Jump to content

Talk:Multi-user dungeon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Real Time?

What is meant by real time? Go to the page the word links to. I think y'all mean something else. Jlambert (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the sense Scandum is getting at is best understood as "as opposed to turn-based" — that is, the same sense of "real-time" that "real-time tactics" and "real-time strategy", which have nothing to do with the "real-time computing" concepts they supposedly reference, use. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I read those articles as well, and I am not convinced they really describe muds like the terms "multiplayer" and "virtual worlds" most certainly do. I might suggest "interactive multiplayer virtual worlds", although I wouldn't link "interactive" to the wiki page here either. Jlambert (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I would personally call the timing model of 99% of MUDs "tick-based" rather than "real-time". I'm not sure whether the gaming usage of "real-time" as meaning "not turn based" is broad enough to encompass MUDs or not. I can see arguments either way. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and link Time-keeping_systems_in_games instead which covers the real-time concept in games a lot better. --Scandum (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SHADES

Does anyone know more about this game? It probably deserves its own article. 2fort5r (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably does, yes; I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/MUD#Articles for creation. The real work, of course, is finding the reliable third-party coverage of it to work from. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, here's one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=1584504595. What I'm able to get out of Google Books is: "That player was Neil Newell. His world offered players something that other worlds didn't — privacy. "I'd say the 'cybersex' emerged on Shades simply ..." So it looks like there's some coverage there. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Selective Sourcing?

