Talk:Threshold (online game)

Possible source

While I personally do not like Threshold, and in fact actively despise some of the ideals represented by it and how it is run, that does not affect the reality of the situation. I present the following information in non-wiki formatted data so that it can be properly attributed, etc. by those with time to update and correct the article.

M2MIMud Robert Whitcomb November 8, 2004 Committee: Alan Kaminsky, Hans-Peter Bischof, Andrew Phelps

Available at https://ritdml.rit.edu/dspace/bitstream/1850/2779/2/RWhitcombThesis2004.pdf

The following are excerpts from the paper that are too large for proper quotes, however, are added here for context so that it can be appropriately attributed to the article. While this is likely not to establish notability in and of itself, it is listed as being prominent under the definition of MUD. In addition, this is from a published thesis and whether the document fits any requirements of Wikipedia is unknown to me.

"Abstract M2MIMud is a simple MUD (multi-user dungeon) type game that is designed to run on an ad hoc network of devices without the presence of any central server. It runs over M2MI, a distributed object systems API that uses broadcasts and handles, rather than IP addresses, to communicate. This paper discusses the design and development of M2MIMud, delving into the issues unique to such a system. Among topics discussed are a survey of existing architectures, a discussion of M2MI, and talk about the unique aspects of this system. Also included in this paper are a player’s manual and some design documentation. Overall, M2MIMud is an interesting study in the efforts to port existing types of software to an ad hoc environment. "

"One of the earliest forms of computers games is the multi-user dungeon, commonly referred to as a MUD, which are simple (compared to many present games), text-based systems which usually create a role-playing environment for their users. Players assume the identity of someone else and play in a fantasy world according to the rules of the developers. With the proliferation of cheap, high-powered computer hardware, especially video cards, players today tend towards the MMORPG (massively multiplayer on line role-playing game). However, there are still many MUDs out there. Examples of these are Aetolia (http://www.aetolia.com), RetroMUD (http://www.retromud.org), and Threshold (http://www.thresholdrpg.org). While they do not usually have the large player base that an MMORPG has, MUDs are still important game systems. "

"Glossary of Terms RPG: Stands for “role playing game”. This refers to a game type that is popular among many computer users. Players assume the role of one or more characters and will usually play in some world. MUD: Stands for multi-user dungeon. An early, text-based, computer RPG. There are still many run today. Some of the more prominent ones are Aetolia and Threshold" Ismarc (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly we've just had this discussion somewhere else - a Master's thesis is not a Reliable source and wouldn't be used as an article sources except for some pretty narrow specific cases - and I don't think this is one of those. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that absolute? I would think it would depend in part on the specific requirements and expectations of the degree-granting institution? Also, I assume doctoral dissertations are accepted? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Without rehashing that argument it was that it depended on if the individual became notable and this was connected to that. Generally a master's thesis is evidence that someone could hit the marking criteria and that's it - the scholarship can be very poor and the pieces can be full of the most fundamental errors and still pass. Even at top universities, lots of pap is pushed out (and god knows I've passed/failed enough of em) --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is here --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whose masters thesis was it? I can't tell from here. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fellow name of "Robert Whitcomb". This was a MS thesis for Computer Science. You can also see his proposal, report and defense here. I'm not sure how to use Google Scholar to find more stuff specifically by this Robert Whitcomb (there appear to be several in other fields). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of Master's students never publish (unless they carry on to do a PhD) so it wouldn't be surprising if you don't find anything else. Leaving that aside - it's a bog standard Master's thesis by well just another Master's student - I don't consider it a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ cameron here. I guess he is User:Rwhitcomb, might be able to ask him if he went on and did anything with it. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed the master's these of User:Rwhitcomb and of me, User:Delmania, as both accounts belong to the same person. I have neither published anything nor made any notable achievements with the field of computer gaming. Given that, my master's thesis can not be used as a source. However, within context of the present discussion, I would agree with the claim that Threshold is notable. It has been around for a very long time, and it does have the support of Bartle, and many fo the MUD players I have met have either played it, or have heard of it.Delmania (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

http://www.topmudsites.com/alltime-rankings.html could be used, it's ranked #3 on the all time ranking, which span over 8 years.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mud.announce/msg/a331f950eae0421c and http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mud.announce/msg/7d4e7024970d0965 can be used to add content. Given the context they're usable sources. --Scandum (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the disendorsement of the TMS source by their own staff, I don't think it's fair, reasonable or particularly reliable to use it. What those guys really need to do is collect votes over a week long period, and at the end of the week tally the votes and come up with a few lists of the week, like a damn record chart. It would be so much easier to accept it as a source if they did that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

