Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Dunnet (video game)

2009:, and Dunnet belongs on that list in my judgement although it is not yet there because the article is officially called 'interactive fiction' whereas Dunnet is more of a 'text adventure' in the traditional nerdy sense... the fit is not perfect, since Dunnet differs from interactive fiction like Jigsaw (for all intelletual gamers of all genders), specifically in terms of who Dunnet appeals to (for all command-line-savvy computer nerds and cyberpunk-sci-fi fans). Still, the only place that it makes sense to put Dunnet is with text adventures, either as a subsection thereof with no dedicated article, or as a notable-works-pointer therein which links to the dedicated article. Until and unless we generalize the article on interactive fiction into the more generic text adventure, rather than vice versa squeezing the more generic text adventure topic into the somewhat stricter confines of the interactive fiction genre, this problem will remain for Dunnet and all other text adventures that are only quasi-IF-like. )) 527:

will wait to see your response as to whether or not they are reliable. Its integration into Emacs was an event of note, but does not define the game. I originally posted its source code in the '80s to USENET. It was originally written in MACLisp. Not that it means anything, but I have been getting fan mail and e-mail asking questions about the game every day since the early '90s. I am too humble to state it as OMPIRE did, but I've been told by many others that it is a piece of history. As a side effect of its (non-exclusive) integration into Emacs, it's been claimed that it is the game installed on more computer than any game in the world other than Solitaire. This is due to the fact that most web servers and all Mac computers install it by default. My signature (with the tildes) doesn't seem to work right (maybe you can tell me how to fix it?) I'm known on here as both "Ron Schnell" and "aviators99". I will now type the tildes: Ron Schnell 00:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

758:, although like WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions the fan-reviews are sometimes helpful later (see my longer reply below). For the moment, though, the best way to get out of AfD with a keep-result is to help us find additional multi-paragraph wiki-reliable-sources. "...dozens of other hard-print magazine articles. I can cite references if they are worthwhile..." Yes, those are what will help -- but note that, it needs to be more than a name-drop ("emacs also includes the game Dunnet") and more than just a repetitive blurb ("to play Dunnet type M-x dunnet and hit return then type help"). There needs to be some *meat* to the citation, some in-depth discussion of the gameplay, or of the codebase, or of the history of Dunnet, or something like that. We have two of those already, which is technically enough albeit barely; so, finding more will help cement the keep-vote, if that makes sense. 597:. They cover it around once per year, and always act as though it's a Mac-specific thing, causing misinformation. This has previously been helped by Knowledge, as it sets them straight that 1) It is not an easter egg, and 2) It is not a Mac game; it is a UNIX game (and now not only a UNIX game since there is a web version, as demonstrated above). I'll also remind you that it has "outlasted" Zork and Adventure as text adventures that are currently shipping on new computers from the factory today. You can download rewrites of Zork and Adventure from various pages, but Dunnet comes automatically on 20+ million Apple computers per year plus an unknown number of new web servers per year (probably more than Apple's 20+ million), written in its native language. I do put the 4 tildes, but "sinebot" usually replaces it for some reason. Ron Schnell 14:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 628:. Or if you haven't reconfigured your sig-config, maybe you are pasting something, rather than literally clicking edit then typing your content then literally typing tildeTildeTildeTilde at the end of your comment then clicking save? If you have two usernames, and are logged into Aviator99, you cannot sign as RonSchnellUid1234 ... similarly, if you aren't logged into any wikipedia UID, then putting the quadTilde into your posting will 'sign' the posting you just saved with your IP addr, rather than your wikipedia-username. Hope this info helps you get it worked out, if not, there are a few places you can seek technical advice -- see 2048:, which tell us that if what we are doing improves the encyclopedia qua encyclopedia, ignore all rules to achieve the primary goal, and in particular, suggests to us that strict application of WP:42 is the wrong way to go about arguing at AfD. Jigsaw has only one source, and yet, the article is just fine. Specifically, you had a problem with this perceived extrapolation from my Jigsaw example: " anything that has ever had a secondary source can be bolstered into its own article with enough self-published and primary sources" This isn't what I'm saying, because 2053:

the multiple-source violation is obviously correctly identified, but wikipedia has no firm rules, and if other evidence of significance exists (NYT article on the game-author and PhD english prof reviewing games of that author), then we might very well be quite justified in overriding the WP:42 rule, yellow highlighting and all. My *actual* logic is straightforward: look at material on a case-by-case basis, and if it improves the encyclopedia, then deleting it (aka move-to-wikia) is

2101:' sources? Maybe, depending on how you count them; 2 sources glomming bursts together, 3 sources if we only count articles entirely dedicated to Dunnet, 4 sources if we only count publishers with dedicated wikipedia pages, and 5 sources if we count them all individually. But as always, AfD is about qualitative significance, not about counting sources (though of course it pretty much always boils down to countage). Thus, whether we keep the article 81: 1669:

any coverage more than a single (or two) blurbs describing its basic function, as there's no way we can write authoritatively as an encyclopedia with such a dearth of coverage. "Non-WP:RS" fan sites are still, by definition, unreliable, and unsuitable sources for an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest copying the material to Wikia. I'd entertain a redirect but I think the links to the related topics are weak. Alternatively, it could go into a

2182:, and such may very well occur, despite brief NYT and PhD quotations to the contrary. Dunnet is the borderline case, but it is certainly closer to Google Photos than to Jigsaw on the spectrum... not only does Dunnet have two bursts of coverage containing a handful of in-depth sources like Google Photo does (albeit with lesser word-counts), Dunnet has similarly-diverse WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions to Jigsaw (albeit without the newspaper). 1035:

every Apple desktop operating system since 2001 has included Dunnet. Also, since every Linux distro offers Emacs in their package-repo, Dunnet is also available in all those operating system variants. Of course, the history of Dunnet goes back further: it was available, as a stock component of Emacs, on most flavors of commercial UNIX and most variants of BSD before the dominance of Linux

2739:

the subject based on its coverage in reliable sources. The other stuff that would fill out the remaining details (the self-published sources, the "noteworthy" but not "notable" stuff you mention) are all not useful right now. Furthermore, all of your recent links are passing mentions! The fundamental issue is that those single sentence mentions together do not constitute

1107:

for that programmer's editor, but also in a book like Advanced Linux Programming, which presumes you will be using Emacs for your programming work, and mentions the easter-egg in passing, as something programmers would find cool. By contrast, Zork was interactive fiction, something meant for gamers to enjoy; from a non-scientific 2002 ranking,

910:. Dunnet began as a standalone-videogame before Emacs existed... not counting the TECO precursor... and as of 2015, Dunnet is still being ported (as a standalone-videogame) to places outside of Emacs and eLisp (e.g. to Javascript and Guile). If we want to justify a dedicated article, we need multiple in-depth sources: 1258:

specifically talking about Dunnet-the-videogame. Not all the OSX books are like that; Mac OS X Power Hound Panther Edition is definitely treating Dunnet like an easter-egg; it gives four sentences or so to the topic, which is slightly more than passing mention, but not quite in-depth coverage methinks.

2426:

sources. I would submit to you that AfD is *not* the place where new editors ought be encouraged to 'get involved' for their first foray into talkspace -- as you prolly know, AfD has a bit of a learning curve. However, the more significant question (for this particular AfD discussion) is whether you

1092:(the environment where the *developers* of Zork did their programming... as opposed to the microcomputers where *consumers* of Zork played the game). Later, Dunnet began to be distributed with Emacs, the programmer's programmable editor, whereas Zork was not -- both Dunnet and Zork were written in in 3004:

The game is called Dunnet written by Ron Schnell, and it’s not exclusive to OS X: it ships on all every modern version of UNIX, upon which OS X is based. I haven’t gotten very far, but apparently, the game becomes quite surreal, and the major twist is that players are actually walking around inside a

2869:

Any article written on this topic—without any reviews, without any development information, based on small blurbs in extremely low-quality articles—will not be encyclopedic. The coverage about this game is enough to warrant a mention on a relevant page or list—that's all. What's disappointing is that

2751:

if that were the case. We can't write an article based on links from low-level blogs that only mention that the game exists. Our standards for notability require depth of coverage. In all of the articles you've linked, has there been one review? Has there been one discussion of its broader impact? Or

2185:

Anyways, I've enjoyed our discussion here, but I went ahead and collapsed this reply, since I feel we are coming close to the end of what I can productively contribute to this AfD. If you'd like to switch to usertalk, I am happy to explain my interpretation of 'significant coverage' further, or talk

2052:

I'm making an exception to the rules, for a specific article (aka not "anything" only some relatively-rare things qualify). Your assertion is that, since Jigsaw violates the rule about multiple-sources, it therefore MUST be completely deleted and moved to wikia. You are wrong on two counts: first,

1647:

Much of what you said is spot on, so I'm not sure how you ended up with this conclusion. By your logic, anything that has ever had a secondary source can be bolstered into its own article with enough self-published and primary sources, but that's exactly what we don't do at AfD. An article is notable

1643:

Jigsaw (video game) ... there is only one in-depth source for that, most of the other info is WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLOG, ... Jigsaw (video game) could be reasonably merged-and-redirected to a new subsection Graham Nelson#Jigsaw... but it also doesn't really hurt anything to have Jigsaw (video game) as

1508:

I expect those aspects of Dunnet won't take up much real estate: a sentence about it being mentioned in the computer industry press with cites to where, a couple sentences about the integration into Emacs and the port to eLisp, and a couple of sentences explaining how Dunnet is often perceived as an

1407:

in the wikipedia sense of that phrase; I've never heard of Schnell until today, and didn't even remember the game was called Dunnet -- but after I read the wikipedia-article today, I recalled the gameplay experience quite distinctly. It's a fun game, if you are into that sort of thing. My keep-vote

1217:

and *also* cool amongst retro-gamers as of 2005ish-thru-2014 per sources above. Background info: during the 1990s and early 2000s, a large percentage of university-level intro-to-programming courses used Emacs, and furthermore, included some variation of a homework-lab which required you to program

571:

and not of fan mail volume. We leave it to reliable, secondary sources to determine whether something is indeed "a piece of history" rather than leaving it to your or my opinion. In other words, we don't just trust OMPIRE's statement on the game's significance to ARPANET—we require sources of repute.

