Talk:3D Internet

IBM may have used the word, but it isn't a noteworthy phrase yet. I would say to merge it with the Massively multiplayer online game as a factoid, but it is hardly an article. Pharmboy 01:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there another article that covers the category that includes both MMOGs and MMO non-games?--Zeblk 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize that MMO non-games are covered by the MMOG article, but maybe the emphasis could be shifted a little? I think the MSNBC article is indicative of a trend toward the importance of MMO outside of gaming.--Zeblk 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But articles are not about "potential trends". A section in the main article reference it would be appropriate as "a shift in how they are seen". It isn't an adopted term yet. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site or crystal ball. It is an interesting term, and perhaps in two years it may (or may not) justify an article, I just think it won't get seen anyway, unless it is a sub in the main article or two, and isn't really an encyclopedia article yet. Pharmboy 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you on that, but I do believe there's an important present-day (not speculative) aspect to "3D Internet" that isn't covered by the MMOG article. Namely, that online worlds are already becoming dynamic centers for business, shopping, etc. cf This article--Zeblk 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

More on the "3D Internet": The role of .NET 3.0 in 3D Internet--Zeblk 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest finding a way to merge the concept into the articles where it belongs, OR if you are going to keep it as an article, find some other 3rd parties who used the term besides quoting IBM. And find someone explaining (not in your own research) why the term is "the new" term to use. In other words, make it an article or don't. After that, just remove the tag. I won't put it up for delete. Remember, I'm just an editor like you, I just like to see good quality. I don't know enough about the term to say "it doesn't belong", just to say it doesn't belong as it is now. Part of the reason I tagged "merge" was to stop someone from tagging it "delete", as I think the idea may have merit, in some form. Pharmboy 01:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"3D Internet" is a more generic term than Massively multiplayer online game. Since MMOG are used for more than games now (according to the Wikinomics book for example), it would seem more appropriate to have "3D Internet" as the overall term with MMOG as a more specific case. MartinWillitts 13:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removed Tag It has been long enough, and I see that the only people giving an opinion feel it should not be merged. I just regoogled and found 118k hits for the term, so I will assume my initial response was incorrect and end debate. Pharmboy (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

3D internet is not MMO games

I would not persolly say 3D Internet and RPG games are exactly the same thing; 3D Internet could really be a lot of things. When I searched for 3D Internet I had in mind something similar to using the internet not as a "web browser" to view "web pages," but sort of thing you "walk" around in, click on things; the internet viewed as a panoramic, 3D display like the real world. The best example I can possibly give is of a sci-fi cartoon called Code Lyoko which I watched as a child (I'd call it a kids show but there are some hardcore Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! fans out there who'd disagree), it has a storyline so ignore it. If you haven't seen tins show, isn't there always a scene of a TV show where the main character "goes inside the internet." There is always some kind of wire frame look where you can fly around in some way, grap eMail messages as if they were physical objects and put them in your pocket; things you could never do because of common sense.

PS: Lyoko made so much sense that there is even an article - simply called Lyoko - which pieces together all the "facts" into a theory on how the Virtual World of Lyoko works. It's similar to the current model for atoms we have... not endorsed by it's creator yet somehow believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfreely555 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)