These are the totals of 8 years of gathering votes and much more relevant than 1 week's worth of votes could ever be, they're not going to change overnight either. I'm clueless what your problem with the source is - did you actually look at it? --Scandum (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it. I also looked at the forum thread where it was presented originally. The staff member of TopMudSites said, and I quote, "I never published this because there isn't a good way to resolve time difference, so the "total votes" without the context of "total time on the site" might not be too meaningful". The "all time" rankings are even less meaningful than the current rankings as they don't show popularity during a given time period. Theoretically, a MUD could be exceedingly popular for a period of years, and then die off, but still remain high on the all-time charts for years to come. To use this source as representative of what TopMudSites' normal purpose is would be deceptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this site put up again since it's still under a DRV, but WP:NOT states that notability doesn't expire. If Threshold was notable enough to get that many votes on a voting site, it shouldn't be discounted. Kallimina (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not as though the site lacks all relevance, or as though the article needs the site to establish notability. No good reason not to add it to the reception section. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant I was unsure why the Threshold article on Wikipedia, not the TMS link, was put up again when the DRV is still on-going and there's still so much controversy around it. Kallimina (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about the DRV. I created a new article, on the same topic, without reference to the old one. Because, well, it was a bad AfD. And I could write a new article establishing notability. So I did. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The DRV is to figure out if it was a bad AfD or not, I think. If it's okay to go ahead to work on it, I'll send you the citations I have. I think it's best that I not edit at all, but I'll try to weigh in if information is needed. Kallimina (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does TMS achieve their rankings? If its simply by user clicks from their site (the list would imply) that would, in my opinion, not count as a reliable source. Themfromspace (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why that is not a reliable source? (Without a WP:JUSTA please.) It would meet the Concensus and Other Source. Kallimina (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, policies and guidelines are what justify inclusion on wikipedia, and not personal essays as the one you cited, so I am going to cite the guidelines. According to our policies on reliable sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." My concern isn't whether the authors of the site are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, thats' certain. My concern is on credibility of the list on the website, which is what would assertain notability for the MUD on hand. On wikipedia the amount of user clicks on sites, or views on youtube, or hits on google, doesn't go very far in addressing notability of the subject nor do I think it would demonstrate credibility of the sources. I posted this over at WP:RSN in order to get a broader consensus. The link is here. Themfromspace (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. TMS serves as a list of votes going for a certain mud. Threshold itself was listed in 2000, I think. So a user doesn't just go to the site. The user MUST click on and confirm that he/she is voting for the site. I think that makes it a bit different than YouTube or simple Google hits. It is, in effect, a popularity contest (a People's Choice award) for muds. The reason that Lasher has never published it on the site itself is that he hasn't figured out a way to make it useful for TMS itself since Aardwolf wasn't listed until 2003 while Threshold was listed in 2000. Hope that helps. Kallimina (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lasher's comment doesn't in any way discredit the totals of 8 years worth of voting. It's the all time popularity that's relevant for Wikipedia, in this case a period of 8 years and counting. The source isn't indicative of TMS's normal purpose, but that's irrelevant. I also don't understand your concern, the source is only good for adding one, maybe two lines to the article, indicating that the game has received the 3rd most votes since the year 2000 on TMS. Argueing over little things like these is very unproductive. --Scandum (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Question Even if TMS is not a source to prove notability, is there any reason it shouldn't be included at all as a reference? I just notice that a lot of sites include things like Rotten Tomatoes and simple movie lists. I'm not sure why those would have to be removed from the Threshold article over all. Thanks. Kallimina (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not much different than a link to the IMDB top 250 or something of that order. --Scandum (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Its admittedly a hobbyist site. It states so in its about page. Anyone can fire up a website and add a poll to it. It isn't remotely reliable or notable.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Anyone could fire up a website and add a poll, but can just anyone attract thousands of users for a period of over 8 years to use that site and rely on it for current mud news and discussions? Kallimina (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The site exists mainly because of the poll and has been stated by Richard Bartle to be notable. Kallimina (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the same breath that he attacks wikipedia for considering the deletion of this article. Not only is anything he claims in that blog post completely above board, an experts claim about the notability of a site isn't one of the criteria to make it reliable and confer notability.--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter if attacks Wikipedia or not? He's not an expert in Wikipedia, but he is an expert in muds as is Raph Koster. As I understand WP:NOT a blog post from a recognized expert in the field can be counted. Kallimina (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't see Bartle addressing TMS at all in this blog post [1] and all he says about mud connector is that it is a "standard reference" he doesn't say it conveys any notability. A standard reference doesn't even make it reliable unless there is actual evidence of it being used as citation by reliable sources to this point no one has provided anything. Simply claims, claims and more claims and no evidence.--Crossmr (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm having to defend TMC's notability as well, but here's a few notable sources on it without even putting much effort into looking:

• Gay Wired - http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=117&id=17659
• The Philadelphia Inquirer - This week's Web Winners: Mouse practice. - Publication Date: 07-DEC-00
• The New York Times - "Computing; Parents' Dilemma: A Child's Own PC?" - By MICHELLE SLATALLA Published: February 26, 1998
• Wired News - Jul 15, 2002 - "No Bells, No Whistles: Just Games"

Seriously? The New York Times. :)