Seems kind of silly to use sub par sources to make claims that we know not to be true. MUD stands for Multi-User Dungeon, so I suggest to revert the recent changes by Chaos5023 and mention the MU* backronyms in the TinyMUD section as per Bartle's comments on it in Designing Virtual Worlds. --Scandum (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Having just been schooled by an admin in the fact that what I know is less than worthless (all that matters being what I can source), the idea of going by what we "know", as lowly subject matter experts, seems vaguely hilarious. Bitterness aside, though, I'm not sure that I know any such thing. This is to say, I don't know whether Trubshaw's version of the acronym should be privileged above all others by reason of having written a program whose name became a generic term, or whether the backronyms are, if not equally, at least comparably, valid as representative of elements of the will of the MUD community -- significant enough elements that I was able to source the alternate expansions. Does Roy Trubshaw own the expansion of "MUD" forever, or, once it is cast out into the marketplace of ideas, does it become malleable? I dunno. Maybe we should talk about it. —chaos5023 (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Several sources confirm the official acronym for MUD. To deal with the backronyms the Wikipedia way you'd cite the best secondary sources that directly address the existence of the backronyms. What you did is typically called original research; drawing a conclusion based on (but not shared by) the sources, that is, that there are multiple valid acronyms for MUD. As far as I can tell Bartle's statements on the issue come closest to the truth, though it's hard to tell how prejudiced he is, but it's still better than having no credible secondary source at all. --Scandum (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That seems a bit strong for anything I did in the article. I didn't write any interpretation, just presentation. My interpretation is mostly in this sad-ass rename proposal. But what I'm asking you about isn't about the Wikipedia Way, it's about the issue of whether you, I and the guy down the street should consider Multi-User Dimension and Multi-User Domain to have any validity -- real-world validity, not Wikipedia verifiability. Me, I consider Bartle entirely credible on the topic of what the name of the original game, MUD, stood for. I just don't know that that game, inspiration though it was, has any authority over other games, or (for example) whether Joe Heart who opens FunHappySocialMUD and declares that the MUD in it stands for "Multi-User Dimension" because he thinks dungeons are creepy, is, in fact, correct. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Right now the impression is given that there are multiple valid acronyms. It's my opinion that the mention of Dimension and Domain should go in the TinyMUD section, as the insistence on calling it MU* is strongest in that section of the community. --Scandum (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Right; what I'm asking for is some examination of whether there are multiple valid acronyms, instead of "Bartle says Trubshaw's MUD was an acronym of Multi-User DUNGEN, therefore MUD stands for Multi-User Dungeon now and forever". Not feeling like that's going to be forthcoming, though. What would the cite be for Bartle on the topic in Designing Virtual Worlds? —chaos5023 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Richard Bartle (2003). Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders. pp. 741. ISBN 0131018167. "TinyMUD was deliberately intended to be distanced from the prevailing hack-and-slay AberMUD style, and the "D" in its name was said to stand for "Dimension" (or, occasionally, "Domain") rather than "Dungeon;" this is the ultimate cause of the MUD/MU* distinction that was to arise some years later." --Scandum (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. That's a good quote to have on the topic. The question is what to do with it. I'm going to state a position that supports leaving Dimension and Domain where they are, and adding that quote to the cite for Dimension: "We should represent the Dimension and Domain acronym expansions as having comparable validity to the Dungeon expansion, because they obtain this validity from their adoption. That is, when a MUD owner or codebase author declares that the MUD in the name of his or her work stands for something other than Dungeon, his or her choice is not overridden by Roy Trubshaw's choice for his project called "MUD". Now, this isn't to say we need to list a potentially unlimited number of versions, but we should list those that are sufficiently popular that sources can be found indicating them as expansions for MUD, which is the case with Dimension and Domain." I'm not necessarily married to that position, but I think it's a valid argument and I'd like to hear something contraindicating it before we kick Dimension and Domain down to a footnote. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole MU* thing happened around 1992 or something, possibly later, while the History section begins in 1975. Not to mention there are no good sources arguing the relevance of the backronyms. Anyways, I don't really have time for this, so I'll leave y'all to it. --Scandum (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Mmmkay. My current thought is that Multi-User Dungeon should be noted as the original acronym and, while not dismissing the others from validity entirely, it should be clear that they aren't of the same antiquity. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? —chaos5023 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Edited to that effect. IMO it gives proper pride of place to Dungeon while acknowledging Dimension and Domain. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, contrary to Playing MUDs on the Internet being a sub-par source, Bartle thought it was good enough to cite it on page 11 of DVW. Just sayin'. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As Bartle describes it, it's a naming issue that arose 20 years after the creation of MUD, and only inside the TinyMUD branch of the genre. While noteworthy I don't think it's worth intro space and doesn't give a neutral view due to undue prominence - I find it comparable to somehow merging a mention of Simutronics in the opening line, even though Simutronics is more note worthy. I also moved the section about graphical MUDs out of the intro as I don't think it's all that important to a genre that is almost exclusively geared toward text gaming. As such I also simplified the intro once more calling MUDs multiplayer real-time virtual worlds described primarily in text, as I don't know of any notable MUDs that aren't real time, or aren't primarily described in text. I think this'll give people new to the subject a clear technical description of what a MUD is in the first line. --Scandum (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I strenuously disagree with basically all of that. The non-"Dungeon" versions of the acronym may possibly have come from Tinyfolk, but it was in no way limited to them, and not only can I cite numerous sources referencing them with no regard at all to the Tiny context, I already did. It's very hard for me to see these edits as other than a case of marginalizing anything associated with the Tiny family, especially with comments like how Simutronics is more notable than same — when the Tiny family, because of the favor it found in academia, has more RS coverage than the rest of mudding put together. I've said this to you elsewhere before, but it's possibly even more important on Wikipedia than when you're writing up a "MUD Server Status Protocol" that doesn't recognize that MUDs other than DikuMUDs exist: you really need to poke your head out of Diku land once in a while and notice that the type of MUD you're personally invested in isn't actually the One True MUD Family to which all others are footnotes. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant a mention of Simutronics would be more noteworthy than mentioning the backronyms created in the nineties. I'm confused by your remark about MSSP, MSSP acknowledges TinyMUD, while mudstats.com (for example) lists every major mud family except DikuMUD (which I find more so hilarious than offending). I've observed that people in the TinyMUD branch have a strong desire to dissociate themselves from the MUD genre as a whole, while this isn't the case the other way around, see the dispute where a TinyMUD playing wikipedia editor insisted that MU*s not be listed alongside MUDs on Wikipedia for example.
So to a degree this dispute is whether TinyMUD has "changed" the MUD acronym to such a degree and with such importance that it must be mentioned in the opening line? I personally think that it's an interesting aspect of what's going on in the TinyMUD branch, but I don't think the tiny identity crisis is relevant enough for the introduction. --Scandum (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you never could hear me about the MUDPROGS and MUDTRIGS in MSSP. As to the nature of the dispute, I suppose you could construct it that way. The way I would construct it is that I personally saw these alternate expansions receive wide community adoption, completely irrespective of (and generally with no knowledge of) their reported origins in the Tiny branch, and that I see this extensively backed up in sources, so I really don't feel it's appropriate to make them a footnote to the MU* nonsense. And sure, no question, TinyFolk are at least as passionate about holding up their noses and going "eww combat games" as Diku people are about holding up their noses and going "eww social games"; see this edit for some prior commentary. The fact that they want to go all Winston Smith with their environments' technical and cultural derivation doesn't mean that should be indulged, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Those two MSSP variables were dropped from the spec, and if I recall correctly, at the time no one seemed to care to discuss a good cross-family alternative. Probably better to discuss MSSP over at MudBytes though.
On the issue, all sources clearly indicate that 'multi-user dungeon' is the correct acronym, all others are backronyms and their importance is subjective, their origin elusive. --Scandum (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, they don't. I have sources that say unequivocally that it stands for 'multi-user dimension', others that say 'multi-user domain', and I've even seen (not sure I own it) 'multi-user dialogue' and, I think, one that was even weirder that I can't recall. I agree that to give real outliers like 'dialogue' more than a footnote would be undue weight, but 'dimension' and 'domain' aren't crank positions held by some fringe, they're alternatives that saw widespread and enthusiastic adoption. And while Bartle is entirely credible about the acronym's origins, neither he nor Trubshaw own the acronym, to be able to say what it stands for forever; Bartle himself ensured that when he decided he wanted to allow the term to be a generic rather than helping his corporate overlords at CompuServe enforce a trademark on it. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen Multi-User Dragon a few times. My own experience was that a lot of people were poorly informed about the correct acronym. I don't think the backronyms are very popular nowadays, I'll create a poll on TMS to find out. --Scandum (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Multi-User Discourse, that was it, the weird one. (Academics used to get so enthusiastic with their MOOs. Adorable, really.) Multi-User Dominion pops up now and again too. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Check this out. On page 31 of Interactive Internet: The Insider's Guide to MUDs, MOOs, and IRC, ISBN 1-55958-748-2, Bartle (not the author, there's a quote block that seems to be an essay he contributed) says that he believes Multi-User Dungeon to be a backronym: "Since Roy's program was to be a multi-user game of the type typified by ADVENT and DUNGEN, he thought the name ought to reflect that fact, so the "Dungeon" part refers to DUNGEN. That's the story, anyway; personally, I think Roy just liked the acronym MUD and then looked around for something the D could stand for." I cannot presently find this other than completely hilarious. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon

According to the book Dungeons and Dreamers, the name "Dungeon" was actually actively under consideration to become the official title for Zork until the developers consulted some lawyers and determined that it might be too close to the Dungeons & Dragons trademark and opted to retain the working title instead. I don't think the name was simply made up by whoever ported the game to FORTRAN. SharkD  Talk  20:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested rename/move

I suggest renaming/moving this article to Multi-user dungeon. I don't see any good reason to use the abbreviation for the page title. It's not a trademark or anything. SharkD  Talk  09:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was proposed, discussed and rejected above. Jlambert (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(Now archived.) —chaos5023 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Automated MiszaBot talk archiving

I'd like to configure MiszaBot archiving for this talk page, probably with the same parameters as at Talk:Talker. Any objections or other thoughts? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Proceeding... —chaos5023 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Reclassify BBS MUDs as codebases/server software?

A question recently came up at Template talk:MUDs as to whether the BBS-based MUDs that ran in multiple, unrelated instances should be classed as "MUD games/instances", as they are currently, or as "MUD server software/codebases". This would affect Scepter of Goth, Fazuul, Swords of Chaos, and MajorMUD. If we decided to treat them as codebases, then they would be moved from Category:MUD games to Category:MUD servers, removed from Chronology of MUDs (until and unless that list's inclusion criteria were modified to include codebases, which is not necessarily a bad idea), and moved around in {{MUDs}}. (And their titles would no longer be italicized.)

This seems sensible on the face of it, to me. Treating these software packages the same way as we treat individual persistent worlds has never quite made sense to me. So, let's see if some discussion can be drummed up around the idea.

I propose that we reclassify Scepter of Goth, Fazuul, Swords of Chaos, and MajorMUD as "MUD server software" rather than "MUD games".

