Talk:Star Wars MUSH

message: This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Wars MUSH/first nomination.  There was no consensus.  dbenbenn | talk 15:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there was, it was to delete. Don't lie. --Spinboy 17:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in your own best interests, Spinboy, to refrain from making false accusations and personal attacks.  Upon reviewal of the VfD discussion there was clearly NO consensus with a vote of 4 keeps and 4 deletes.  --GRider\talk 19:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted 5 to delete, (including my nomination, that counts as a vote) and 3 to keep at the time. Your vote came after the page was archived. --Spinboy 19:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be it 4:4 or 5:3, neither one fit the definition of a consensus.  A concensus would be 6:3 or greater.  In this particular instance, there is clearly none. --GRider\talk  19:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it has 50%+1 of the vote, it should be purged. --Spinboy 19:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you so hot to delete this? Moralis 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD consensus dispute 

message: I've thrown this page onto the MU* Games category, because it matches what else is there -- the only question I have, mostly driven by the fact a similar article of mine was removed last week, is whether or not this should be listed on wikipedia? I'm not the owner of this mush, and am on good terms with the HW (Minkar), so I'm not about to propose it as a vfd. I'm just not sure to what extent muds/mushes should be listed, and where the perception for whether a game is historical or significant enough to be listed. I don't want this to sound like a case of sour grapes, but where is the line drawn?
Sure, there's information listed on the history and evolution of the idea, but every site has that. My own has six years of history behind it, so it's hardly a flash in the pan. I don't want this to sound like a rant, though. Just trying to understand the process :)
--Tarison 05:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it encyclopedic?

message: I removed the note about Brak Sector being 'more successful' than the original other fractures from SW1, because it's very much based on point of view. SW2 (A New Threat) ran from the split, up until late 2004. Minos Cluster stayed till at least early 2001, when it changed its theme (though I can't recall exactly which name it assumed), and lasted for 1-2 years afterwards.
From what I recollect, Brak closed for a time (not sure when, though I'm inclined to say prior to 2000. It reopened in 2003, though I'm not sure that it is still open now -- hardly what you would call 'more successful', next to the others. I think it's better we don't get bias into the article, though. There are a lot of other 'spin-offs' that reach back to the original, whether they spun off others or not. --Tarison 07:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update. The phrasing wasn't a result of bias, as I've never played any of the spin-offs, just a bad use of language. Moralis 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Spin offs 

message: I've put back the section on the history of the game, which was deleted as 'POV crap,' on the basis that it's all factual. If someone would like to delete it again and explain why this time, I won't argue with their decision. Meanwhile, as far as I've been able to tell through research, SW1 was the first game to incorporate the features touched on, which pretty much refutes any allegations that the section was 'POV-based'. I have changed the wording of the article to sound less biased in the direction of the game; however, given several complaints over time regarding the article's lack of content I'm wondering why certain people are so devoted to deleting new sections in their entirety without explanation. Moralis 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "Historical Significance" 

message: I have been very upset that the two pages listed above were nominated for deletion - both 30 seconds after creation, yet they have significant historical significance.  I believe that the first of something and the most popular of something grant automatic notoriety, just like how Star Wars MUSH was the first ever MUSH with a star wars theme.  I agree that this page deserves to stay.
I compiled the above pages as part of doing a history of talkers, because they form a major part in the development of talkers, and, secondly, in its transition from talkers through to instant messenger services such as ICQ.  However, someone nominated it for deletion, and then made all sorts of false assertions about it, insisting it was non notable.
The Planes of existence talker has been closed for 2 years, and has not been popular since 1999, and was really only a major cultural influence for 2 years - from 1997-1998 - although it did influence the creation of zoo code in 1996.  However, one of the scandals there was a major part in destroying the talker community, and was subsequently used by Yahoo! messenger which in and of itself asserts notoriety.  
Some people have said that an extinct chat site has no notoriety, but if that is the case, then I dare someone to Vfd Cat Chat (talker), the first ever talker on the internet.  They also suggested that Alexa ratings were relevant, when talkers are not web sites and are not generally rated by Alexa.  The fact that Sleepy's multiple worlds, the first spin off from lintilla, is now the 3rd most popular talker (according to Alexa), the most popular NUTS talker and the most popular adult-orientated talker suggests that its original form, lintilla, is also notable.
Now, Star Wars MUSH, as you said, had 22 users online.  Lintilla at its peak had only 80.  But PoE had 300 on at a time.  What is the level in order to assert notoriety?  300 is not the most popular in history.  I think that the record is out around 2,000 somewhere, probably by either Surfers (talker) or Resort (talker).  What's the level?
The thing is, and this is how I look at this.  Could you legitimately do a school report on it?  I don't mean making some obscure book about it or something.  Wikipedia is used a lot by school students to do reports.  I say yes.
If you asked some kids "Tell me why talkers came about, and why they disappeared, and what they were", you could not answer that question without referencing planes of existence.  You could possibly answer it without referencing lintilla, but only if you stuck with ew-too talkers and stuck with all ages talkers.  Otherwise you'd have to mention it.
Now, I would assert that students could feasibly be asked a question like that, and henceforth that it has validity to remain in an encylopaedia.
Similarly, kids could be asked a question like "Tell me about how Star Wars influenced internet culture" and you would have to include Star Wars MUSH in the answer.  
I think that these kinds of things have some kind of debate, but once we have established that an individual site can remain, I think that we have to see that as policy, and allow them all to remain.
In my opinion, as soon as we allowed an article called Talker to exist, we had to include Planes of existence (chat site) and Lintilla (chat site).
You certainly can't call it vanity when the place has been closed for 2 years.  Nor advertising.
Zordrac 19:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vfd this vs Vfd for [[Planes of existence (chat site)]] and [[lintilla (chat site)]] 

message: I asked and was told that this MUSH uses a custom space system, and was curious if it's important enough to be noted in the article? I should think it would be, but I haven't played the game very much.. Zalethon 16:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  space system