566:

If the Mac magazine sources cover the game, review it, talk about any of its historical impact as you conceive it, then we have actual material to write an article. Otherwise, we're left with an unsourced article, or worse, one that relies on unreliable blogs and hearsay. We delete those. (3) Lots of

3144:

The three articles are not virtually identical. The first article provides detailed commentary of the game, while the other two sources do not. The German-language source verifies that the game was created by Ron Schnell in the 1980s, while the second source does not mention Schnell or when the game

3071:

Something more challenging is the text-based adventure game Dunnet that the early days of PC games from the 80s is very similar. To start it, you open a terminal window, and are "emacs · -batch-length Dunnet" a. The communication must be conducted in English. Tip: Use the "Inventory" command you can

2430:

in fact canvassed, by the person behind the reddit account that originally posted the thread there (reddit uid screaming_memes if memory serves). I believe you that YOU were not responding-to-canvassing, in the with-an-agenda sense, but canvassing is a two-way street. The author of Dunnet has been

2404:

I was not canvassed, but I did notice the AfD on reddit. Canvassing assumes that there is an agenda ("campaigning"), and we certainly aren't seeing much activity here from reddit. In any case, the last thing we need in Knowledge is even less participation and fewer community members, and having been

2121:

plus computer-press coverage of the easter-egg aspects ... neither of which any run-of-the-mill videogames have), the two-to-five in-depth sources we already have, plus the couple-dozen noteworthy-mentions in completely distinct fields, are plenty to show significance. To prove my point, I fixed up

1668:

If you freely admit that only one or two reliable sources cover a topic, then there is patently no significant coverage! It doesn't matter that we can cobble together a WP page with a ton of primary sources—WP draws the line when games, people, ideas do not receive any formal reviews, do not receive

1106:

The point of this history-lesson is that Dunnet was available on a bunch of operating systems over a bunch of decades, and in particular, was included as a stock easter-egg hidden inside the programmer's programmable editor Emacs: it is no coincidence that Dunnet is mentioned not just in the manual

2125:

The body-text of the cleaned-up article on Dunnet will also be rather brief, probably two or three paragraphs and thus slightly longer than Jigsaw but not by much. But as with the Jigsaw article, there will be plenty of meat in the refs section (four times as much meat as Jigsaw roughly speaking),

1034:

Beyond the inclusion of Dunnet as a stock component in the Emacs application-distro, there are a bunch of Linux-distros and Unix-distros which have included Emacs (and by incorporation Dunnet) inside their operating-system-distribution-blobs; as the OSX-specific articles above indicate, pretty much

2738:

75.108, the verbosity on this page is an impediment to anyone actually trying to participate in the AfD. This is absurdity. There is no reason to post links from unreliable or what you call "noteworthy" sources. We're here to discuss the topic's notability—whether or not we can write an article on

1310:

WP:RS#3 that I can point to, showing how Dunnet played a decent-sized role in computer-programming-academia-and-industry from the mid-1990s through circa 2010 or thereabouts, but in aggregate, methinks that all the links given in the green box are pretty strong evidence. It is also plausible that

1257:

The latter book is a bit more than passing mention, since it has some reasonably-in-depth content about text adventures, which includes mention of Dunnet -- most of the other books are programming and sysadmin related tomes, which mention dunnet as a cool easter-egg, whereas the RuleTheWeb book is

526:

Some references (which may or may not be reliable under your definition - I am not an expert at such things), include several issues of Mac Addict Magazine, several issues of Mac World magazine, and dozens of other hard-print magazine articles. I can cite references if they are worthwhile, but I

2859:

of the same material with catchy headlines and but fluff it up with insubstantial information that doesn't say anything other than that this Easter egg exists. We can't add anything to an article based on these sources. They count as the "same link" for our intents, but they are still, together,

2440:

for the sake of realism, that Ron himself is actually screaming_memes. Those are things we want to avoid, partly as a way to keep this relatively-thinly-attended AfD from devolving into a heavily-attended-but-zero-value AfD, and partly as a way to show Ron the 'correct' way to go about handling

2425:

Hi i.i., thanks for your response. It is true that you need not self-disqualify, but there is pretty strong tension between the need to attract new editors to wikipedia, and the need to keep AfD from turning into a popularity contest, as opposed to a policy-based discussion of the merits of the

533:

Also, doing a Google Books search with the term "dunnet text adventure" (without quotes) yields quite a few references; not all of which are meaningless (although some are indeed very minor). In particular, the ones that reference how to run it from the command line (as opposed to from Emacs) I

3060:

Etwas anspruchsvoller ist das textbasierte Abenteuerspiel Dunnet, das stark an die Anfangszeiten der PC-Spiele aus den 80ern erinnert. Um es zu starten, öffnet man ein Terminal-Fenster, und gibt "emacs·-batch-l·dunnet" ein. Die Kommunikation muss in Englisch geführt werden. Tipp: Mit dem Befehl

1402:

Disclosure: I played Dunnet, sometime in the previous millenium; at some point prior to that, I took one of the programming-classes where writing an adventure-videogame in Scheme was one of the lab-homeworks, and Emacs was the required text-editor for the course (Dunnet wasn't mentioned in the

1186:

series. Dunnet wasn't even on the list... because although it is a text-adventure, it isn't really interactive-fiction in the normal 8-bit-microcomputer commercial-software sense. That it was *excluded* from the list of the usual interactive fiction games enjoyed by retrogamers circa 2002, is

802:

in 2010, when it was probably in the top three bug-trackers on earth. The keep-vote was mainly because of the comment Pcap made as of 20:10, 2 March 2010, which linked to four in-depth cites (or three if you want to be strict and count the two from linux.com as 'one' source for AfD purposes).

675:

Should clarify even further that not only is it still written in its native language, it is the same code. I even made some changes last year that are now in the code base. If there is any reason you would like to confirm that I am the author, run the game. My e-mail address is in the "help"

789:

that covers the history of Dunnet, that might be considered 'WP:RS' in some loose sense (especially since we already have a couple good WP:RS citations from MacWorld and CultOfMac/LifeHacker/MacAddict). In any case, please don't be insulted by this AfD, which is supposed to be a discussion of

2186:

about WP:SIZERULE, or predict the future of wikipedia, or whatever. I have placed a backup-copy of Dunnet (and Jigsaw pending the AfD that I foresee may be happening there soon) into draftspace, and will try to add a few sentences I've worked up for Draft:Dunnet there and/or at Talk:Dunnet.

991:

on epage#429 aka printedPage#407. True, it is just a one-sentence blurb... but this is the printed documentation, and the Emacs distribution-blob also contains not just the Emacs manual, but also the entire source-code of the game, and the online-helpdocs-for-the-game, which the game itself

2769:

And all of this belies the original point—the same point to which we return after boatloads of links: that the coverage only discusses Dunnet as a minor feature within Emacs. It should only be mentioned in context at the Emacs article and if anything, this Dunnet page should redirect there.

962:

for justifying a dedicated article, we have to switch gears, and stop thinking of Dunnet as a computer game which is reviewed in consumer-electronics magazines -- instead we must see Dunnet as a teaching-tool-slash-GPL'd-text-adventure-reference-implementation for the edification of budding

1430:

from primary sources is needed to state anything of substance about this software/game (esp. its supposed impact). If it is important, let reliable, secondary sources say so. As it remains, all we have is what we already discussed: a blurb, a short review, and a slew of passing mentions in

3036:

To play dunnet, all you need is a Terminal window and an open mind—you’d be amazed at what kinds of images your mind can draw, given the basic descriptions provided by the game itself. Launch Terminal (in /Applications: Utilities) and type (or copy and paste!) this, followed by the Return

764:

or even in English, as long as they specifically talk about Dunnet with a reasonable amount of depth. Hardcopy-only refs are fine, as long as the publication is 'wiki-reliable' aka either magazine/newspaper/academicJournal/governmentAgency/similar publisher with some sort of editor.