Because as I've pointed out probably a dozen times during this whole process a site which is reliable does not necessarily convey notability. Let's talk about those sources, gaywired, random online site, and a trivial mention, philadelphia inquirer, random trivial mention, covered by WP:NOTE. This is the very essence of a trivial mention "Role-playing games, known as MUDs, or multi-user domains, appeal to very hard-core time wasters. Here is a listing of 1,400 games with titles such as Realm of the Crystal Dragon, Vampire Wars and Clandestine. Get lost in one of these, and you may never come out.http://www.mudconnector.com" The full text. Even more trivial mentions [2], I wonder why you didn't just link to that so everyone could check easily..oh..all it does is list the url..the wired article is the closest thing to being used as a citation: [3], There are upward of 3,000 of those sites, according to The Mud Connector, but if that is all that is presented throughout its long history a single tiny reference of how many games are listed on it doesn't convey notability or even reliability.--Crossmr (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how I left out the link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFD8123EF935A15751C0A96E958260, but it couldn't have been that hard to track down since I listed the actual name of the article and where it's located and everything. I'm not sure why you're implying I did it deliberately as it's an honest mistake. I posted the same list on someone else's user page the exact same way. (I really don't understand your hostility at all, honestly.) I'm not sure why TMC's notability is in question in regards to Threshold's article. It's Threshold's NOTABILITY that is in question and TMC's reliability that is in question, right? At this point, I can't keep up with all the bizarre arguments anymore! Kallimina (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Because..not every page that is reliable (and we still haven't established that) conveys notability. It just seemed strange that you took the time to post the the gaywired link and then claim the new york times was such a special reference, and fail to link it, and then when checked it was nothing more than a name drop of the URL which is clearly a trivial mention. As for hostility, there is no hostility sorry if you're interpreting it as such.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I said above that I did a quick search and just typed it up quickly. (Obviously, since what I did above really doesn't work well as a citation anyway.) So, what I'm reading here is basically that not only do we have to establish Threshold's notability, we will also have to establish the notability of every source used. Can anyone verify this? That seems like quite an onerous burden to put on anything that isn't completely mainstream. For example, you can actually solicit articles on Wired or to just about any publication. Whether or not the choose to WRITE about it is another story. If Wired picked up this story and said that Threshold was notable, would we then have to prove that someone on Threshold's staff didn't solicit the story? Can you see how this is starting to be very confusing to me? Kallimina (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct. We just have to determine if the sources meet WP:RS or WP:SPS. The parochial nature of the source is a concern, but not overwhelming. As for his comments that Bartle is somehow not reliable because of his wikipedia rant, that's also incorrect. Bartle is one of the father figures of the MMO world--both on the game dev. side and the academic side. I can't speak for TMS (my guess is that it is not reliable), but bartle is reliable. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He's reliable in his comments about Threshold, he isn't reliable in his comments about mudconnector. His expertise is games not gaming websites. They're a different beast. WP:V already encourages caution in using those sources, a source which attacks wikipedia and its process and tries to suddenly meet all the criteria for that process is suspect.--Crossmr (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me where this is about attacks on Wikipedia? I keep trying to look things up, but I'm not able to find these things. Kallimina (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In his blog post which is used as a reference in the article? he attacks and disparages the process.--Crossmr (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant where on Wikipedia does it say that his attacks on Wikipedia cancels out his statements on Threshold's notability? No one can MAKE Dr. Bartle post on something. Just like Wired receives thousands of "tips" from people a day about gaming news. They still decide what to write about. Kallimina (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I quoted WP:V down below about using caution with these sources. It means we should evaluate their quality. As well this could also be considered an exceptional claim. Bartle is making a claim that is unsupported by mainstream press. What it boils down to is that we can't blindly accept a source that was created with an obvious intention directed at wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wired has a wide reputation as a reliable source and very notable as well. Mudconnector does not. Mudconnector is completely unknown with a small number of trivial mentions and they clearly display a link which allows people to request reviews. Part of the rationale behind notability is that if a notable and reliable source covers subject X that is an indication that it is of greater interest to the public. If a site covers subject X only because they requested it, there is no indication the reliable source actually feels that the subject is notable.--Crossmr (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that he is an expert on games but not gaming websites is a little parsimonious. I want to point out that while a source need not be notable to be reliable it likewise is not made "reliable" by being notable. We have an article for the Weekly World News, but it isn't a reliable source. We would need to know that TMS (TMC, whatever) has a reputation for fact checking, stands by their content and exercises some editorial control. Bartle's commentary on the site seems insufficient to establish that. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. A gaming website is a journalistic endeavour. His expertise is games not journalism. As an example, athletes on retiring are sometimes hired on as commentators. Most of those don't work out that well. Some of them do, but some don't. They're experts at the sport, not reporting on it. They're asked about the game, not how to design and run the show.--Crossmr (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the world is divided into spheres like that. Bartle basically invented the MUD. He might have some understanding of MUD related resources. Would we discard Henry Ford's opinion on Road and Track? Protonk (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we would. Henry Ford is an expert on cars, not journalism. They might turn him in to a journalist and make him a columnist and at some point if he became the head of the magazine, then he might be considered an expert on journalism, but just because someone is an expert on subject X it doesn't make them an expert on everything that could possibly be related to subject X in some tangential manner. That's like saying a urologist is an expert on Tom Cruise because he has a penis.--Crossmr (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? You're joking. You really think that the worlds are so disjoint that Henry Ford wouldn't know jack about an organization that covered his cars? Or that Bartle wouldn't know anything about the small world of MMO/MUD sites? I know you are joking when you make the Tom Cruise comment but if you really think the connection is that tangential, I'm not sure what can be done. I'm not saying they are the same thing. I'm also not saying (note my posting above and in the thread below) that Bartle's say-so is sufficient to make that source reliable. I'm just saying that the MUD site world is small. The world of MUDs is small. The person who created the very first MUD and has been involved in the MUD world for over 20 years might know a little about MUD sites. We certainly don't need him to be a journalist first. And for that matter, would we ask a journalist to judge the reliability of a MUD site? They wouldn't know the first thing about MUDs, how could they tell they are notable? Protonk (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me this: Would Bartle be considered an expert on the subject of Gamespot? Ebay? What about The New York Times? Gamespot is about games..but generally not muds, ebay sells games, the new york times reviews games, and apparently even named dropped a mud site. So should that make him an expert on those? So what exactly would make him an expert on Mudconnector? Just because its about muds? If I start a mud website tomorrow does that make Bartle and automatic expert on it? He's an expert on the subject of muds, game design, etc. We can only cite him as an expert in the context that he's been published as an expert by reliable third parties. A journalist would know that a source is reliable by investigating it. He might try and find out what their procedures are for handling information they received, publishing articles, etc. what their fact checking polices and procedures are. None of which are available.