  • Support as argued, though there's an argument to be made that these codebases are MUD Libs, with Major BBS functioning as a MUD Driver. That may be the best way to go about it. --Scandum (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Wow, I'm really on the fence about that. If I understand how MajorBBS works, it's handling telecom, which is a MUD driver sort of thing, but on the other hand it doesn't provide a lot of support functionality, and the MUD software definitely isn't running with MajorBBS as an underlying virtual machine, it's running directly on hardware. Scepter of Goth is a fly in the ointment, too; it didn't run under MajorBBS in the first place (Swords of Chaos is its MajorBBS port), and it's described as accepting connections directly itself, which puts it squarely in the "server software" box. All in all, I think "server software" is still the direction to go. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If Major BBS doesn't function as a virtual machine then server software seems the logical choice. --Scandum (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure it doesn't. The language at Category:Major BBS games strongly indicates that modules are native-code libraries that were originally statically linked, with dynamic linking coming along later in the game. Seems very unlikely that linking would ever have been an issue if modules were VM code of any kind. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the correct category would be "MUD servers" (there is no "MUD server software" category), but I'm not sure if a BBS game would be considered the same as a "typical" MUD, but by definition any multi-player text adventure type game could be considered to be a "MUD" of sorts. The problem here is that if we open the doors to multi-player BBS games like MajorMUD for instance, then do we have to include other multi-player MajorBBS adventure games like Kyrandia, Quest for Magic, etc? Currently what we define as "MUDs" are limited to stand alone text adventure based network game servers. --Thoric (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A "MUD codebases" category would do the trick. --Scandum (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "MUD servers" was the category I specified in my initial post, yeah. I'm a bit dubious of "MUD codebases" because that language is somewhat, if not heavily, partisan to one part of the MUD community, and the way we use the term is at odds with what Wikipedia understands a codebase to be. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Since they already had a natural grouping, I made a subcat for them, Category:BBS MUD servers. Next todo, I think, is a Chronology of MUD servers parallel to Chronology of MUDs. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

does a significant minority of MUDs have true location grid?

I don't know for sure the answer to this, but I am guessing that "no". IMHO this is a salient MUD "feature" from the standpoint of people today who are used to modern location oriented worlds like first person shooter, Second Life or real time strategy. Meanwhile in MUDs I visited there is the notion of "room" but there is no built-in notion of different coordinate locations inside that room. Instead location changes might be implied via custom actions like "approach dragon" or "run towards window". 76.119.30.87 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No. 99.9% of MUDs track location solely via a directed graph where vertices are called "rooms" and edges are called "exits". Tracking of coordinate location inside a room is even more rare than tracking of coordinate location for the room in general. —chaos5023 (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Kind of. BSX-MUD (http://www.lysator.liu.se/mud/bsxmud.html) had coordinate system inside "rooms", so players could make micro-movements within a room and that would be visible on the screen. Some rooms had features that activated when player moved to the right coordinates, for example to "fall in a hole". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.19.131 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(Complete wikipedia newb, so sorry if I'm doing this wrong). Avalon uses an in-room grid for their RTS-ish warfare system (eg each room has a n, ne, e, se, ec quadrant that military units can occupy/face/assault/etc). Given that game's age and influence, it's likely been mimicked in other MUDs. Lithermia used the concept for their milita combat. Jjloraine (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Splattered edit summary on revert

My comment on this revert was supposed to be "it's not a paraphrase of that article at all, much less a close one". —chaos5023 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

From the edit:

In an online world that focuses on visual experiences, text-based MUDs rely on an interface practically designed for screen readers.

From this link:

...in a gaming world focused on visual experiences, text-based MUDs relied on an interface practically designed for screen readers...

That's a close paraphrase, too close to include in the article that way. Moreover, the rest of it is completely unsourced, and seems to give undue weight to something that reliable sources do not, which is another reason why it was reverted. Third, the external links added are questionable; this one is borderline promotional and this one similarly fails WP:ELNO in that a dropbox account isn't the sort of thing that we need to link to, not least of all because such a link isn't exactly stable over time. - Aoidh (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't suppose you considered editing the single sentence that closely resembles something in the source you raise rather than trashing the entire edit, which discusses multiple points that are nowhere in evidence in that source (such as the specific software JAWS, VIP-Mud and MUSHclient and the techniques of sound triggers and aliases)? I'd also like to note that the officious, DO THIS DON'T DO THAT RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH tone of your most recent edit summary, as well as your deployment of boilerplate warnings against someone who has fewer reverts in the situation than you do, are purely laughable and you might want to go find somebody who has fewer than eight years on Wikipedia to attempt to pull that on. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You can't pull the "I've been on Wikipedia for eight years" card if you don't follow the simple concept that if an edit is reverted, it is discussed rather than continuously reinserted into the article while ignoring the talk page that explained why it was reverted, which someone who seems to think that the length of time they've been editing is relevant shouldn't try to "pull". This is especially true when it is an issue with legal considerations, it's much better to err on the side of caution and get a consensus before reinserting it. It is a serious issue, hence the tone and the warning, since you seemed keen to revert rather than check the talk page. When you complain about the tone of another editor while simultaneously referring to their edits as "purely laughable", it comes across as a bit disingenuous to say the least. The close paraphrasing is one issue of several, that is why I didn't just reword that one sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Holy crap, dude, I reverted you a whopping twice and opened a talk thread. I think you're jumping the gun a little on voting me off the island. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, for someone concerned about "tone", yours isn't exactly model with comments like that. You restored a copyright violation twice, ignoring the talk page discussion which explained the reasoning, and acted offended when you were warned against that while also attacking the edits you were reverting. There was no "jumping the gun"; you asked a question and I gave you an answer. - Aoidh (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

