Talk:Zork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleZork is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2023.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2022Good article nomineeListed
November 28, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 8, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that one scholar compared the importance of Zork to that of Homer's Iliad?
Current status: Featured article

Some external links removed....[edit]

I removed external links to sites offering downloads or "play online" versions of Zork I, II and III. Although Activision has previously made the Zork Trilogy available for free download, the company has since stated that "the company's release of the original Zork titles was a limited promotion, and that the company "has since removed them from that 'free' status." Source (see Activision response to CNET). Moreover, Activision still sells a collection of Zork games (which includes Zorks I,II,III) through GOG.com.

In short, Zork I,II,III are not currently freeware or freely redistributable; they are still commercial games available for sale. Therefore it would appear that links to downloads or playable online versions of the Zork games violate Wikipedia's policy on external links. (However, I left the link to a download for the original mainframe version of Zork up, as it was published before Infocom was founded and, according to Infocom's Wiki entry, "is generally assumed to be in the public domain".) --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In Popular Culture" Section?[edit]

I was thinking that an "In Popular Culture" section would be appropriate -- Zork played a major role in the development of Season (1?) of Chuck, and Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory plays a game which seems to be based on the Zork. If we could get some other pop culture references, I think it would be a valid and informational section.  Travis McCrea (T)(C) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It additionally plays a role in the plot of Ready Player One. Arzg (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the original Zork source code in MDL[edit]

I suggest linking to the original Zork source code in MDL which is available here:

http://retro.co.za/adventure/zork-mdl/

Is it OK to link to that source code from Wikipedia? I don't know who officially owns it, though. It was never a commercial product, and was developed at MIT. As the Zork article mentions, the Zork source code was leaked way back in 1977, so the cat's been out of the bag for a long time. A link to the actual source code would be a nice thing to cite in that section.

It is fascinating to read, and really beautiful code, quite understandable even if you don't know MDL, and practically a form of literature.

I played the original Zork on MIT-DM and also the Infocom versions of course. Reading the source code is like seeing the behind-the-scenes underground rooms and passages at Disneyland!

While I was playing Zork, I found a bug. First some context: when you're battling the troll, you can give things to him, and he eats them! Sometimes he drops his axe, and you can pick it up and kill him with it. He blocks the exits until you kill him.

So I tried "give axe to troll," and he ate his own axe, then cowered in terror: "The troll, disarmed, cowers in terror, pleading for his life in the guttural tongue of the trolls."

Not satisfied with that, I tried "give troll to troll", and he devoured himself: "The troll, who is remarkably coordinated, catches the troll and not having the most discriminating tastes, gleefully eats it."

...Except that I still could not get out of the exit, because every time I tried, it said "The troll fends you off with a menacing gesture."

I figured there must be a troll flag that wasn't getting cleared when the troll devoured itself. And sure enough, I found it in the code, and it's called "TROLL-FLAG!-FLAG"!

Here is an excerpt of the MDL troll code, where you can see the bug, where it should clear the troll flag when the troll devours itself, but doesn't (well that's how I would fix it!):

               <COND (<VERB? "THROW" "GIVE">
                      <COND (<VERB? "THROW">
                             <TELL
"The troll, who is remarkably coordinated, catches the " 1 <ODESC2 <PRSO>>>)
                            (<TELL
"The troll, who is not overly proud, graciously accepts the gift">)>
                      <COND (<==? <PRSO> <SFIND-OBJ "KNIFE">>
                             <TELL
"and being for the moment sated, throws it back.  Fortunately, the
troll has poor control, and the knife falls to the floor.  He does
not look pleased." ,LONG-TELL1>
                             <TRO .T ,FIGHTBIT>)
                            (<TELL
"and not having the most discriminating tastes, gleefully eats it.">
                      <REMOVE-OBJECT <PRSO>>)>)
                     (<VERB? "TAKE" "MOVE">
                      <TELL
"The troll spits in your face, saying \"Better luck next time.\"">)
                     (<VERB? "MUNG">
                      <TELL
"The troll laughs at your puny gesture.">)>)
              (<AND ,TROLL-FLAG!-FLAG
                    <VERB? "HELLO">>
               <TELL "Unfortunately, the troll can't hear you.">)>>

Xardox (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can give something that you don't have? I was under the impression that it wouldn't work. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can give anything that's in the room or your inventory to the troll. So if his axe falls on the floor, "give axe to troll" will work without having to pick it up first, which is supposed to work. But even before he drops the axe you can go "give axe to troll" and he'll eat it while he's holding it, since it's transitively in the room. That's the first thing I did, that made me think of typing "give troll to troll"! Xardox (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zork III: "the second and only time"[edit]

The description of Zork III contains the sentence "Here the 'elvish sword of great antiquity' is used for the second and only time to block the beam in the Beam Room." Never having played the game, I can make little sense of this. How can the second time be the only time? Should it be "first and only time" or should it be "second and final time"? --Captain Infinity (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years so I can't recall the sword, but that sentence doesn't make any sense so I've removed that wording, especially sense I couldn't find a source to clarify one way or the other. - Aoidh (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire plot entry to Zork III seems overly detailed, like a turn-by-turn walkthrough rather than a summarized overview of the game. Perhaps it should be trimmed down to be less detailed (and with so many spoilers). Crimson667 (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case (although almost six years late), you do not actually have to use the sword to block the beam. The can of grue repellent works just as well, for example. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary on Name[edit]

Basically, Zork was supposed to be Dungeon but TSR had it trademarked. 99.101.113.32 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Serols reverting reliable sites[edit]

Why is Serols (talk) persisting in removing sites from the external links that have been part of this page for eternities and are proven reliable sources on the subject:

