User talk:Erica

From NetHackWiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi, Erica! 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. -- The Welcome Bot 09:28, 21 Aug 2017 (UTC)

thanks for fixing monster data

Thank you for correcting the monster templates. I had no idea the situation is this bad. --Tjr 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to be able to help! I'm making progress with the monsters, but I'm not quite finished.
In many cases, the same problems show up on a lot of pages.
The number one problem is that the "frequencies" were done by different people who used different words to describe the same numerical frequencies; for example, a frequency of "3" was described as "Rare", "Uncommon" and "Average" on different pages.
My solution to this was to modify the monster template. Now, if the monster page has "frequency=3", then the infobox will display "3 (Rare)", which is consistent with the Monster frequency page.
The only problem is that the "Frequency" fields in the infoboxes no longer have "never appears in Gehennom" or "appears in small groups", but those were redundant anyway because they appear in the attributes at the bottom.
Other problems include missing references to the source code, and a few typos and other errors.
Hopefully I'll be done soon!
--Erica 05:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

nocorpse on undead

I noticed you added nocorpse=1 to the vampire [lord] infobox. While true according to monst.c, this is still misleading; vampires do leave corpses, just not vampire corpses. Zombies and mummies act the same way, leaving corpses of their base type rather than a 'dwarf mummy corpse'. nocorpse=1 should be removed; if you'd like you could modify the template to include something like 'specialcorpse=1'. -- Qazmlpok 03:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not sure about whether or not to add nocorpse=1, but I like your idea; I will work on this in a few minutes. --Erica 03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there some good way to specify what corpse it leaves?
BTW, is it worth adding to the infobox some monsters reanimate as something entirely different, e.g. temple priests turned undead to zombies or stone-to-fleshed to non-temple priests? --Tjr 12:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks.
Tjr, The type of corpse could be set, something like 'oldcorpse=human' or 'oldcorpse=elf' instead of just a boolean, and have that show up as "leaves an old <text> corpse". I'd say the special turn undead cases aren't worth mentioning, as to my knowledge only aligned priests have any special behavior with turn undead or stone to flesh. -- Qazmlpok 17:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Remaining monster data

Using Special:ReplaceText, I've compiled a list of monsters that still use the "old" non-numeric monster frequency. I can't just indiscriminately search-and-replace those because of the ambiguities you described. Does your script correctly account for weapon attacks? A lot of pages list them as "physical", which is something different.

Both lists are at Template_talk:Monster. --Tjr 15:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't tried to update the monster attacks yet, except when I noticed that the numbers were wrong. But that would definitely be something I could work on when I'm done with the frequencies. --Erica 23:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I took care of most of the "Physical" attacks. --Erica 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for all your edits. --Tjr 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


There's a thread about this earlier, but I'd like to thank you for your work on the wiki myself, too. The topic about the difference between the old and new wikis came up in RGRN, and I realised you've done more for the quality of the information in the wiki than pretty much anyone else here. All those small corrections really add up, and it's leading to a great product overall. Ais523 06:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm happy to be able to help! --Erica 04:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)