Talk:Threshold (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Religion

Years ago, when I (briefly) played Threshold, the pantheon included a goddess named Calypso. I forget whether she was good, neutral, or evil. Has she been expunged from the game? JamesMLane 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A number of the pantheon were got rid of about a year ago including Kylamane, Calypso, Chronos, Vivoria and (briefly) Bilanx. Bilanx came back during the summer during an event called the Unfettering. They were considered to be inactive, or unappealing (to new supplicants) churches. --Eblade 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Clans

Are the clans in the game of the type described in Clan (computer gaming)? If so, we can add a wikilink. JamesMLane 00:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

They are approximately like the 'Single-game groups' mentioned. In Thresh it can be more than simply social groupings (although a number are). There are ones specifically for learning, some for sects of churches, houses of families, syndicates, cabals, cults, orders, bands and societies. Although 'clan' is the main name used, any of the others are specific types of clan.--Eblade 19:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia, and since Biology is my main reason for being here, I have only started participating here. I apologize in advance if I make mistakes. Bilanx is now an active god again. Kallimina 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Grantite a prominent clan? I have never heard of them, though I'm not against listing them here. I -will- move the entry so that it's in alphabetical order, though. Ficksquoose 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unaware of Grantite as a clan, so I'll remove them from the list. Ficksquoose 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Status of Bilanx

Above, Eblade says that Bilanx, although dropped from the pantheon for a while, has now been restored. Ztodd has, however, removed Bilanx from the list of gods. Would the people with current knowledge of Threshold please resolve this? JamesMLane 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

-This should be resolved shortly. karahd 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Objection to PROD

The article has been listed for WP:PROD. I oppose deletion because the game has been running for ten years, it has won some awards, and it is currently ranked #6 in the http://www.topmudsites.com/ listing.

While I was checking and writing the above, User:Kallimina removed the PROD tag and added some material. I believe that, even with these additions, the information about the game is sketchy. I planned to remove the PROD tag but substitute a stub tag, and I'll now go ahead with the second step. Although some of Kallimina's edits are too POV (puffery), the article could benefit from more attention from people with current knowledge of the game. I hope Kallimina will continue to expand it, and perhaps recruit other editors, so that we can remove the stub tag. (Also, we need citations for some of the assertions about the game's status.) JamesMLane t c 21:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also object to the deletion based on the fact that it has won some awards and additionally has received some indpendant press. It would be great if someone added references to them to the entry in an appropriate way. --Theblog 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added the prod, thinking the game was non-notable, but won't be pursuing it any further for the reasons given above. It would be a good idea to put the reasons why the game is notable in the lead section so this doesn't happen again. Percy Snoodle 08:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of page

I enjoyed Threshold myself for quite some time, however, I have to question this entry's appropriateness in Wikipedia. It does not list it's sources, as Wikipedia states that all entries must, it uses so called "weasel words" (as I understand them) in such entries such as :

Religions The religion system is one of the most dominant features of the game. It has a Greco-Roman style to its mythology, and the meddlesome and competitive nature of the deities is further evidence of this.

Further, it links to an external site which is owned by the same entity (Frogdice,formerly Threshold ) which is a play for pay mud.

This entry, in my humble opinion is no more or less than an advertisement for Threshold and I would, again, seriously question it's appropriateness here.

Just my two cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 May 2007

Insofar as source citation goes, most of the material covered here can be found on the game's website. Other information is largely internal to the game's in-character world history, and is not easily citable.

Also, as of April 2007, Threshold is no longer pay-to-play. Registration is entirely optional.

Ficksquoose 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all the fancruft appropriately; this page contained (and still does) a lot of inappropriate, unencyclopedic information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/

Controversy

It's not clear what the controversy in the mid-nineties WAS, exactly. The article merely states that some of the players were "a bit scary." Perhaps someone could amplify this section a bit? --Pariah Press 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed that comment; it's completely unattributable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently an IP refactored another IP's comment in reply to this question earlier this year. I'm restoring it below:

The controversy is that Michael Hartman stole, violated basic copyright law, by copying the basic code of another game where he worked and took it with him to make his new game. This controversy plagued Michael for years, and he has since tried to bury it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.55.66 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't attempted to dig up information on the "controversy" since, but I do believe some further research is merited before we discount this entirely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards etc

