Talk:Wand of undead turning

From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

--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. 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" Chris (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)