3043:

That’s right; dunnet is sort of hiding inside of the emacs text editor. When the game starts up, you’ll see the output above (excluding the get shovel bit—consider that your first clue). From this point on, you’re really on your own, but here are a few basic commands to help get you

1509:

easter egg, but unlike typical easter eggs is also a standalone program. The bulk of the article (or the article-section iff merge-n-redirect is the decision of the AfD closer) will concentrate on our major secondary sources which have some reasonable depth: 800 words in 2005 by

2747:. This should be obvious from the basic idea that we can't write an article without reliable source coverage (doesn't matter how many unreliable blogs mention the item or however many self-published sources may be available) and that we would have unreliable articles written for 3015:

The game will load, and you’ll find yourself “at a dead end of a dirt road. The road goes to the east. In the distance you can see that it will eventually fork off. The trees here are very tall royal palms, and they are spaced equidistant from each other. There is a shovel

2153:

leading to the wikipedia-article containing 642 poz-words aka compression-ratio 7:1 and 177 neg-words aka compression ratio 10:1 which is pretty decent (72% in sources and 78% in wikipedia). Dunnet only has poz-coverage, so assuming the same 7:1 ratio holds, I expect the

2158:' article will have something in the neighborhood of 200 words summarizing the videogame-reviews, plus a few sentences covering the non-videogame aspects, total roughly 300 words. Jigsaw currently has fewer sources, and is currently 163 words, so the relative sizes of 721:

Hi Ron, thanks for your help with wikipedia, and thanks for writing Dunnet; I agree that yes, probably there are enough secondary sources with in-depth coverage to keep the article... but only barely, from what sources we have seen in this discussion. Here's a good

704:

rather than reliable secondary sources. The first source has some info but the second is simply a blurb—there isn't enough to write an encyclopedia article on this game. I would suggest hosting this content on a Wikia or another wiki if you want it preserved.

3019:

If you’ve never played a text adventure, a la Zork or Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, it’s pretty easy. Everything is done with text! You can, for example, type “get shovel” to pick up that shovel, or “east” to head east. “Help” will give you any other

3061:"inventory" sieht man alle Gegenstände, die man mit sich herumträgt. Um den Spielstand zu sichern, gibt man "save" ein. Mit "restore" setzt man ein unterbrochenes Spiel fort. Eine gute Idee ist auch, "help" einzutippen, falls man nicht mehr weiter weiß. 1261:

There is something about Dunnet on page#588 of The UNIX Companion from 1995 by Harley Hahn, but google's search-OCR is buggy so I was unable to see if it was a brief mention or more substantial. There is also a passing mention in Learning GNU Emacs by

2126:

and where there are missing tidbits of info that most wikipedia articles contain (given the specific tidbits are uncontentious), we can pull them from secondary independent blog-reviews that happen to be non-WP:RS, or even from primary sources using

1834: 1805: 1322:), followed in 2013 by another burst of coverage (again for retrogamers) in the form of fullsize WP:RS#2, with several fullsize not-quite-WP:RS gamer reviews in 2008. The timespans involved suggest that coverage of Dunnet in wiki-reliable sources 1255: 1252: 1826: 1353:, that we don't have enough depth-of-coverage to write the wikipedia article. However, I think that worry is misplaced. Once we have determined WP:N is satisified, by showing multiple-wiki-reliable-sources-with-reasonably-deep-coverage, we can 1259: 510:- (I am the author of the game - originally in 1983, so weigh that however you want). It is not only part of Emacs(and was not originally written as part of EMACS, but later adapted). Here is a web version: coolwanglu.github.io/dunnet.js/ . 541:

guidelines strongly encourage you to not edit the article directly, but through suggested edits. (2) Yes, Mac World and Mac Addict articles should be helpful and would count as coverage in mainstream, reliable publications. That said, the

2435:

don't quite have all the wiki-policy-nuances down, and thus may have been publicly complaining in meatspace or on the interwebz, which could in turn be the cause of the reddit thread. Of course, it is also possible, momentarily ignoring

1456:. The discussion here is not about whether to delete all mentions of Dunnet from wikipedia, purging it en masse, to be banished to wikia or some other non-wikimedia location until it has 'more' journalists giving videogame reviews. See 954:

by bloggers in 2008, one a graphics designer who works at some kind of interactive applications firm, the other by a university reference-librarian. See also my final paragraph below, suggesting that these not-quite-WP:RS can still be

2405:

active since 2007, I have plenty of experience and understanding of Knowledge's policies and I'm certainly not going to opt myself out of a thin discussion (which seems pretty clear to me) because I happened to see it on reddit..

2710:

from 1994 through 2014+ (unusual for a videogame to appear outside videogame-specific-media-channels). I believe these recently-added sources push us over the unclear-notability-borderline and well into wiki-notable territory.

2065:

says to apply; it's not just me. Furthermore, though it is true that the Jigsaw article is 'cobbled' together and 'bolstered' with WP:ABOUTSELF and such in a few places, there is exactly zero 'original research' therein, and no

1195:

from run-of-the-mill. Being atypical doesn't guarantee that Dunnet is wiki-notable, but having multiple WP:RS and a couple dozen WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions across two decades, *plus* being atypical, convinces me Dunnet should be a

996:, which is independent from Schnell; they are including his codebase, and his helpdocs, in the primary Emacs app-distro itself -- and documenting this inclusion via a short pointer in their official helpdocs, since the game ( 2630:

brief but interesting as the screenshot shows part of the plot, midway through the game. Plus of course, these indicate press-interest on three continents. Four continents, if you count the localization into Japanese by a

2799:? These are not at all passing mentions. Calling articles "clickbait" isn't really helpful; it's just a pejorative opinion. These are websites (or books) which generate revenue and have significant traffic and readership. 286: 1187:

actually evidence that Dunnet is wiki-notable: it ain't your everyday run-of-the-mill text adventure, which might not deserve a dedicated article, being like almost every other text-adventure and thus failing the

355:, where it is mentioned by name. I'd also entertain removing it from that article (where I do not think it adds to the topic) and deleting it altogether. Please ping me you find non-English and offline sources. – 3072:

see all items that you carries around with him. In order to secure the game, you are "save" a. With "Restore" If you continue a paused game. A good idea is also "help" to type, if you do not know how to continue.

1408:

is based on having 2 very solid WP:RS videogame reviews, plus a fairly large number of WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in academic-and-commercial settings, over a timespan from 1994 through 2014 at minimum; that says

1686:

Hi czar, I've replied to your points in the green box below, but since I feel we're close enough, I've gone ahead and collapsed it. Here is my 'final' listing of sources, ordered roughly by importance to

1218:

your own videogame, often a text-adventure like Dunnet (and sometimes using Dunnet specifically during class as the links above prove). This is pretty typical of LISP programming textbooks, even in 2010,

734:-essay for why the second pair only count as 'one' source in the wiki-verse... but note that is an essay rather than a guideline or a policy or a legal mandate.) For the purposes of this AfD discussion, 1378:

which uses a mixture of judiciously-selected WP:ABOUTSELF as well as traditional WP:RS citations... although unlike the intermixing found at the Colossal_Cave_Adventure article, I strongly suggest it is

967:((collapsetop| Dunnet as a computer-science-tool rather than as a videogame ... analysis of 3 scholar.google.com mentions, 3 university-coursework mentions, and 5 programming-industry-press mentions )) 2910: 1832: 1249: 1248:

among other videogames). There are also at least three computer-industry-non-academia books with passing mention of Dunnet, specifically in Xemacs on page 445 of Teach Yourself Suse Linux In 24 Hours,

1485:

it is really more-than-slash-different-than the usual 'interactive fiction' videogame covered in that article. The evidence that Dunnet had an impact on computer science education, is at present all

741:

The other stuff (longevity / fanmailVolume / briefMentions / shipmentCounts / etc) are no help here at AfD, even though some of those things may be helpful later on. The single-sentence mentions are

1621:

needed, with the sources we already know about; if Schnell finds additional hardcopy sources with some depth that will only improve the situation, though I still don't think additional sources are

464: 1755:, which application-and-programming-language-distribution includes the both full source & in-game helpdocs for Dunnet, to show off the power of Emacs/eLisp (plus to provide a fun game -- 1370:. Along the same lines, we can also use Schnell himself as a source -- preferably via his published writings on his 'official' blog rather than via his wikipedia username of course -- see 1279: 1131: 2870:

all of the text above scares away any of the AfD regulars (who aren't coming with an outside interest) who would be able to tell you the same thing I've repeated since the original nom. –

1221:

although I cannot tell if chapter#5 building-a-text-game-engine of this recent intro-to-LISP-programming-book specifically mentions Dunnet or not -- there is no online version of the book.

1147: 2622:) in approximately 97 words of Dunnet-specific text, plus a Dunnet-specific screenshot. The other was in the Australian-English computer press, Dunnet-dedicated article of ~150 words, 2265:

I fail to see why the CultOfMac, MacWorld, and LifeHacker articles (all of which are dedicated to the game entirely), plus all the other mentions and history, don't make this notable.