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you simply saying that muds aren't notable in general, so it doesn't matter that Dr. Bartle and Raph Koster is an expert on MUDs and MMOs and games of that type? If you are saying that MUDs simply don't belong on Wikipedia, that's a whole other issue. I'm not sure why you're asking of Dr. Bartle is an expert on Gamespot and Ebay or not. He spoke specifically in his genre.Kallimina (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we establish something like that without going right to the source? I know that TMS does fact check and stand by their content when it comes to their polls. They police that pretty heavily, actually, but to know that, I would have to have experienced it or talked to Lasher (the owner) about it. This is extremely confusing. Kallimina (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard. And not always accurate. And relies a lot on opinion. That's being honest. The best way is to use only sources where third parties have attested to their reliability--we use the NYT because they are the paper of record for the US and they have won awards for journalism. We use publisher XYZ for the same reason. In reality, that doesn't happen. We "know" which magazines and newspapers are reliable (as in it is Tribal knowledge) without literally digging up awards. We look for (in marginal cases) sources that have editorial staff and who have some reputation to protect. Ars Technica might be reliable while Blue's News might not be. For publishers of books we have very limited information, so we judge based on affiliation (if it is an academic press) or size (for mainstream presses). We can also judge the author in a similar fashion. It is not a deterministic process. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And yes the attack on wikipedia is relevant, because it shows a bias in anything he is about to write. WP:V and WP:RS clearly state that content generated by an expert in the field can be considered reliable, but they also say However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. So even if they're accepted as reliable, they should be used with caution, and again even if bartle is reliable, there is no evidence that his blog conveys notability. The Buck town city herald might be reliable, but then we find out the circulation is for a town with a population of 50 people and they sell 27 copies a day. Reliable, but it conveys no notability.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've just come to the conclusion that I have no idea how to read Wikipedia, its guidelines, or its policies. When looking at Dragonlance, all I see is first party citations. (And please don't go raze the DL article over this.) I'm trying to follow Crossmr's logic on how to determine what is noticeable and what is not, and I can't find it referenced in the Wikipedia guideline and such. When I quote essays that seem to exempt things, I'm told that those are essays and doesn't follow guideline or policies. When someone else points out a master thesis, we're guided to some other discussion about master theses that is neither guideline or policy. I have no idea when to apply guideline, policy, essays, some other thread, or this editor's logic or that editor's logic. Maybe someone else can make heads or tail of this. I can't even find where it says to speedily delete something because a DRV is open on it. All I can find was this from the Deletion Policy: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." But we don't even know how to DRV is going to end yet. This just seems like a big fat mess.Kallimina (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No rule is set in stone, if it is not a policy its optional, if it is a policy it may be optional. Take what any single editor says with a grain of salt and stick to what the policy says- unfortunately you will not always win the argument, but at least you are going about it the right way, if everyone did this who knows, maybe something would get accomplished. --Theblog (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:AGF has been brought up several times in this debate,I'd recommend you read it again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Amended just for you. --Theblog (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragonlane is notable because of the sheer volume of material published by it. Sales of products, novels, etc. once a subject is notable primary sources can be used, but it should have more secondary sources.--Crossmr (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can Threshold be deemed notable by the sheer number of people who have paid to play it then? Where do I find guidelines on this policy? I'm assuming there's a baseline amount that must have been made to get to this point. Does it come down to the sheer amount of money made from a product/line/game? Kallimina (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If a product can get shelf space in a brick and mortar store (and chains of them like Dragonlance products do) its generally considered notable. The sources might be missing from the article, but it would probably be very easy to find reviews of dragonlance books, products, etc as some of those books have even been bestsellers I believe. Thats a very different thing than simply saying a product needs to make $1 million dollars to be notable.--Crossmr (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a policy cite for this? Threshold does have its own client. --Theblog (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That it sells in brick and mortar stores and gets shelf space? has it been on bestseller lists? I think people were pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS several times during the AfD debate as well. Notable products are covered here Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services, if you have any question about the notability of dragonlance, feel free to nominate it, but there are several different arguments as to why its notable. I don't think you'd find anyone on wikipedia who would argue for deletion of any product or service that is on the shelves in chain stores in multiple countries whose related products show up on bestseller lists.--Crossmr (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I'm not sure how it applies. I certainly don't have any questions on the notability of Dragonlance and would fight tooth and nail to see it stay on Wikipedia. I was simply using it as a reference article to answer some questions. Just, you know, the article doesn't actually establish its notability on the page. (Even though you and I know it's notable.) It's full of primary sources such as the sourcebooks and the official fan site and papers written by the author. Most of the references that I've found on it (that I would considered good references) could easily be tossed out by your arguments as they pertain to Threshold's article. I guess I'm just still confused. Kallimina (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless an article has been a featured or good article you shouldn't use it as a reference. There are plenty of articles about very notable subjects that aren't inline with current policies and guidelines. I cited otherstuff exists to remind people that the existence of other articles and what happenes on other articles doesn't necessarily apply to this article. As for references I'd have to see them. I'd recommend any references you find be added to the dragonlance talk page so people can pull information from them and put them in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This quote: "If a product can get shelf space in a brick and mortar store (...) its generally considered notable." is the one I was looking for a cite for, please provide. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Grave concerns

