Talk:DikuMUD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Still a Stub?

Does this article still merit to be classified as a stub? If so, what information is it missing? If not, we should remove the classification! Myrdred 20:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everquest controversy

Regarding [1]... The current text is Bernard Yee, stated that EverQuest was "like Diku". He did not specify whether he meant the code itself was derived from DikuMUD. The previous text says that Yee claimed that EQ was somehow based on DikuMUD, which could mean as little as inspiration or as much as code.

If they simply said it was "like Diku" then why would anyone assume that this meant that they used code from it? It sounds odd to keep the clarification when the new text says "like Diku", which is something that would not be confused with using the code.

I think the new text downplays the actual message, since obviously someone ended up thinking it was based on the code.Atari2600tim 12:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while with no responses, so I'm just going to edit it to reflect the new information brought by this "like Diku" quote, since it currently is implying less than the older "based on DikuMUD". Please put an explanation on this talk page if someone decides to change it back.Atari2600tim 10:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the usenet thread in the References section before, but this whole issue was discussed there, and the text on this article is pretty obviously misleading and has been clarified almost half a decade ago. It is very disappointing that it would be on this article. I would suggest that the usenet link should have a note next to it mentioning that the title is inaccurate. The title of it currently is rec.games.mud.diku thread "Sony's EverQuest admits to using Diku as a base" with absolutely no disclaimer at all (you actually have to read half-way through the thread in order to find out that the title is wrong). I'm going to just put (misleading title) and hopefully someone else can change it to something more informative without getting too wordy. Atari2600tim 11:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, a disclaimer is appropriate for that Usenet article. I think yours is just fine. Do you still find the "text on this article is pretty obviously misleading"? I wrote most of it and did not intend for this. Feel free to edit. SpuriousQ 00:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I was referring only to the controversy section. I personally had thought that this 'controversy' was something more serious, because I had read the article and not followed the link to find the entire story. After reading the usenet thread, I can see that this is a thing that was pushed by one person and not taken by anyone else as credible. I do note that it says "minor controversy", but I suppose that there's no way of showing how minor that it apparently was :P By "text on this article" I was referring to the EQ stuff that was in this article without any acknowledgment of how inaccurate the claims were. It doesn't help when the thread itself has lots of "We based EQ on Diku"-type things from madmerv to wade through (meaning that someone could read the first dozen-ish posts and still come away with the wrong impression). The rest of this article sounds great though and I consider it to be one of the better MUD-related articles on here. Atari2600tim 11:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)