Source talk:NetHack 3.4.3/dat/rumors.tru - Revision history

Paxedbot: moved Source talk:Rumors.tru to Source talk:NetHack 3.4.3/dat/rumors.tru: Moving src to subdirs

2011-01-31T19:15:30Z

moved Source talk:Rumors.tru to Source talk:NetHack 3.4.3/dat/rumors.tru: Moving src to subdirs

Kernigh bot: Talk:Rumors.tru moved to Source talk:Rumors.tru: Robot: moved page

2008-03-04T15:07:07Z

Talk:Rumors.tru moved to Source talk:Rumors.tru: Robot: moved page

ZeroOne: /* Categorization */

2006-09-04T00:06:40Z

‎Categorization

Eidolos: /* Categorization */ I'll do True rumors

2006-09-03T22:25:16Z

‎Categorization: I'll do True rumors

ZeroOne: /* Categorization */ create articles called True rumors and False rumors?

2006-09-03T22:15:11Z

‎Categorization: create articles called True rumors and False rumors?

Eidolos: /* Categorization */

2006-09-03T22:13:28Z

‎Categorization

Stefanor: /* Categorization */ I wouldn't call this modifying the source

2006-09-03T21:59:18Z

‎Categorization: I wouldn't call this modifying the source

Eidolos: /* Categorization */

2006-09-03T21:17:24Z

‎Categorization

Jayt: yes, i do think this counts as a source file

2006-09-03T20:58:52Z

yes, i do think this counts as a source file

Eidolos: Categorize the rumors?

2006-09-03T20:32:50Z

Categorize the rumors?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 4 September 2006
Line 36:		Line 36:

	:::I'll do this then, at least for true rumors. --[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)		:::I'll do this then, at least for true rumors. --[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::Very nice! Thinking about it again, it's good that [[false rumors]] is just a redirect. They don't really need to be annotated, since they are just false. --[[User:ZeroOne\|ZeroOne]] 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 3 September 2006
Line 34:		Line 34:

	::I wouldn't rearrange this file, like we haven't changed the order of subroutines in other source files. If anything, we could create articles called [[True rumors]] and [[False rumors]]. --[[User:ZeroOne\|ZeroOne]] 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)		::I wouldn't rearrange this file, like we haven't changed the order of subroutines in other source files. If anything, we could create articles called [[True rumors]] and [[False rumors]]. --[[User:ZeroOne\|ZeroOne]] 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::I'll do this then, at least for true rumors. --[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 3 September 2006
Line 32:		Line 32:

	::Subheadings and table of contents are automatic. There's no reason not to include them, except on pages like [[Main Page]]. :) We probably wouldn't have headings for anything but the ten or so main categories.--[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 22:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)		::Subheadings and table of contents are automatic. There's no reason not to include them, except on pages like [[Main Page]]. :) We probably wouldn't have headings for anything but the ten or so main categories.--[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 22:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	::I wouldn't rearrange this file, like we haven't changed the order of subroutines in other source files. If anything, we could create articles called [[True rumors]] and [[False rumors]]. --[[User:ZeroOne\|ZeroOne]] 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 3 September 2006
Line 30:		Line 30:

	:I think just rearranging them to minimize the number of annotations would be enough. No need to bother with subheadings and a TOC. I expect (people looking for an odd message to see what it means) to outnumber (people looking for how the game documents an obscure topic). --[[User:Stefanor\|Stefanor]] 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)		:I think just rearranging them to minimize the number of annotations would be enough. No need to bother with subheadings and a TOC. I expect (people looking for an odd message to see what it means) to outnumber (people looking for how the game documents an obscure topic). --[[User:Stefanor\|Stefanor]] 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Subheadings and table of contents are automatic. There's no reason not to include them, except on pages like [[Main Page]]. :) We probably wouldn't have headings for anything but the ten or so main categories.--[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 22:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 3 September 2006
Line 26:		Line 26:

	::I think there are enough duplicates. I also think just about everything is categorizable. Having categories would make it easier for not only for the annotators, but also for the readers. Here's a starting point for the categories: intrinsics, identification, item properties, monster abilities, pets, religion, plot, and miscellaneous (for phase of the moon, etc.). Miscellaneous will probably be one of the smaller categories. We could have two separate pages as well, annotated&categorized and pristine. --[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)		::I think there are enough duplicates. I also think just about everything is categorizable. Having categories would make it easier for not only for the annotators, but also for the readers. Here's a starting point for the categories: intrinsics, identification, item properties, monster abilities, pets, religion, plot, and miscellaneous (for phase of the moon, etc.). Miscellaneous will probably be one of the smaller categories. We could have two separate pages as well, annotated&categorized and pristine. --[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:If we do not change the line numbers, then I wouldn't consider it modifying the source file - anyone could see what line 1 is, what line 2 is, etc. They'd have to hunt for the next line in sequence, but it would still be obvious how to get the original file (remove annotations and put lines in numerical order). Besides, lines are chosen randomly, so permutation would have no effect on the meaning of the file even if the original line-numbers were discarded. --[[User:Stefanor\|Stefanor]] 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I think just rearranging them to minimize the number of annotations would be enough. No need to bother with subheadings and a TOC. I expect (people looking for an odd message to see what it means) to outnumber (people looking for how the game documents an obscure topic). --[[User:Stefanor\|Stefanor]] 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:15, 31 January 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:07, 4 March 2008
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 3 September 2006
Line 24:		Line 24:

	:Are there really enough duplicates to warrant a category system? Wouldn't we just have 9 or 10 categories, and then ~300 non-categorised items? And as I wrote above, I do consider this a source file and so am reluctant to fiddle with it too much. --[[User:Jayt\|Jayt]] 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)		:Are there really enough duplicates to warrant a category system? Wouldn't we just have 9 or 10 categories, and then ~300 non-categorised items? And as I wrote above, I do consider this a source file and so am reluctant to fiddle with it too much. --[[User:Jayt\|Jayt]] 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	::I think there are enough duplicates. I also think just about everything is categorizable. Having categories would make it easier for not only for the annotators, but also for the readers. Here's a starting point for the categories: intrinsics, identification, item properties, monster abilities, pets, religion, plot, and miscellaneous (for phase of the moon, etc.). Miscellaneous will probably be one of the smaller categories. We could have two separate pages as well, annotated&categorized and pristine. --[[User:Eidolos\|Eidolos]] 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::but I figured we can change it later if you'd rather see it that way. Of course, then the individual lines couldn't be hotliked, but that isn't such a big drawback if the line numbers are still there. --[[User:ZeroOne|ZeroOne]] 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 == Categorization ==
@@ Line 21: / Line 22: @@
 .  Why would anybody in his sane mind engrave "Elbereth"?
 I think it'd be best if we categorized all of these under "Elbereth" and then had one annotation describing them all. Other categories could be, for example, "Intrinsics" and "Identification". Of course, it'd break the rule that we don't modify any of the source code itself (well, even then we're just rearranging it, not modifying it), but I think in this case it'd be a valuable enough tradeoff. --[[User:Eidolos|Eidolos]] 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Since this page is part of the source code, I'm not going to edit it without permission from an admin, but I think it would be nice if we could add links from rumours to pages which clarify what they mean (existing pages like [[Unicorn]], [[Nymph]] and [[Elbereth]] would be a good start).
 [[User:Ekaterin|Ekaterin]] 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 9: / Line 11: @@
 :#this
 ::but I figured we can change it later if you'd rather see it that way. Of course, then the individual lines couldn't be hotliked, but that isn't such a big drawback if the line numbers are still there. --[[User:ZeroOne|ZeroOne]] 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)