Talk:Fun
Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style.
I was going to add the below as a todo, but given Ray's comment (nice article), I suppose this might just be my opinion so I'm putting it here for discussion. I do certainly agree having an article called Fun is an excellent idea, and the content is good. My issue is whether the style is appropriate:
- Proposed todo
- Style - wikihack is not an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, according to the Style guide, articles in the main namespace should be written in a largely encyclopaedic tone. While this should undoubtedly be applied with latitude on a page entitled Fun, an overly chatty style and particularly use of the first person should be avoided. This article should be rewritten to follow the style guide.
--Rogerb-on-NAO 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- No huge outcry, so added todo. --Rogerb-on-NAO 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- "You" is used heavily all over NetHackWiki, and this seems to be generally accepted because the conversational tone of addressing the reader is preferable to having more awkward constructions and endless disagreements over "the player" versus "the character". I wouldn't change that aspect of it. Overuse of "arguably", though, can be amended. --Phol ende wodan (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good). Ekaterin 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
@Ilmari Karonen
Ilmari Karonen, thank You. Thanks to Your link, i discovered Dwarf Fortress - good game full of fun. And new wiki to read while I have nothing to do. --S.K.