I've removed the award from The Mud Journal as it cannot be attributed to a reliable source. Searching for "Mud Journal" threshold -wikipedia -"journal of Petroleum" -"Journal of Hydraulic" (the last two to get rid of false positives involving mud and petroleum/hydraulic research) returns exactly no results in reliable sources that discuss Threshold. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I have strong suspicions that Cambios and 64.253.96.96 are strongly related to the subject of this article, judging by their edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection to the restoration of material

Please don't restore all the material that has been removed lately. Here is my explanation as to why as given to one editor who attempted to restore it. The content violates various policies, content guidelines and style guidelines, and the relevant pages are these:

• Notability; content about Threshold's landmasses and detailed information about character classes and religions does not meet muster for this guideline.
• Verifiability; content such as the number of players on at peak times during the 2000s does not pass this policy.
• What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:SOAP; stating that "few games have sparked as much passion as Threshold" blatantly violates the latter policy.
• Guidelines for Video Games articles; in order to become anything more than a start-class article on this WikiProject's scale, we pretty much must follow at least the basics in this guideline. It mentions many of the above, especially that excessive information about gameplay is not relevant.
• Wikipedia Manual of Style; especially about sections, but in general there are problems.

I hope this helps explain the problems with this article and related ones! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Being more specific

EdJohnston has suggested that my above comment is far too general and focused on policy to really be helpful, so I'm going to try and be more specific with my argument on why this version is inappropriate.

First, there's the overall structure; the Video Games WikiProject, has a set of guidelines for editing articles on computer and video games, both online and offline. I've followed it in revamping at least one other article and had decent results, especially compared to the former content. A particularly applicable section of this is on inappropriate content in video games articles, which helps identify unencyclopedic information that should be removed from the article. I argue that the long lists of locations, character races/classes, religions and especially major clans doesn't belong.

Second, there's the problem of verifiability. A lot of the information in the current version is uncited, and while normally it might be appropriate to just tag it with {{fact}} or marking the article with {{refimprove}}, a significant portion of the article lacks citations. The awards and reception sections, for example, has one good source among them. The information on TopMudSites can't be verified as their list is in constant flux, and as far as I've been able to determine, can't be reliably sourced. Its status as an award is dubious at best; it appears to just be a ranking based on click-throughs of a banner on each MUD's site. The award from "The Mud Journal" is uncited and as far as I can tell can't be cited; they're long dead and thus the significance of any information from there is uncertain.

I hope this helps clear things up. I'm not opposed to expanding this article with useful, well-sourced information, but I strongly oppose the reintroduction of uncited laundry lists of information on the game. I look forward to hearing any views on this, and would be happy to elaborate further on any points. I apologize for any earlier difficulties that arose as a result of the reverts on these articles; I deal with a lot of tendentious editing in my other pursuits here, and I may have jumped to conclusions here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This Threshold entry has been worked on for 3-4+ years by a large number of people. Over time they have improved it, added information, verified sources, and done all the hard work to make the entry as good as it can be. As with many articles on Wikipedia, I imagine it will continue to be improved over time as it deals with a subject matter that is modern enough that it changes over time.

The entry contains facts and details about the game. The game is over 12 years old, and has had hundreds of thousands of customers in that time. Threshold is a very significant game in the history of MUDs and online games. As a result of its age and the huge number of people that have played it, there is a lot of relevant and pertinent information. Thus, the entry continues to grow in size.

As with every single online game ever created, there are a few angry, disgruntled, ex-players who for some reason make it their crusade to malign and impugn the game they once loved. That is the case with Mendaliv. He is a former player, most likely someone who was kicked off for cheating, and is now using Wikipedia as a battleground to further his extremely negative, inappropriate, personal grudge. If he was willing to divulged his identity, I imagine I could provide more specifics about exactly why he has this personal grudge.

I have endeavored to make improvements as well, to try and make the Threshold entry as factually accurate as possible. There are many, many players of Threshold (past and present) who will continue to do this as well. But Medaliv's goal is clearly to deface the page by deleting as much useful and interesting information as he feels he can get away with. Wikipedia is not the place for someone to pursue a personal grudge like this.

