Talk:List of text-based massively multiplayer online role-playing games

message: This theme seems to cause some confusion. there's a need of definition on:
* browser-based MMORPG (which can be graphical or text-based)
* MUD
* MOO
* Post by Post MMORPG (PBPRPG) - seemingly also called Online Text Based MMORPG (OTBRPG)
* Turn Based MMORPG
--Waldir 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. Some of these games have graphics-OGame appears to be nearly entirely graphical, and most of the games have minimal graphics. There is a large difference between one of the classic MUD-style games which usually have a telnet interface (and possibly a browser version) and browser based games. Also, some of these games, like CyberNations, hardly seem to belong in the MMO category any more then the vast majority of facebook games.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.113.118 (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme 

message: I'm not an expert on MMORPGs, but I don't think Scrabble Deluxe and Extreme Boggle fall into that category... Permanent Nubbeh 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with you on that one. --Ariadoss 01:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are any of those games MMORPGs? If not let's remove the link. --Waldir 23:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a couple of Scrabble games, an amalgamation of Bingo and slots, Poker, Boggle, Mahjong, a dice game, and a stone-matching game. I've removed the link. Permanent Nubbeh 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funkitron Games 

message: I suggest renaming the list as List of text-based MMORPGs, to comply with the Wikipedia policies. -- ReyBrujo 12:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Waldir 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved the page. -- ReyBrujo 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: I don't think it really makes sense to include non-English sites in an English Wikipedia article. Any opinions on this? --Ariadoss 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they aren't used as reference, or aren't extremely notable, they should not really be included. If they have a Wikipedia page in their native language, it may qualify to be include here, but it is not a sufficient proof, as critery may vary. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign languages 

message: Merge this to the list of MMORPGs article? Tarinth 23:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I also have a question about this. Is there a certain process to undergo to get an MMORPG added to the list? --69.142.169.194 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Is it ok to post links to MMORPGs that we play? I want to know that it's ok before posting the link.
--Heruur 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have a question about this. Is there a certain process to undergo to get an MMORPG added to the list? --69.142.169.194 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting of MMORPG 

message: Hi everyone. I'm just wondering what the minimum player count and fan base is to be allowed to create an article - and subsequently into the exclusive MMORPG listings. I have my description all written out - just waiting for the time when Wikipedia decides to allow a small minority of people describe their game without it being called 'blatant advertising'. Thanks Azoundria 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEB should tell you all you need to know. Your player count and fan base doesn't matter; it's all about the amount of third-party coverage of the game - if there are significant published works about the game (newspaper articles or academic essays or whatever) which are independent of the site itself, then it's notable enough to get its own Wikipedia article. --McGeddon 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just be a successful game, whatever that means, and wait for newspapers or academics to start writing about it because of that success. You should also wait for someone else to create a Wikipedia article about your game, rather than creating one yourself. If your game really is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, it'll get coverage and someone creating an article for it in no time. --McGeddon 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does my game count? 

message: I think that belongs here. The site where its at is http://www.medievaldarkness.com  LordSkane 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All games on this list still need to be notable and still need to be verifiable. If you can provide the sources for this, then make a stub article and then add it to this list. Marasmusine 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval Darkness 

message: I think this page should probably include text-based MMORPGs and MUDs to resolve any problems there. It should also make sure games included fit the criteria of a Computer role-playing game, not other genres such as strategy wargames. All computer games, especially online ones contain some element of roleplay. Just because you play the role of Master-Chief doesn't make Halo 3 an RPG.--ZayZayEM 06:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text based MMORPGs and MUDs 

message: Wikipedia is largest text-based MMORPG. --147.229.203.30 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is missing 

message: Are we open to the possibility of listing games that don't quite meet the WP:GNG standards for having a stand-along article, for example a game that might only have one item of significant coverage instead of multiple (per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3) This is in light of the recent Threshold AfD. Obviously such entries will still have to adhere to WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  If it's got an article, it's in.  If it's got a section in another article, which is quite permissible under WP:NNC, I would still call that OK.  My main objection to indiscriminate additions is that they are often added by completely NN games just starting out in an attempt to attract a following.  Threshold doesn't seem to fit that bill at all. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the standard I usually go by is either 1. a reliable source or 2. an actual article (which should theoretically meet #1). I'd say that most "has a section in another article" games should also meet #1, but I'd argue we not include those which aren't ultimately sourced. Of course, any supporting reference in the other article should be added here as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing not-quite-notable games 

message: Battleknight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.78.155 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing one