Talk:Mythology and fiction in NetHack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Great start, I would love to see this develop. HighInBC 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting page. The Homunculus has a very strange background but it would be nice if it was added. Clockwise music 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of article?

I think this could become a very cool article. I would love to see it evolve into something that basically covered all of the references in nethack, fictional or not. For example, I think the quantum mechanic would be interesting to have. Similarly, a brief discussion of the Japanese items, and also the abilities of the tourist. Maybe develop it with "Cultural references in NetHack" as the ultimate goal? Just my thoughts. Chris Pickett 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, this article needs loads of work. I just added a bunch of creatures that I picked out from the source, but there is still much to do. I have a few points to make which are pretty important though:

  1. I added baluchitherium and titanothere under "reality", but the comment for that section needs amending because it only mentions "historical persons". After that, would all non-fictional monsters/creatures be added there? There are quite a few (think bats, cats, dogs, insects, reptiles etc.)
I think only if it's interesting. If it's just an ordinary animal, there's no need. However, things like katana and wakizashi and ronin are worth adding. I also think the Yendorian Express card is worth adding with a wikilink to American Express. As for gems/stones, I think the only interesting ones are the four different grey stones and also dilithium crystals. The scroll names that are unquestionable should be added too: [1]. The bullwhip and leather jacket and fedora don't each get a wikilink, but together that's a clear reference to Indiana Jones.
  1. Should monster varieties be covered? We've got kobold lords, dwarf kings, fire ant, ice troll etc.
Fire ants and soldier ants are different, so yes; kobold lords/shamans, I don't really think are that interesting. Basically, I think a good rule of thumb is if they get different wikipedia pages then it's good to differentiate.
  1. Capitalisation - every monster/creature name begins with a capital letter. I don't think this is right, and I suggest we change all to lower case unless it is an actual name (Vlad, Croesus, Wizard of Yendor etc.)
Agreed.
  1. Are we listing monsters in alphabetical order or not? Some sections are and some are not. It seems obvious to me that we retain alphabetical order, but I wondered if it had been scrapped in some sections for a reason?
I think alphabetical order is useful for now. The idea I had for this article was to turn it into a nice set of paragraphs instead of a bunch of lists, but while the initial legwork is done lists are good.
  1. Whilst going through the source I skipped on loads of monsters because the origin was unclear or had multiple possibilities. How will we tackle those?
I guess it's just easiest if you list the questionable monsters/things/references on the talk page.

Just a yes or no on some of the above is fine, I have time to put the work in. Ahpla 11:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I really don't have much time now, but I think this article could be really neat and possibly reach featured status; it's important not to stray into original research though, i.e. don't make stuff up if you aren't sure, just list it here. Chris Pickett 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Chris. I've just had a bit of an overhaul, making some of the adjustments you agreed with above. A couple more points:
I've used capitalisation in the way that it is used in the NetHack source, since that is what we're writing about after all! :) However, a couple of these disagree with capitalisation in the corresponding

Wikipedia articles such as Angel and sasquatch. Also, character classes like Ranger and Samurai. Should we use capitalisation as per the NetHack source or not?

I would go with lower case unless the word is a proper noun in English. So angel, Sasquatch, ranger, samurai. You can always make a note of it in a comment.
I removed the comment about three particular in-game messages (kilroy was here, hello world, for a good time...) because it wasn't really written in a way to explain the origins. I haven't read into the links, but if those messages should go on the list I think it should be rewritten to explain the origins clearer.
I think those should definitely be included, "kilroy was here" and "hello world" should have wikipedia articles, otherwise they need a citation; "for a good time..." probably just a link to phone sex or something would do (I'm not sure; I can't remember seeing that last message.)
Is "xans" the plural of xan? ahpla 10:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No idea, but probably.
Glad to see you taking this on, it will be a neat article one day. Chris Pickett 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)