I have very grave concerns about COI issues here with so many people weighing in heavily on the original AfD and DRV continuing the conflict here. I ask that everyone who was involved in the original edit war and subsequent battles following recuse themselves from editing the articles and Threshold related sites for now at least until the DRV is resolved. There are a lot people with vested interest in seeing it stay or go. (I noticed the removal of Threshold from yet another Wikipedia article when this was put up.) Kallimina (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

em.. COI do not prevent *any* wikipedia editor in good standing who has been involved in internal debate here from being involved in a) any future debate or b) the editing of any article that they were involved in deleting. If you have concerns about *specific* editors, you bring that to the attention of administrator. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't trying to start a procedural war at all since I'm not even sure how to proceed. (My concern being should this article even have been created while the DRV was still going on?) I guess it's very possible it was recreated due to the multiple requests for the Talk History to be restored, but couldn't that have been done without the creation of the article? The article still existed within my userspace. What happens if the DRV overturns the deletion? I had thought we weren't even allowed to create it again until the DRV was resolved. What happens if it just gets hit with an AfD again right off? While these things may seem like every-day practice to you guys, a lot of us really have no clue.

I wasn't asking people to just give it a break because of some WP policy, so I probably shouldn't linked it. I was just thinking that things are finally dying down, and before personality conflicts even have a chance to rest and maybe recover, we're starting it all over again. I am NOT stating that there is ANY policy that says that me or anyone else who has been involved can't post now. Kallimina (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Although Cam's correct in that COI only applies if a person is personally or deeply committed to the subject (for or against), I'll echo Kalli here that this article shouldn't have been moved out of userspace, where Kallimina was working on her own article draft for Threshold in her userspace User:Kallimina/Threshold. I'll be bold and propose that nobody edit the article (just the talk page) until the DRV ends, at the very least. There's still a bit of hurt feelings all around, and we don't want another shouting match, as happened at the AfD and has happened at the DRV. If this article ends up deleted as G4 or for another reason, Kallimina's draft still exists and can be worked on to get another bite at the apple. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It *wasn't* moved out of user-space - Phil rewrote it from scratch unaware there was a DRV - this is a new article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I saw the move notice first and assumed it'd been moved from userspace. Struck and my comment above updated. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay, then, that there's a new article while a DRV is going on? I have no problems with the actual creation of the article since I understand that no one owns any article on Wikipedia, but honestly, I have no clue if this is okay or not. It just seems... like it will just start the whole process over again, and I'm not sure that anyone besides Phil is actually working on improving the article. Thus, it seems like it's headed for another AfD. But then what happens if the DRV overturns the delete? Will we have an AfD for an article while the DRV overturns the initial deletion, and if another AfD goes through, will the AfD be for this version or the other one? This is all very confusing, and I'm honestly very worried about how to proceed. Kallimina (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another AfD will be speedy-closed as keep because it's essentially spamigation. As to the article, I will say I'm not aware of any situation quite like this one in my Wiki-career and could not say. Sorry, Kalli, but I'm going to have to defer to someone with more experience in DRVs or article recreation during same. I would assume it is alright, however, since nobody at the DRV seems to be caring too much, and I amended my statement above to tone it down. If you wish to help Phil, Kallimina, do so. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are warranted and it's probably the main reason few experienced editors are willing to contribute because edit warring sucks the fun right out of you. Btw, what is the name of the article you were talking about? --Scandum (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this directed towards me? If it is, where did I post? I've utterly confused myself. Kallimina (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Euh, I was referring to "(I noticed the removal of Threshold from yet another Wikipedia article when this was put up.)" what exactly did you mean with that? --Scandum (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you go List_of_text-based_MMORPGs. I'm not even sure how I came across that, but it's in the history. Kallimina (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, that was just plain weird given it was removed by a first time editor who gave a highly suspicious reason, so I reverted it for now. --Scandum (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

TMC & Speedy

On restoration there was a claim made that TMC was often cited. Please provide evidence or its going to be removed and we'll be off to AfD again. Recreating this while there is an on-going Deletion review (with no clear consensus to overturn the deletion) was an extremely bad idea as no new sources have been added. Unless I missed some links no one was able to provide any evidence that TMC was reliable or conveyed notability. As we already pointed out reviews can be requested so they absolutely convey no notability. Bartle's source was generated specifically to try and subvert the AfD process so we can't consider that for notability at the computer games source is trivial. While the words are different there are no new sources provided from the deleted version, so this is a recreation as it was deleted for a lack of coverage, no additional coverage has been provided. You don't get to recreate an article because your opinion on whether or not a source conveys notability differs from that of a closing admin, that is why we have DRV which is still on-going.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is exactly what I was expecting when the new article came up. Bartle, Koster, and Jennings (all experts in the field) all stated that TMC was a notable resource for this genre and the game as well. Wikipedia itself says to go to experts within the field to help establish notability should it come into question. I would like to point out as well that WP:N is a guideline while WP:V is a policy. Using WP:N as a bludgeon has always been the main complaint of those who wish to retain the article. It's doubtful that a non-notable subject would generate as much mention from experts in the field if it weren't notable. These are men with reputations to protect. To suggest they would remark on Threshold's, TMS' and TMC's notability simply to try to "subvert" Wikipedia is a highly subjective and disrespectful statement. I'd like to point out that the statement that while it was made as a result of the AfD, they ARE experts in their field (which happens to be Threshold's field).Kallimina (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  Which is all immaterial. Take it to the DRV. This article was recreated without addressing the reasons given for deletion. All sources were present at the time of deletion, and no new sources have been provided. People were told to work on it in user space and have it vetted via DRV before restoring it to main space. That was not done and as a result sufficient change has not been made to return this to mainspace.