MUDs vs. MMORPGS

I notice that an MMORPG company is trying to leverage MUDs on wikipedia as a source of links. Do we need to add something to the definition of a MUD to clarify the dividing line between a modern, fully 3D virtual environment style MMORPG, and MUDS (regardless of whether they are augmented with 2D graphical content)?

We have enough issues promoting text-based gaming as a hobby without this sort of thing.

--Aelmon (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on MUD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Zyll

You might want to mention Zyll. It has been described as a non-networked MUD. Two players could play independently of each other on the same computer using one keyboard. http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/07/backtracking-zyll-1984.html SharkD  Talk  12:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MUD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

PLATO

The early "PLATO MUDs" described in Origins don't seem to be multiplayer games, hence they're not MUDs. That's probably why they're "ignored by historians"... --Bultro (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

PLATO was a multi-user mainframe system. It is only natural that games would take advantage of this connectivity. SharkD  ☎  05:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

single user dungeons

It would be sensible to add a section on the single user role text playing games, that preceded MUDs. DouglasHeld (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That's what the "Early History > Origins" section is. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Blank and redirect Multi User Dungeons and Dragons. Merging was found to be inappropriate as the content in the other page is dubious and poorly sourced.

I propose to merge Multi User Dungeons and Dragons into this page, MUD. That article is about 13 years old and mostly an unsourced stub. I think that the very limited content in the "MUDD" article can easily be explained in the context of this page, and a redirect to this page would make more sense if people were looking for information about MUDDs specifically. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 15:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you should just redirect it without worrying about the limited content, which is not supported by sources and is largely incorrect. - MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I concur with redirecting without merge. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I see no harm in a redirect, but I don't think there's any information worth merging. In his book Designing Virtual Worlds (page 5), Richard Bartle stated that "The "D" in MUD ... has nothing to do with the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons". The only reference I can find to MUDD is that it was "a typographical error" in a code comment in the original MUD. KaVir (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleated content about MUDs as proto-Metaverses

@Cogk42: The proto-Metaverseness of MUDs is an important and interesting aspect of them, maybe the most important of their legacy? Maybe in a different section, fine, but leaving out this information is a disservice to our readers. The information should be restored. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think it's relevant to this article to be honest. There's no elaboration on what "proto-Metaverses" are and even linking to Metaverse would be less-than-illuminating in contextualizing what that's supposed to mean. Also it's very weasel wordy; "some observers feel" and "most feel that history started" who are these people and why do their feelings matter? The book doesn't elaborate and upon reading the source itself, this is a very close paraphrase to what the book says, skirting on inappropriately so. That being said, MUDs might be important to the concept of a proto-Metaverse, but the concept of a proto-Metaverse isn't important to the concept of MUDs, meaning if proto-Metaverses ever had a standalone article it might be appropriate to mention MUDs there, but it's not appropriate to mention proto-Metaverses here; that entire concept is irrelevant to MUDs and their history and the source provided does not indicate otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree. MUDs should be mentioned in Metaverse, not the other way around. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 10:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

MUD → Multi-user dungeon – Things have changed a lot since the 2010 RM. The 2012 film, Mud, is commonly stylized as "MUD" on its poster and elsewhere, and MUD is not a common gaming term nowadays. I think the acronym is simply too vague and needs more of a natural disambiguation. Heck, we don't even list MMORPG as its acronym despite being a FAR better known acronym to modern gamers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multi-user_dungeon/Archive_2&oldid=1223335161"