The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Father of the dungeon Crawl? No...try Wizardry, Zork, or Hunt the Wumpus -AMO
Does the rating refer to the importance of the article or the subject? Nethack is clearly game of massive importance in the history of computers, right up there with Colossal_Cave_Adventure and Doom_(video_game). Mtpaley ( talk) 23:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
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. Someone another 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just to make it clear for anyone reading, there are now at least two versions of nethack 3.4.3 for iOS: iNethack (c) 2009 Dirk Zimmermann NetHack for iPhone (c) 2008 gandreas software 90.211.114.219 ( talk) 07:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So I was reading about NetHack, and it says you're looking for the Amulet Of Yendor. Now, I played an old DOS game titled "Amulet Of Yendor". According to this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MS-DOS_games , the game came out in 1985, 2 years before Nethack. So I was wondering, is there some relation? I really doubt it's just coincidence. Any searches for "Amulet Of Yendor" are just giving me lots of Nethack information. If anyone knows about this connection, I think it should be mentioned in the Wiki, even if it turns out the name was simply lifted. 206.225.143.51 ( talk) 06:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When was the Windows version released? 2fort5r ( talk) 19:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
"Many play without recourse to spoilers and regard their usage as cheating"
Sounds to me like the epitome of weasel words. Thoughts? -- Unknownwarrior33 ( talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Although there's some loss of prestige to using spoilers, it seems to be generally accepted behavior - indeed, the article states "the achievement is so difficult that some question whether it has been or can be accomplished." I'll remove that note about spoilers being cheating - the rest of the paragraph seems to explain well enough the attitude toward them. -- Brilliand ( talk) 22:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
So now the same old lame edit war is in progress, over whether or not NetHack is still a going concern. I prefer the present tense version that currently exists, saying "The DevTeam rarely discusses [emphasis added] versions under development in public." The very sentence is making the point that it's rare, so the IPs who are bothered that a new version hasn't come out in years really shouldn't strain at this point. Also, Pat Rankin has made a number of recent rgrn posts that allude to the current development version. The past-tense version is therefore less accurate, IMO. Any other opinions? (Or is the reverting just going to continue?) Ntsimp ( talk) 20:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following passage from the Ports and Variants section:
NetHack is acknowledged by Blizzard as an inspiration for Diablo.
First, this doesn't really belong there (even if Diablo was inspired by NetHack, that doesn't make it a port or variant), and secondly, the cited source ( Blue's News Feb 7-13, 1998) does not actually prove the point. It just says:
Inspired by the NetHack talk, Crack dot Com's Dave Taylor updated his .plan pointing out that NetHack is apparently acknowleged by Blizzard as the inspiration for Diablo, and goes on to plug another variant, NetTrek.
Since the .plan file in question is of course no longer available, it is not possible to verify this.— Graf Bobby ( talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that as this edit may be OK variants should be somehow mentioned in this article (there is nothing wrong in mentioning things not notable enough to have separate articles). 89.74.119.184 ( talk) 06:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
DreamGuy ( talk) 02:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"The license is certified as open source by the Open Source Initiative."
The citation for this remark links back to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure it can be used. SharkD Talk 03:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nethack-el. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 09:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect YAAD. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 11:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect YASD. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wizard Of Yendor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wizard of Yendor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NetHack/Amulet of Yendor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it enumerate the OS and hardware platforms that are supported by official ports or unofficial builds. However, the categories are rife with such claims. This is a violation of WP:CATV which specifies that all categories must be supported with prose in the body of the article and verifiable in reliable secondary sources. Soon I will remove the offending categories; I don't want to, because they are probably true and contain useful information, but they must conform to WP:CATV to remain. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
New players, really?
Without research, new players are repeatedly killed before discovering Sokoban or Minetown. Maybe there's some sort of sheer lottery ticket of pure luck - but a *new player* wouldn't even know how to use a Wand of Wishing, let alone think to BUC test their gear on an altar, or not to drink from a fountain, or what needs to be eaten. The S in YASD is totally related to how well one knows exactly how NetHack works.