--Crossmr (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens after that? What is the correct procedure to even possibly re-introduce the article? I was told by some actually helpful editors and administrators that anyone interested should wait at least a month. Last but not least, it still doesn't address the concern that it's a few editors and admins making personal judgment calls on what to remove while ignoring policy and guideline. How does one deal with that? Kallimina (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The correct procedure was to work on it in user space. rewrite the article, find new sources that you feel the community will accept and then when the version is complete go to DRV and submit it for deletion review. People can comment and say "Yes these new sources/content sufficiently address the reasons given for deletion" or "No, all the reasons aren't satisfied so continue to work on it". Deletion review is not just for articles that were just deleted/kept its also supposed to be for recreating previously deleted articles that have been rewritten. Currently a cited reason for deletion was a lack of coverage, and nothing new in terms of coverage has been added so its impossible for this to address the deletion reasons.--Crossmr (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I understand that which was why it was in my user page, I think. Is it gone now because this was created? I agree that this one is not visibly even quite visibly different from the other one and would have preferred for it to have been created after the DRV is concluded, giving everyone who is interested time for sources to be found and cited. (Several sources are newpaper and magazine sources that have to be found via libraries or from the newspaper themselves. Things like that simply take time.) However, my concern is still that with the way some of these articles are being dismissed, though I see them being used in other articles, how will I KNOW whether it's an acceptable source or not? Many of the sources that I've seen SEEM acceptable when compared to things like Dragonlance and Fast_Times_at_Ridgemont_High and in regards to policy, but they are being thrown out by people on this page. Thus, I'm unsure how I would know. For example, I was working on a page, amigurumi, last night that had absolutely no citations. Obviously, it needed improvement, so I tracked down a citation, rewrote part of it and put it in. Then I asked a long time editor to come look, and he said it was completely acceptable. The article I cited doesn't seem that different from some of the articles we're citing here, so I just must not be able to judge what is a good citation and what is not. Utterly confusing. :( Kallimina (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved your userspace copy to here because it contained the old edit summary (and if this were going to stay we might as well leave the old edits here. If this is deleted I can move a copy back to your userspace. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First, if you're unsure if the community would consider a source reliable you can take it to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Post it there ask about the context in which its being used and people will tell you whether or not it meets reliability. After reliability has been established you can read WP:N and try to be objective and say "does this source have any notability?" it can't give notability if it doesn't have any itself. In the case of bartle, he might be notable, but is his blog notable? in the case of mudconnector we have 3 trivial mentions and a very light reference. If you're still not sure if the community will accept them, you can go to WP:Village pump, or even WP:NOTE to get clarification whether or not people feel source X conveys notability of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any requirement that a source be "notable" or "convey notability" any more than requiring the source mention the subject in significant detail (which can be discussed). There are tens of thousands of scholarly journals and hundreds of thousands of books that will never be notable and yet can cause a subject to be notable through their coverage. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after reading through both those policies (again), it seems to me very much like writing a research paper or a legal brief. The publication does not matter as much as how you use the citation as long as the citation verifies what you're writing. I think I'm having a hard time with this because I keep trying to compare it to writing a research paper where you go to the best sources you have and cite what you need. And yes, many of those research papers, journals, and books will never really be known outside people within that field. 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I routinely see college newspapers dismissed in AfD discussions about notability because they have a small circulation. None of these sources are books or scholarly articles. Its absolutely impossible for a subject to gain notability from a source no one reads, even if its reliable. it defeats the entire concept of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you better bring that up at WT:N or WT:RS, because it isn't written in any policy I see. And I use dozens of parochial sources in articles--I expect that they could establish notability just like any other source. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said about many, many, many scholastic journals. There's probably more people who read and participate in TMS or TMC than pick up the Annual Review of Phytopathology, Vol. 21: 56-69. Also, I thought that's what WP:N is a guideline whereas WP:V is policy. There's obviously a crapton of ways to interpret WP:N which is probably why it's spawned so many essays. Kallimina (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Scholastic journals are peer reviewed by experts. They're in a completely different category than TMS or TMC.--Crossmr (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources don't convey notability either but they're used in article. Notability and reliability are not the same thing.--Crossmr (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a distinction I don't think is made in policy. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion comes from the precedent I've seen. Discounting that However WP:N also states the coverage should be significant, and there is nothing significant about the blog post bartle has made and since there is no agreement that mudconnector is a reliable source, we're once again left with an article that fails WP:N and did nothing to address the reasons for deletion.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that the precedent being established here by a few very vocal editors can be used at a later date to bludgeon other articles out of existence on Wikipedia? My concern is that there are a lot of other articles that don't have ready internet links because they existed and were prominent before the 1990s, much like Dragonlance that are no longer really being written about today. Obviously, there are over 50 books that have been written about Dragonlance now, but they're all owned by TSR/WoTC and all citations are from TSR/WoTC. I'm very concerned that TMS has been thrown out, TMC has been thrown out, theses have been thrown out, CGW, Raph Koster's expert statement has been tossed, and CGO has been thrown out all with various reasons derived from your logic. How exactly does one establish notability within one's field and genre when everything in one's field and genre has been discredited by a zealous and vocal editor? Kallimina (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While reviews can be requested, looking at the site, it appears that there's a very large backlog, and that in practice they welcome having a game flagged for their attention, but they'll review what they please. In any case, [4] shows numerous citations to TMC, and that's just in what Google Scholar indexes (which does not include numerous significant journals, most notably Games and Culture, nor any of the numerous books on MUDs and virtual worlds to have come out of scholarly presses. Which is to say, the Google Scholar result is a lower bound, not an upper bound.