To address Mendaliv's specific points:

1) Comparing a constantly evolving online game to "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space" is ridiculous. There is absolutely no similarity. An online game like Threshold is a community and a virtual world as well as a game. The necessary details are far more expansive. The information on races, religions, clans, etc. is totally appropriate. Look at the Everquest entry. It lists classes, deities, zones, and other specific details about the game.

2) Regarding verifiability: That is an ongoing process of improvement as I already noted. Mendaliv's lack of objectivity is evident in the way he attacks the TopMudSites rankings: "Its status as an award is dubious at best; it appears to just be a ranking based on click-throughs of a banner on each MUD's site".

Isn't that the nature of MOST awards? They generally boil down to some kind of vote taken by some group of people, and the winner is whoever gets the most votes. For TopMudSites, votes are tallied by actual end users who click a banner to choose their favorite. I fail to see how this method is "dubious."

TopMudSites is one of the top 2 or 3 MUD related web sites on the internet, and it is the MOST popular ranking site for MUDs. If Mendaliv doesn't like their methods, fine, but that is his personal opinion. Rankings on that site are reputable in the MUD community.

His gripe with The Mud Journal is that it is long dead. If we routinely destroy what remaining information exists from a dead web site, then all of that information disappears forever. The goal of Wikipedia is not to facilitate the loss of information. To permit such would be the historical equivalent of holding a torch to the Library of Alexandria.

3) Regarding tendentious editing: Perhaps Mendaliv should refrain from editing articles about which he has a very personal, very negative grudge. That is a Conflict of Interest far above any other, because it means he has absolutely no positive goal whatsoever.

Cambios (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm glad to finally see some discussion of this article, I'm afraid that you've misinterpreted quite a few of the statements I made above. If you'll bear with me, I'll explain what I meant and respond to your points.

First, I didn't intend to compare the subjects of Threshold to BARIS; what I did intend was to compare the significant improvements made in the article once all the fancruft was gutted, and information was added to the article in line with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. And in response to your statements about EverQuest, there are a couple problems. First is that the EQ article is B-class; while this indicates that it's of better quality than the current Threshold article, it doesn't make it the acme of quality for video game articles. And by extension of your earlier objection, isn't it also unreasonable to compare a game of EverQuest's notoriety to Threshold? By the current article's own (admittedly, unsourced) statement, in its peak Threshold averaged up to 120 players online at any given time. In 2003, over 100 thousand players played EverQuest simultaneously, according to the EverQuest article (a statement which is sourced).

Second, I see no ongoing process of improvement. The Threshold article stood, unchanged, from 19 August 2008 until I gutted it on 6 September. There were various minor changes, such as the removal of more unsourced comments, up until the first revert which took place on 1 December. Since then, the only changes to the article have been reverts or partial reverts. Prior to this, the changes to the article had been to add the lists of unsourced information.

Third, TopMudSites does not appear to be an awards site, but a ranking site. And furthermore, as those rankings appear to be continuously changing, depending on who votes for whom, it is deceptive to say that Threshold was "ranked #1" for "multiple years". This statement means that Threshold was the undisputed #1 ranked MUD on that site for that entire period. Unless you can provide proof of that, the statement should not stand.

Fourth, the problem with TheMudJournal is that, because it is long dead, the information is unverifiable. WP:V says that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" (emph. original); this means that unless we can verify that those statements were made, we can't include them. Even if they were made, unless each reader can independently verify that, it doesn't pass muster.

Finally, I respectfully request that you refrain from making more personal attacks in your comments. Making unsubstantiated statements about my past are only going to hurt whatever case you try to make. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please go look at the pages for other online games. Look at Everquest. Look at WoW. Further, look at pages about other "fan related" content. Look at Anita Blake's pages. Look at the pages about Harry Potter, or Marvel Comic characters, or anything that is "fictional."

I did not make personal attacks. The fact that you are a disgruntled ex-player of Threshold is factually relevant because it speaks to your motivation. Your anti-Threshold campaign is grossly inappropriate. There is no logical or rational reason to "gut" (your word) the Threshold RPG entry so it includes LESS information. There is no harm in including MORE information. Yes, the entry can be improved by getting more verification and citation for various facts. I don't think anyone disputes that. But your obsession with calling information "fancruft" is ridiculous. Again, go look at pages about Everquest, Marvel, Harry Potter, Anita Blake, and all sorts of other fictional topics.

You have taken it upon yourself to remove the hard work of many people over ~4 years. That is really quite presumptuous.

