Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/MUD/Archive 1

message: So I made a taskforce. I had never done that before, so altough it is a (nice) try, it might be wrong.
:While we're at it, it might be worth making a list of external sites commonly cited by these articles (such as Mudconnector) and note if each one is reliable or not (per WP:SOURCE). Marasmusine 19:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Borderline' section are those that I don't think should be included in a mass nomination; either because they have some claim to notability, or I feel that there may be another reference out there that may tip the scales. Marasmusine 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taskforce

message: Some list like this could be used on the project page:
*http://www.mudconnector.com/ - A mud directory; entries are user submitted (so not independent), rankings by user-vote (so not reliable); therefore should not be used to assert notability. Mud of the Month reviews are possibly staff-written? 
*http://www.topmudsites.com/ – A mud directory; entries on their own are not enough to assert notability, but site also has staff-written reviews. Reviews appear to be not only not staff-written, but are sometimes written by admins of the games themselves.
etc. Marasmusine 06:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, eh, I'm not sure now. In fact this review shows the site cannot be used as a reliable source. The reviewer, Patch, is the "Head Immortal" at the game he's reviewing. Guess we can strike that site off the list. MarašmusïneTalk 17:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a concerning issue. If we can't establish the notability of a MUD via WP:N, does the MUD even belong here? Inability to satisfy WP:N generally means that the subject has few or no significant third-party mentions in reliable sources. If we exclude content from these two sites, it's unlikely the bulk of MUDs will have anything except primary-sourced content about how the game works. If this is the case, I suggest that the MUD simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. At best, it should be transwiki'd to, say, the MU* Wikia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At best, if a MUD has at least some WP:Reliable sources for verification, but not enough coverage for notability, then we can make a "List of MU*s" article (per "merging into broader article" @ WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines) Marasmusine (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, that's a thought, though my experience working on list articles is shaky. By the by, the official reviews at Mud Connector may qualify as reliable- that is, those at this address. They seem to be written by staff writers. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a couple of books on MUDs, but not recently, I don't think.  Playing MUDs on the Internet () was one that I picked up at Half Price Books at one point.  THAT book doesn't appear to be indexed by Google Books, unfortunately. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External sources

message: To whoever is listing GemStone IV as non-notable and actually nominated it for deletion, please be aware that this is the longest-running commercial MUD in the world, and that it's been written up in multiple books and newspapers.  For details, see the bottom of the page at Simutronics. --Elonka 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed it must be a massive typo, or vandalism--it seemed so absurd. There's no MUD out there more notable than GS. I suppose someone needs to go out and dig up some sources.... Marieblasdell 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First thing to do is to note these concerns on the AfD page. An AfD is not a deleted article yet. It may have been lack of sourcefinding from my side. There are more MUDs who claim the first commerical mud, but from my quick search, I didn't find any older ones (Avalon, the Legend Lives is indeed one year older younger *cough*). Martijn Hoekstra 22:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Martijn, I wasn't expecting these to be taken to AfD so quickly! Can we de-list them, as the 'non-notable' shortlist needs double checking, and perhaps organized into smaller chunks. Marasmusine 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Granted I'm biased as I've worked on it, but IMO DragonRealms also has considerable notability, per the references at the bottom of the Simutronics article. Such as being the subject of a writeup in Inc. magazine. --Elonka 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, agreed. Article certainly requires a cleanup though (large chunks of it are unreferenced, Criticisms for example) Marasmusine 16:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in complete agreement that the article needs some serious cleanup. Anything that isn't referenced, or is only referenced to a message forum, should be pulled out. --Elonka 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Now that the AfD fiasco is over, I'll tag the articles in the non-notable list with unreferenced/notability tags, then we can go through them one by one and make an attempt at cleaning them up. And take them to individual AfD's if necessary. Marasmusine 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am indeed sorry for providing such a hassle, and waste of time, for you and other wikipedians. I'll guess I'll just start improving the articles. Some sources could be found for many. Notability will still stay an issue, but I'm not really sure how to solve that. Martijn Hoekstra 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sort of. We need good sources for MUD related references. Perhaps old gaming magazines. If anyone has access to the back catalogue of Flagship magazine, that would be the jackpot. In the meantime, tidy up/remove unreferenced/unnotable material. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Onwards

message: Is this task force still active?  I don't see any recent activity. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of. We need good sources for MUD related references. Perhaps old gaming magazines. If anyone has access to the back catalogue of Flagship magazine, that would be the jackpot. In the meantime, tidy up/remove unreferenced/unnotable material. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do we go from here

message: This page and its parent (WP:WP MMO), as well as MMO's subpages, are nommed for Miscellany for deletion. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games. If this project is truly active, you may want to take the road of becoming a TF of VG rather than MMO. --Izno (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up.  This was done successfully. Jclemens (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD 

message: Over on WT:VG we're discussing the organization of the project and its taskforces.  This taskforce seems pretty inactive.  Is it necessary?  Should it be deleted? —  Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Active?  Not terribly.  Deleted?  No good reason to.  There are those of us who still read this page, even if development on MUD-related articles is declining in line with their overall popularity. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it's a valid taskforce, and I've been working aggressively on bringing its resources up to spit-and-polish maintenance state.  I'd like to keep it. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct? 

