly research about this game and created an astonishingly comprehensive article, PresN has earnt the right to make an editorial decision to merge based on their personal assessment. Perhaps the individual games do pass GNG, maybe they don't. It's not really relevant at this stage - the Zork article as structured renders individual game articles obsolete, and it would require a complete overhaul to do otherwise. A Godfather article containing comprehensive coverage on the entire trilogy would be long and overkill, but a Zork article doing much the same seems to be of suitable length based on available sourcing so I'm in favour of it. Sure, articles on individual games 'could' exist, but due to this brilliant piece of writing, they would look like unworthy spin-off stubs in comparison.--Coin945 (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus, from the way in which PresN described the sequels (II is the second half of I with some added puzzles, and III is much the same), it could be argued that they are more akin to expansion packs than stand-alone games, which generally don't get their own articles anyway.--Coin945 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support merge - The oppose arguments seem to hinge on the reasoning that if we wanted to have individual articles on Zork I, II, and III, we have enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY requirements, whereas from what PresN has written, the motivation for the merge is that it doesn't make sense to have individual articles on Zork I, II, and III because the three are most logically treated as a single subject, so the "if" in the oppose argument doesn't come into play (or at least, it shouldn't). I don't see any need to break the current version of the article down into smaller articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merge - Some sad comments in this thread. An editor volunteered dozens of hours to improve the coverage of this subject. Was their editorial decision to merge the wrong call? Maybe, but it doesn't matter because the new merged iteration is so obviously better in quality that there's no way in hell we are going back to the previous stub splits, the only other option available to us. If you think split articles would be an improvement, you put in the work and create those articles. That's what this editor did. TarkusAB talk / contrib 02:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"Elvish sword of great antiquity" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Elvish sword of great antiquity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Zork Box.jpg

Cover art
Is there a reason we're using the Atari ST cover rather than the original TRS-80 or Apple II cover (which has the benefit of being more visually interesting)? Only real argument I could see is that the black Infocom cover sold more copies than the Personal Software early edition. But it's a text adventure game so not sure how much either cover is realy doing to "identify" the subject for the purposes of the WP:NFCC rationale. czar 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's because the Infocom covers, while not being the first, were the most recognizable/seen covers, by a factor of about 100 to 1. As a physical-only product, the box art is even more representative than a modern game. I'm not sure what it being a text adventure has to do with it- Prince of Persia or EverQuest certainly didn't look like their covers, for example, despite having graphics; in fact, given the lack of memorable graphics, the box art is even more recognizable due to a lack of competition. Also, this article covers all three episodes (and the original), and PS only sold Zork I- the Infocom covers to II and III are in a similar style to I, so there's a bit more general coverage by not using a cover style that only applied to one episode. -- Pres N  17:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good czar  19:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)