Your personal vendetta makes it so you should NOT be participating in any way in the editing of any site related to Threshold, Frogdice, Michael Hartman, Primordiax, or anything related to those people, companies, or games. You are furthering a personal grudge and that is explicitly NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. You should find a more productive way to contribute to Wikipedia that is not so personally motivated.

When you say things like this, you make your pure, 100% personal motive very, very obvious: "isn't it also unreasonable to compare a game of EverQuest's notoriety to Threshold?" Threshold has has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of customers over 12 years. It is very noteworthy. Threshold RPG, Frogdice, and Michael Hartman are all very noteworthy entities in the area of online gaming. No amount of personal hatred of yours will change that fact, and it is completely wrong of you to use Wikipedia to further your personal grudge.

Cambios (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have asked before, and I shall ask again, please cease making personal attacks in your arguments here. Wikipedia policy clearly states that one should "comment on content, not on the contributor". Are you refusing to assume good faith with my edits?

Just because another article includes content is not a valid reason to keep similar content in this article. See WP:OSE for a relevant essay on why this is the case.

Just because the content in an article does not directly harm anybody is not a valid reason to keep content. See WP:NOHARM for a relevant explanation of this concept as applied to Articles for Deletion discussions.

I don't intend to respond to any more straw man arguments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A fact is not a personal attack. You are clearly motivated by your own personal grudge against Threshold. If you do not like the way that sounds, then stop doing it. It is nobody's fault but your own that you are behaving in this manner. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for furthering a personal grudge. Cambios (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm entitled to object to argumenta ad hominem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because something makes you look bad doesn't mean it is an ad hominem attack. You are a disgruntled ex-Thresher. That is a fact. It is pretty obvious to any observer that this is motivating your actions here. That is not a personal attack - it is a statement of fact that speaks directly to your bias and your inappropriate actions here. Facts do not cease to be facts just because they make you uncomfortable or are embarassing to you. Cambios (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's that you've constantly responded to my arguments on the content in this article with unsubstantiated statements about my personal background that makes it an ad hominem argument. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya "I do not think that means what you think it means." I have addressed your arguments, dismantled them, and provided examples of non-troublesome wiki-entries that function in the same way as Threshold's. Once again, I must stress the fact that your inappropriate personal bias and grudge is relevant and should not be ignored. It is the reason you are engaging in this absurd crusade. It is the reason you should not even TOUCH this entry, nor the entries of anything related to Threshold, Frogdice, or Michael Hartman. You have more than a Conflict of Interest - you have a personal, negative motivation to do harm to those entities. That is not the purview of Wikipedia, and you do violence to the site by trying to use it in furtherance of your personal, negative ends. Cambios (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears we're at an impasse. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In which case, perhaps you should find a more productive use of your time. You have a very negative personal bias when it comes to Threshold, Frogdice, and Michael Hartman and should not be involved in articles related to those topics. You would benefit Wikipedia more if you worked on articles where you did not have such a negative personal bias and a clearly negative personal motivation. Let the people who have spent 4 years working on the entry continue to improve it, add to it, provide better citation, etc. Cambios (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)By your last argument, it's pretty clear you don't understand who owns articles on Wikipedia. I have every right to edit this article, and within the constraints of consensus as defined in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I have been. You have not provided a single scrap of evidence to support your argument that I have a conflict of interest as defined by WP:COI. I have attempted to assume good faith, as is the standard per Wikipedia guidelines, while you have not. It's clear you have no intent of reasonably discussing changes to this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware who owns Aricles on Wikipedia. Most importantly, not you. You have an extremely negative, personal motive here. That makes it completely inappropriate for you to be editing anything related to Threshold, Frogdice, or Michael Hartman. Plenty of evidence has been provided, you just choose to ignore it. Again, that speaks to your personal bias. You see only what you want to see, and ignore everything else. It is absurd for you to claim "good faith" when you are a DISGRUNTLED EX-THRESHOLD PLAYER pursuing a personal grudge. Everyone knows how irrational ex-gamers can be towards games they no longer play, and you are fitting that very apt stereotype to a T. The fact that you persist with this crusade is FURTHER PROOF of your insane personal bias. Most reasonable people would have moved on long ago and found a more productive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Cambios (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed where you provided proof of your accusations. Would you mind pointing it out? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am making no accusations. Run along and find something more productive to do and stop using Wikipedia to further your own personal grudges and vendettas. Cambios (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No? Let me refresh your memory. In virtually every single comment and edit summary, you have accused me of being a disgruntled ex-threshold player. (1, 2, 3, 4)

