NetHackWiki talk:Current projects

From NetHackWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Want me to add an article for each bug? Each bug would have the one-line summary from, and possibly a clarification and a patch that fixes it, if one is available. I can easily add each bug to the wiki; I have bugdb support for Rodney3, so it's just a matter of printing it out in a usable format. Could I get bot status for User:Eidobot? --Eidolos 23:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How about just autogenerating Bugs in NetHack 3.4.3? There are lots of bugs which we know very little about (e.g. C343-85: Sometimes the hero can't move when conscious.) and probably never will. There's also not a lot to say about most of them. For the interesting ones, we can manually create a link from the main list.
(And as for a bot flag, that has to be granted by the central Wikia admins, and isn't terribly useful anyway). --Jayt 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. Everything's coded and ready to rock (just need the bot flag so I don't flood recent changes), let me know if you reconsider! :) --Eidolos 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I do think a page listing the bugs would be good! If we did have an article for every bug, we would need an index for them anyway (the alternative is looking through a category of articles titled C343-1, C343-2, C343-3, C343-4, C343-5, C343-6, C343-7,...). --Jayt 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Help for modifying source code

Should we perhaps have a section on how to modify the code, like a wikified version of German Martin's guide to NetHack's sources? That one is getting a bit old... --Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19 March 2007

Sure, that sounds like a good idea as we have all the sources uploaded here, too. Should be done by someone who knows how to modify the source. --ZeroOne 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I can do some parts of it (for example) when I have some time, but I'm not sure how to organize/name the articles. (That unsigned idea above was mine anyway) --Paxed 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Monster pages

It doesn't strike me as very tidy to have an individual page for each monster. I had merged all the canines (with some exceptions) and all the ants pages before I even saw that their individual pages was a project. I think that if a monster has enough info here to warrant its own page, then it can split off. Otherwise it's harder to find all the information. That's the way that wikipedia does it, and it seems to work. Thoughts? Shmoo 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure every single monster needs its own page. I've always liked the mold page for one-stop shopping, and I thought the work you did on ants made sense. Consolidating canines seemed less logical to me, but it used to bug me that dogs and cats were all separated but the pony & horse info was all on one page. Sometimes a very general Disambiguation page makes sense if the family of creatures is really diverse (demon for instance), and sometimes there isn't so much to be said that everybody needs a solo page ( like giants ). And just look at the difference between the pages for starting races (and the lack of the vanilla dwarf monster page?), I don't even think the racial page titles follow a convention. It seems like anything goes, which is ok with me as long as it's easy for people to find the important stuff when they search (stats, strategy, and resistances for monsters) and the layout is easy to follow...MysterX 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NetHackWiki: Current events

The main navigation bar links to a page called Current Events, which currently doesn't exist. Should that be redirected to this page, or is it intended for something else? Skelwing 03:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)