1762: 1760: 1267: 983: 1068:. The mechanics of Dunnet are similar to Zork, but the type of player is quite distinct: most anybody can play and enjoy Zork, in the same way that most anybody can read and enjoy 700:

Right, so OMPIRE added those sources to the article already. The issue is that, as you noted, they aren't enough to confirm basic aspects of the game, such that we'd have to rely on

2702:

coverage with some depth in 2005 (listicle+dedicated), 2007 (listicle), and 2013 (listicle+dedicated), plus international press with some depth in Australia/Germany/etc, as well as

3065: 2469: 2420: 2441:

himself as a long-term-editor, who is valued and we wish to retain. There is also the possibility that I, or one of the other anons at this AfD, is behind screaming_memes; I am

1064:

of both DOS and UNIX-like systems to successfully play Dunnet). This is by stark contrast with 'interactive fiction' games like Zork, which are text-adventure-precursors to the

439: 280: 1199:

As evidence for the hypothesis that Dunnet is a computer-science-related open source text-adventure reference implementation of sorts, not just another videogame (though it is

1096:

variants, but Dunnet was not encumbered by a proprietary codebase. I suspect, given the copyright-1992-by-FSF message of dunnet.el nowadays, that Dunnet'92 might be the first

2616: 2280: 2954: 2733: 2689: 2304: 2878: 2814: 2482: 2330: 2511: 2520: 2507: 239: 3109: 2561: 1421: 1081: 2778: 2764: 2399: 1971: 1681: 1636: 1551:

and predicting the future, I can only repeat what I already said, emphasis added: The timespans involved suggest that coverage of Dunnet in wiki-reliable sources

1443: 1224:

Outside of computer-science-related academia, Dunnet has a couple mentions in the computer software industry press. 2005 at a publisher of books about programming,

812: 649: 1366:

to fill in the plot-subsection of the wikipedia article (and other such non-contentious facts), so long as we are careful to only pull material from them which is

499: 2582: 2170:

makes sense to me. Google Photos is an obvious keep, despite having only two bursts of coverage; there will be more we can confidently predict (in talkspace

738:

cites with in-depth-coverage -- aka several paragraphs and preferably the article-title about Dunnet specifically -- count towards satisfying wiki-notability.

479: 3172: 3137: 2516: 1830: 1314:

If in fact WP:RS#3 doesn't yet exist, it seems plausible to predict that it most likely *will* be written in the future: Dunnet was written in 1983, gained

418: 395: 1374:, although of course once again (as with the 2008 blog-reviews) we have to be careful to stick just to uncontroversial facts. For an example of this, see 785:

is a pretty firm policy, the strict application of WP:RS standards to FLOSS apps is often a bit looser -- so for instance, if you have an email-chain from

584: 88: 2647: 2221: 2195: 1777: 1022: 2997: 2848: 2792: 2151: 1567: 1534: 1331: 1110:

over a dozen retro-gamers -- since 2002 was over a decade after text adventures had become 'obsolete' in some sense -- had played and voted on the games

929: 728: 2981: 2372: 2074:

of WP:OR, not the twin of it. Since this is an AfD about Dunnet, however, I suggest we continue discussion about jigsaw on usertalkpages, if necessary.

1720: 1601:

compared to our version now ... there is only one in-depth source for that, most of the other info is WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLOG, so it makes sense that

1536:

with another 600 words. It won't take long to summarize those, especially since portions of them are redundant ("Dunnet is a text-based game ... type

1159: 799: 1214:(looks like lecture-slides but I don't speak german), and presumably others. Dunnet is still considered cool in computer-science academia as of 2010, 2252: 2756:—not actual write-ups, but clickbait side-articles—that only mention the game in passing as an Easter egg? This AfD has descended into absurdity. – 1380: 2322:, which is a small, insignificant blurb that the other two retread. The rest is unreliable, original research. That is your depth of coverage. – 713: 487: 363: 246: 3156:

is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

1947: 1318:

status in 1994 as a computer-science-easter-egg-slash-teaching-tool, and by 2005 had fullsize WP:RS#1 as a videogame-proper (for retrogamers on

1036: 3005:

UNIX system, not a simulacrum of a real-life game world! Real-life people wandering around inside a UNIX system? Sounds pretty cyberpunk to me.

2669: 3164: 3121: 3101: 383: 2024:, or even a pretty loose reading? Obviously not. Does it improve the encyclopedia, to contain the paragraph about Jigsaw, fully sourced? 1845: 1101: 351:

that it's a game built into another piece of software. It is not covered in any more depth by reliable sources. I'd entertain a redirect to

2174:), and even if not, the article is fine like it is. Jigsaw would usually be moved-n-redirected to an equivalent 163-word-paragraph inside 2122:

the Jigsaw article, which has one in-depth WP:RS, a few WP:NOTEWORTHY sentences, and generates about a paragraph of wikipedia-article-text.

2020:

in that the NYT called it "acclaimed", and that some PhD english prof called it "epic...notable". Does that satisfy the strict reading of

457: 1989:, more on Jigsaw as the UBER borderline, wordcounts of uber-borderline Jigsaw vs cleaned-up-Dunnet vs quasi-borderline GooglePhotos )) 1127: 2833:

is a paraphrased copy, which shows how useful the original was: it explains that it's a text-based adventure and here are some commands.

427: 2844: 2788: 2370: 1718: 1528: 1338:

even though we only know about two rock-solid sources at present rather than the traditional-by-convention minimum of three) and thus

1311:

WP:RS#3 may already exist, perhaps in offline-form as a chapter from some CS textbook of the mid-1990s before the web really took off.

1103:

from 1992, which suggests the initial Dunnet'92 codebase was *not* GPL at first (noncommercial-only semi-copyleft license). End WP:OR.

1000:

a game) is self-documenting. Emacs is a programmable programmer's text-editor; the inclusion of several videogames is thus a sort of

927: 726: 301: 2810: 2609: 2416: 2296: 2276: 624:

Ron, methinks the problem with SineBot is that your 'Ron Schnell' sig is non-hyperlinked to any user-talkpage , see the helpdocs at

268: 1779: 1334:

when determining whether WP:N is satisfied. In my judgement, the article on Dunnet does already satisfy wiki-notability criteria (

1271:

As an aside, although it must not be allowed to impact our deliberations here, I will note that there is a fanatical religious sect

1016: 1383:

to put all the WP:ABOUTSELF stuff (and by the same token info from the not-really-quite-WP:RS blogger reviews as well) underneath

64: 212: 207: 2945:, which I believe is a misplaced worry. Can some other editors check over the sources, and help us out of our logjam, please? 2135: 2963: 1203:

a videogame), we see that the game itself was specifically utilized in several college programming-courses: VLSI in 1999/2003,

762: 445: 433: 216: 2149: 2234: 2130:, which is perfectly within wiki-policy. Dunnet has roughly the same number of in-depth refs as are currently being used in 2571: 2502:

This is a long running and frankly historically significant piece of software with perpetual coverage during it's lifetime.

2454: 906:, the game is NOT subsidiary to Emacs, and does not belong (except as a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention) solely within the article on 2906: 2524: 2503: 2449:, plus occasional wikipedia-related-rants; makes it unlikely they are specific to *this* AfD, albeit not impossible. Ping 1100:'d text adventure. A pointer to the earliest release of the source-code on USENET might help; I was only able to find this 199: 2830: 2796: 1617:

as a dedicated article, so long as we stick to what the sources say. The article on Dunnet can be written quite well, no

543: 2977: 2946: 2725: 2681: 2639: 2461: 2391: 2213: 2187: 2140: 1963: 1628: 1413: 804: 641: 262: 2985: 1828: 1228: 749:, most AfD folks like to see at least three multi-paragraph in-depth wiki-reliable sources. Fan-reviews like these ones 1866: 1481: 1362: 950: 949:

Not-quite-WP:RS methinks, but worth noting as evidence of continued interest amongst retro-gamers, two fullsize reviews

750: 636:

or the "Teahouse" for fastest response, if those don't get you fixed up then try some of the other places mentioned at

3159:

Based on the six points I listed above, I think these three sources "addres the topic directly and in detail, so that

1811: 941: 2553: 2045: 2002: 1670: 1215: 1028: 979: 97: 2660: 258: 2528: 2016:

only has one single in-depth source, the 2011 videogame-review in village-voice. That said, Jigsaw is furthermore

1480:, and although Dunnet is known to the interactive-fiction gamers, per these non-WP:RS blogs by such gamers in 2008, 692: 613: 127: 2445:

the culprit. It looks like screaming_for_memes (actual reddit uid) was created 3 months ago, and is mostly about

2142: 1945: 1847: 1251:

and specifically for OSX on page 147 of Mac Hacks: Tips & Tools for Unlocking the Power of OS X Mountain Lion,

1039: 86:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

2852: 2716: 2673: 2623: 1914: 1822: 1583: 1578:

cleaned-up properly-sourced version of the Dunnet-article is relatively short as of 2015, it is unlikely to be a

1435:. All the gathered information is better off hosted on another wiki until more journalists take up the mantle. – 1403:

course-materials that I remember however -- I just ran across dunnet.el later, on my own). That said, I have no

745:

and thus the material they mention can belong *somewhere* in wikipedia, but for justifying the dedicated article

718:

I actually believe there are enough secondary sources to keep the article. Ron Schnell 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

221: 17: 3163:

is needed to extract the content". There is enough material for a stub or start-class article about this topic.

773:

would also suffice as 'governmental' agency, and many blogs/ezines are also wiki-reliable for specific fields.

3160: 3153: 538: 308: 2608:

found two more cites in the 2013 burst, picked up by the German-language computer press (looks WP:RS to me --

2806: 2412: 2292: 2272: 1179: 1045:

mainframes, Dunnet in actuality precedes the desktop and the microcomputer; it is a big-iron videogame, like

890: 1375: 963:

programmers, and thus as something used in computer science academia, and the computer programming industry.

233: 391: 2836: 2359: 1928: 1807: 1731: 1540:

to play..."), but even after eliding the repetitions, the end result will be a good wikipedia article per

1522: 1225: 1088:

to consumers that owned 8-bit microcomputers in the early 1980s, whereas "open source" Dunnet was for the

924: 884: 594: 2677: 113: 69: 2138: 1868: 1227:

2009 article on the use of easter-eggs as a way to improve user-engagement within software-applications,

1926: 1788: 1346:

could also be done (and is a good idea regardless of whether or not the dedicated article is retained).