Dude, are you on a powertrip? 2001:AC8:36:6:0:0:0:1E (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serols's behavior is unacceptable (such as his violating WP:TPO), but both of you are violating WP:3R. Neither of the above links belongs in an External links section; even if they did, they would belong in the Zork I article anyway. Ylee (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ylee, please inform yourself before you accuse someone of edit-war. The IP tried on Wednesday to enter the links and latest here, he knew what he is doing, he just overwrote existing links, after my edit. Only after four warnings can you report an IP in the VM page - see here, and here are the warnings. After the fourth warning, I have not deleted his editing, you have done. Comment like - Dude, are you on a powertrip? and link-spam is for me only vandalism. Therefore, his question here on the discussion page is only cheeky. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: You violated WP:TPO and WP:3R, which are both very, very bad things to do. The list of exemptions to the 3R ban is short and the IP editor's behavior is not on it. Your deleting his Talk comments is just as egregious. Please stop. Ylee (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read everything on this page, not only WP:3R -> Reverting vandalism is not edit warring -> Types of vandalism. You have also deleted his links. Besides, you are not accosted on this discussion page and were not bothered on your discussion page. Therefore the cancellation was justified. Thank you for bringing this back. --Serols (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation?[edit]

PlayStation is mentioned in the infobox as well as in the list of categories at the bottom of the page. It is not mentioned at all within the text of the article. Has Zork ever been available for PlayStation? The timeline doesn't seem right... 198.202.137.38 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that difficult to find. "zork playstation mobygames" reveals: Zork PlayStation remake. Kind regards, Grueslayer 21:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original combines plot elements from all 3 Zork games[edit]

One more in fact: the Sooty Room puzzle in the original is not in the Infocom Zorks. But it is in Sorcerer (where it became part of the Slanted Room puzzle). Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the New Zork Times mentioned one more: "sending for the brochure" (which presumably became sending for the vilstu potion). Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of recent merger/overhaul of this article[edit]

A few days ago, I moved an overhaul of the Zork article that I'd been working on in article space into this page. As part of that, I merged in the articles for the three episodes (Zork I, Zork II, and Zork III) on the basis that, as the game was originally developed as a single game before being split into episodes and a good chunk of the legacy was as a unified subject, it made the most sense to have them all in one article, especially since none of the three subarticles had a ton of information that wouldn't fit here. At the time, they looked like this: I, II, and III, e.g. I was mostly reception, while II and III were mostly gameplay/plot summary. This article looked like this.

