User talk:Bruceleroy99

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, Bruceleroy99! Welcome, and thanks for joining NetHackWiki!

• The How to help and Style guide pages are excellent starting points.
• Special:Recentchanges is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.
• Questions? Need help? You can ask at the Community Portal, the forum, or on the discussion page associated with each article! Just remember to sign those posts with four tildes: ~~~~. That will expand to create a signature.

You can put {{NAOplayer|NAO player account}} on your user page to link to your NAO player account. Capitalization matters.

We are really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!

This is an automated greeting.

-- New user message (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirects for lots of code constants

Hi, I've seen your recent edits, and I'm not convinced the wiki really needs to have a redirect for a bunch of code constants. Realistically speaking, the only people who would ever type them into the search bar are source divers or variant developers. Most of these people already know what the constants mean, and even for those who don't, they'd have to be pretty dim not to realize that S_FELINE represents the feline monster class.

Unused redirects are typically candidates for deletion on the Orphaned Pages list, and adding lots of pages doomed for deletion is just going to irritate the person who has to clean them up. I would say, unless you have a good reason to insert one into a page somewhere (and I can't really think of where the code constant would be more appropriate than just linking to the thing it would redirect to), probably don't add them. --Phol ende wodan (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I can definitely see your reasoning w.r.t the average wiki editor and nethack player, my thought was that using the actual constants to refer to things in the wiki would be better in the long term to maintain consistency and accuracy between code and wiki for variants. The main reason I was adding them was that I was updating the Slash'THEM artifacts list and seeing all of the differences in that code vs vanilla, so instead of just overloading the wiki links and hoping they were correct I thought it would be better to use the constants themselves instead. I can stop adding them, though, and you're welcome to remove the ones I created if you feel strongly about it. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Price Identification

You may want to see the talk page discussion regarding recent edits. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

ah yes I hadn't seen that, thanks! I had looked for something like that originally but didn't find anything. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Making large, sweeping changes to pages

Please hold off on going and making big edits to pages. Specifically, your creation of "alternate item names" and deleting content off the pages for roles that USE those alternate item names. This along with the unannounced sweeping changes to the price ID page are likely to / have already kicked up controversy and edit warring.

I can see alternate item names existing as a simple list of links to roles that use alternate item names, but not as the central repository for them. The Samurai item names are tied to that role. So when you're playing a Samurai and want to remember which items are different names, you go to the Samurai page, not follow a link to somewhere else that collects disparate item renames from different unrelated roles.

You're a new editor of the wiki, and may be new to wikis in general. I don't know. But if you want to make big changes, you should probably start by proposing them on the respective talk pages and seeing if anyone offers a rebuttal, rather than going off and just making the edits in a way that prompts edit wars. I'm going to roll back the changes you made on Samurai and Pirate on the grounds of staving off any immediate edit warring from concerned editors; you're free to debate the merits of the changes you want to make in talk. --Phol ende wodan (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't consider the item naming changes to be "big" edits, but I don't see the issue with having a single page dedicated to covering the singular topic of changing item names - without it there are several places that need to be maintained that cover the exact same information. Should Ninja always link to Samurai or Corsair always link to Pirate just to cover item names? Those are unrelated roles and fall into the same issue, and I would argue that looking at a different role's page for that info is more confusing than a central place discussing that one topic - to me a central repo makes more sense. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ninja is a SLASH'EM Extended role, and is actually subject to deletion as there is a group of members gradually taking SLASH'EM Extended content off the wiki after it got banned from hardfought and content-warned on GitHub. Maybe it will survive by virtue of being in SLASHTHEM, I'm not sure. For Corsair, I don't even see a page for that. Anyway I personally would say that roles which take item names derived from better known roles should indeed link to those better known roles. Even just repeating the content would be preferable to collecting item renames off the main page (not saying this is a majority opinion). It's taking a bigger loss (making it harder to find information for the many people playing Samurai) for a small gain (putting content in neutral ground for the sake of a handful of people playing that role in a variant). This is in any case the sort of thing I should bring to the talk page, not here. --Phol ende wodan (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware about extended but I've been playing SlashTHEM so I was trying to add stuff to the wiki since info about it is sparse - I was in the process of adding Corsair which is why I made the separate page for item names. I don't see how it's a bigger loss to have one central page for things that would otherwise be on multiple pages - if someone doesn't know what something is (e.g. "yumi") they would search the wiki and it would either a) link to a single page or b) show a list of results. In the case of the alternate naming it wouldn't matter if it was on Samurai if that were the only place it came in to practice. The same goes for price ID with every different item category - it doesn't make sense to explain the strategy and put the item tables on every page, so I don't see alternate item names being any different here.