1212: 1204: 882: 798:; plenty of reasonably-famous apps get their articles marked for deletion, at least once, for instance 341: 1282:! If the evidence of WP:RS given above is found insufficient to satisfy WP:N for a dedicated article 229: 3197: 2431:

a participant here, Ron Schnell, and although they have been around wikipedia since 2006 or so, they

1905: 1877: 986: 546:

brings up all passing mentions—single sentences that use the word "dunnet" (not enough to constitute

451: 274: 40: 2819:

Since it has come to this, here is a full analysis of the links that purport to together constitute

1595: 1388: 3125:, aren't these three paragraphs virtually identical? And are these six points enough to constitute 3054: 2800: 2718: 2614: 2406: 2387: 2288: 2266: 2109:, is a judgement call. In your judgement, 'two' sources is patently not enough. In my judgement, 1472:

should be a dedicated article, or rather, merged-and-then-redirected to become a subsection of the

203: 3030: 2826: 2784: 2347: 1714: 1516: 918: 723: 590: 2971: 2950: 2729: 2685: 2643: 2465: 2395: 2217: 2191: 1967: 1897: 1632: 1417: 1392: 1123: 808: 645: 2992: 2843:

about Dunnet other than mentioning its existence (and incorrectly, at that, as a MUD!) So then

2366: 2090: 1703: 1531: 1384: 1139: 782: 159: 2349: 2340: 1792: 1729: 1716: 1514: 1431:

non-notable media and blogs. To then hedge that someone might write about it in the future is

1209: 915: 348: 345: 225: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3193: 3192:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2914: 2636: 2557: 2155: 2006: 1986: 1764: 1575: 1080:. Hence, Zork became a commercial product, and converted from loosely-open-source over to a 896: 842: 36: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2864:" fully encompasses the usefulness of these articles as reliable sources in an encyclopedia. 2703: 2549: 2457: 2375: 2017: 1818: 1797: 1784: 1769: 1736: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1457: 1315: 1171: 1115: 972: 935: 858: 742: 688: 680: 609: 601: 379: 143: 117: 1790: 1776:

academia-books (plus book above by RMS also qualifies here) with scholar.google.com cites.

1206: 881:

Dunnet'83 was originally in MacLisp, Dunnet'92 was a port to eLisp which is still actively

8: 2572:

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3djec4/the_creator_of_dunnet_the_emacs_text_game/

2167: 2163: 2127: 2102: 2077:

What about Dunnet then? By the strictest of counting, it has two sources: 800 words in

2037: 2013: 1955: 1893: 1839: 1614: 1602: 1598: 1587: 1579: 1552: 1477: 1476:

article. I lean towards the former, since the latter article is currently a redirect to

1469: 1396: 1371: 1367: 1339: 1323: 1283: 1275: 1143: 1135: 1108: 1073: 989: 746: 625: 195: 102: 70: 1809: 1787:

use as an 'example-app' in homework given by 2+ college profs (besides Schnell himself).

939: 3008:

To access the built-in text adventure, just open Terminal under your Applications : -->

2967: 2918: 2829:: explains basic gameplay, fine, but you probably didn't notice that your fourth link, 2442: 2248: 1959: 1610: 1541: 676:

command, and I would be happy to respond to you. Ron Schnell 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

149: 2905:

on usertalk, have aggressively collapsed most of the back-n-forth above. Please see,

2659:

ran across this 2007 listicle, ~78 words but quote "extremely addictive", looks WP:RS,

2179: 2147: 2113:

of the other WP:NOTEWORTHY coverage of Dunnet (several WP:NOTEWORTHY hits in books by

2106: 1591: 1343: 1287: 1041:

eclipsed those older platforms. Since Dunnet was written back-in-the-day in 1983 for

931:

both of which qualify as 'online magazines' per wikipedia tradition, if memory serves.

850: 2930: 2171: 1556: 1548: 1432: 1327: 1111: 1025: 976: 495: 475: 80: 2175: 2033: 1606: 1015:

The other two scholarly sources which specifically mention Dunnet are the 1998 paper

576:

in a row and they will magically turn into your signature when you click "save".) –

3168: 3146: 3126: 3105: 3076: 2934: 2820: 2740: 2720: 2300: 1949: 1813: 1773: 1740: 1272: 1245: 1009: 975:

mention of Dunnet. The first is 283 cites for GNU Emacs Manual by Stallman et al,

944: 853:. Outright deletion of content from mainspace is incorrect since we have multiple 621:((collapsetop | (( sinebot troubleshooting advice -- not related to the AfD. )) )) 547: 534:

would consider to have standalone importance. Ron Schnell 00:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

387: 352: 3094:

that it can be run through the terminal using the command "emacs -batch -l dunnet"

2715:, you asked to be pinged if non-English sources were discovered, please see these. 1254:

as well as Rule the Web: How to Do Anything and Everything on the Internet Better.

294: 2938: 2656: 2605: 2479: 2450: 2144: 2067: 2062: 1852: 1744: 1582:, since it is still generating press thirty years after it was first written for 1461: 1241: 1237: 1219: 731: 684: 605: 573: 338: 112:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

1291: 3130: 2871: 2771: 2757: 2575: 2539: 2323: 2040:, but it would be foolish to move it to wikia. The logic here is simple: see 1889: 1855:: 3 with depth, using their real names and independent of the author&game, 1674: 1473: 1436: 1358: 1188: 1167: 1119: 706: 577: 411: 356: 55: 3050: 2744: 2437: 2244: 2159: 2131: 2041: 2025: 1922: 1864: 1649: 1483: 1409: 1404: 1364: 1335: 952: 892:

as well by a third party. Besides GNU Emacs, the videogame is also found in

752: 589:

Yes, I try not to edit the article directly. Her's a full Macworld article:

567:

cult classics don't have articles on Knowledge. It is an encyclopedia of the

318: 2662: 2137:

which currently has a positive-coverage-burst from May/June with 4500 words,

1056:

for a brief moment... much like SpaceWar, the players of Dunnet are mostly

3152:"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that 2942: 2922: 2707: 2543: 2383: 2098: 2021: 1873: 1856: 1663: 1657: 1653: 1618: 1453: 1427: 1192: 1053: 1019:

Developing software with GNU: An introduction to the GNU development tools

886:

maintained by multiple programmers, and as of Dunnet'15 has been ported to

854: 755: 701: 561: 555: 551: 491: 471: 332: 326: 322: 177: 165: 133: 795: 2926: 2699: 2698:

Summarizing as of now, in total we have three bursts of English-language

2094: 1860: 1843: 1801: 1725: 1710: 1623: 1571: 1151: 959: 791: 637: 629: 568: 407: 2666: 1842:: 3+ with depth (the author is a wikipedian so more may be forthcoming). 1231: 841:(preference#1) dedicated article plus briefly summarize contents within 2722: 2362: 2086: 1885: 1699: 1525: 1498: 1266:

et al on page 466, which specifies that dunnet implements a major mode.

1163: 1060:, hence the sci-fi cyberpunk theme (e.g. you have to be comfy with the 1001: 887: 595:

http://www.maclife.com/article/columns/terminal_101_4_emacs_easter_eggs

2664: 2386:'. (Agree about the likelihood of canvassing, but you forgot to ping 902:. So, although the most widespread port of Dunnet is included within 781:

get a bit of a break, I will submit; wikipedia is FLOSS, and although

754:

are NOT helpful towards proving wiki-notability, because they are not

2902: 2861: 2753: 2712: 2542:, unless the article could be sourced with better citations that are 1901: 1449: 1350: 1234: 1876:: short introductory walkthru, plus explains distinction between a 1021:

which has 3 cites on scholar.google.com, as well as in the 2001 book

971:

There are three scholar.google.com published books/papers that make

898:

and apparently (from the article-text) in the Scheme variant called

3025: 2446: 2343: 2336: 2319: 2078: 1958:

will have roughly 300 words of body-text, which is compatible with

1954:

My calculations (below) indicate that using these sources (above),

1691: 1510: 1489:... which is not, of course, grounds for outright deletion of that 1342:

should remain as a dedicated article in mainspace; merging it into

1286:, then I suggest we move the material on Dunnet to a subsection on 1175: 1155: 1077: 1046: 770: 3088:

that the game involves players walking around inside a UNIX system

2626: 988:

as well as continues to mention it in the 2015 edition of the book

917:

and then a few months later given more depth in a dedicated review

2628: 2475: 2355: 2082: 1881: 1695: 1519: 992:

includes. The people in charge of the Emacs application are the

766: 373: 3186:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2061:

be an improvement. This is the pretty much the same logic that

1644:

a dedicated article, so long as we stick to what the sources say

865:

is also incorrect since the videogame is a standalone component.

1756: 1673:

but I think that would be its own (mostly unwarranted) mess. –

1302:

So where is WP:RS#3, then? At the end of the day, there is no

1042: 893: 591:

http://www.macworld.com/article/1047210/oldschooladventure.html

1605:

could be reasonably merged-and-redirected to a new subsection

2929:. Czar's major concern, as I understand it, is that we have 2632: 2237:

to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

2146:

and a negative-coverage-burst from June/July with 1750 words,

1941: 1933: 1910: 1752: 1748: 1502: 1049:, albeit less venerable and thus correspondingly less famous. 1005: 907: 903: 899: 862: 774: 550:). Article topics must have significant coverage in multiple 2638:

though of course that doesn't qualify as "press" interest.