Since then, Grueslayer has objected to the merge on the basis that the articles have been around for years and I did not get consensus before merging, which, fair enough, since none of the articles were being actively worked on any time recently I didn't. So, this discussion is to get a consensus one way or another- should this be 1 article or 4? --PresN 14:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this here, PresN. Kind regards, Grueslayer 14:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking for a start that for the original 3 articles, there is too much plot/gameplay, and almost no significant separate development, reception or legacy for the last two eps, the merge into one makes a lot of sense. If the individual episodes had more reception or dev info on their own, that would be different. Masem (t) 15:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing: Is that something where you would want to bring in your expertise? Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I understand PresN's thinking—the first three Zork games were, in fact, developed as a single game and then split into multiple games. And a lot of great work has been done on this article. But I have serious doubts about merging the three games into one, single page. Just as The Lord of the Rings was written as a single book and published as three, the Zork trilogy exists as three separate units. That's both a market reality (in terms of how they sold, when they sold, where they sold) and a reality in the coverage: third-party sources reviewed them and reported on them as individual games. It's convenient shorthand to refer to just "Zork" when we talk about the Zork trilogy, but these are separate games that were each widely covered in their own right. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PresN's work is infinitely better than the unmerged individual articles. I'm honestly quite shocked how much good info is here, it's often hard to get so much for such an older subject from before the internet era. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merged version looks good to me. That the separate articles have been around for years is not a strong argument. Thanks, PresN, for being bold and merging. --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bold merge is fine. The combined article is 32KB of readable prose, so WP:SIZE issues aren't a concern, and the article makes a convincing case the best way to talk about them is in aggregate, especially in regards to how its legacy is perceived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge - each of the original games got something on the order of 10 reliably sourced reviews, and there is more than enough material to make a full-sized article on each. We aren't talking about minor licensed cruft here. It might be a bit more work to get each individual article up to snuff, but there is no clear rationale for merging them all into one article per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NORUSH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to the opinions of editors who actually put in the work when it comes to "no rush". The end result of PresN's work is one much, much better article instead of three incredibly poor ones. If someone comes along at some point and expands this article to the point they can write a good article on each episode, then that's great. Until then, the change is preferable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand how NORUSH applies here- we're talking about if a merge is acceptable, not trying to get changes through in a hurry about a 40+ year old game. NORUSH in that case just sounds like "don't change things ever because maybe we'll want to change things again years down the road" - you could apply that to any edit.
As far as the sourcing and content goes, though, I'm generally disinterested in "maybe in the future there will be sources to support 3 other articles" arguments, here or elsewhere. Like, I'm not 100% done with this article, but at this point I'm not seeing lots of sources specific to individual episodes that aren't being used. I didn't merge them because I just really didn't want 4 articles, I merged it because, organizationally, given the content and sources that are available, it made more sense to me to keep them all together as a trio. All of those reviews mentioned are still used now- I just chopped down the lengthy pull quotes. --PresN 18:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is important value in completeness and comprehensiveness that also must be weighed against notability for determining if standalone or one single article makes sense. Each episode of Zork meets the GNG, but it is far more comprehensive to talk about the game as originally released, and then discuss episode specific details. It would definitely be different if the episodes were released first followed by the overall game, but instead we have the current situation Masem (t) 19:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ludicrous to imply that I am not an editor who "puts in the work" when it comes to improving articles, although early text adventures don't appeal to me. However, I am simply saying that if they did or I one day had a change of heart and decided to work on it, making several full articles would not be an issue, so the idea of merging them is unnecessary and stifles any potential expansion of any one game. In my opinion, comprehensiveness can still mean several articles linked together by an infobox, that's what hyperlinks are for. It just makes navigation and reading easier when they are split into their respective games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is going to read Wikipedia in an online mode, so one has to consider comprehensiveness of a single article. There are still appropriate uses for hyperlinks - I would not go into a history of Infocom in discussing Zork outside of how the company's history overlaps with it. But in this case, the overlap of content between the three episodes does make a lot more sense to keep to one article and avoiding wasting the reader's time to follow hyperlinks about overlapping topics. Masem (t) 12:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per the reasoning of Zxcvbnm in this case. I did find some more reviews for each of the games in the series, including for Zork I: PC Mag, Softalk, Softside, Family Computing, and The Rainbow, and for Zork II: Softalk, and for Zork III: Softalk, PC World. There are probably a bunch more, but I think these have plenty of room to be developed further. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning. The volume of reviews for the individual games does not indicate that we need separate articles. --Macrakis (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MERGEREASON, the page is not a duplicate, the games do not overlap, and the games' articles are not one or two sentences. Nor do they require massive amounts of context to understand them. So there is quite literally no merge reason for each Zork game beyond one editor's opinion. In fact per WP:NOTMERGE, "Merging should be avoided if: the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the games do not overlap" - uh, yes they do, that's the reason that I merged them in the first place. They were developed as a single game in 1977, and in late 1979 Lebling drew a line around half of the game map and called that Zork I because they couldn't fit the whole thing in a computer's memory. He did then go on to add bits to the second half so that it needed to be split again, and they did sell it in 3 releases, so I get where JimmyBlackwing's coming from, but the 3 episodes clearly overlap- the first 10 out of 15 paragraphs of development are about the game as a unified whole, the reviews may be mostly split but the legacy section has them as a single concept. It's reasonable to think that they'd be better as three articles (even if I disagree), but MERGEREASON (which isn't even a guideline, it's just a reference essay) doesn't apply here like that. --PresN 00:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something that was cut content from a previous game is still not an "overlap". Something like a DLC or expansion pack would (possibly) be an overlap. The developers still made a judgement call about what to include in the first game and what to put in a sequel.
MERGEREASON is not a guideline, but not an "essay" as you claim. It is an information page reflecting current consensus, so it goes beyond one person's opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 08:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may make sense in other scenarios, but absolutely not for Zork, given the time frame it was created (DLC? Expansion packs?), the way the game is played (the split of the three parts is nearly necessitated by how Zork is constructed as a game), and simply that the game is so far in the past that we should not expect any new information to come about as to make a potential home for episode-specific information.
