Source talk:NetHack 3.4.3/dat/rumors.tru

Annotation and Linking

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). Ekaterin 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The principle at work for source pages is that you should not edit the lines of code themselves, but you should feel perfectly free to add annotations between the lines. I've added a few on this page. --Jayt 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make this page more clear if the links were added straight to their places. After all, strictly taken this isn't really source code but rather just a data file. Even the 'Category:Source code' could be removed from this. I could've imported it by just adding

1. line
2. numbers
3. like
4. 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. --ZeroOne 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is debatable whether adding a wikilink within a source code line is really modifying it, but this page provides short explanations, not just links, so we may as well link in the explanation text. I do think this file counts as source code though; I would call anything in the source tarball source code, simply because it comes straight from the DevTeam, as so is a primary source, in the historiographical sense, even though it isn't "code". --Jayt 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Many of the rumors state the same information in a similar way. For example,

52.   Elbereth has quite a reputation around these parts.
62.   Fiery letters might deter monsters.
63.   For a good time engrave `Elbereth'.
170.  They say that `Elbereth' is often written about.
347.  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. --Eidolos 20:32, 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. --Jayt 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)