Talk:Discworld MUD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discworld Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discworld, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discworld articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discworld MUD article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
MMOG logo 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Unprofessional Tone

I'vwe noticed certain phrases sound out of placed in the article. "More to follow" is not neccessary, and there are some parts that appear to be giving advice to potential gamers, rather than focusing on encyclopaedic tones. The changes needed are hardly drastic, but they would improve the readability of the article considerably IMHO. 172.207.5.119 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is way too game-guidy, I agree. It really needs trimming down for encyclopaedicity. Vashti 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I trimmed some sections down, thieves and priests. It'd be nice for the guild sections to have a similar structure: Rehevkor 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 1st part: summary of the guild and specialisations/etc (not written is a list, simply spelling out names with no other details)
  • 2nd part: Guild structure.
  • 3rd part: Short summary of what the guild's capable of, commands/spells etc.


The Priests section now appears underrepresented compared to the other guilds, especially given the vast amount of information to cover, such as Faith Rods, tithes, ritual assistance, wards, etc. The section used to have an overview of each facet of the priests guild and it is a deep shame that it was deleted. Especially considering the two short paragraphs remaining barely contain a dictionary description and are not entirely accurate, or at least misrepresent the facts. The Temple of Small Gods is certainly not the "home" of all the practicing religions for starters and I shall amend this. - Elanor 28/5/07

No, as it was it was far too long, Wikipedia is not a place for such detailed game info, it's written more as a fan site. If you think anything written there is innacurate, feel free to correct it rather than restoring the old, overly complex, rambling content. Rehevkor 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopaedia article. What's needed is to trim down the sections on the other guilds which are also far too long (especially wizards, IIRC). To make it clear, the risk we run if this page looks like an overblown fansite is that other editors will mark it for deletion on the grounds that it is not relevant. Brevity is good here. Vashti 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Basic information about just what each guild offers and information on the important features of that is a far cry from a fan page. Wizards in particular just lists the orders, doesn't even mention their primaries. The inclusion of information about the deity pool and by extension rods is I feel essential for a detailed article. Wikipedia is better than normal encylopedia precisely because it doesn't restrict entries to a single paragraph. I can't help but feel that you consider brevity more important than actually giving people a real idea as to what the mud is about and hopefully seducing them to become members - elanor
Okay. I can tell you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia. So please read up on a few things before editing again. WP:POLICY, WP:FAN, WP:NOT, WP:NOTE for example. We're trying to wikify the article here and make it more understandable for anyone who doesn't play. Currently your bias as a player is not helping us do this. Rehevkor 10:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I do. That's because when I'm here, I'm a Wikipedia editor, not a mudder. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding advertising - it is *not okay*. That is *not the point of this page*. I can't be too clear on this point. The point of this page is to give some basic information regarding what the MUD is about, and it should have more on the MUD's technical history and other aspects of it which would interest a general audience than it should have on in-game aspects like guilds (Eithin's recent edit is a good step in this direction). In fact, I wonder if we shouldn't merge Discworld mudlib over here - comments?
Please work with us on this, not against us. Did you read any of the links I sent you? Vashti 10:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What I wanted to do with that edit was to give people an idea of what DW's like as a game, rather than what it's like in the game - ie. the basic things that differentiate it from other muds & MMOs. They can always go in and look at things like the guilds, but almost none of the DW sources show those sorts of game-design characteristics. It'd be nice to put some details into the mudlib page discussing briefly why it's a good thing to work with, and what advantages it gives compared to a database or one of the older ones. Merging it in seems like it would be a good idea, too.
Some other things I'd like to discuss in the main article - clubs/families (crosscutting social organisations - something almost nowhere else has) and the ethos of pointlessness. If nobody else fancies taking a crack at those, I'll see what I can do ASPS. Eithin 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

There seems to be a creeping pattern of people leaving pointers to their MUD websites on this page. Since Wikipedia's not a link farm, I've removed them and left the link to the main page - which is all this article needs.

The appropriate place for links to mud sites is the player links page. Vashti 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Rehevkor 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as it is the players that make the community, don’t you think it would be practical to have their links shown beneath the MUD pointer? --Mr Woodpigeon 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWoodpigeon (talk • contribs)

The quick answer to that is that Wikipedia is not part of the MUD community, and including player links breaks Wiki policy. As stated above, put your link at the player links page and people will see it there (probably many more than are likely to see it here). Vashti 22:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the guilds section?

I actually think it looks better now. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but the page kind of turned into "Gyldes of Thee Discworlde". We don't really need to know lots of detail about each guild, we just need to know what a guild is and which ones there are. IMO, anyway. Vashti 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I got reverted by an anon. Any opinions on whether it should stay or go? Vashti 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Go. :P Even after cutting a lot, there was far too much there. The guilds are not really a notable aspect of the game to an outsider when you get down to it. At least not notable enough to warrant that much information. Rehevkor 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Vashti 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Noting that the mechanics are weakly class-based is good, noting that the classes are X, Y, Z and have x, y, z skills and abilitis is probably excessive. --Earin (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gods section

Wallsy cut-and-pasted the information from "finger <deity>" into a new section. This isn't really appropriate IMO, for the same reason we got rid of the guilds page: it's too much information. Besides that, I can't think of any way he could have been authorised to release that text under the GFDL, making it a copyright violation. Vashti 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RPG Templatey Thing

Some sort of template like the list of properties shown at topmudsites would seem to be an appropriate addition to this page, but I couldn't figure out template syntax in the 15 minutes it took me to get bored of peering at it. Maybe later, or if someone who watches this page is a WikiExpert... --Earin 11:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)