Talk:RunUO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RunUO article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

[edit] Factual Accuracy (use of the term emulator)

RunUO is not an emulator. References to this should be stripped. Source: http://www.runuo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70528#10

The dispute is only from one person doing it over and over. Kethinov please stop freaking out! Jestix 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this. RunUO is not an emulator. It is basically an MMORPG engine. There have been other groups how have applied different "game layers" to it while keeping the RunUO core. This would classify it as server software or game server software. --RyanMcAdams 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then RunUO is a general purpose server core, with an UO-Server emulator layer upon it. ;-) I have to add that my comment toward Kethinov (aka xlinux) was more about him adding the "disputed" sign to a dozend wikipedia pages with the term "server emulator" in them then to RunUO in special. However you want to call RunUO the term Server emulator got now a page on wikipedia, already tested by the wikipedia community (Kethinov/xlinux filled a request for deletion only a few hours after I wrote the page... the request got speed-denied. Jestix 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I find it very interesting Jestix that your only contributions to Wikipedia revolve around RunUO, UOX and UO Server Emulators... seems like you're biased with an axe to grind from a neutral viewpoint. RunUO despite what you put here is NOT an emulator. --RyanMcAdams 20:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now the argument is first a personal atack, followed by a simple predication (no rationale). So to defent the personal attack - I dont use my usual nick when doing things around RunUO, UOX and UO Server Emulators. To the rational - Well you dont have problems for example problems participating at [1] with RunUO which dedicates itself to server emulators ;). You can consider RunUO what you want, it's popular functionallity is widely known as "Ultima Online server emulator". Jestix 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually theres plenty of behavior from you to back up the statement I've made. You continue to attack anyone who changes this Wikipedia article, you continue to belittle the RunUO Development Team and you continue to go around editing and changing everything related to what you term "UO Emulation". --RyanMcAdams 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No i did not attack *anyone* that changes the article...however I do freely admit that I look twice on edits than come from the RunUo Software team. Dont say I objected anything about the recent history edits. I put the release boxes right. I repaired the .net link (what links just anywhere but not .net in sense of microsofts c#). BTW: You did not answer to my rational about shardwire. And I got RUOSI page deleted on wikipedia, say that you liked it? Jestix 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt like it that you got RUOSI deleted from Wikipedia. It's history about you're beloved "UO Emulation". Just because I didn't agree with their methods doesn't mean it has no place here. As for Shardwire I do not host that site or have any affiliation with that site. I don't doubt Jestix that you've made some changes that were valid, but you're attempt to control all information on Wikipedia regarding "UO Emulation" is ridiculous at best. Let it go and let the real community speak. --RyanMcAdams 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Let it go and let the real community speak." Which has yesterday for example just be done on the server emulator AfD-Discussoin ([2]).

So what you're telling me is because like 5 people out of 25 billion said "hey this is right" that makes it right... that's beautiful logic. --RyanMcAdams 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That was the process, 5 people in 1 day. And thats with the 25 billion is a lame explanation if you request e.g. 10 billion to say anything to be recognized. To start with half of the earth population never used a phone in their life! So think about what problems were are arguing about in relation to that.Jestix 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the topic (wikiepdia talk pages should not be off topic.. so bad me :) Wikipedia wirtes down "human knowledge" - RunUO is widely known as Server emulator even though the RunUo Software team does not see it as that. If you want please edit a note to the article telling this issue, but please do not remove the notice that many still think of it as server emulator. Jestix 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe since its a point of contention it should be removed until all parties agree. Just because something is "widely known" as something does not mean it is accurate. --RyanMcAdams 21:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I offered a consensus already, write in the article both views... thats the wikipedian way of NPOV ;-) Jestix 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW: You used the word "emulation" yourself already in this article back in february, where the RunUO Team had a rather strong grip on the article. You use the term emulation, and simulatin several times even now on runuo.com ... Jestix 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jestix, the very best you're going to get out of this is that the term is colloquially accepted but technically not accurate. That's as much of the pound of flesh you're going to get. I suggest you take it and leave it be. Kethinov 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy (use of the term emulator) 2

If you take a look on how the article "server emulator" looks now, you'll see that after 1-2 hour long off-wikipeida discussion there is a consensus about, that the word emulator is not correct in traditional technical sense, and the broading usage of it bears some danger. Yes xlinux managed to convice me :) To say scientifc principle: "do not state but reason":

• emulator has before in all cases always been used to emulate hardware, either hardware by heardware or hardware by software.
• the same logic applied, licq could be called an "icq client emulator", gaim an "aim emulator", samba a "windows file server emulator" and so on. Even I don't like that.

Nevertheless i cant resist to make just a proposal: keep the opening sentence coherent. (I however can resist to hold my vow to not edit the article ever again). When it now reads "RunUO is a project to create and maintain a freely available Microsoft .NET based Ultima Online server. The goal of the RunUO Software Team is to provide software that is scalable and capable of emulating the EA Games servers." You still have the emulator stuff with it. not beautiful! get rid off that. I would however still suggest making another sentence at the end of the opening paragraph, that RunUO is still often refered as an server emulator. This is faculty correct. Take for example runuo on /. [3], but according to the reasons on server emulator the term has its problems, and the maintainers of runuo don't want it to be called that. how about it? Jestix 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea.... I kind of opened it up a bit Jestix. I'm not going to contribute in a manner that widely changes the article but I dont mind you contributing. You obviously like Wikipedia and want to help here, just try to make things clear and concise and keep personal feelings out of it. --RyanMcAdams 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I better be not, wikipedia is big enough to work anywhere else but this 1 article. BTW: I actually never did at any time things that "widly changed" the article, always only small fixes here and there. If you look you'll notice its in principle still the same basic-structure which you left back in february. Jestix 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)