Talk:Wand of undead turning - Revision history

Chris: /* "Unturn dead" */

2018-10-18T00:19:09Z

‎"Unturn dead"

Netzhack: /* "Unturn dead" */ new section

2018-10-17T22:12:46Z

‎"Unturn dead": new section

Stenno: /* Removal of section */ new section

2014-05-29T18:00:47Z

‎Removal of section: new section

New page

== Removal of section ==

I edited the article to remove the following statement:

''it's fairly safe to zap it at yourself (Bollucks!+) - getting[...]''

Bollucks? WTF?

It _is_ safe to zap a no-message wand at yourself. If you are scared that it is cancellation, you did the engrave-ID wrong.

Then the '+' leads to a footnote (wtf?):

''if it's a wand of cancellation, you've probably just cost yourself the game! Zap the wand near a container, if there is a directional prompt and you zap it at the container and still nothing happens, it is a wand of undead turning. [Note: locking, opening, and probing will self-identify when zapped at a container.]''

Again, if its a wand of cancellation, you did engrave-ID wrong. If you dust-E before engraving with the wand, you will get a 'vanish' message for cancellation (and invis, and teleport). And everything else is wrong too. Probing will ID on self-zap like /oUT, and i doubt that opening will ID when the container isn't locked. Even if it wasn't totally wrong, it would belong in the engrave-id article.

--[[User:Stenno|Stenno]] ([[User talk:Stenno|talk]]) 18:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 18 October 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:

	From the point of view of a native English speaker, "unturn dead" is a stupid expression. The procedure turns dead things undead. Don't care if it's in hte source code; theat's no reason to put it in the Wiki. I'm going to remove it unless there's a really good linguistical argument not to. [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)		From the point of view of a native English speaker, "unturn dead" is a stupid expression. The procedure turns dead things undead. Don't care if it's in hte source code; theat's no reason to put it in the Wiki. I'm going to remove it unless there's a really good linguistical argument not to. [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	Yeah, the linguistic joke here might be better expressed as "turn undead" vs "turn un-dead", instead of "turn undead" vs "unturn dead" [[User:Chris\|Chris]] ([[User talk:Chris\|talk]]) 00:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 17 October 2018
Line 16:		Line 16:

	--[[User:Stenno\|Stenno]] ([[User talk:Stenno\|talk]]) 18:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)		--[[User:Stenno\|Stenno]] ([[User talk:Stenno\|talk]]) 18:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	== "Unturn dead" ==
		+
		+	From the point of view of a native English speaker, "unturn dead" is a stupid expression. The procedure turns dead things undead. Don't care if it's in hte source code; theat's no reason to put it in the Wiki. I'm going to remove it unless there's a really good linguistical argument not to. [[User:Netzhack\|Netzhack]] ([[User talk:Netzhack\|talk]]) 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)