NetHackWiki talk:Next version

From NetHackWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

More Categories

(Discussion moved here from a subpage of my user page.--Ray Chason (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

What exactly is the function of the version tags? I see that most of the pages for variants are tagged "variant-343", except for the pages for SLASH'EM, which have their own tags (and according to the SLASH'EM article, are based on 3.3.1). Would it be helpful to have separate tags for other variants that have large numbers of pages, or for features (like the Convict role) that originated as a patch, but are now in multiple variants? The rollover text for the tag could include the note that these are based on 3.4.3.

I am thinking of a scenario in which a 3.4.3 variant is updated by porting in the changes from 3.6.0, making it (indirectly) a 3.6.0 variant. In that case having a separate tag might simplify the process of updating the variant number. In any case, Slash'EM Extended and SLASHTHEM should probably have their own tags, since their base is SLASH'EM, not 3.4.3.--Cherokee Jack (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I first wrote up NetHackWiki:Next version in about 2008. SLASH'EM was still the most popular variant, UnNetHack was new, and quite a lot of the variants of today were still yet to be. A lot has changed since then: SLASH'EM itself seems to be abandoned, UnNetHack is more or less mature, and the Great Wait has brought us a proliferation of variants, much as the wait for NetHack 3.1.0 brought us the earliest ancestor of SLASH'EM.
I'm all for making a few new tags, and maybe even retiring the SLASH'EM tag; I'm just focused on the update to the mainline right now. My immediate goal is first to tag all the pages that relate to vanilla, so we have a reasonable boundary for the update. Then I want to tag those pages that aren't likely to need any updating, because they're meta or historic. Then I'll go on to the SLASH'EM pages, and finally (if no new tags are proposed) the variants.
Some pages will need multiple tags, because they deal with multiple variants, or with vanilla and one or more variant. I'm not addressing that issue right now.
Any creation of a new tag will require lots of changes, so that existing pages that need the tag will get it. That's the sort of thing that bots are good for, and I've turned loose a bot to do the vanilla tags. I'm a bureaucrat, and can give you a bot flag if you need one; this will keep such edits from flooding the recent changes.--Ray Chason (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
How about the following variant tags:
  • {{patch-360}} - content available as a patch that is compatible with 3.6.0; substitute {{patch-his}} for older versions and incompatible patches, or {{patch-343}} for 3.4.3 patches that might be compatible but have not been checked
  • {{unh}} - features specific to UnNetHack
  • {{dnh}} - features specific to dNetHack
  • {{variant-se}} or {{var-slash}} - features specific to variants based on SLASH'EM (Slash'EM Extended and SLASHTHEM)
I single out these variants because, of all the variants I'm aware of, they seem to have the most added content and therefore the most pages on the wiki dedicated to them. The existing variant tag could be kept as a catch-all for other variants with fewer pages on the wiki. I am interpreting the tag not only as a marker for editors but also as a way that users can tell at a glance if the content of a page is relevant to the game they are playing.
I also group the SLASH-likes together (yes, I just made up the term "SLASH-likes" for them) because there are relatively few features in SLASHTHEM that were not carried over originally from Extended. Many of the features that are new to SLASHTHEM come from precursors to SLASH'EM or from patches, which would have their own categories. Also, since a number of monsters and items in UnNetHack and dNetHack have been ported into Extended, it might be a good idea to restrict the SLASH tag to content original to that variant and SLASHTHEM.
I have little experience using bots, but as I do maintenance on the pages I've edited in the past, I'd be happy to update their tags.
If anyone else has any input on this, feel free to comment. --Cherokee Jack (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)