503:
tool (before languages tailored specifically to write
Interactive fiction were developed one had to use a fairly complicated general purpose language like C, Fortran or Basic, as well as implement command processing, designing game mechanics, and so on.) So, in that sort of case, an article about any particular tool or system might only be of interest to a few hundred people out of the couple thousand having an interest, but in that case it is of crucial interest.
85:
55:. After discarding a few single-purpose accounts and taking into account the canvassing concerns, it seems like there is no evidence here that Hugo meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria. To the people who voted !keep, please remember that notability here is not merely about fame or popularity, it's about how many independent and reliable sources exist about a topic.
502:
Where there is a problem domain of some kind, all significant solutions in that domain should be included where the solution is/was relevant to a significant segment to the population. Now, maybe only 2,000 people have written or will write an
Adventure game or Interactive fiction using an authoring
484:
Keep. I strongly oppose this deletion. There are about four major programming systems specifically used for creating
Interactive fiction and Hugo happens to be one of the least complicated and most accessible, especially for people with limited programming experience. Not listing it here, first makes
603:
Besides the historical and contemporary significance of Hugo, it is a very accessible program that is perfect for beginners interested in getting into game development, as well as being more than capable of meeting the needs of more advanced programmers. This makes it a perfect article for
Knowledge
496:
Realize that creation of
Interactive Fiction is not like writing websites, creating Android phone apps or coding a payroll system. They are not going to be used by a lot of people. A lot more people will be interested in the current X86-64 bit processor than in the PDP-11 or the Decsystyem 20, but
485:
the language inaccessible to those who might want to try doing a game and find one of the other systems much more tedious or complicated. (I have found it to be the case; an interactive fiction game I wrote easily using Hugo has become a hair-pulling experience trying to port it over to TADS.)
441:
The Rock, Paper, Shotgun website has articles which include "IF Only: Looking back at 2016 in
Interactive Fiction" as well as "Splice Of Life: Cryptozookeeper" that go into Hugo, its value to Interactive Fiction, as well as a number of award winning games that were created with it.
490:
Second, to the extent the various authoring systems are cross-listed it allows someone to look at this or maybe one of the other ones and decide if they should use one of them. Third, it provides a snapshot of the current state of the art in the technology used for this sort of
517:
Hugo may not be very familiar to the general audience of game playing people, but I suspect it is well known among the community of people who write those types of programs, and that should be enough reason for it to be included here.
393:. Work was being done to add citations and references to this article when it was nominated for deletion, and we'll happily continue through this process. :) Also, my understanding is that Rock Paper Shotgun is a reliable source.
290:
329:
is independent, but that source is a blog post that merely mentions that one game was written in Hugo. I have tried to find other independent sources, but to no avail. Article previously redirected to
345:
497:
they are still important in order that this site be what it claims: an encyclopedic overview of knowledge and so it must try to completely cover items which now are of only historic interest.
284:
508:
Plus, Knowledge (XXG) is the "go to location" for coverage of esoteric subjects and by providing that comprehensive coverage we should do so when there is a reasonably high interest
243:
92:
723:
662:
512:
Interest in
Interactive Fiction Authoring systems is narrow but it is an important part of the history and future of computing, and since we can be comprehensive, we should be.
360:
375:
216:
211:
220:
250:
203:
305:
629:
272:
467:. I suggest we try looking for offline sources, or even possibly archived sources before the article gets deleted for lack of notability. –
418:
645:
101:
633:
422:
131:
17:
64:
266:
730:
714:
669:
656:
613:
569:
546:
527:
476:
451:
436:
402:
382:
367:
352:
337:
262:
117:
68:
588:
557:
750:
312:
40:
207:
90:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
625:
609:
447:
199:
74:
163:
414:
398:
703:
278:
60:
147:
121:
621:
605:
443:
106:
746:
542:
463:- Frankly, I get the feeling that Hugo's one of those articles that would not have secondary references
36:
472:
680:
410:
394:
330:
298:
51:
592:
580:
561:
727:
666:
433:
379:
364:
349:
334:
153:
84:
56:
584:
565:
523:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
745:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
538:
326:
684:
322:
468:
697:
692:
688:
708:
650:
519:
181:
169:
137:
237:
116:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
604:(XXG) where people come to enlighten themselves on new avenues of exploration.
537:
I would say keep, fairly esoteric language of a type I've not seen before.
683:, as it stood for the last year. What sources are being used here to prove
706:. According to the article history, other editors don't see them either.
556:
Many good games have been created with Hugo, so I'd say that's notable.
432:
The Rock, Paper, Shotgun source did not mention Hugo anywhere in it.
321:
I don't believe this interactive fiction programming language passes
739:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
79:
510:
relative to the size of the audience of that problem domain.
110:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
100:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
346:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
233:
229:
225:
297:
661:
Ah, that explains it. I was wondering how there was
325:. None of the cited sources are reliable, and only
311:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
753:). No further edits should be made to this page.