632:

for the list, you probably want either "Live chat help" via

106:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2619: 1925:; codebase still active in 2015 with multiple contributors. 1918: 1493:

info, as I keep taking pains to point out. Dunnet also is

1361:-independent albeit-non-editorially-controlled blog-reviews 1183: 1093: 1085: 1069: 1004:, to show off the power of the embedded scripting language 761:

The in-depth sources don't have to be online at the moment,

926:

then as two dedicated articles on two different tech-sites

2118: 2114: 2070:

either; doing legwork to dig up published sources is the

1937: 1319: 1263: 1191:

essay-criteria... instead, it seems clear that Dunnet is

1097: 1089: 1072:

books ... but to play and enjoy Dunnet, you need to be a

1065: 1061: 1057: 993: 786: 633: 2611: 2593:

folded away to tidy up the AfD and attract more eyes, 3

1586:; hence, my lean towards keeping the dedicated article 874:

folded away to tidy up the AfD and attract more eyes, 2

769:

are probably also acceptable as 'academia' sources, an

1280:

we must not allow zealots to strike fear in our hearts

293: 537:

A few things: (1) If indeed you are the creator, our

519:

folded away to tidy up the AfD and attract more eyes

2795:a listicle? Or the several hundred word discussion 2243:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 1336:"significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" 1936:for the past two decades, and thus comes stock on 3085:that it's shipped on every modern version of UNIX 2986:Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline 2937:, and Czar thus believes we'll have to engage in 2706:mentions in scholarly & programming-industry 2105:as a dedicated article, or merge-and-redirect to 1821:4 or 5 computer-programming-industry-press as an 1160:The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(video_game) 344:. Best is that some technical books mention in a 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3200:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3082:the game was created by Ron Schnell in the 1980s 982:, which has mentioned Dunnet at least since 1994 2474:No, I do not. I learned about the thread from 2057:, whereas rearranging it (aka move-n-redirect) 1900:, the latter pair relying on pure text with no 1328:wikipedia articles ought not predict the future 923:WP:RS#2 -- reviewed in 2013, as part of a group 428:list of video game-related deletion discussions 337:It had no meaningful hits in a Google Books or 1574:is satisfied. My point was that, even if the 914:WP:RS#1 -- blurbed in 2005, as part of a group 372:game is a significant early exposition of the 3091:that it's hidden inside the Emacs text editor 1690:* 1400 words of coverage (or thereabouts) in 488:list of Software-related deletion discussions 307: 126:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 96:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 2032:matter if we put the Jigsaw paragraph under 1962:. Thanks for your time and efforts, folks. 1594:. By contrast, look at the original version 1349:There was a specific objection expressed by 1274:which may wreck havoc upon wikipedia should 756:editorially-controlled wiki-reliable-sources 486:Note: This debate has been included in the 426:Note: This debate has been included in the 1590:, rather than merging into a subsection of 1233:by videogame designer Eri Izawa (who worked 849:(preference#2) to a new article-subsection 2618:noting the game was English-only (not yet 2613:), which wrote a German-language listicle, 1031:which has 137 cites on scholar.google.com. 100:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 2921:in 2005/2007/2013, and minor mentions in 2602:comment, additional international sources 2287:: An editor has expressed a concern that 1861:non-contentious unlikely-to-be-challenged 1800:4 or 5 computer-user-press as useful for 1759:and a dozen lesser games are also stock). 1024:pdfPage#29 of Advanced Linux Programming 1932:* Maybe worth pointing out: ships with 1518:and then a series of reviews in 2013 by 1395:. (( Later update, I have just updated 456: 406:Have any reliable, secondary sources to 120:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 3097:instructions about how to play the game 2860:worthless. The standard definition of " 2453:, do you know how the reddit thread at 1294:(which would require writing that BLP). 14: 1951:aka millions of new machines per year. 1290:, or failing that, to a subsection of 958:If we want to get WP:RS#3, the usual 1462:deletion ought to be the last resort 1426:...which goes to show just how much 1278:be deleted from mainspace; however, 75: 2919:several international-press sources 2724:(mostly mentioned above already). 2538:This particular game fails to meet 2361:expanded into two independent 2013 1859:iff necessary for gap-filling with 1132:Christminster (interactive fiction) 23: 2001:((On your last point, there is no 1890:interactive-fiction-text-adventure 1728:: 2 subsections of news articles. 1713:: 2 or 3 dedicated news articles. 1376:Colossal_Cave_Adventure#References 462: 24: 3212: 2003:List of interactive fiction games 1671:List of interactive fiction games 1320:newly-more-popular UNIX-like OSes 1148:I-0_-_Jailbait_on_Interstate_Zero 1010:more than just a mere text-editor 2933:to really meet WP:N, especially 1460:, and also please remember that 1399:in this fashion, for example. )) 1393:Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_groups 1180:Adventure_(disambiguation)#Games 593:, Here is a Mac Addict article: 79: 2315:There is only one article, the 2111:looking deeply at the specifics 2005:, but the equivalent exists at 1917:mainframes, at the peak of the 1627:for a keep-result here at AfD. 1178:... as well as the variants of 1086:hundreds of thousands of copies 544:Google Books search you mention 450: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 3064:Google Translate translation ( 3009:Utilities directory and enter: 2460:for why it matters. Thanks. 1501:, and as a stock component of 1389:Dunnet (video game)#References 1193:Something Completely Different 794:, as diametrically opposed to 13: 1: 2990:Here is detailed coverage in 2913:. My basic position is that 444: 116:on the part of others and to 3075:There is enough material to 2962:There is enough coverage in 2851:(your other two links), and 2745:general notability guideline 2007:text adventure#Notable works 1921:of text-adventures on early 1909:* Also worth pointing out: 1611:doesn't really hurt anything 1561:ought not predict the future 843:text_adventure#Notable_works 725:and here's another good one. 438: 7: 2678:Special:Search/AppleMatters 2544:reliable, secondary sources 2097:' sources? Yes. Is that ' 1391:, per the wiki-helpdocs at 1368:'unlikely to be challenged' 800:MantisBT was almost deleted 432: 339:video game reliable sources 10: 3217: 2653:comment, additional source 2342:expanded to the 2005 also- 2166:versus already-cleaned-up- 1008:, and prove that Emacs is 3173:03:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3138:01:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3110:01:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2955:14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 2879:01:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2815:01:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2779:19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) 2765:19:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC) 2749:everything ever mentioned 2743:and then do not pass the 2734:19:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) 2690:19:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) 2648:03:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 2604:, with some mild depth. 2583:20:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2562:16:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2512:14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2483:19:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 2470:05:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 2421:05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC) 2400:02:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC) 2331:20:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2281:02:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2253:19:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2222:14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 2196:06:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 2046:WP:Don't_cite_WP42_at_AfD 1985:((collapsetop| point out 1972:06:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 1682:01:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC) 1637:23:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1570:when determining whether 1444:05:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 1422:03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 1385:Dunnet (video game)#Notes 1357:go ahead and use the non- 813:03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 650:03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 65:20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3189:Please do not modify it. 2388:User:ImperfectlyInformed 2162:versus to-be-cleaned-up- 1913:codebase since 1983 for 1505:the programmer's editor. 