I ask again, your evidence, please. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, your behavior here is personally motivated and inappropriate. The talk page of Threshold is not the place for you to pursue a personal vendetta against me in trying to badger me into proving something I know, many other players of Threshold know, and anyone observing your behavior here knows. This is another example of you misappropriating Wikipedia for your personal ends. This is a talk page for improving the Threshold RPG entry, not for you to wage a personal battle. If you care about Wikipedia, find a more productive way to contribute and stop using talk pages for personal arguments. Cambios (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we have an understanding. You have no evidence of a personal bias or conflict of interest on my part. It would have saved you a lot of time to just come out and say so.

What personal battle might that be? I started this thread in good faith to discuss improving this article. We can continue discussion in that vein at any time. It's your call. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll also remind you that the issue I take with your accusations is not that I have played threshold before, rather that I am "disgruntled", considering thie edit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another editor's opinion

Mendaliv invited comments from people who'd previously edited the article. My first and foremost comment is to Cambios: Whether or not you are Michael Hartman or have some other connection with the game, as Mendaliv suspects, your overall approach to the editing process is not in keeping with Wikipedia norms. Your constant personal attacks on this talk page are particularly inappropriate. First, you constantly assert that Mendaliv is a disgruntled ex-player, apparently based on no evidence other than a belief that no one could possibly disagree with you unless motivated by spite. Second, even if your assertion about Mendaliv's past were true, he would still be entitled to edit this article. Wikipedia's CoI policy isn't particularly stringent. Third, the focus of this talk page is supposed to be on improving the article. You've made several good and substantive comments to help advance that goal, but you've also spent far too much time slinging insults. (Here's a tip from my experience -- and I have many more Wikipedia edits than you and Mendaliv combined. Conduct of this sort on the talk page is far more likely to work against you than to help. Quite a few Wikipedians, reading this talk page, would react by saying, "Mendaliv is generally conducting himself reasonably, Cambios is acting like a hothead, so instead of trying to figure out the merits of the dispute I'll just side with Mendaliv because he's probably right." They shouldn't do that but they would.)

The irony of the foregoing is that, on the question of "fancruft", I'm more inclined to agree with Cambios than with Mendaliv. It's true that the most important thing to put in the article is the information about the game as it is in the real world: history, awards, number of players, etc. Nevertheless, it's reasonable to give some in-game information. The sections on races, guilds, and religions help to give the reader an idea of the flavor of the game. I would draw the line, however, at the list of clans. That would be of no value or interest to anyone except a player. The information can be presented on the game's website, not here.

We have to be more careful about real-world information. Statements about events in this world, not the game world, must be properly sourced. If we can't verify a statement, then we can't present it except as an attributed contention by Hartman/Frogdice. For example, this excerpt from Cambios's edit doesn't pass muster: "It is the oldest enforced role playing MU* in operation." That's a flat statement of fact that we can't verify (as far as I can tell). The reader shouldn't have to go to the footnote to learn that we can't verify it. I suggest instead: "According to the game's website (as of December 2008), 'It is the oldest role playing enforced MUD currently in operation.'"

As for some of the older awards and listings mentioned, I'm not familiar with the available sources in the field of online gaming. All I have to offer is the suggestion that some additional citations might be available if older listings are tracked via the Wayback Machine maintained by the Internet Archive. Wikipedia permits citation to web material that's not currently online if a cached copy is available. See Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine for guidance. JamesMLane t c 05:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, James. I appreciate your suggestions- I'll definitely let the sections on deities, races, etc remain per your advice. My main concern in gutting originally had been conformance to WP:V and the style guidelines laid out at WP:VG/GL. From the look of things at the Threshold website, some of the content (likely to be lumped into a "gameplay" or "plot" section) is sourceable.

As to concerns of sourcing, I'm going to ask over at WP:VG for some help, since they've got a significant group of editors with access to back issues of magazines. I'm going to see if I can find anything in academic databases myself, or LexisNexis.

