Talk:Angband (video game)

message: The following text was sliced out of the article:
*Cheating: misusing certain options in the game to correct mistakes. Most commonly used is savefile cheating, in which a spare copy of a saved games is kept to restore the player's character and prevent permanent death. While not forbidden, this is frowned upon for all but the least experienced players.
The normal term for savefile manipulation is "Save Scumming" or "savefile scumming".  The term scumming is used in various contexts, such as "town scumming"; "level scumming", "scumming for feelings", "autoscumming" (all synonyms really); and other various activities.  Some people do use the term Cheating in an accusative way, but there's no consensus on what is cheating, or any special angband-meaning to the term.  Anyone wants to flesh out the various forms of "scumming" feel free to insert that back in.  A section on permanent death might be good too, although I think that belongs in a general article about roguelikes with a link from here. JoshuaRodman 08:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is an article about permanent death.  I changed the text to include a link to it. --Sbluen 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Within the world of Wikipedia, "notable" has a specific meaning "that the specific subject of the article has been covered in a significant manner by reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have looked on with some amusement at the switching back and forth of the "official" site.  I say official because official in the Angband world is far from well-defined.
I have been pretty much accepted by the community:
*  is a thread of 345 posts on the topic, where there was not a single post saying anything to the effect that I should not be maintainer.
* the main resource for the game thesedays, angband.oook.cz, lists me as maintainer .
* the developers of at least two or three of the active variants around are involved in the current development effort.
Julian Lighton hasn't changed the game for 14 months (), and said 6th December 2006: "If I'm still not getting around to getting anything done by the end of the year, I will likely step aside.".  He has not posted to the game's newsgroup, nor talked to anyone involved with the game since around that time.
Further, Ben Harrison, the maintainer of the game from around 1995 onwards, was never officially appointed by anyone other than himself with the community: 
Nobody seems to have had any problems with any of my posts, so I have uploaded my version of Angband (now "officially" named "Angband 2.7.0"), to "ftp.cis.ksu.edu"...
Similarly, Chuck Swiger before him took over the game entirely by default, as a "patch version" of 2.4.fk: .
Another point is that I'm listed as the developer.  If I *am* the developer according to wikipedia, that makes me official, so yes, the official site is at rogueforge.  So: I think either the page should say Julian's still the developer, or it should say rogueforge is the official site.
If anyone wants to cite this as a reason to switch back to the rogueforge site, feel free... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takkaria (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only have to release the game with the new address listed on the start screen now... this lack of a link in the last release might be why people still think thangorodrim is the official page. Kusma (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angband website 

message: I've come up with this as a paragraph more representative of the current reality of the game:
Rühlmann stepped down in October 2005,http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/browse_thread/thread/b23070da01b64866/1a7ace090a5ff90c leading to a brief period of uncertainty.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/browse_thread/thread/b48557204d3843c7/fa720195b0bc4190#fa720195b0bc4190] Julian Lighton was soon announced as the new maintainer in March 2006.http://angband.oook.cz/rgra.php?showpost=72226, but a new release was not forthcoming, and as a result, Andrew Sidwell released patch versions of the game, and in March 2007 took over the role of maintainer with the blessing of the community.http://angband.oook.cz/rgra.php?showpost=93663
takkaria (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be best to articulate how the above is more representative of the current reality, as it isn't self-evident. I note that the alteration removes any mention of Lua, the immediate output of Sidwell as maintainer in terms of releases, and clear statement that Lighton has not released a new version to date. It's not clear whether any or all of these are "more representative" or why, or if you consider some other aspect so. D. Brodale (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  That version was clumsily written.  The "As of December 2007, he has not released a new verison of the game" clause seems to me to indicate that he is in fact still maintainer, when I believe that everyone active in the community would dispute that.  Perhaps something saying that whilst Julian was maintainer, he released no versions and completed no publically-visible work save two CVS commits making minor changes would work better?  Also, given that I actually did remove Lua from the game, it would perhaps make more sense to mention this rather than to say that Julian has it slated for removal. takkaria (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to leave you hanging. Travel and illness kept me away for a while here. I understand your original concerns better now. I think the best response I can offer is that this topic would benefit from the application of verifiable, independent resources. I find it interesting that, to date, the bulk of the Angband article concerns the passing down of maintainership rather than the subject qua game. I'm not really in a position to adjudge whether Julian remains a maintainer-of-sorts, or how best to characterize his status and (non?)contribution relative to the lineage of maintainers. Is there no cross-talk between de jure and de facto maintainers about leadership that is subject to outside verification? I'd hate for Wikipedia to become an arbiter of history (however insular), here. D. Brodale (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative last paragraph for "History" section 

message: :Image:Angband.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Angband.gif

message: For the article Vecna, we are looking for confirmation (or disconfirmation) of the statement "In the roguelike game Angband, Vecna makes an appearance as one of the most powerful unique monsters in the game." Does anyone know if, and in what version this is the case? Thank you very much. Daranios (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Vecna

message: Note that UMoria has been relicensed as a combination of public domain and GPL, via the free-moria project.
--HunterZ (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  UMoria relicensed