1230:, and a pre-2004 mention 714:15:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 585:02:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 500:16:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 480:16:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 419:16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 396:13:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 364:13:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 2925:since 1994, adds up to 2635:activist on their blog, 2390:so they can respond.) 2172:as opposed to mainspace 1547:As to your point about 1468:discussing, is whether 1452:, you are setting up a 1124:A Mind Forever Voyaging 1082:proprietary source code 934:There are also various 861:mentions; merging into 796:notability-in-real-life 353:GNU Emacs#Extensibility 158:; accounts blocked for 128:single-purpose accounts 98:policies and guidelines 3158: 3074: 3063: 3048: 3040:emacs -batch -l dunnet 3022: 3012:emacs -batch -l dunnet 2917:of coverage including 2901:After discussion with 2447:some alt-bitcoin clone 2081:of 2005, 600 words in 1646: 1538:emacs -batch -l dunnet 1433:exactly what we do not 1140:Excalibur_(video_game) 3150: 3069: 3058: 3034: 3002: 2915:two-and-a-half bursts 2668:publisher is redlink 2529:few or no other edits 2303:to this discussion. ( 2180:text adventure#Jigsaw 2107:text_adventure#Dunnet 2050:I'm not making a rule 1641: 1592:text_adventure#Dunnet 1344:text_adventure#Dunnet 1288:text_adventure#Dunnet 851:text_adventure#Dunnet 626:User_talk:SineBot#FAQ 3161:no original research 3154:no original research 3127:significant coverage 3049:Here is coverage in 3023:Here is coverage in 2911:fact-extraction here 2821:significant coverage 2741:significant coverage 2676:as WP:RS before per 2531:outside this topic. 2176:Graham Nelson#Jigsaw 2034:Graham Nelson#Jigsaw 2012:Yes, I freely admit 1650:significant coverage 1607:Graham Nelson#Jigsaw 1172:Infidel_(video_game) 1116:Trinity_(video_game) 548:significant coverage 539:conflict of interest 342:custom Google search 319:significant coverage 317:Article topic lacks 2369:dedicated articles. 2289:ImperfectlyInformed 2209:((collapsebottom)) 2168:Jigsaw (video game) 2164:Dunnet (video game) 2103:Dunnet (video game) 2093:of 2013. Is that ' 2038:Jigsaw (video game) 1956:Dunnet (video game) 1658:independent sources 1615:Jigsaw (video game) 1603:Jigsaw (video game) 1599:Jigsaw (video game) 1588:Dunnet (video game) 1478:interactive_fiction 1470:Dunnet (video game) 1397:Jigsaw (video game) 1340:Dunnet (video game) 1298:((collapsebottom)) 1284:Dunnet (video game) 1276:Dunnet (video game) 1144:Curses (video game) 1136:Jigsaw_(video_game) 1074:computer programmer 847:merge-then-redirect 845:, or alternatively 747:Dunnet (video game) 663:((collapsebottom)) 556:independent sources 327:independent sources 196:Dunnet (video game) 110:by counting votes. 89:not a majority vote 71:Dunnet (video game) 3145:was created. From 2907:known sources here 2831:Total Snow Leopard 2568:Offsite canvassing 2346:dedicated article. 1597:of the article on 1387:rather than under 1330:, wikipedians can 1292:Ron Schnell#Dunnet 1208:Java in 2003/2004, 946:that I ran across. 767:MIT A.I. Lab memos 2894: 2893: 2620:internationalized 2564: 2552:comment added by 2532: 2456:originated? See 2308: 2255: 2228: 2227: 2036:, or leave it as 1919:commercialization 1667: 1428:original research 1112:Anchorhead (game) 1076:, or at least, a 938:mentions, in 2009 834: 833: 777:apps like Dunnet 702:original research 697: 683:comment added by 618: 604:comment added by 565: 502: 482: 399: 382:comment added by 336: 191: 190: 187: 114:assume good faith 63: 3208: 3191: 3135: 3124: 2964:reliable sources 2931:too little depth 2876: 2803: 2776: 2762: 2752:are all of them 2589: 2588: 2580: 2547: 2514: 2409: 2328: 2283: 2269: 2242: 2240: 2238: 1774:computer science 1679: 1661: 1609:... but it also 1568:use common sense 1539: 1441: 1332:use common sense 1246:Hellgate:_London 1058:computer hackers 870: 869: 711: 696: 677: 617: 598: 582: 559: 515: 514: 485: 469: 468: 467: 460: 454: 448: 442: 436: 425: 416: 398: 376: 361: 330: 312: 311: 297: 249: 237: 219: 185: 173: 157: 141: 122: 92:, but instead a 83: 76: 62: 60: 53: 34: 3216: 3215: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3198:deletion review 3187: 3131: 3119: 2993:The Cult of Mac 2895: 2872: 2801: 2772: 2758: 2657:User:Aviators99 2606:User:Aviators99 2594: 2576: 2451:User:Aviators99 2407: 2324: 2267: 2256: 2233: 2231: 2229: 1892:videogame like 1880:videogame like 1675: 1648:only if it has 1555:, and although 1537: 1437: 1412:, to my ears. 1326:, and although 1242:Gods and Heroes 1211:Haskell in 2007 1084:model, selling 985:and August 1996 875: 835: 792:wiki-notability 783:WP:NOTPROMOTION 707: 678: 599: 578: 520: 463: 431: 412: 377: 357: 254: 245: 210: 194: 175: 163: 147: 131: 118:sign your posts 74: 56: 54: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3214: 3203: 3202: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3114: 3113: 3099: 3098: 3095: 3092: 3089: 3086: 3083: 2957: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2834: 2767: 2693: 2692: 2650: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2565: 2533: 2517:104.200.151.38 2504:104.200.151.38 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2374:Also, a dozen 2335:No. The 2005 2310: 2309: 2258: 2241: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2212:Folded away. 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2183: 2123: 2075: 2028:. It doesn't 2010: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1952: 1944:distros today, 1930: 1923:home computers 1907: 1870: 1849: 1836: 1815: 1794: 1781: 1766: 1733: 1722: 1707: 1688: 1563:, wikipedians 1553:has not ceased 1545: 1506: 1474:text_adventure 1400: 1347: 1324:has not ceased 1312: 1296: 1295: 1269: 1238:Asheron's Call 1222: 1197: 1168:Lurking Horror 1120:Spider and Web 1104: 1050: 1032: 1013: 965: 964: 956: 947: 932: 921: 877: 876: 873: 868: 867: 866: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 759: 739: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 622: 522: 521: 518: 513: 512: 511: 504: 503: 483: 423: 422: 421: 401: 400: 315: 314: 251: 189: 188: 84: 73: 68: 46: 45: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3213: 3201: 3199: 3195: 3190: 3184: 3183: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3157: 3155: 3148: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3136: 3134: 3128: 3123: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3096: 3093: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3081: 3080: 3078: 3073: 3067: 3062: 3056: 3052: 3051:de:Falkemedia 3047: 3045: 3041: 3038: 3032: 3028: 3027: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3010: 3006: 3001: 2999: 2995: 2994: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2976: 2973: 2969: 2968:75.108.94.227 2965: 2961: 2958: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2947:75.108.94.227 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2880: 2877: 2875: 2868: 2863: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2835: 2832: 2828: 2827:Macworld 2005 2825: 2824: 2822: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2777: 2775: 2768: 2766: 2763: 2761: 2755: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2726:75.108.94.227 2723: 2721: 2719: 2717: 2714: 2709: 2705: 2704:WP:NOTEWORTHY 2701: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682:75.108.94.227 2679: 2675: 2674:has been used 2671: 2667: 2665: 2663: 2661: 2658: 2654: 2651: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2640:75.108.94.227 2637: 2634: 2629: 2627: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2607: 2603: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2591: 2590: 2584: 2581: 2579: 2573: 2569: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2498: 2497: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2462:75.108.94.227 2459: 2458:WP:MEATPUPPET 2455: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2434: 2429: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2392:75.108.94.227 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2376:WP:NOTEWORTHY 2373: 2371: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2350: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2329: 2327: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2239: 2236: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214:75.108.94.227 2210: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2188:75.108.94.227 2184: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160:Google Photos 2157: 2152: 2150: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2141: 2139: 2136: 2133: 2132:Google Photos 2129: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2073: 2069: 2064: 2060: 2059:can sometimes 2056: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018:WP:NOTEWORTHY 2015: 2011: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1988: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964:75.108.94.227 1961: 1957: 1953: 1950: 1948: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1929: 1927: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1869: 1867: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1848: 1846: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1835: 1833: 1831: 1829: 1827: 1824: 1820: 1819:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1816: 1814: 1812: 1810: 1808: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1798:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1795: 1793: 1791: 1789: 1786: 