Thanks again for your stopping by and helping out! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would highly suggest that some folks here check out pages about comic book worlds and other fictional games and game worlds. The standard that is being applied to the Threshold page is excessive compared to the standard applied to other fictional worlds or games. Cambios (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider for deletion?

The notability of a game needs to be shown from reliable sources. If this game gets no more than a passing mention from magazines and from mainstream edited web sites it's possible the article should be nominated for deletion. Most of the material now in the article appears to be sourced from the game's own web site, which is hardly enough to show notability. Even a claim like "the oldest enforced role playing MU* in operation" comes only from game's site, which doesn't satisfy WP:Verifiability. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you applied this standard across all of Wikipedia, 99% of all entries about fictional things would be erased. Threshold RPG has been noted in major print and online publications, and a number of those have been cited on this page. I have no idea why you would assist Mendaliv in his personal crusade. Heck, the fact that someone would go to such ends to get our entry removed is actually more EVIDENCE of the impact Threshold has had on the internet. What's the old saying, you can judge someone by their enemies?

Cambios (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this much, in terms of verifiable information from reliable sources, the subject is at least questionable; the few significant news hits are press releases at MPOGD.com. However, I'm not confident an AfD would result in deletion- as AfD isn't for cleaning up articles, I haven't nominated it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That standard does apply to all of wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more information on that. The existence of another article isn't support for keeping this one. I've tagged it for notability. Please provide reliable sources to establish the notability of this subject.--Crossmr (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

After going through the sources further, I can barely find a usuable source in the bunch other than the computer game magazine one. hobby websites, self-published, sources, etc all fail WP:V and can't be used for citation or notability. Primary sources (the threshold website) is reliable, but can't be used to establish notability. If the only third party reliable source offering coverage is the magazine one, its not exactly compelling.--Crossmr (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we're losing the info from topmudsites and the mud journal- the loss of which leaves us with the uncertain Mud Connector review and the dubious mention in Computer Games Magazine. If either one of these is shown to not be sufficient for WP:N, I think it might be time to move to AFD per WP:INTERNET. The review at Mud Connector is supposed to be by a staff member, so I'm not entirely sure it's impossible to establish notability from it. I think what we really need is someone to find the CGM article and see how significant it is (though judging from the article title, "Massively Multiplayer Roundup", it's a large article with single or two-paragraph brief mentions of a number of games. I've already asked at WT:VG/M but haven't gotten any response. Best I've been able to see is that it's in the stacks at University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is something of a schlep for me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mudconnector is some random hobby site. Its not sufficient for notability because people can request reviews and request to be staff members, they currently only have 1 staff member.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To go along with that, I figure there's also a pretty good argument against the significance of the CGM quote. Looking at the title, it's called "Massively Multiplayer Roundup". Looking at other "round-up" format articles in other gaming publications, they're a series of very brief mentions of a lot of games in one article. Generally one paragraph, sometimes two. In all odds, the quote in this article is at least half of, if not the entire, mention- that wouldn't seem to be "significant coverage" in terms of WP:N. The quote itself is definitely not "significant coverage". Hmph. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see anything remotely close to significant coverage by reliable third party sources to indicate a greater notability of this game.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright... in that case I'm going to draft an AfD argument and get the ball rolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's rolling... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this before (scroll up), the awards are good enough, you have not established that MudConnector is not reliable, you only point out that they have one employee and are looking for more. You may think its hokey, but its a niche market with a few websites covering it, its like winning a trade award. Additionally, if you look at the other games in the category, like Lusternia, JediMUD, PernMUSH, Carrion Fields, etc you will see that Threshold is the most notable, the rest of them are generally using only one external reference (Mudconnector). The CGM quote, while short, is more than other MUDs have, and additionally it does not meet the definition of triviality given in WP:WEB which I believe is the correct standard to apply, it states: Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, - Obviously the CGM quote doesn't fit in this category as CGM mentioned more than the address. (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, - It doesn't fit here either for the same reason as one. (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or - Not a content summary or an internet address, its an editorial comment. (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. - CGM is not a directory or store so it doesn't fit here.

