Talk:Wizard of Yendor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Better closeup? 2 Graphics pic 3 Last Paragraph Seems Orphaned 4 German Source == Accessible Verification?

[edit] Better closeup?

Could we get a better closeup of Rodney? Or hasn't anyone survived his spells long enough to get close to that damn @? I could always try to get a better shot of him if I can ever be bothered to get my wizard to polypile a few more scrolls of genocide, get the AC down to -40 or better, and maybe grab a rubber chicken for a backup weapon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.121.168 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2006

[edit] Graphics pic

The @ in this article is simply laughable! We need to find a pic of him in the graphical version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.90.215 (talk • contribs) 30 October 2006

[edit] Last Paragraph Seems Orphaned

The final two lines of the article currently...

"The Wizard of Yendor can steal a Quest Artifact or the Amulet of Yendor from the player. He cannot be charmed and resists most magical attacks, including Magic Missile, but is vulnerable to Finger of Death and some other attacks."

...read as orphaned remarks to me. They appear after a discussion of the WoY's heritage, so I cannot tell whether they apply to Hack or NetHack. I assume the latter, but it really should be made more clear; perhaps by rejoining the remarks to the body of text discussing WoY in context of NetHack where his other abilities are outlined? D. Brodale 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Source == Accessible Verification?

I'm not sure a book published in German (apparently) is a terribly accessible source for an English-language article. Doesn't that raise the bar a bit high for editors seeking to verify claims? D. Brodale 19:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a joke. Commented out. Pdch (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I take serious exception to the idea that I would place a made-up reference into a wikipedia article. I have placed the reference back in. It is not a joke. English is not the only language that people write books in, and there are wikipedia editors who are conversant in German (myself included). The book is out of print, but here is the amazon.de page attesting to its existence: http://www.amazon.de/Nethack-Das-Amulett-von-Yendor/dp/3893901221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200500336&sr=1-1 Capmango (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment on whether the book is real, but an Amazon listing doesn't prove much by itself, other than there's a listing. Regardless, the original issue from October 2007 still has not been addressed. It does not constitute an accessible source for English WP. Regarding its prior removal by another: it would help if the book in question were more clearly tied to some particular of this article. D. Brodale (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not going to try to argue whether the book is real, if you are convinced that it isn't, then go ahead and remove the reference (though I still take exception to the accusation that I made it up and added as a joke). To my way of thinking, an English source is preferable to a German one, but a German source is preferable to no reference at all. If I understand you correctly, you disagree and think it is better to have no reference if an English one cannot be found. The guidelines at WP:REF aren't really clear on this, so I think it comes down to common sense. I was trying to make a helpful addition to Wikipedia and the community by adding a reference where one was needed. I am not currently in possession of a copy of the book, so I'm not able to add direct quotes or page numbers, unfortunately. Do what you want, if you remove the reference again I won't add it back. Capmango (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm not accusing you of adding a joke reference. I saw your notice on the user in question's Talk page. I'm not him. My guess is that he never intended to besmirch your reputation, either. He merely questioned the validity of a source in a bold manner. I don't appreciate the intimation that you're being punished, per your editlog summary here. Edits are open to reasoned questioning, aren't they? All that aside, an English reference would be preferable to a German one. On that we seem to be agreed. However, with the German reference in hand, it would be nice to know what passages or claims within the article are supported by the source in question. I have no idea. Applying your rule of common sense, it seems reasonable to assume that you don't either, given lack of personal possession. That leaves a reputed source with no indication of actual value to the article. I'm really not sure what to make of this. Given your admission above, I question whether it really adds substance to the article. It renders any interpretation of verifiability of non-English sources difficult. If it exists or not, and I cannot make a solid claim either way, the source in question appears unverifiable at present. I've searched for solid references to it and turned up listings on both Amazon's German and Japanese storefronts and one scattered, inconclusive discussion of the title on Usenet. I have yet to find concrete discussion of the source's contents, and so still wonder how it bolsters the article on the Wizard of Yendor. That is all. D. Brodale (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this book is in German is neither here nor there; it would be a perfectly valid Wikipedia reference. It's a published book that unquestionably exists. Just because you or I don't have a copy doesn't invalidate that. That being said, the "references" section is more than just a list of items discussing a topic. Generally speaking, references must support something, and if this reference was put in the article without being in support of any specific topic, it's not clear to me that it is valid in this case. On a completely tangential note, I'm not sure this topic deserves its own article. I'd like to propose we merge this topic into the Nethack or Rogue articles. Nandesuka (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to get it out of the way, that the book exists is a bit questionable, as it doesn't appear to turn up as a result of any ISBN cross-checks. I do agree that it's terribly unclear whether it supports anything within the article as written. Anyway...

I agree with your assessment that the article's subject probably cannot stand alone. Given the focus and content, I should think Rogue isn't the best match. Is there a reason why it wouldn't fit within Mythology and fiction in NetHack, where he's already mentioned (it's actually the only inbound link to "Wizard of Yendor" at present)? D. Brodale (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit laundry listy. How about Hack, which is the first game in which the Wizard proper appears, and which links to NetHack and related topics? Nandesuka (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the laundry list, but the article in question is still a bit new and (clearly) more than a bit rough. If merged to Hack (disambiguated), the opening paragraph will still have to be relocated to NetHack or dropped, which doesn't leave a whole lot but a passing mention. I've been wondering over the past few months whether Hack itself should be merged into NetHack's "History and development" section given the lack of progress on the Hack article, and the likelihood that it remains a footnote to NetHack's genesis were one to dig up reliable, third-party sources on the game. It's really not much more than a stub. Not sure whether that muddies the water here. D. Brodale (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, the laundry list under discussion appears to be far older than I recalled it to be. Pardon the mischaracterization that it just needs time. It needs editing. D. Brodale (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No accusations intended - I was careful not to say whose joke it might be! Faking a German tome on the Amulet of Yendor would be a splendid hacker joke. But if nobody can get hold of a copy and it is not supporting specific content of an article, should it be there anyway? Pdch (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)