Talk:MUD trees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I did some wikification so far, but most of the links go off in slightly odd directions, so someone may need to do some disambiguation. 80.126.238.189 09:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VFD stuff

This actually isn't "Derek Snider's" MUD Tree, instead it is one he stole from the alt.muds.diku faq and was created by a poster in 1994. It has been "stolen" for use in research papers (someone actually got their doctorate with this).

I've never heard of an "alt.muds" hierarchy nor have I found anything to backup what you said. Perhaps you could be more specific? I know of a different, general mud tree by Martin Keegan and found a FAQ for rec.games.mud.diku, but it just had a link to the same Game.org page. Also is it that Derek Snider gave permission for the tree to be GFDLed or that you don't think he can copyright it?
State on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page why you don't think this page should be deleted. There's nothing wrong with the intent of this article -- something on the relationship between MUD codebases would make a great addition to the MUD article (or even a good article on its own). An unexplained ASCII tree isn't very informative but that can be fixed. I just have a problem with its copyright status and the only evidence presented says "DikuMud Heirarchy (c)1995-2000 Derek Snider". --Mrwojo 01:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

  • MUD trees - an example but no content or explanation - Texture 17:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's also an exact copy from the site it lists in ext. links ("DikuMud Heirarchy (c)1995-2000 Derek Snider"). --Mrwojo 17:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for same reasons as above. Psychonaut 18:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Its fate should be the same as Dikumud. I vote to merge them. Mikkalai 02:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree: Dikumud should stay regardless, but it should be at DikuMUD instead (currently a duplicate substub). --Mrwojo 03:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I fail to see your logic. If dikumud stays, then its tree definitely belongs there, regardless external links. Mikkalai 16:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I fail to agree that the post should be deleted. I think it was a harsh decision to vote it down in the first place, when an edit may have been in order. Since "Dikumud" is not its derivatives, putting it on the Dikumud entry doesn't make sense. The "MUD Family Tree" entered into the public domain in 1993, and was posted on rec.games.mud.diku and is considered the public domain, and is NOT copyrighted to Derek Snider, as the page it is from indicates, as this was an adaptation from a previously released copy, which was copied and constructed. In fact, I believe the original tree changed hands many times before being "Claimed" (unlawfully) by Derek Snider, if that was his intent by putting (c)1994-2000 Derek Snider on his web page. Furthermore, a "MUD Family tree is not the same as the MUD itself, and would serve as a lineage / navigational tool for other entries. Ebube_Dike
        • Mikkalai, I disagreed with the idea that whatever happens to MUD trees should also happen to Dikumud since they aren't the same thing. Ebube_Dike, if a person makes changes to something in the PD then they hold the copyright to the changed version. I can't find the post you mention and you say its from the site the claims copyright. I've replaced the text with the copyright notice. --Mrwojo 07:51, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and Wikify. Lists and schematics in this form are not copyrightable, see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Are_lists_copyright? . If anyone complains, refactor the tree into a list and then Keep. Schematics like this should be wikified and used to index topics in the wikipedia. 80.126.238.189 12:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion

MUD trees was the start of a decent article, not a copyvio. (see: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Are_lists_copyright? ) . Shouldn't have been listed on VfD in the first place. 80.126.238.189 10:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This wasn't about whether it was a copyright violation. It was listed on VfD with most votes to delete. [1]
Delete: Texture, Mrwojo, Psychonaut; Merge: Mikkalai; Keep: Someone who signed User:Ebube Dike (there is no such user), and one anon IP.
Mikkalai's reasons for keeping it were refuted by Mrwojo and not addressed. I discounted the non-existent user, and the IP. This left 3 votes to delete. Angela. 00:28, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. I was counting like this:
Reasons given for votes were:
A. "I don't get it" . {Not a valid reason for listing on VfD} (1 vote to delete by texture)
B. "It's a copyvio" {Should have been listed on Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements }(2 votes to delete from Mrwojo and Psychonaut).
C. 1 anon IP pointing out that it's not a copyvio. Is it a specific policy to ignore people who post using just their IP even if they make valid statements? If so I'll just drop the matter here.
Don't know what to do with User: Ebube Dike either, leaving with 0 valid votes for deletion and 1 vote to move. Page was not listed on Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements at all. 80.126.238.189 13:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've just realised that whilst there is no User:Ebube Dike, there is a User:Ebube dike, so presumably this is someone who hasn't yet learnt to sign as opposed to a fake vote. Based on that and the suggestion that the copyright violation allegations are spurious, I have reverted my deletion of the page and listed it on cleanup so others can decide whether it is copyrightable and edit it accordingly. Angela. 06:37, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm switching over to a vote to keep since I don't feel that the other reasons mentioned for deleting this article were valid and, thanks to 80.126.238.189 stepping up to the plate to refute my actions, I have something to go by that says the copyright issue isn't clear. I do believe it treads a fine line on creative selection, but it would be difficult to come up with a different classification for the muds mentioned. "Why mention some and not others?" leads into my suggestion for cleanup -- I think a typical hierarchical "list of" article, such as list of MUDs by code base would better represent the article's intent:

MUD1

  • AberMUD
    • DikuMUD
      • (comprehensive list of Diku-based muds)
      • (etc.)
  • (some other mud base)
    • (and so on)
Also, I think the "permission was given by Derek Snider" statement should be confirmed or removed. --Mrwojo 20:31, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hereby give my permission to use the DikuMUD tree. For the record, I did not "steal" the tree from somewhere else. Go to the DikuMUD website, and you will see a credit to me on their DikuMUD family tree. --Thoric 18:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we get someone working on the OTHER MUD bases? Diku is just one 'root', with the LPMuds also a strong community? Currently this... 'article' is rather Diku-Centric, without even mention of other 'roots'. --131.207.161.152 09:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/d/Talk%7EMUD_trees_2ad6.html"