--Theblog (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from the source page from this entry: "Semi-protection is sometimes necessary to prevent vandalism to popular pages." I would assume being put into a state to protect the page due to its popularity, would also make this entry notable. Other pages for notable games in a similar state, include World of Warcraft. --Knightinsatansservice (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Being vandalized a lot does not make a subject notable, it just makes it... vandalized a lot. In this particular case the page was semi-protected because IP editors and newly created sock puppets kept edit warring. --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. However, according to the wikipedia semi-protected category page, it does make it popular and as such, a target for vandalism. I would assume popular and notable are rather comparable. Given there are only currently 2063 pages in this locked state, it is definitely notable that the Threshold page falls into the same category give nthe hundreds of thousands of other less notable pages. --Knightinsatansservice (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Being popular, which I still don't think this page really is - it's just a small number of editors being disruptive, is still not a reason for inclusion. Per WP:N: "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it". --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some changes to consider

Here are some things that I feel need doing here:

• Choose a name- is it Threshold RPG or Threshold? The official site uses both terms seemingly interchangeably, which raises questions as to what the most recognizable name is. Per this guideline, we should use the most recognized name.
• Verify claims- anything that isn't blatantly obvious to someone who has never heard of this topic before should be cited. Threshold's legal system? Cite it. Geography? Cite it (probably easy).
• Rework lists into prose- this is per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. Developing a nice discussion of all the systems that are represented by long lists should not be too difficult.
• Consider eliminating the "historical events" section- looking at the references, this looks like an attempt to summarize some RP events that happened in-game. This seems like a point where citing a primary source just doesn't cut it. At best, this should be reworked into a "Plot" section".
• Consider eliminating direct quotes from reviews- while quotations are definitely great to have, the quotes of the reviews appear to violate WP:NPOV in terms of maintaining an impartial tone. Quoting "I would just like to write "TRY IT!" but it deserves more than that" smacks quite heavily of promotion, and while it might be appropriate in the reference in-context, in the article it provides extremely little description of the subject or specifics on why the author liked the subject. A more appropriate quote would be if the author had written about a particular experience. I believe this particular one could be paraphrased as "Lynne Hall of The Mud Connector praised the roleplaying aspects of Threshold, as well as the fact that it maintains a focus on combat and leveling like other MUDs".

I'm sure there's more, but I think we may be on the way to something good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: A little late joining in here, but after going to re-read the guidelines, I figured it be better to try to work towards a common goal rather than arguing endlessly.

• • • Threshold RPG is a better name for it since the MUD actually lists itself as Threshold RPG.
    • I am not sure that prose is easier to read than a list.
    • Eliminating direct quotes of a cited article should be fine since the article is already linked.Kallimina (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources that may merit exploration

In digging around via the Internet Archive and at a couple of websites, I've found quite a few interesting sources.

• This page is a pretty long announcement transcribed from the game, which has a few mentions of info on the Threshold project (though it's technically mostly on Primordiax).
• This page which discusses a "golden age" amnesty. This would be part of a section on banning and banned users.
• This page is an example of criticism against the game, though possibly a rather extreme form. It might be better to take it as a source for game content, or to discuss how game content changes.

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of nothing out there. Hrm. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Vandalism

Medaliv, you are not knowledgeable about Threshold. You are someone with a very negative, personal purpose. Stop vandalizing the page. Find another topic to devote your life to. Let the people who actually KNOW about the topic handle the edits, improvements, and additions. You beyond unqualified to edit, you are editing with a negative personal motive. Cut it out. Cambios (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand the topic, please stop gutting the page.

A large number of people who actually KNOW about this topic are currently working on the page. A perfect example is the external citations for the clans. The links to wiki info was temporary, and better links to "real web pages" is being tracked down. In the meantime, totally gutting the section makes no sense.

There are way too many people hacking away on this page that know *NOTHING* about the topic, or who have a very negative personal stake in the matter. Those are both extremely bad positions to come from when editing an entry.

When there are actually experts on the topic trying to work on the page, it does not make sense for random people who know nothing about the topic to start hacking away. Cambios (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see the opposite here. I see people trying to make the page neutral, and one or two people trying to use the page to show the game in a more favourable light. Black Kite 11:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• (confused)

Why is less information neutral? Less information seems like a huge negative to me. When I look at pages for other online games or other fictional worlds, I see tons of detailed information. I cannot begin to count how many times I have spent hours reading pages about comic book worlds or fictional worlds from books and I have been extremely thankful that those pages exist here. Fictional worlds obviously cannot be held to the same standard for fact verification that something non-fictional is held to. The very fact that it is fiction changes everything.