message: After working on the MUME article in the incubator enough that I'm satisfied that notability is demonstrated and its content issues are at least dramatically reduced, I've put it up for evaluation for return to mainspace.  If anyone would like to evaluate it, has concerns or anything to add, or better yet can add more citations to it, that'd be lovely. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Article Incubator/MUME|MUME incubation]] up for eval 

message: I propose renaming this task force to MUD task force, for reasons the MU* article outlines: counterintuitively, MUD is the more inclusive term.  Anyone who's interested, please comment.  (On a sidebar, I'd also suggest that if you care enough to comment, possibly you should add yourself to the task force member list so I'm not so lonesome on it. ;) —chaos5023 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: this has now been done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose rename MU* task force to MUD task force

message: I've been brushing off my Wikipedia skills and, hopefully, have an understanding of how things operate here again. The Task Force seems to have died down a little bit, but I think the biggest concern is finding and obtaining the old paper sources and references for some of the oldest MUDs.  Should we pick a MUD to start working on?  I've got searches going for Artic Mud references, but I'm finding very little in the paper sources.  I remember reading some article in an old gaming magazine but can't for the life of me remember where.  Anyone happen to read the same source and can point in the right direction?  Any names at all will help me with the search. Kallimina (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely can't help you with Arctic.  Did what I could.  As far as stuff to work on goes, if there are any improvements you could make to the MUME incubation I posted about above, that'd be lovely.  It's been languishing in the incubator, with notability pretty clearly established as far as I can tell, for quite some time now. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revving up the Task Force

message: I'm mobile at the moment, but someone should check outhttp://mobile.pcmag.com/device2/article.php?mid=&CALL_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcmag.com%2Farticle2%2F0%2C2817%2C2370006%2C00.asp to see if we can use it to source or expand upon some stuff. 62.140.137.105 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty useless.  Slides about MUDs and MUSHes that rehash very general information; slide about MUDs has a passing mention of CthulhuMUD, but nothing that would contribute to notability.  Slide on The Realm Online conceivably useful for that article, since it's almost unsourced, but despite the state of the article I don't think that topic is short on available sources out there.  Thanks for the pointer, though, definitely was worth a look. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, MUSH slide has a passing mention of CaveMUSH, equally unhelpful for purposes of creating an article. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  source material 

message: Alternate character was recently moved to Alternative character; proposal to move it back is at Talk:Alternative character#Move back to Alternate character. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move [[Alternative character]] back to [[Alternate character]] 

message: As the MCCP and MXP articles are stub-class on their own, and there is little we can do to go into detail other than explicitly listing the syntax and specific telnet negotiations, I'd like to propose the merger of these two protocol pages.
In addition to this, if we can find appropriate resources for MSP (which would likely be stub-class on its own, as well, but is referenced in the Comparison_of_MUD_clients article), we would be able to add details about it without generating another stub-class article.
The MXP and MCCP pages are both lacking in specifics, but should we even go into that? The only references I could find for MCCP were on the Tintin++ website (which details MCCP2, specifically), basics on one of Nick Gammon's MUSHclient documentation pages, a link to the now defunct randomly.org on Tintin++'s, MUSHClient's, and a copy of the randomly.org documentation http://www.zuggsoft.com/zmud/mcp.htm here.
I would post links to the tintin++ and MUSHclient websites, but I currently cannot retrieve them.
Kairuni (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Merge MCCP, MXP articles into 'MUD Related Protocols' or a similar title. 

message: Erwin S. Andreasen, of http://www.andreasen.org/, is a long-time participant in and prolific contributor to the MUD community.  I believe him to be broadly considered an expert in the area.  It's also recently come to my attention that he was published in The Mud Companion #1.  This raises the possibility of considering him a "published expert" on MUDs as considered in WP:SPS, which would mean that his self-publications could be considered reliable in the MUD topic area.  While this isn't a broad publication history being cited here, it's also plain fact that one does not demonstrate expertise in MUDs by publication, one demonstrates it by contribution to the community's collective knowledge base, which Mr. Andreasen has clearly done extensively.  So I think it perfectly reasonable to minimally satisfy the letter of Wikipedia's "publication" criterion rather than dwelling on it as if publication history had the same weight as for, say, a college professor.
Therefore I propose that we consider Erwin S. Andreasen a published expert in the topic area of MUDs and add notes to that effect to the main task force page.
* Support as proposer. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to consider Erwin S. Andreasen a "published expert" on MUDs as considered in [[WP:SPS]] 

message: I have created the article "Aardwolf (MUD)". Please expand it as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aardwolf 

message: I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include redirecting all task force talk pages, including this one), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect this talk page as part of task force cleanup