Heck, consider that we do not have separate episode articles for the various Telltale Games episodes despite each having its own bit of reception - its because the game's larger aspect of development, gameplay and plot all overlap so having tiny, piecemeal articles on each episode would be more harmful. Masem (t) 12:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these three articles could be recreated, but it would take a lot of work to make them nearly as nice as the main article now is. The current setup of the main article looks good, so I wouldn't recommend cutting much from it even if the three sub-articles are recreated. If editors think that the subarticles can go in significantly more detail than the main article through the sources available, then I would love such articles to be written! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Waxworker: Would you have an opinion on this?
(Since the three games were released and marketed as three individual games over the course of three years I would appreciate it very much if there were four articles of the quality of PresN's new overview article, but I won't be able to invest the necessary time myself and of course I cannot issue orders to anyone, so I'll live with whatever the consensus is.)
Kind regards, Grueslayer 22:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support retain merge. I read the opposing arguments and opinions related to merging guidelines. What's important to me is that the merge improved Wikipedia. The result is much better than the previous sum of the parts. Airborne84 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something has been "improved" is subject to individual beliefs. I believe that, while the main Zork article was arguably made better, the articles on the sequels were not improved but in fact ignored. Is this a net improvement? Depends on your point of views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have my point of view on record now. Airborne84 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger I suggest that as the editor who did the scholarly research about this game and created an astonishingly comprehensive article, PresN has earnt the right to make an editorial decision to merge based on their personal assessment. Perhaps the individual games do pass GNG, maybe they don't. It's not really relevant at this stage - the Zork article as structured renders individual game articles obsolete, and it would require a complete overhaul to do otherwise. A Godfather article containing comprehensive coverage on the entire trilogy would be long and overkill, but a Zork article doing much the same seems to be of suitable length based on available sourcing so I'm in favour of it. Sure, articles on individual games 'could' exist, but due to this brilliant piece of writing, they would look like unworthy spin-off stubs in comparison.--Coin945 (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, from the way in which PresN described the sequels (II is the second half of I with some added puzzles, and III is much the same), it could be argued that they are more akin to expansion packs than stand-alone games, which generally don't get their own articles anyway.--Coin945 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - The oppose arguments seem to hinge on the reasoning that if we wanted to have individual articles on Zork I, II, and III, we have enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY requirements, whereas from what PresN has written, the motivation for the merge is that it doesn't make sense to have individual articles on Zork I, II, and III because the three are most logically treated as a single subject, so the "if" in the oppose argument doesn't come into play (or at least, it shouldn't). I don't see any need to break the current version of the article down into smaller articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Some sad comments in this thread. An editor volunteered dozens of hours to improve the coverage of this subject. Was their editorial decision to merge the wrong call? Maybe, but it doesn't matter because the new merged iteration is so obviously better in quality that there's no way in hell we are going back to the previous stub splits, the only other option available to us. If you think split articles would be an improvement, you put in the work and create those articles. That's what this editor did. TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zork/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'm on the busy side, but I always enjoy reviewing articles with a bend towards video game history. Going to try to get to this soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your patience. Going to work through this section by section. Will circle back to the lead, later. The article is very well written and researched, and these comments will help it get to the next level.
  • Gameplay
  • It would help to introduce the concept of a text parser is before you explain what it means to type in commands. (e.g. "Using a text parser, the player..." or "The player types commands into a text parser, which allows them to")
  • I guess I do need to explain more, because the player doesn't "use" the text parser- the parser is the code in the game that takes the text that the player typed and interprets it. Expanded a bit when I use the word "parser"
  • "If it does not understand" -> "it" becomes ambiguous in this sentence, and it might help to restate the noun -- "the program", "the text parser", "the interface", or even "the game"
  • Done
  • Semi-colons make things harder to read and understand, and two sentences are preferable.
  • I think semicolons are a handy way to join related clauses, but it does get away from me sometimes. Reduced the overall use of them.
  • "Zork also contained multiple ways" -> this is a little ambiguous too. Did you mean the original Zork?
  • Clarified, but yes
  • "to use and fight with" -> "to use in combat". or "to use against enemies"
  • Done
  • "a thief character wanders the underground maze as well, and will steal items that the player has dropped on the ground" -> "a thief character will wander the underground maze, stealing items that the player has dropped on the ground"
  • Made as "is wandering" so as not to make that future tense, but done
  • "earns the player points, which keep rough track of how much of the game has been completed" -> "count towards the player's score, as a rough measure of how much of the game has been completed."
  • Done
  • Plot
  • Once again, I think the semi colons read awkwardly, and would be more readable broken into separate sentences.
  • Done
  • "Location and item descriptions, as well as the manuals in later versions of the game," -> "Most of the setting is established through the game's written descriptions of items and locations, as well as manuals in later game releases." (full stop.)
  • Done
  • "The player is given little instruction, but exploring the game world leads them into the Great Underground Empire. The first episode has little plot, but has nineteen treasures scattered throughout the game world behind puzzles, some of which require other treasures to solve." -> The "but" reads weird here, both times. Try "The first episode has little plot, and the player is given little instruction. As the player explores the game world, they reach the Great Underground Empire, where they find nineteen treasures scattered throughout the game world."
  • Done
  • "through descriptions of items and areas" -> can drop this, as this is explained in the gameplay, and again in the first paragraph in this section about the setting
  • Done
  • "with varied effects." -> are these effects harmful? helpful? Maybe some examples would help.
  • Done
  • "is trying to gather" -> "the player character is trying to gather the garb of the Dungeon Master and prove themselves as worthy of being their successor" -> "the player gathers the garb of the Dungeon Master to become their successor."
  • Done
  • "their puzzles" -> does "their" refer to the Dungeon Master? This is ambiguous.
  • Done
  • "the twist that one of them" -> this probably makes sense as its own sentence, as it's joined awkwardly to the previous thought.
  • Done
  • "transforms the player into a duplicate of himself" -> the meaning here isn't clear
  • Done
  • Development/MIT
  • What is the Dynamic Modelling Group, and what do they do? It helps give context to what their actual software experience was before starting game development.
  • Done
  • I feel like there is a more succinct way to describe the influence of Colossal Cave Adventure. Right now it feels like it goes on a tangent, but it is important to state what it is and how popular it was, to demonstrate how it would have influenced Zork.