There are certainly a lot of things on the page that need better verification. Everyone who actually knows about the subject matter has been working towards that. But it is not productive to simply gut the page and remove everything. It is much easier to add to and improve citations than to have to start from scratch once the additional (or better) citations are found. This is not an article about Darfur. There is no huge time crunch here that requires that the article be perfect RIGHT NOW or the whole internet is going to explode. Perhaps the people who do not know about the topic could let the people who DO KNOW ABOUT THE TOPIC have a little time to work on the entry themselves. Then come back after a few weeks and see how they did. The way things are progressing right now is just a titanic waste of time for everyone and it is not moving the entry in a productive way forward. Cambios (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the entry so that it conforms to Wikipedia policy is certainly productive. Adding huge amounts of unsourced or badly sourced information to the article certain isn't. Black Kite 11:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia insists on objectively written articles. If you think you can write objectively, please do try really, really hard to, and recognize that subconsciously you might fail at that (and that's okay). When someone points out that your writing is biased, don't take it personally. Also, whenever you write, you need to cite where you information comes from, because people should be able to verify the article at any time. Be cooperative in writing, as we are all working towards the same goal (or should be, anyway). If you can't be bothered to cooperate or try or any of those, don't bother staying here. —harej // be happy 11:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add this site to the citation

I am unable to edit this page myself, so please add this link to the citations (#4):

http://www.cgonline.com/view/article/the_list1/

Kallimina (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Review from Richard Bartle

I'm adding a review to the references. Rosuav (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for doing it twenty minutes after it written, it was great that he also mentioned wikipedia and the article in question. It's nice to have our work here noticed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And it doesn't remotely address notability. It mentions threshold only in conjunction with a rant about Wikipedia and sources. it isn't remotely significant coverage and trying to generate sources by interested parties mid-stream usually doesn't go over well here.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy you're referring to when you say "trying to generate sources by interested parties mid-stream usually doesn't go over well here."? Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I brought the link up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. I think it's worth having editors who are uninvolved in the deletion debate take a look at it. Themfromspace (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually sort of hope that it comes out that "author intent" does matter like some are claiming, because I like worms. --Theblog (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the External links talk page is the right venue for discussing it, since the blog article is being used as a regular source for the Wikipedia article's content. WP:RSN might be best, and I'm reasonably sure there's going to be one or two decent discussions there once the AfD closes.

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that Bartle isn't making a particularly good claim about Threshold's notability, but should the article be kept, I think it might be appropriate to discuss the dispute within the article. There's precedent for discussing a subject's relationship to Wikipedia in other articles (Jimbo Wales is the only one I can think of at the moment). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, your opinion as to whether his claim is "good" or not is irrelevant. He specifically addresses Threshold, the title of the post is Threshold, he lists multiple features of the game (and praises them), and attests to the game's notability. This is getting ridiculous. When the leading expert in the field speaks DIRECTLY about a game, it is certainly worthy of note. The continued removal of this link is GLARING evidence of gross and abusive bias. Every single person that has removed this link should be ashamed of themselves. Cambios (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold RPG

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mud.announce/msg/7d4e7024970d0965?

Looks like it can be sourced when the rpg appendix got introduced, that is, if anyone interested in editing this article is left unbanned. --Scandum (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So was it just called "Threshold" prior to that? And what was their domain name prior to threshold-rpg.com? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a usenet posting, can't be used as a reliable source on wikipedia. --Crossmr (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in this case it's the equivalent of a press release. While it's not the optimal source, it's pretty much a non-controversial piece of information. A primary source (i.e., Threshold's own website) would be appropriate for sourcing this later on if someone who works for Threshold were to put up a bit of their own history on their site. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No because the origin of a press release can be verified. Its impossible to verify the source of a usenet post. Controversial fact or not, it can't be taken from an unreliable source or not if that is all that is available.--Crossmr (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For ancient things (like muds) Usenet posts are frequently used as sources. Verification isn't an issue in most of the cases, unless someone wants to be unreasonable. --Scandum (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TMS all time ranking

http://www.topmudsites.com/alltime-rankings.html

That link should be usable for the article as well. --Scandum (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not for establishing notability. A staff member at TMS has already discounted the usefulness of this "all time rankings" page as being probably not representative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1