I contend that New players would find it hard enough to complete the game in Wizard mode.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Father of the dungeon Crawl? No...try Wizardry, Zork, or Hunt the Wumpus -AMO
Does the rating refer to the importance of the article or the subject? Nethack is clearly game of massive importance in the history of computers, right up there with Colossal_Cave_Adventure and Doom_(video_game). Mtpaley ( talk) 23:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
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. Someone another 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just to make it clear for anyone reading, there are now at least two versions of nethack 3.4.3 for iOS: iNethack (c) 2009 Dirk Zimmermann NetHack for iPhone (c) 2008 gandreas software 90.211.114.219 ( talk) 07:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So I was reading about NetHack, and it says you're looking for the Amulet Of Yendor. Now, I played an old DOS game titled "Amulet Of Yendor". According to this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MS-DOS_games , the game came out in 1985, 2 years before Nethack. So I was wondering, is there some relation? I really doubt it's just coincidence. Any searches for "Amulet Of Yendor" are just giving me lots of Nethack information. If anyone knows about this connection, I think it should be mentioned in the Wiki, even if it turns out the name was simply lifted. 206.225.143.51 ( talk) 06:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When was the Windows version released? 2fort5r ( talk) 19:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
"Many play without recourse to spoilers and regard their usage as cheating"
Sounds to me like the epitome of weasel words. Thoughts? -- Unknownwarrior33 ( talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Although there's some loss of prestige to using spoilers, it seems to be generally accepted behavior - indeed, the article states "the achievement is so difficult that some question whether it has been or can be accomplished." I'll remove that note about spoilers being cheating - the rest of the paragraph seems to explain well enough the attitude toward them. -- Brilliand ( talk) 22:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
So now the same old lame edit war is in progress, over whether or not NetHack is still a going concern. I prefer the present tense version that currently exists, saying "The DevTeam rarely discusses [emphasis added] versions under development in public." The very sentence is making the point that it's rare, so the IPs who are bothered that a new version hasn't come out in years really shouldn't strain at this point. Also, Pat Rankin has made a number of recent rgrn posts that allude to the current development version. The past-tense version is therefore less accurate, IMO. Any other opinions? (Or is the reverting just going to continue?) Ntsimp ( talk) 20:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following passage from the Ports and Variants section:
NetHack is acknowledged by Blizzard as an inspiration for Diablo.
First, this doesn't really belong there (even if Diablo was inspired by NetHack, that doesn't make it a port or variant), and secondly, the cited source ( Blue's News Feb 7-13, 1998) does not actually prove the point. It just says:
Inspired by the NetHack talk, Crack dot Com's Dave Taylor updated his .plan pointing out that NetHack is apparently acknowleged by Blizzard as the inspiration for Diablo, and goes on to plug another variant, NetTrek.
Since the .plan file in question is of course no longer available, it is not possible to verify this.— Graf Bobby ( talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that as this edit may be OK variants should be somehow mentioned in this article (there is nothing wrong in mentioning things not notable enough to have separate articles). 89.74.119.184 ( talk) 06:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
DreamGuy ( talk) 02:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"The license is certified as open source by the Open Source Initiative."
The citation for this remark links back to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure it can be used. SharkD Talk 03:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nethack-el. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 09:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect YAAD. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 11:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect YASD. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wizard Of Yendor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wizard of Yendor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NetHack/Amulet of Yendor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it enumerate the OS and hardware platforms that are supported by official ports or unofficial builds. However, the categories are rife with such claims. This is a violation of WP:CATV which specifies that all categories must be supported with prose in the body of the article and verifiable in reliable secondary sources. Soon I will remove the offending categories; I don't want to, because they are probably true and contain useful information, but they must conform to WP:CATV to remain. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
New players, really?
Without research, new players are repeatedly killed before discovering Sokoban or Minetown. Maybe there's some sort of sheer lottery ticket of pure luck - but a *new player* wouldn't even know how to use a Wand of Wishing, let alone think to BUC test their gear on an altar, or not to drink from a fountain, or what needs to be eaten. The S in YASD is totally related to how well one knows exactly how NetHack works.
I contend that New players would find it hard enough to complete the game in Wizard mode.