I am by no means new to editing a wiki (or even new to this one) but it seems like there's a lot of resilience to things improving or changing which is why I held off on creating an account for so long. It's really hard to make things better if people are just going to have knee-jerk reactions and completely revert improvements. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing about making improvements is, you usually try to establish consensus before making any major changes, like I usually do for some of the ones I've been making (notice that I'm still paying for jumping the gun on splitting up dragons and giants). --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything that I did as a major change here - I have been trying to improve things by organizing and consolidating information and adding info that didn't previously exist. I don't see what you are "paying for" but if it's improving things then I don't think it's a you problem lol. Seems like there's a lot more politics gumming up the works of progress - some people want things to stay exactly as they are for whatever reason. Previously I thought things weren't getting done because people just weren't putting in the effort, I didn't realize it was because there are so many holding things back. Wikipedia this ain't - if people need to come to consensus about what are in reality small changes then I can see why things are the way that they are. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"I have been trying to improve things by organizing and consolidating information and adding info that didn't previously exist"

By definition, the former almost always involves a large sweeping change - the entire point of talking stuff like that out is not remotely to be a crude Wikipedia imitation, but so people can chime in and go "hey you might have overlooked this", "I have a suggestion for what direction we should go" or something similar.

It's also precisely to prevent "my way or the highway" vibes from over-running proceedings. Not unrelated, this notion that things aren't changing Fast Enough™ on here (in your opinion, may I add) because we occasionally take the time to discuss matters beforehand is complete nonsense also takes a hot steaming dump on the work that was already being done prior, and is basically an insult to many of the other editors that contributed - you get three guesses as to who that includes. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I say all this to say that your recent contributions have largely been appreciated - but such contributions do not make you de facto immune to criticism of any kind, especially because such improvements are "ideally" best made with the prospective reader in mind. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I definitely don't want or expect to be immune to criticism - I welcome them at any point. I try and leave any ego at the door and by no means expect to have the best idea 100% of the time, but it's hard to make improvements to things if it takes a lot more effort to build things up than it does to tear them down. Case in point - I was excited about organizing and updating things and figured people would appreciate improvements, now I'm much less excited because it feels like the vocal minority holds more weight. I don't have any desire to enforce my ideas on everyone by any means, but the barrier to making things better alone is a huge hindrance if any one person can veto any changes without a) taking a second to read / internalize them, or b) giving others a chance to see them.

I am not trying to incite anyone or throw anyone under the bus here, but yes I am of the opinion that it does seem like there are a lot of blockers and hurdles to jump through to make improvements which in turn makes things go a lot slower. To me it seems more like there are some that are averse to change and have particular ideas on how things should be done (which, to your point, seems more like the "my way or the highway" mentality to me). It's one thing to be putting out a style guide for how things should be done (which are great!) and another to undo peoples' changes because one person specifically does not like or understand them. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This has mostly blown up because of how it started -- not with a post on the price id talk page to solicit opinions, but with a large edit of the heavily used price id page itself. If it had started with asking around first, people's objections may have become apparent. Believe me, it's not a small, vocal minority or a single person vetoing changes: I count at least a dozen people so far on IRC and the roguelikes Discord server wondering what happened to the price ID tables they know and love, a couple of whom have chimed in here on the talk threads. When you make sweeping and possibly controversial changes without gauging support, you are effectively saying "my way or the highway" and provoking an edit war.

Wiki communities naturally look conservatively at changes, so yeah, there are going to be some hurdles to clear, some convincing arguments to be made when you want to shake things up. Note that I'm only talking about the potentially controversial stuff -- "this information is wrong/missing" edits and "make this paragraph flow better" edits are very different from "I disagree with large parts of this page and am removing them now" edits. Just lead with a discussion rather than an imposition of your will, and things will flow more smoothly. --Phol ende wodan (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I still don't anything I did as wrong or even a large set of changes - I read the contributing sections beforehand and didn't see any mentions of anything about using talk pages or consulting a cabal in IRC or Discord. To me, consolidating info into smaller spaces seems like a positive set of changes in any regard as well. I'm not trying to say my thoughts or opinions are worth more than anyone else's by any means, but if there's any info people need to make edits then it should be mentioned in one of the contribution sections or at least some notice of them on the front page. Again, not to be incendiary, but saying "I've talked to people and they agree" to me is on the same level as "my way or the highway" - it gives off the impression that if you're not "part of our group" then you shouldn't be touching things here, which then makes this less of a public wiki and more of a privately controlled but publicly accessible thing.