724:list of Video games-related deletion discussions
361:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
376:list of Software-related deletion discussions
130:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
722:Note: This debate has been included in the
374:Note: This debate has been included in the
359:Note: This debate has been included in the
344:Note: This debate has been included in the
721:
373:
358:
343:
104:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
579:: An editor has expressed a concern that
124:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
702:? Because I don't see them beneath the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
83:
1:
731:07:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
715:07:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
670:07:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
657:07:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
614:12:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
570:16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
547:10:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
528:09:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
477:22:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
452:12:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
437:21:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
403:21:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
383:20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
368:20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
353:20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
338:20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
120:on the part of others and to
69:07:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
681:Interactive_fiction#Software
331:Interactive fiction#Software
52:Interactive_fiction#Software
200:Hugo (programming language)
75:Hugo (programming language)
770:
742:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
520:Paul Robinson (Rfc1394)
162:; accounts blocked for
132:single-purpose accounts
102:policies and guidelines
634:few or no other edits
423:few or no other edits
333:, but it was undone.
685:significant coverage
636:outside this topic.
595:to this discussion.
425:outside this topic.
693:independent sources
558:Here's some of them
114:by counting votes.
93:not a majority vote
646:I smell canvassing
733:
701:
637:
596:
426:
385:
370:
355:
195:
194:
191:
118:assume good faith
761:
744:
713:
711:
695:
677:Restore redirect
655:
653:
619:
575:
408:
316:
315:
301:
253:
241:
223:
189:
177:
161:
145:
126:
96:, but instead a
87:
80:
34:
769:
768:
764:
763:
762:
760:
759:
758:
757:
751:deletion review
740:
709:
707:
663:no sockpuppetry
651:
649:
622:David Bothfield
606:David Bothfield
444:David Bothfield
258:
249:
214:
198:
179:
167:
151:
135:
122:sign your posts
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
767:
765:
756:
755:
735:
734:
718:
717:
674:
673:
672:
617:
616:
573:
572:
550:
549:
531:
530:
514:
513:
505:
504:
499:
498:
493:
492:
487:
486:
479:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
411:Lisatordis1981
406:
405:
395:Lisatordis1981
387:
386:
371:
356:
319:
318:
255:
193:
192:
88:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
766:
754:
752:
748:
743:
737:
736:
732:
729:
728:Ramaksoud2000
725:
720:
719:
716:
712:
705:
699:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
675:
671:
668:
667:Ramaksoud2000
664:
660:
659:
658:
654:
647:
643:
640:
639:
638:
635:
631:
627:
623:
615:
611:
607:
602:
599:
598:
597:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
532:
529:
525:
521:
516:
515:
511:
507:
506:
501:
500:
495:
494:
489:
488:
483:
480:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
453:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
435:
434:Ramaksoud2000
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
420:
416:
412:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
388:
384:
381:
380:Ramaksoud2000
377:
372:
369:
366:
365:Ramaksoud2000
362:
357:
354:
351:
350:Ramaksoud2000
347:
342:
341:
340:
339:
336:
335:Ramaksoud2000
332:
328:
324:
314:
310:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
264:
261:
260:Find sources:
256:
252:
248:
245:
239:
235:
231:
227:
222:
218:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:
187:
183:
175:
171:
165:
159:
155:
149:
143:
139:
133:
129:
125:
123:
119:
113:
109:
108:
103:
99:
95:
94:
89:
86:
82:
81:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
65:contributions
62:
58:
57:Jo-Jo Eumerus
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
741:
738:
687:in multiple
676:
641:
618:
600:
576:
574:
553:
534:
509:
481:
464:
460:
407:
390:
320:
308:
302:
294:
287:
281:
275:
269:
259:
246:
185:
173:
164:sockpuppetry
157:
146:; suspected
141:
127:
115:
111:
105:
97:
91:
50:redirect to
49:
47:
31:
28:
642:Dear closer
632:) has made
591:) has been
539:scope_creep
421:) has made
285:free images
704:refbombing
98:discussion
747:talk page
593:canvassed
491:endeavor.
154:canvassed
148:canvassed
107:consensus
37:talk page
749:or in a
689:reliable
630:contribs
589:contribs
465:recently
419:contribs
244:View log
186:username
180:{{subst:
174:username
168:{{subst:
158:username
152:{{subst:
142:username
136:{{subst:
39:or in a
581:Real NC
291:WP refs
279:scholar
217:protect
212:history
150:users:
482:Strong
323:WP:GNG
263:Google
221:delete
306:JSTOR
267:books
251:Stats
238:views
230:watch
226:links
128:Note:
16:<
710:czar
652:czar
626:talk
610:talk
601:Keep
585:talk
577:Note
566:talk
554:Keep
543:talk
535:Keep
524:talk
473:talk
469:🐈?
461:Wait
448:talk
415:talk
399:talk
391:Keep
299:FENS
273:news
234:logs
208:talk
204:edit
61:talk
679:to
612:)
562:RNC
475:)
450:)
327:one
313:TWL
242:– (
182:csp
178:or
170:csm
138:spa
112:not
726:.
691:,
665:.
648:.
644:,
628:•
620:—
587:•
568:)
560:.
545:)
526:)
417:•
409:—
401:)
378:.
363:.
348:.
293:)
236:|
232:|
228:|
224:|
219:|
215:|
210:|
206:|
188:}}
176:}}
166::
160:}}
144:}}
134::
67:)
63:,
700:)
698:?
696:(
624:(
608:(
583:(
564:(
541:(
522:(
471:(
446:(
413:(
397:(
317:)
309:·
303:·
295:·
288:·
282:·
276:·
270:·
265:(
257:(
254:)
247:·
240:)
202:(
190:.
184:|
172:|
156:|
140:|
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
