Talk:GodWars

Sources

The sources in this article honestly look pretty good to me... better than many wikipedia pages for sure. How much more reliable can one get when talking about online games anyway? Tagith 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. I've built some MU* articles up to three or four book cites without trying so hard as to hurt myself. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I'm adding the original research tag because the bulk of this article is based on primary sources. WP:PRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Out of 5 sources, 3 are primary (MUD connector article is written by Archon, admin of Vampire Wars, gaminghud.com is an interview, Google groups post has been created by KaVir DarkBlade.) The secondary sources are 1) a small line on raphkoster.com that says the code was illegally advertised, and 2) the linux.com article which is about God Wars II and not GodWars. EternalFlare (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Mud of the Month" article is not being cited for its content, but as proof that a GodWars mud was selected by the Mud Connector editors for an award of excellence. See http://www.mudconnect.com/motm "The muds that were chosen as TMC's mud of the month each illustrated examples of excellence and provided a sampling of the wide array of entertainment value that muds can and do offer, we proudly stand by these choices and offer the past motm pages in our archive".

Similarly, the text quoted from the GamingHUD gaming site is a comment from the editor, in the introduction, before the interview begins.

And finally the usenet post is not being cited for its content, but for its metadata, which can be considered reliable for proving mud was online at the given date. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/MUD#Usenet_.2F_Google_Groups KaVir (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the primary source is useful to know when the mud was online. However, the fact remains that the bulk of this article is not based on secondary sources. The sources are not just there for "proofs" from which you can build a text. The secondary sources need to provide "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." as per WP:PRIMARY EternalFlare (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty to find secondary sources perhaps indicates that GodWars is not very notable. So far, it seems that GodWars itself is only notable for being released unofficially, and this fact is mentioned in a huge article[1] like a side note, with no further explanation. I did an extended Google search about GodWars, but couldn't find anything. EternalFlare (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

EternalFlare, from your other edits, it is apparent that you have a lot of experience with and knowledge of MUDs and codebases. However, for someone with as much knowledge as you to even pretend that GodWars is not notable borders on dishonest. This is one of the most widely used independent codebases out there, and I've personally seen no less than fifty different servers based on it over the years.

If this article were about one of the non-notable codebases, such as the custom code that powers various pay sites, notability would be a valid question. If this article was about one of the codebases that are only notable due to the fraudulent actions of their developers, such as the ancient NiMUD/OLC scam, it would be a valid question. But this article is not about those things. It is about a widely referenced and cited public codebase with a nearly twenty year history, with a large number of servers based on it in use today, right now.

(As a side note, I do not agree with your removal of the NiMUD entry from the tree graph. The codebase itself was initially legitimate. The fraudulent and borderline illegal actions of Locke and the scams he later tried to push by claiming inappropriate authorship do not change its legitimacy before his involvement. IMHO it should probably have been left in the graph for completeness, as should have MAGMA.)

I am quite convinced at this point that you simply have some sort of vendetta against this page. You have been systematically disassembling and removing pieces of it, not with intent to constructively build it, but in such a fashion as to eventually destroy and remove it. Each of your edits seems plausible at first glance; but closer inspection reveals a pattern of using these smaller edits to remove or scatter important information in such a way that future removal of other pieces of the article will be easier. With the latest edits, I see that you have started removing references as well, now that you have reduced the main body of the article from one page to four short sentences.

In closing, I recommend you recuse yourself from making future edits to this page. I believe that you have some sort of hidden bias against it, and I do not feel it is appropriate for you to continue. Flying hazard (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Since I started editing GodWars, it looks more encyclopedic and professional, even if it's smaller. Quality > quantity. The original article [2] listed classes, in-game nicknames, and other technical details that matter deeply to the GodWars players but are meaningless or not interesting to external viewers (it mentioned sexual gameplay too). Read Eik Corell's comment here: Talk:The_Realm_Online. Trust me, bringing attention to an article will lead to it being better. This is how Wikipedia works. If I wished to harm it, the best strategy would be to ignore it. 2) The NiMUD article was voted non-notable, that's why it was deleted. You can research its deletion history. 3) You sound biased against custom codebases and commercial MUDs, yet edited The_Realm_Online article. 4) You sound angry at me. 5) You have lost credibility when you wrongly accused me of being Locke's sockpuppet. 6) Your vendetta against me pushed you to comment here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Horrible_source.3F, despite your self-admitted poor knowledge of Wikipedia rules [3]. I was asking for outside, neutral experienced users to help us, and now they are going to ignore it because they'll think that someone took care of it. 7) Further personal comments belong on my talk page, and please try to be nice and polite. Thank you. EternalFlare (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hierarchy of MUDs

I see that KaVir restored the source (http://lorry.org/arch-wizard/mudbase.txt), and wrote (in good faith) that "it cites five other works and is referenced by other articles". I still believe that all the content related to GodWars, which really is nothing more than linking (Godwars 95) and (Merc2) on a tree, comes from KaVir's personal page on pipex.com, because if the information came from a better source, the author wouldn't have needed to quote it. If I'm wrong, I believe that one of those other sources should be provided instead of lorry.org, to support KaVir's claim.