  • Done
  • There is a lot of asterisks beside every game that claims to be the first 3D game ever made, so it's worth giving the reader more context about what kind of 3D. Only needs one or two words. (Maybe "wireframe"?)
  • I don't think there's any asterisks needed here? It was the first 3D game. Full stop. Asterisks would be for later games- first 3D game with smooth motion, first with non-90 degree angles, first with textured walls... but Maze was just... the first 3D game.
  • "Lebling then left for a two-week vacation, and in his absence Anderson, Blank, and Daniels..." -> "While Lebling took a two-week vacation, Anderson, Blank, and Daniels..."
  • Done
  • You say "in the final game" twice and it's not needed
  • Done
  • The Anderson quote is long enough that it would read better as its own sentence, or summarized in fewer words.
  • Done
  • "the community" -> which community? MIT?
  • Done
  • "referring to themselves as the "implementers" -> is this important?
  • Kinda, like, it's not, except that they kept referring to designers as that even when running Infocom, so that was the term used by the public as well- it's in every source. So it's trivial, but textually relevant.
  • "grues" -> this needs context for the reader to understand
  • It was mentioned in Gameplay
  • "which were added by Lebling after to replace falling into pits after his character fell into a pit while inside the attic of the house" -> this reads awkwardly
  • Done
  • "large community of players for the time" -> this could be more specific.
  • No numbers exist. It's described in the source as "it had a relatively large user community from all over the country."
  • "The group had added several sections, such as the river, volcano, and coal mine sections, and then took a break from adding new content. For the next couple months, they instead improved the engine of the game, and added the ability to save the player's progress in the game. " -> "The group added locations such as a volcano and coal mine, and soon shifted their efforts to improving the game's engine. An important feature was saved game functionality, to store the player's progress in the game."
  • Done
  • Ted Hess at DEC -> here comes a new challenger! Was Ted Hess a new team member, or was he a volunteer from the wider community?
  • Done
  • "He released it in March 1978, thereby making the game available to a wider set up players outside of those with access to a PDP-10 mainframe" -> this one is hard to read
  • Done
  • "At the time, the team had decided to give the game an actual name besides "zork", and named the game Dungeon; this name was used for the Fortran version, which was spread through the DEC users group, DECUS, and became one of the most popular pieces of software distributed through the group." -> even after changing the semicolon to two separate sentences, this one is hard to read.
  • Done
  • "The name change was soon rescinded for the main game, however, as TSR Hobbies, the publishers of Dungeons & Dragons, claimed the name violated their trademark, and Zork became the official name for the game." -. "However TSR Hobbies claimed the title violated their trademark in Dungeons & Dragons, leading the game to return to its original title."
  • Done
  • "megabyte" -> used to seeing a number beside this, so did you mean that there's only a single megabyte?
  • Yes, done
  • "Lebling claims" / "Anderson agrees" -> Attributing the same ideas to different sources, you could probably get away with shortening this to a single sentence, instead of repeating it.
  • They're not quite the same ideas- Anderson agreed one one point, but had a subtly different interpretation of who did what otherwise
  • "The player character was purposely left undescribed, with the developers removing any accidental descriptions or gendered pronouns introduced, in order to help the player be immersed in the game" -> "In order to immerse the player in the game, the developers decided not to describe the player character, removing any accidental descriptions or gendered pronouns."
  • Done
  • "The text responses to the player's commands were frequently opinionated and sarcastic as a design choice in addition to mirroring the group's speaking patterns,as they felt it would both make the system feel less like a computer and also train the player to write commands in a way that the parser could understand rather than ways it would misinterpret" -> This is a long sentence and would read better as two separate sentences.
  • Done
  • The last paragraph here about influences might go better at the beginning of the section, in the context of their influence from Colossal Cave Adventure
  • I don't think it fits there before it discusses the genesis of the game, but moved it up a few paragraphs to right when they started actually making the game
  • Development/Infocom
"In 1979, eight members of the Dynamic Modelling Group, including Anderson, Blank, and Lebling, incorporated Infocom as a software company for members to join after leaving MIT" -> "In 1979, Anderson, Blank, and Lebling incorporated Infocom with five other members of the Dynamic Modelling Group, thus creating a software company for MIT alumni."
  • Done with changes
  • "for minicomputers, smaller mainframe computers" -> this might work better as a piped link instead of a comma
  • Done
  • "having graduated and moved to Pittsburgh" -> is this important?
  • Done
  • "they felt that a combination of a custom programming language for the game as well as the use of floppy disks could make the project viable if the game was cut into two pieces" -> "they felt the project might be viable on two floppy discs with the help of a custom programming language."
  • Done with changes
  • "This meant that getting ZIL-based games to run on a different type of microcomputer just required a new interpreter program instead of rewriting the games for a different operating system." -> This meant that ZIL-based games could use a new interpreter program to run on new types of microcomputer, instead of rewriting the game for each operating system."
  • Done
  • "Lebling separated out half of Zork from the rest" -> is this in reference to the two floppy discs? I feel like this could be stated more clearly.
  • There wasn't two floppy disks. Reworded that and above to make it more clear- they didn't make the game into disk 1, 2, 3, they cut out the first half of the game and sold it as part 1 on a single disk. Each part of the game was standalone.
  • "By the end of 1979, the core game was complete, though it had only been run on DECSYSTEM-20 and PDP-11 mainframe computers, and Berez was elected the company's president." -> "By the end of 1979, Berez was elected the company's president. The core game was complete, though it had only been run on DECSYSTEM-20 and PDP-11 mainframe computers." (avoid combining disjointed thoughts using "and".)
  • Done
  • "and Blank and Scott Cutler wrote an interpreter program and successfully ran the game" -> which could run the game after Blank and Scott Cutler created an interpreter program."
  • Done
  • " Infocom began preparing to release the first section of Zork under the title Zork: The Great Underground Empire - Part I, and got Mike Dornbrook to test the game as an audience surrogate, as he had never played it." -> similar sentence issue here. Would flow better with less density, or as separate sentences.
  • Done
  • "sending the company an advance on the game as their first revenue." -> "sending the company an advance payment".
  • Done
  • "The first sale of Zork I was earlier in the year, however; since Personal Software declined to publish the PDP-11 version of the game developed in 1979, Infocom announced it to various PDP-11 user groups, and sold some copies—later recalled by Lebling as around 20—directly as a floppy disk with a typewritten manual by Anderson." -> this sentence is a hard read too.
  • Done
  • "While as late as December 1980 he told Byte that it would be a two-part game, Zork: The Great Underground Empire - Part I and Part II," -> Could probably drop this without losing the overall story
  • Shortened
  • "Zork II was offered to Personal Software in April 1981 and the contract was signed in June, as Berez became the first paid employee of the company, but Infocom began to be wary of continuing the relationship with Personal Software." -> this one is also a hard read
  • Done
  • "The Infocom team felt that Personal Software was not advertising Zork I very strongly, and did not seem excited about Infocom's plans to release Zork III and then follow it with several other planned text adventure games such as Deadline and Starcross. This feeling was correct, as Personal Software had plans to stop publishing entertainment software altogether and rebrand as VisiCorp to align with its VisiCalc spreadsheet software, which it did in 1982. Rather than find another publisher, Infocom decided to self-publish its games and began renting office space and contracting with production facilities." -> This is reading pretty long, and seems easy to shorten -- if they had a feeling something would happen, and then it happened, you don't need to say it twice.
  • Done
  • The development section is pretty long and might warrant splitting into more than two. For example, you start with a subsection just about the team and their influences, and you could end with a subsection just about Zork II and III.
  • Split up into 3 sections - I think the Infocom section was fine, but the MIT was pretty hefty
Let's pause here. Once again, this is a really solid article. There's just a lot of it, so it will take some time to work through. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Starting on this, marking off as I go. --PresN 13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Okay, sorry for taking so long, but I've now addressed all of the points listed here. --PresN 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: reminder. --PresN 18:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your patience. Let's keep this going.
  • Reception/Sales
  • "moderate amounts" feels like a hard thing to quantify or verify. I think it's enough to document the sales as a number, and then mention the dramatic increase, as you did.
  • Done
  • Additionally, unlike most games, sales of the game increased over the next few years rather than decline as the market for personal computers expanded. -> Zork sold even more copies as the market for personal computers expanded.
  • Done with changes
  • The sentence about 1986 feels out of sequence with the rest of this section.
  • Moved to the end with changes
  • "Based on sales and market-share data" seems redundant -- we should assume these sources are basing their facts on verifiable data.
  • Done
  • As we wrap the section up, do we have an overall estimate that sums it all up?
  • By moving the 1986 sentence, I changed it to be a summation for that paragraph; also adjusted the final sentence of the section to be a bit more conclusive.
  • Reception/Reviews
  • This section feels like it needs an intro or topic sentence. For modern games that would be something from Metacritic summing up the overall reception of the game, so I understand it's less obvious how to handle this older game.
  • Done
  • There's a sentence where you use "praised" twice, nearly back to back.
  • Done
  • "while noting that Zork II was both a sequel and a second segment of the original Zork" seems unnecessary, since it's something we already know, and doesn't really add anything to the review
  • Done
  • "Another Softalk reviewer in September of that same year" -> "An additional Softalk review..." (should be clear from context that it's an additional review for Zork 3)
  • Done
  • Some of the "best of all time" lists seem like they belong in legacy, and not reception. Reception is how something is received at the time, while legacy is how something is remembered in the context of all of video game history.
  • Done
  • Overall, this section flows well. But I'd say the first paragraph is a little chunkier, due to the longer quotes, and multiple sentences per review. I might suggest you replace some of the quotes with summaries, or otherwise summarize the main point of each review, just to match the flow of the better paragraphs.
  • Done
  • Legacy
  • There is a lot of weight on Barton, giving him almost half the paragraph. Is there a way to cover his main point more quickly?
  • Condensed
  • I might break up the sentence about the adaptation for a variety of systems, and the inspiration for text parsers and chat bots. Those really are two separate thoughts.
  • Done, and also moved
  • The library of congress piece also feels a little chunky -- do we really need to cover that the New York Times reported it, or can we just say that the library of congress did it?
  • Done
  • "tens of thousands of copies at minimum" -> this reads a little weird. Maybe just drop "at minimum"?
  • Done
  • The second paragraph could use a topic sentence just summing up what Zork meant to Infocom as a company. (The details you have would follow from this.)
  • Done
  • Similarly, the third paragraph could use a topic sentence, explaining that Zork did become a series. (You might need to edit the current first sentence, just for flow. Saying that initially, there was no official follow up to Zork.)
  • Done, and also moved stuff around for flow
  • "Zork games have been released" -> "The original Zork games have been re-released"
  • Done
  • When talking about the books, is it really important to know the different publishers in every country? It breaks up the sentence, and seems like an excessive detail. (If you still thought it was important, I might break this into two separate sentences.)
  • Done
  • "rather than being read straight through like a novel" feels redundant -- it's already explained and linked.
  • Done
  • "based on Zork" -> "based on the original game" (less repetition / more readability)
  • Done
Let's pause here. I'll try not to keep you waiting as long, as I'm sure you're looking forward to wrapping this up. It's a really solid article and it's very close to good article status. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Done, thanks! --PresN 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to review the lead, and give everything one more pass. I think we're in good shape.
  • Lead
  • "They and several other staff and students at the MIT computer center founded Infocom in 1979 to develop software programs, and Blank and Joel Berez created a way to run a smaller portion of Zork on a microcomputer. The parts of Zork were Infocom's first products. " -> "In 1979, they founded Infocom with several other colleagues at the MIT computer center. Blank and Joel Berez created a way to run a smaller portion of Zork on a range of microcomputers, allowing them to commercialize the game as Infocom's first products."
  • Done
  • "Several more games in the Zork series were released beginning in 1987, as well as books and gamebooks." -> "Infocom was purchased by Activision, leading to new games in the Zork series in 1987, as well as a series of books."
  • Done
  • "calling them the best adventure game" -> "calling Zork the best adventure game" (avoid guessing whether a singular or plural pronoun is appropriate)
  • Done
  • "It is regarded as one of the greatest games of all time, based on its prevalence on such lists by critics." -> the second part feels unnecessary (though you should say who regarded it)
  • Done
  • "Later historians have noted the game as having a large influence on the adventure game genre of the time, and along with Adventure influencing the MUD genre and through it the more recent massively multiplayer online role-playing game genre." -> "Later historians have noted the game as a foundation for the adventure game genre, as well as influencing the MUD genre and massively multiplayer online role-playing game."
  • Done
  • Gameplay (part 2)
  • "The player types in commands to move their character through the locations, interact with objects in the cave, pick up items to put into their inventory, and perform other actions." -> "The player types in commands to perform various actions, such as interacting with objects, picking up items, or moving their character through the locations."
  • Done with changes
  • "The original 1977 version of the game was a single release, Zork," -> should probably use a full stop here. The sentence gets long, and the next part would be more readable as a separate phrase.
  • Done
  • "Puzzles may have" -> "Several puzzles have"
  • Done
  • "In the first section, or Zork I, a thief character is wandering the underground maze as well, stealing items that the player has dropped on the ground." -> this might flow better as before the previous sentence -- before zork II
  • Done
  • "Collecting treasures earns the player points, which count towards the player's score, as a rough measure of how much of the game has been completed" -> "The player earns a higher score as they collect treasures, as a rough measure of how much of the game has been completed"
  • Done
  • Plot (part 2)
  • "in the GUE" -> can drop this, as you explain the setting more clearly lat
  • Done
  • "A century later his and his descendants' spending caused the empire to collapse and all of the residents left." -> "A century later, the empire's overspending caused it to collapse, with all the residents leaving."
  • Done
Development (part 2)
  • "a computer science research division," -> can drop the comma
  • Done
  • "They were inspired to create the game by" -> "Their work was inspired by"
  • Done
  • "a text-based adventure game which is the first well-known example of interactive fiction, as well as the first well-known adventure game." -> "a text-based game which became celebrated as the first well-known work of interactive fiction, as well as the first well-known adventure game." (you say adventure game twice in one sentence, and trying to make this flow better)
  • Done but without the "celebrated"
  • "Lebling had been heavily involved with Maze (1973), a multiplayer first-person shooter and the first 3D first-person game ever made, while Blank and Anderson had worked on Trivia (1976), a multiplayer trivia game." -> "Blank and Anderson had worked on a multiplayer trivia game called Trivia (1976), and Lebling was heavily involved with Maze (1973), a multiplayer first-person shooter and the first 3D first-person game ever made." (might flow better)
  • Done
  • "This prototype contained many of the concepts of the final game, such as puzzles and locations, but was simplified." -> "This prototype contained simple versions of many concepts seen in the final game, including puzzles and locations"
  • Done
  • "Lebling claims that the group had few direct influences when creating the game beyond Adventure, as there were few other games to emulate at the time" -> "As there were few other games to emulate at the time, Lebling claims that Adventure was one of Zork's only influences"
  • Done
  • "he does admit to basing the combat on Dungeons & Dragons, but says that the other members had never played it" -> this might flow better after explaining the leaflet, and flowing into the comparison between the dungeon master and the text parser
  • Done
  • "including adding" -> "also adding"
  • Did "as well as" instead
  • "reverted the name change back to the original title" -> "reverted the name back to the original title"
  • Done
  • "Lebling claims" / "Anderson agrees" -> if multiple sources are in agreement, I think we can leave out the attribution. Just tell us what people did.
  • Tweaked, but maybe this is from working on other older games but I think it's important to specify who said what when they slightly disagree, though in this case it's more like remembering different details.
  • "incorporated" should be linked, for those who need to know how that works
  • Done
  • "It got Mike Dornbrook" -> "The team got Mike Dornbrook"
  • Done
  • "The first sale of Zork I was earlier in the year" -> this phrase feels out of context and unclear. If it's relevant to the next part, perhaps there is a way to rephrase?
  • Reworded
  • "the result of the split and additions was that each part of the game had a different atmosphere" -> "splitting the game into episodes led to different atmospheres"
  • Done
  • "who added gameplay changes and the modified point system" -> "who added gameplay changes such as the modified point system"
  • Done
Reception (part 2)
  • "The Personal Software versions of Zork I for the TRS-80 version sold 1,500 copies in the nine months after its release in December 1980, and the Apple II version sold 6,000 copies in the same period." -> "In the first nine months after the game's release in 1980, Personal Software sold 1500 copies of Zork for the TRS-80, and 6000 copies for the Apple II."
  • Done
  • "Sales declined after that point, and total Zork I sales reached 380,000 copies by 1986" -> "Although sales eventually declined, Zork I had sold 380,000 copies by 1986."
  • Done with changes
  • "and more than 680,000 copies through 1986, including the 1986 Zork Trilogy compilation release," -> full stop here, for readability and flow
  • Done
  • "Zork overall comprised more than one-third of Infocom's two million total game sales between 1982 and 1986" -> " Between 1982 and 1986, the Zork trilogy comprised more than one-third of Infocom's two million total game sales"
  • "Zork I continued to be reviewed for several years after its wide release" -> "Zork I earned additional reviews several years after its release."
  • Done
  • "As late as September 1983, reviews for the episode still praised it, with Mark Renne of SoftSide that month claiming it was difficult and a "must have", with a parser that was one of the best available, and Eric Grevstad of Family Computing terming it already a classic of the genre" -> "As late as September 1983, reviews for the episode still praised it, with Eric Grevstad of Family Computing proclaiming it a classic of the genre, and Mark Renne of SoftSide calling it a "must have" game with one of the best text parsers available." (flow)
  • Done
  • "The second and third parts were similarly praised; Softline applauded Zork II's "well-balanced mix of humor, wit, and wry puns" in May 1982 and recommended the game to both new and experienced players" -> "The second and third parts were similarly praised. In May 1982, Softline recommended Zork II for its "well-balanced mix of humor, wit, and wry puns".
  • Done
Legacy (again)
  • "Other historians, as well as Lebling," -> maybe leave out Lebling. It doesn't add anything, and other historians have said it
  • Done
  • "PC Gamer, in 2016, claimed Zork as one of the 50 most important video games ever made, on the basis that in addition to being the foundation of Infocom, that it had "defined" adventure games for an entire generation" -> " In 2016, PC Gamer ranked Zork as one one of the 50 most important video games ever made, for establishing Infocom as a studio, and defining an entire generation of adventure games."
  • Done
  • "Zork was named to a list of the ten most important video games of all time" -> "Zork was listed among the ten most important video games of all time"
  • Done
  • "Instead, following its initial plans to make software in general rather than just games, Infocom invested heavily in creating Cornerstone (1985), a relational database software product which had poor sales. This resulted in financial difficulties and the company being sold to Activision in 1986; it was shut down entirely in 1989" -> "Instead, Infocom diversified into professional software by creating a relational database product called Cornerstone (1985). Poor sales led to financial difficulties, and the company was sold to Activision in 1986, before shutting down entirely in 1989."
  • Done with the split
  • Further to above, maybe the shut down belongs after the sequels created by Activision. But I leave this to your discretion.
  • Done
  • Are you familiar at all with Legend Entertainment? It might be worth mentioning that many Infocom veterans moved on here, and might fit in context with the shutdown.
  • I didn't mention it because the named people from MIT didn't go there, so it would just be "Infocom employees who didn't work on Zork formed another company that's considered kind of a spiritual successor", which would fit in an article about Infocom but not really this one.
  • "and taking place in the Zork world" -> this is implied?
  • Without it, it implies that it follows the "plot" of the games themselves rather than just the worldbuilding
That's a lot, but that will take us across the finish line. Thanks again for your hard work and patience. This was a pleasure to read. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Done, thanks again! --PresN 01:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to give this a pass for GA. Thanks for your hard work and patience. In fact, I think it might already be within a good shot of FA status. I hope you'll go for it when you find the time. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Elvish sword of great antiquity" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Elvish sword of great antiquity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 21#Elvish sword of great antiquity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jack Frost (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by PresN (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 09:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @LordPeterII: Good article. Hook is interesting, article is sourced, and the QPQ is done. Approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Onegreatjoke: Thanks for the review! I've thought about it a bit, and I would like to adjust the hook slightly, because Barton is a professor of English, not history. I believe calling him a "scholar" would be a more appropriate generic term, or "scientist" (I'm not sure which one would sound more natural in English).
  • ALT1: ... that one scholar compared the importance of Zork to that of Homer's Iliad?
  • ALT2: ... that one scientist compared the importance of Zork to that of Homer's Iliad?
Would you also approve ALT1 or ALT2? Then the promoter can chose which term they prefer. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure i'll approve both of those. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I struck the original one. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art[edit]