One thing I would like to point out is that I did post questions on the talk page since then and not one person has had a response, so if people aren't going to speak up or make changes themselves then I don't see how anyone can be at fault for trying to make improvements. As-is I'm half tempted to just delete my account because it feels like a much less positive community than I thought it would be. I have some extra time on my hands so I figured I'd try and give back a bit while I can but it definitely feels like that was the wrong choice. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Well first let me say that I really hope that all this talk doesn't discourage you enough to delete your account :( The wiki relies on any player willing to contribute, and I'm sure you have spent enough time on here to realize that there is a lot of room for improvement and filling in gaps. From what I've seen as a whole I think you have made many great contributions here.

That said, I think we are all in agreement that the wiki is meant to be a community effort. While a lot of the work may be done by individuals, everyone that edits is a collaborator on this collective project. Often times people can make small edits or add new pages with no conflict. However in the case of more popular pages like the price identification one, it garners a lot more attention due to the amount of use that it gets. We therefore have to be more thoughtful when making changes to pages like these. This is not to say that change is bad (I think that page needs a revamp as well), it just means that large reworks to already existing pages are better discussed first. Even so conflicts will still occur (people have their own opinions). The wiki seeks to help as many people as possible, so in some cases that might mean the majority favor is going to win out.

I get that change on this wiki can seem slow paced; perhaps this is somewhat related to the fact that development for NetHack is also quite slow in comparison to many other games/roguelikes. I am not personally against fast paced changes/revisions. Just note that many folks around here have been doing things a certain way for a long time, which is why it may seem like you are getting a lot of negative feedback from others. Communication is good. --Shadow Rider (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I disagree with any of that, but from a "newcomer" or even "outsider" perspective there is a huge difference in what people are saying should be done vs what everyone else is actually doing. My main frustration is that I tried to do the right thing (read the contributing sections and followed the guidelines) but got pushback or reverts on everything I did that wasn't a tiny edit or changes to pages that are basically empty / untouched. That sends a very distinct signal in how things are done around here - I am no stranger to (and wholeheartedly welcome!) differing views on things, but from where I sit (and again - not trying to be incendiary here by any means) the "my way or the highway" mentality is coming from the other side of the table. Just looking at this talk page alone you can see the amount of issues I've caused in under a week - the reception has been farm from welcoming or positive, so I'm finding it hard to see why anyone new would want to come in here and help if this is how everyone "new" is treated. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"My main frustration is that I tried to do the right thing" ...I think a major impasse here is that you keep coming back to this "I was doing the right thing" notion, as if it's not simultaneously possible that you might also have been misguided while coming from an understandable position.

Not unrelated to this, someone took the initiative of marking variant pages for cleanup, since the decision was made to no longer host those articles. I realized quickly they were in the process of marking pages that existed in another covered variant, and promptly informed them on their talk page. They continued what they were doing, but it was at least clear they acknowledged my message. The point is, it's absolutely not "everyone" "new", and while I don't blame you for feeling put upon, I advise you not to lose perspective and at least see where we're coming from. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean if it's not listed anywhere on the wiki and is knowledge people are just supposed to "know", I don't think there's as much an impasse as it is people potentially not wanting to admit that they're wrong. I can see a differing opinion on what is considered a "large" edit, but I say I did the right thing because I did things by the book as far as anyone could know without already knowing what is expected. I think I'm just going to go back to being a lurker - I have no desire to deal with politics and it seems pretty clear that it's going to take far too much energy to get anything useful done. Feel free to revert whatever changes people don't like - I had some more improvements to the price ID page but I have 0 desire at this point to try finish them and deal with the drama that will come with it. --Bruceleroy99 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've threaded similar needles over the year myself, enough to know editing isn't about just adding stuff that's missing - it's making sure you preserve and correct whatever's already present, as well as ensuring both types of info are presentable for the reader's convenience. But if you insist. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)