I had deleted this source because it's a lousy text file, and it's redundant: the link between Merc and GodWars is already made on the reliable source (http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/mudtimeline.shtml) with the text "GodWars, a Merc derivative codebase, is released unofficially.". EternalFlare (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's another tertiary (if not secondary) source, which includes information not covered in Koster's Online World Timeline. You added an Original Research tag to the article because you said it "is based on primary sources". I recommend addressing that before deleting any more secondary and tertiary sources as "redundant". KaVir (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the information from lorry.org that is used in the article GodWars but not found in Koster's Online World Timeline? I apologize if you think that I'm stupid. I addressed this issue because the point is not to add several sources that cover the same part of the text (namely that GodWars is derived from Merc), but to get most of the text covered by secondary (and tertiary) sources. EternalFlare (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Koster's Online World Timeline only mentions the original GodWars. The Hierarchy of MUDs shows that it is a family of codebases. This is eluded to later (with the mention of Vampire Wars) and should be sourced. KaVir (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, KaVir. I have asked for outside opinions here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Horrible_source.3F. Hopefully, this will settle the issue. EternalFlare (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The tertiary source "Hierarchy of MUDs" is cited as a reference in the Bibliography of Designing Virtual Worlds, where the author of the book (who is considered an expert on the subject) refers to it as "a later (but still not up-to-date) tree". The fact that it isn't up-to-date isn't important in this case, only the accuracy. Ref: http://www.mud.co.uk/dvw/bibliography.html KaVir (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot

Since I mentioned the MUSHclient interface, I believe it would be very appropriate to add a screenshot to the page (it should be added the MUSHclient page too). Don't use a screenshot from gaminghud.com without the author's permission, though. I suggest that we vote on the best looking one, since it will represent MUDs. IMO, the best screenshot from the article is the one taken from inside a dungeon (#4) on page 2. I don't like screenshots that show a brick wall, I think they are not so good looking. EternalFlare (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I can grant permission to use screenshots from here: http://godwars2.blogspot.com but if they need to come from the interview then GamingHUD would need to be contacted. KaVir (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. It would be best if you uploaded the image yourself; having another user get an "official" release would be messy. All you have to do is go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard (you can find this link in the "Toolbox" on the left side, btw), and when it asks you, say the work is your own. It's an easy 2 (or so) step process. You have to release the image to CC for use here, but it'll tell you all about that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The avatars with the four little squares in the bottom-right corner are from "all avatars", they're used with permission but I don't think I could explicitly re-release them under another licence, even just as part of a screenshot. The other artwork was created for the mud, so no problem there. Of the interview screenshots, only the first doesn't have an "all avatars" avatar (although the fourth screenshot could also be used, as the artist of the demon face is on the mud team). Does the screenshot need to be one of those used in the interview? KaVir (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The image can be whatever looks best. Images have different standards of sourcing than content (usually they don't need one at all); they're just visual aids.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There are other choices [4] of license. EternalFlare (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God_Wars_II_screenshot_of_dungeon_with_MUSHclient_plugin.png KaVir (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You should reupload the screenshot with a low resolution because this one stretches my screen. EternalFlare (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ordering of references

Regarding the rearranged resources: The GamingHUD interview does not establish derivation from Merc, but the Hierarchy of MUDs does (and also establishes use of the term "family"), so it might be worth moving. Also, while the Hierarchy of MUDs establishes that other muds have been derived from GodWars, it doesn't specify how many (the "30" figure is also somewhat misleading, as that's just how many were currently active in 2011) - perhaps replace "Over 30 MUDs" with "Other MUDs"? If that's too generic, the MudBytes link provides access to a large number of GodWars derivatives, which could perhaps cover a comment under WP:ABOUTSELF. KaVir (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Our usual process is to place sources in the body, not in the lead (which is supposed to summarize the body), and only at the ends of sentences, unless there is a contentious statement mid-sentence which needs a distinct citation. Our problem is that the article is so small that it doesn't really have a body, and our sources are so specific and short that it's hard to generalize them. If we expand the article, the problem will disappear. For the time being, if I moved a source to the wrong place, please feel free to correct me. I was mainly trying to make the text easier to read.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I dated the "over 30" sentence to 2011. Does that work? If we have a more recent figure, we could update it. I'm not opposed to removing the number either.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This (written by you) says more than 57 in 2000 and almost double that in 2001. With that in mind, I think we would be better using language that discussed its popularity without numbers (or get a recent source with a specific figure). By the way, your site should be ok for describing more about the MUD, as long as we don't rely too heavily on it or use promotional language.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The number of GodWars muds rocketed in the few years after its release, but then began to drop off. However the only source I can find is this one: http://sourcery.dyndns.org/mudstats/mudstats.html - and it only goes back as far as 2006 (when there were 84 GodWars muds). KaVir (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So, going by that, it looks like 30 or so is correct as of 2012 as well, unless I'm misreading it. We could discuss the popularity after its release and later decline. However, I'm afraid of introducing original research on the basis of a chart. How about a range: "Since 2000, between 28 and 84 derivatives of the God Wars code have been active." Does that work?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this reference. What is MUD Activity Charts? [Since 2000, between 28 and 84 derivatives of the God Wars code have been active. "MUD Activity Charts"]. If it's your analysis/summary of various charts, then it's original research. I suggest reverting the text to its previous (sourced) state until you figure something out. EternalFlare (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not original research to report the stats present on a chart. That said, I (embarrassingly) screwed up the url by simply repasting the text. Whoops. I fixed that now, thanks for pointing it out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, my point was simply that I found the wording "Over 30 MUDs have been derived from GodWars" to be misleading, as it suggests that there have only been "over 30" in total, when in fact that was just the number still active by August 2011. I agree that we don't have a good source for the total, or even the highest active at one time, but I think there's enough evidence to strongly suggest there have been more than 30 total in the last 15 years. I would propose either avoiding numbers, or else just mentioning that "over 30" were still active in August 2011, despite a decline over the years since its release (would the link be sufficient to demonstrate that?). KaVir (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on GodWars. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.cgi
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://gaminghud.com/articles/meet-the-devs-kavir-of-god-wars-ii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)