As a further note on the requesting reviews, I know of many, many reliable sources, including peer reviewed journals, that allow requests for reviews, generally in the sense of providing complimentary review copies of books. That a source allows reviews to be requested does not inherently discredit it. Which is probably why no language to that effect exists in any policy we have.

Now, beyond that, there is nothing significant in Bartle's blog post? Baloney. One of the foremost authorities on MUDs wrote on Threshold, and did so expressly to call it significant and important. The medium doesn't matter there. He could have hired a skywriter, and as long as it was verifiable, it'd be significant for our purposes.

The arguments against these sources is spurious at best. Almost as bad as the one cited in the AfD close, that the print source was unverified and so didn't count. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Kalli, Again, I believe you are being told one editor's interpretation of policies and it is not necessarily correct. Just because someone says something alot, doesn't mean it is right. Although, in my experience more often than not an editor who writes a lot will generally get his or her way in the end. --Theblog (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Quiet rofl inserted here. I'm not going to be able to keep up. I can't even decipher some of this stuff. Kallimina (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In my mind if there is evidence that users solicit the content and its not decided on by the site itself, it can't convey notability. There might be a backlog now, which makes sense since they only have 1 staff member, but how about at the time the review was written? Any evidence of a backlog then? Bartles blog post is mostly a rant about wikipedia, regardless what he says about Threshold it doesn't constitute "significant coverage". As of yet, no one has answered the question about whether or not Bartle is a player of Threshold. Thank you for providing the links on TMC I'll check those out.--Crossmr (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to me that users solicit the content - it appears to me that MUD developers can submit their MUDs for review. This is no different from standard review practice where review copies are provided. I also do not see the relevance of whether Bartle is a player of Threshold - that does not seem to me like it would produce a COI if he were, nor discredit him if he weren't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bartle's playing of threshold is irrelevant. The blog post by itself is not "significant coverage" but it doesn't stand alone. Soliciting reviews is acceptable- many big consumer sites/organizations do the same so they don't waste time reviewing products no one uses, self published reviews are not. Additionally, the way reviews are done has changed over time and that must be taken into consideration. --Theblog (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Its relevant because notability can only be established by sources independent of the subject. Someone who regularly plays the game other than to review it for their job or do scholastic research wouldn't really be independent of it, would they?--Crossmr (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that standard, extrapolated widely, would meet any consensus. Anyone who reads a novel for pleasure can't be an independent source for commentary on it? Anyone who watches a TV series for non-research purposes can't be a usable source for it? I think not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Watching TV shows, reading books are passive activities. Playing games are not. Once again, reliability and notability are not necessarily the same sources. Notability clearly states that they must be reliable sources independent of the subject. Sources which are not independent are still reliable, just can't be used for notability.--Crossmr (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the stupidest proposed standard for sourcing I've read since someone rejected a print source because it hadn't been verified. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are correct that independent sources are needed for notability. That's clear. But I'm not sure where your invention of "passive vs. active" comes up in the mix. I doubt you will find an academic in the field who says that reading=passive at all (or many) times. I also doubt that you will find support for claims that playing a game makes you incapable of independently judging something--otherwise we have a lot of AAA titles to delete (as the reviews need to be rejected). Protonk (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that was an issue, and I'm not sure how it applies. Dr. Bartle has never been a registered user of Threshold. Threshold's records can easily show that there has never been a paid subscriber by the name of Richard Bartle, but um... I think that wouldn't meet your reliability test somehow. (You could always ask the creator and administrator of Threshold.) I really hope that this doesn't veer off into how Dr. Bartle cannot be an expert on Threshold since he never played. That's a new argument, by the way, that his post isn't "significant coverage". It doesn't need to be significant coverage when an expert in the field makes a statement concerning Threshold's notability. Raph Koster also states that Threshold is notable, not as notable as some other muds, but he does consider it notable. By the way, Raph Koster hasn't played Threshold either. The Threshold review was not solicted and was actually anti-solicited at the time. TMC had sole control over which muds were reviewed at the time, and as I stated before, the one on TMS now is the 2nd review that was done. I have no idea where the first one is. I don't actually have any idea how they do reviews now, but many, many review sites allow for solicited reviews. It's just up to them which ones they'll pick to review..Kallimina (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Bartle has never been a registered user of Threshold. how would you know that unless you had inside access to all the customer and account records of the game? That seems like something only the game owner would know.--Crossmr (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cause I asked the creator of Threshold and Richard Bartle? I don't think I'll get a response from Dr. Bartle, though. I mean, that's the problem, though. How do I prove that he DIDN'T do something, especially if you aren't willing to take the owner of Threshold at his word? Kallimina (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Or Dr. Richard Bartle. I mean, the only people who would really know would be those two guys. Kallimina (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Prove a negative will be a new Wikipedia notability requirement. --Theblog (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

your assumptions of bad faith and disparaging remarks are getting tiresome. If this mud was so notable and significant I wanted to know if the foremost expert was a player.--Crossmr (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, how do you want me (or anyone else) to prove that he isn't? There's not really going to be anywhere that published something like "Richard Bartle Never Played Threshold RPG". I mean, I could say that I want you to prove that you've never played Threshold and aren't a disgruntled ex-player and don't have a bias against the game. How would you go about doing that? Kallimina (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no one needs to prove that. I'll take it on good faith that he's not tied to the subject unless some evidence were to come up to suggest he was. I had no idea if player profiles, rosters, etc were available for the game or perhaps bartle mentioned in his blog that he played the game, etc. I thouht perhaps if someone who was here who knew more about the subject knew if he was a player they could let us know.--Crossmr (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a fascinating thought exercise, but I have to ask, even if playing Threshold undermined his independence (which is a ludicrous precedent), what evidence, exactly, do we have that he plays Threshold? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, please cite a policy Crossmr or quit making stuff up. --Theblog (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I did. WP:N clearly states that notability can only be satisfied by sources independent of the subject. If bartle were tied in to the game by being a long term player, it might be difficult for an outside observer to assume he's truly independent of the subject. Now read WP:CIVIL--Crossmr (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only two people you can ask about that is the creator of Threshold and Dr. Richard Bartle himself. Even if you ignore Dr. Richard Bartle, are you going to ignore Raph Koster and Scott Jennings? Kallimina (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but someone had already raised some concerns about the other "experts" that were mentioned in the same breath as bartle before..that they weren't really experts. I'm not sure where that discussion was.--Crossmr (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd look into them before you took their word on it. The only reason I saw for them being thrown out was because they were a result of "canvassing", which is also impossible to prove, and HIGHLY unlikely. You can't force these men to write anything they don't want to write. They have their own reptuations to protect and aren't going to be declaring Threshold notable for kicks or favors. Kallimina (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Crossmr, don't put "experts" in quotes. I don't know about Jennings, but Koster is an expert in VW's. Protonk (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't remove the source without consensus Crossmr, unless you're going to edit war like last time. --Scandum (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Now now. Let's not move towards incivility. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think he was saying that Crossmr was edit warring, but that's what did happen on the previous version of Threshold's article which DID have citations removed without consensus. Kallimina (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Or she. Sorry, Scandum. I shouldn't assume you're a guy. Kallimina (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm male for whatever that's worth. I'm not trying to be incivil, just stating the facts. I've been in my share of edit wars and what I'm seeing here screams "pov pushing conflict". I strongly suggest ignoring non costructive criticism and focussing primarily on improving the article. As I said, without consensus there's no deleting of sources, and since this isn't a consensus discussion it's pointless (and a waste of time) to enter the debate because Crossmr either drops it or puts the article up for deletion. --Scandum (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry. I thought maybe some of his points needed to be discussed and should be refuted since that's how citations were removed last time. (I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative or obtuse.) Now, there's still a DRV going for the original Threshold article. Should we wait for that to be over before trying to improve? Kallimina (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the best course of action is to create the best possible article so that an AfD will fail. Hence my suggestion to concentrate on that instead of engaging in an endless discussion which will just suck up all your time. It's clear who agrees and who disagrees, there's no consensus and beyond that there's no obligation to discuss things further. --Scandum (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was already up for deletion, it was deleted, its currently in deletion review. Why would I nominate it again while its in deletion review?--Crossmr (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You've clearly formulated that you think all available sources are unreliable, hence the subject is not notable. The question is not why or if, but when you put the article up for deletion. But please feel free to help find suitable and borderline sources, given you appear to be an expert on what's reliable and all that. --Scandum (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV Closed