1785:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1782: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1770:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1767: 1765: 1763: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1734: 1732: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1721: 1719: 1717: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1672: 1665: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1645: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629:75.108.94.227 1626: 1625: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1560: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1543: 1535: 1533: 1529: 1527: 1523: 1521: 1517: 1515: 1512: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1492: 1491:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1488: 1487:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1484: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1455: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1440: 1434: 1429: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1414:75.108.94.227 1411: 1406: 1401: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1316:WP:NOTEWORTHY 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1268: 1265: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1052:Delving into 1051: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1029:0-7357-1043-0 1027: 1023: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 990: 987: 984: 981: 980:1-882114-05-1 978: 974: 973:WP:NOTEWORTHY 970: 969: 968: 961: 960:rule-of-thumb 957: 953: 951: 948: 945: 942: 940: 937: 936:WP:NOTEWORTHY 933: 930: 928: 925: 922: 919: 916: 913: 912: 911: 909: 905: 901: 897: 895: 891: 889: 885: 883: 879: 878: 872: 871: 864: 860: 859:WP:NOTEWORTHY 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 837: 836: 814: 810: 806: 805:75.108.94.227 801: 797: 793: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 763: 760: 757: 753: 751: 748: 744: 743:WP:NOTEWORTHY 740: 737: 733: 729: 727: 724: 720: 719: 717: 716: 715: 712: 710: 703: 699: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 651: 647: 643: 642:75.108.94.227 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 620: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 596: 592: 588: 587: 586: 583: 581: 575: 570: 569:verifiability 563: 557: 553: 549: 545: 540: 536: 535: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 524: 523: 517: 516: 509: 506: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 484: 481: 477: 473: 466: 459: 453: 447: 441: 435: 429: 424: 420: 417: 415: 409: 408:back that up? 405: 404: 403: 402: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 375: 371: 368: 367: 366: 365: 362: 360: 354: 350: 347: 343: 340: 334: 328: 324: 320: 310: 306: 303: 300: 296: 292: 288: 285: 282: 279: 276: 273: 270: 267: 264: 260: 257: 256:Find sources: 252: 248: 244: 241: 235: 231: 227: 223: 218: 214: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 192: 183: 179: 171: 167: 161: 155: 151: 145: 139: 135: 129: 125: 121: 119: 115: 109: 105: 104: 99: 95: 91: 90: 85: 82: 78: 77: 72: 67: 66: 61: 59: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3188: 3185: 3151: 3132: 3100: 3070: 3059: 3053:'s tech.de ( 3046: 3042: 3039: 3035: 3024: 3018: 3014: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2991: 2989: 2974: 2966:provided by 2959: 2898: 2873: 2857:exact copies 2856: 2840: 2837:MacLife 2014 2773: 2759: 2748: 2670:AppleMatters 2652: 2625:looks WP:RS, 2601: 2577: 2567: 2548:— Preceding 2535: 2499: 2432: 2427: 2379: 2354:later, 2013 2351: 2325: 2316: 2284: 2262: 2257: 2232: 2211: 2208: 2128:WP:ABOUTSELF 2110: 2071: 2058: 2055:always wrong 2054: 2049: 2029: 1984: 1840:WP:ABOUTSELF 1676: 1652:in multiple 1642: 1622: 1580:WP:PERMASTUB 1564: 1558: 1465: 1454:false choice 1438: 1410:wiki-notable 1372:WP:ABOUTSELF 1354: 1307: 1303: 1297: 1200: 1018: 997: 966: 880: 846: 838: 778: 735: 708: 679:— Preceding 662: 600:— Preceding 579: 525: 507: 413: 378:— Preceding 369: 358: 316: 304: 298: 290: 283: 277: 271: 265: 255: 242: 181: 169: 160:sockpuppetry 153: 142:; suspected 137: 123: 111: 107: 101: 93: 87: 57: 49: 47: 31: 28: 2849:Cult of Mac 2554:38.97.88.20 2527:) has made 2480:Ron Schnell 2382:equate to ' 2299:) has been 2178:, or under 1960:WP:SIZERULE 1886:Rogue-likes 1857:can be used 1802:retrogaming 1739:2 books by 1542:WP:SIZERULE 1464:. What we 1381:much better 1152:Wishbringer 574:four tildes 281:free images 2845:Lifehacker 2540:notability 2433:definitely 2378:refs does 2363:LifeHacker 2087:LifeHacker 1987:List of IF 1888:versus an 1823:easter egg 1700:LifeHacker 1557:wikipedia 1549:WP:CRYSTAL 1526:LifeHacker 1499:easter_egg 1164:Planetfall 1002:easter egg 888:Javascript 685:Aviators99 606:Aviators99 94:discussion 58:Sandstein 3194:talk page 3147:WP:SIGCOV 3020:commands. 2935:WP:SIGCOV 2903:User:Czar 2862:clickbait 2754:listicles 2713:User:czar 2367:CultOfMac 2358:listicle, 2339:listicle, 2301:canvassed 2091:CultOfMac 1940:and most 1902:ascii art 1863:factoids. 1783:* Likely- 1704:CultOfMac 1624:necessary 1532:CultOfMac 1351:user:czar 1128:Unnkulian 857:and many 779:sometimes 492:• Gene93k 472:• Gene93k 150:canvassed 144:canvassed 103:consensus 37:talk page 3196:or in a 3044:started: 3026:Macworld 2984:to pass 2978:contribs 2939:WP:SYNTH 2550:unsigned 2525:contribs 2344:MacWorld 2337:MacWorld 2320:listicle 2317:MacWorld 2297:contribs 2245:Davewild 2235:Relisted 2156:finished 2095:multiple 2079:Macworld 2072:opposite 2068:WP:SYNTH 2063:WP:FAILN 1853:WP:BLOGS 1724:* Kinda- 1692:MacWorld 1654:reliable 1613:to have 1559:articles 1511:MacWorld 1304:singular 1182:and the 1176:Moonmist 1156:Photopia 1078:sysadmin 1047:Spacewar 943:and 2014 771:IETF RFC 732:WP:NSOFT 693:contribs 681:unsigned 614:contribs 602:unsigned 552:reliable 392:contribs 380:unsigned 349:sentence 323:reliable 240:View log 182:username 176:{{subst: 170:username 164:{{subst: 154:username 148:{{subst: 138:username 132:{{subst: 39:or in a 2941:and/or 2899:comment 2841:nothing 2839:: says 2783:How is 2476:Twitter 2356:MacLife 2099:several 2083:MacLife 1882:Nethack 1696:MacLife 1576:'final' 1520:MacLife 1359:WP:SPIP 1308:obvious 1189:WP:ROTM 1038:and OSX 955:useful. 374:Arpanet 287:WP refs 275:scholar 213:protect 208:history 146:users: 3165:Cunard 3122:Cunard 3102:Cunard 3077:verify 3016:here.” 2909:, and 2853:Kotaku 2791:, and 2536:Delete 2438:WP:AGF 2042:WP:IAR 2030:really 2014:Jigsaw 1898:ADVENT 1894:Dunnet 1757:tetris 1702:, and 1497:as an 1405:WP:COI 1244:, and 1174:, and 1090:PDP-10 1043:PDP-10 894:XEmacs 572:(Type 384:OMPIRE 346:single 259:Google 217:delete 3079:that: 2943:WP:OR 2923:WP:RS 2855:post 2708:WP:RS 2633:FLOSS 2384:WP:OR 2365:& 2352:Years 2022:WP:42 1942:Linux 1934:Emacs 1911:FLOSS 1896:& 1884:& 1874:WP:EL 1753:eLisp 1749:Emacs 1619:WP:OR 1503:Emacs 1196:keep. 1054:WP:OR 1006:eLisp 908:Emacs 904:Emacs 900:Guile 863:Emacs 855:WP:RS 775:FLOSS 730:(See 321:from 302:JSTOR 263:books 247:Stats 234:views 226:watch 222:links 124:Note: 16:< 3169:talk 3133:czar 3129:? – 3106:talk 3066:link 3055:link 3037:key: 3031:link 2998:link 2982:here 2972:talk 2960:Keep 2951:talk 2927:WP:N 2874:czar 2797:here 2793:this 2789:this 2785:this 2774:czar 2760:czar 2730:talk 2700:WP:N 2686:talk 2672:but 2644:talk 2578:czar 2558:talk 2521:talk 2508:talk 2500:Keep 2466:talk 2428:were 2396:talk 2326:czar 2305:diff 2293:talk 2285:Note 2263:Keep 2249:talk 2218:talk 2192:talk 2117:and 2044:and 1968:talk 1751:and 1743:and 1726:WP:N 1711:WP:N 1687:AfD. 1677:czar 1633:talk 1572:WP:N 1450:czar 1439:czar 1418:talk 1355:then 1306:and 1201:also 1184:Zork 1094:LISP 1070:LOTR 1026:ISBN 977:ISBN 839:Keep 809:talk 736:only 722:one, 709:czar 689:talk 646:talk 640:. 638:WP:Q 630:WP:Q 610:talk 580:czar 508:Keep 496:talk 476:talk 465:Talk 414:czar 388:talk 370:Keep 359:czar 295:FENS 269:news 230:logs 204:talk 200:edit 50:keep 3068:): 3057:): 3033:): 3000:): 2805:| ( 2680:. 2546:. 2443:not 2411:| ( 2380:not 2271:| ( 2119:ESR 2115:RMS 2026:Yup 1938:OSX 1915:ITS 1878:TUI 1772:2+ 1747:on 1745:ESR 1741:RMS 1584:ITS 1565:can 1466:are 1448:Hi 1264:ESR 1236:on 1098:GPL 1066:RPG 1062:CLI 994:FSF 787:RMS 634:IRC 430:. ( 309:TWL 238:– ( 178:csp 174:or 166:csm 134:spa 108:not 52:. 3171:) 3149:: 3108:) 2980:) 2953:) 2847:, 2823:: 2813:) 2809:- 2802:II 2787:, 2770:– 2732:) 2688:) 2655:, 2646:) 2574:– 2570:: 2560:) 2523:• 2515:— 2510:) 2478:. 2468:) 2419:) 2415:- 2408:II 2398:) 2295:• 2279:) 2275:- 2268:II 2251:) 2220:) 2194:) 1970:) 1872:* 1851:* 1838:* 1817:* 1796:* 1768:* 1735:* 1709:* 1698:, 1694:, 1660:. 1656:, 1635:) 1530:/ 1524:/ 1420:) 1240:, 1170:, 1166:, 1162:, 1158:, 1154:, 1150:, 1146:, 1142:, 1138:, 1134:, 1130:, 1126:, 1122:, 1118:, 1114:, 998:as 811:) 705:– 695:) 691:• 648:) 616:) 612:• 558:. 554:, 498:) 490:. 478:) 470:) 458:RS 410:– 394:) 390:• 329:. 325:, 289:) 232:| 228:| 224:| 220:| 215:| 211:| 206:| 202:| 184:}} 172:}} 162:: 156:}} 140:}} 130:: 3167:( 3120:@ 3104:( 3029:( 2996:( 2988:. 2975:· 2970:( 2949:( 2811:c 2807:t 2728:( 2684:( 2642:( 2556:( 2519:( 2506:( 2464:( 2417:c 2413:t 2394:( 2307:) 2291:( 2277:c 2273:t 2247:( 2216:( 2190:( 2154:' 2134:, 2089:/ 2085:/ 1966:( 1904:. 1825:. 1804:. 1706:. 1666:) 1664:? 1662:( 1631:( 1544:. 1513:, 1416:( 1012:. 920:. 807:( 687:( 644:( 608:( 564:) 562:? 560:( 494:( 474:( 461:· 455:· 452:S 449:· 446:B 443:· 440:N 437:· 434:G 386:( 335:) 333:? 331:( 313:) 305:· 299:· 291:· 284:· 278:· 272:· 266:· 261:( 253:( 250:) 243:· 236:) 198:( 186:. 180:| 168:| 152:| 136:|

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Dunnet (video game) - Knowledge

Index