Is there a reason we're using the Atari ST cover rather than the original TRS-80 or Apple II cover (which has the benefit of being more visually interesting)? Only real argument I could see is that the black Infocom cover sold more copies than the Personal Software early edition. But it's a text adventure game so not sure how much either cover is realy doing to "identify" the subject for the purposes of the WP:NFCC rationale. czar 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: It's because the Infocom covers, while not being the first, were the most recognizable/seen covers, by a factor of about 100 to 1. As a physical-only product, the box art is even more representative than a modern game. I'm not sure what it being a text adventure has to do with it- Prince of Persia or EverQuest certainly didn't look like their covers, for example, despite having graphics; in fact, given the lack of memorable graphics, the box art is even more recognizable due to a lack of competition. Also, this article covers all three episodes (and the original), and PS only sold Zork I- the Infocom covers to II and III are in a similar style to I, so there's a bit more general coverage by not using a cover style that only applied to one episode. --PresN 17:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good czar 19:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

PresN, I added the added Drew reference to a Further Reading section (optional at MOS:FURTHER). It wasn't clear if the sources were all being used in the article since there is underlap between those and the references. Since they are, a further reading section is indeed more appropriate for the ref. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Airborne84: do you have a link to an archive of that source? There's not much point adding a further reading article if it doesn't have information that's not present in the article, never mind that the vast majority of readers aren't going to have access to a 1983 magazine article. --PresN 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, I don't have an archive link. But it is there for (1) anyone to use as a source in the future, and (2) to show readers the different sources that published on this topic. That seems to generally be the purpose of a Further Reading section. Airborne84 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Airborne84: Ok, well, if you don't have a link... then what is in the source that isn't in this article? The purpose of a "further reading" section isn't just to list sources that aren't used in the article- otherwise most articles on mainstream topics could have a section with thousands of books, articles, and links. The purpose is to say "here's a source that contains further detail, that may be too in-depth for a general-audience article". I don't see how an article in an obscure magazine about play-by-mail games is likely to have further detail for readers beyond the sources that are already in use in the article, especially since 0% of readers will have the ability to read it seeing as it is a 40-year-old niche magazine that had at its peak 3000 readers and isn't available in archives. --PresN 01:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear to me what the issue is here. Listing this review is encyclopedic. I won't comment on what your statement of "0% of readers" implies related to me (I have access to it). Consider also that WP:V states that "Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." But you could seek additional opinions if you feel strongly that Wikipedia is improved if this reference is removed. Airborne84 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose of listing it is simply to exhort future editors to include it in the article, then use {{refideas}} on the talk page. I agree with PresN's conception of the Further reading section's purpose. It sounds like the source in question is just a contemporary magazine review, which is unlikely to reward dedicated readers' efforts in tracking it down. Since you're the only one here with direct access to it, why not simply incorporate it yourself somewhere if you think it says something not covered by other sources, or failing that, scan/transcribe it so someone else can make that determination? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Axem Titanium. I listed two purposes for including the article. It also shows coverage of the topic across sources. In this case, the source is primarily for play-by-mail articles, but provided coverage of a video game as well, which was somewhat unusual. If no one thinks that's encyclopedic, happy to go the refideas route. Airborne84 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just here to echo that "further reading" and "see also" sections add less value than integrating reliable information into the article. It might be worth emphasizing this in the video game manual of style. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: would we even consider Nuts & Bolts of Gaming a reliable source? A contemporary review (mentioned at The Nuts & Bolts of PBM#Reception) suggests it was amateurish around the time the Zork piece was published (1983), although it had improved by 1985. Is/was Mike Drew a game journalist or author? Without knowing more, this doesn't seem like something that we'd mark as "reliable" at WP:VG/RS. Woodroar (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll push back on this to say that the state of game reviews was not great across the board in 1983 and few publications would pass a 2023 bar of reliability. There is some intrinsic value to a contemporary review from (near) when the game came out, just to get some sense of what people of that era thought, even if the writer/publication does not meet our current definition of reliable. I don't know the content of the review though, so I can't say if it provides anything more than is currently written in the #Reviews section of the article. If not, then it wouldn't make sense to include, but not on RS grounds. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that games journalism was not great at the time. I also agree that showing a contemporary viewpoint would be nice, but how is that not WP:ILIKEIT? If the source is low-quality or unreliable, is it a valuable resource? I don't think so, personally. Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no objective measure for quality. Maybe it's the best review/publication of its time and nothing else meets today's bar for reliability. I don't know, I haven't done the due diligence. Published contemporary viewpoints are crucial to include because they are not replicable by any source going forward. Things cannot become "cult status" or have "aged poorly" if there's no record of how it was received at the time. Contemporary viewpoints, even poor quality ones, give some indication of that reception. This discussion is all academic though, since I have no idea about this particular source and can't speak to its quality or usefulness. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to drop it and revisit if or when we can all review the source. Until then, should the "further reading" listing be removed from the article? Woodroar (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I finally pulled out the magazine again. The review is fairly critical, with both positives and negatives for the game. I think the most useful part would be the contemporary thoughts on its difficulty at the time as an emerging game related to other games of the period. But I moved it to refideas for now until I have time to look at it further. I appreciate the comments. Airborne84 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]