I suggest we focus on the article now. --Theblog (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How the heck can you tell it was closed? I don't see anything different. Kallimina (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you check the article history you'll see a mention somewhere, then click the 'diff' link to see what the admin wrote. --Scandum (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It says: Threshold (online game) – Invalid. A new article has subsequently been created with a stronger case for notability, and as such, the fate of the previous article (that was being debated here) is now immaterial. – MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) --Theblog (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Broke it

I broke it trying to add reference #6 to the article. I haven't a clue how to fix it. Help, please, and my apologies!! Kallimina (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I also actually did a reference wrong, I think. This is the article's information: Computer Gaming World: August 1, 2001 - Top 10 Free Online Games. Threshold is mentioned for value and its rabid following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallimina (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to add a /ref. Computer Gaming World was a magazine right? Do you have the edition number? --Scandum (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't yet. I could only confirm it with the librarian. The article has to be mailed to me, and then I have no actual idea how to get it online. Kallimina (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You could scan the actual page and put it online, but that's not a requirement. If you can have the article mailed to you it can be verified, so if you know the text of the article that's enough. --Scandum (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full listing. I'm not sure what the best way is to put it in: Top 10 Free Online Games, Computer Gaming World', August 1, 2001, p. 11 by Tracy Baker. Kallimina (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I added this section: In January 2008 an attempt was made to delete an entry about Threshold on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, during the deletion process, Richard Bartle, Raph Koster[1] and Massively.com[2] commented on the loss of MUD history occurring at Wikipedia and the precedent this may set.

The final vote for deletion was 18 for deletion and 22 to keep the article with the final deletion argument due to "lack of verifiable resources" and "little notability about the game".[3]

Obviously it is a work in progress, but since at least three RS's commented on the situation, I think it belongs. I do believe that threshold's notability stands regardless of this section however. What do you think, please cite any exclusion policy about what happens on Wikipedia if you know one. Thanks. --Theblog (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a general preference of hesitancy about discussing Wikipedia controversies on Wikipedia, in part because it's easy to over-inflate their significance. That, combined with the risk of recentism, makes me think it's best to let this section lie for a few weeks or months, then see if it's still seeming encyclopedic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There were 4 meat puppets I think, so I think the real vote was 18 vs 18. I'd be careful with using sources to give a biased view of the situation. I'd just stick with the first paragraph based on the blogs by Bartle and Koster, and skip the whole vote / AfD thing which has no long term historical value (in my opinion). --Scandum (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Scandum, I am forced to not do any WP:OR, so I quoted what was in the reference. --Theblog (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood, just that I think it can be better covered by focusing on A) Bartle (as an expert) thinks Threshold is notable. B) Concerns about the difficulty of sourcing MUDs / bitrot. C) The overall concern about the consequences for other mud articles. D) the deletion of the possibly more notable Legendmud. --Scandum (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would be very hesitant to include a section like this. If it turns into a longer form discussion or gets into a different source...maybe. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ no. Someone wrote a blog post when asked - where's the Controversy? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no proof of that and the ridicule of RSes is getting very tiring. Kallimina (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose this addition. This probably wouldn't be welcome under WP:WAWI, but even more so it is undue weight added to the article. In no way does this "controversy" affect the game itself. Themfromspace (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Topmudsites.com usage

I'd like to propose the use of topmudsites.com as a valid, reliable resource to establish notability based on ranking. Initially I thought this would be in the gray area of notability, however, this may help. http://flagshipmagazine.com/BackIssues/issue113.pdf. This is Issue #113 for Flagship Magazine, published in April/May '05. Flagship magazine has been publishing issues for 26 years. In the issue link I supplied, the following is included:

"We've an article about MUDs (ie Multi-User Dungeons) in this issue, so will include the list of Top Mud Sites from the authoritative www.topmudsites.com. As we went to press, the top ten of these were:

1: AardwolfMUD

2: Achaea: Dreams of Divine Lands

3: The Carrion Fields

4: Discworld mud

5: Imperian

6: Aetolia: the Midnight Age

7: Threshold RPG

8: Lusternia: Age of Ascension

9: Age of Chaos

10: Armageddon"

What do other wikiites think? Ismarc (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this seems like a V, RS. --Theblog (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I find it reliable as such, but it seems significant enough to be worth reporting as what it is. I don't think it establishes notability, and I wouldn't use it for a claim that it's the 7th most popular MUD in the world, but it works as an interesting and significant fact about Threshold. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the notability requirements is getting continually nominated for an award or placing near the top. WP:WEB "Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability." I think this data point helps establish this for Threshold. --Theblog (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it wouldn't be reliable, please explain? --Theblog (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It basically says Threshold was at rank #7 in april/may of 05, which is less impressive than the #3 rank of the all time ranking index, but it looks like a source that should be somehow included. --Scandum (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that in the above discussion I mentioned that I posted the discussion of this link at the reliable sources forum (though I don't blame you if you couldn't find it in that mess). You are welcome to go there but try to stay within the conflict of interest guidelines if you have any personal relation to the website. Themfromspace (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted a shortened and more concise version of the above so whoever we get to look at it can include it in their evaluating. As for conflict of interests, there are none for me at all....I just have to work extra hard to stay within WP:NPOV if I edit the article directly, so I'm sticking with reference gathering for now. Ismarc (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CG Online Link

Does someone have a link that works? I remember checking one a few days ago and it worked, but the current one does not seem to. Also, was it actually CGO when originally published or CG? --Theblog (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It was published in print in CG. I know someone who has the original link, so I'll send off a mail. Kallimina (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the right link. It's an archive of a printed CG article. Looks like the site is currently having some sort of bugs and downtime. I checked all their other pages, and they said they're trying to "get their act together". Print source should still be available. Kallimina (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so please don't delete the reference, the web link is only for convenience, I don't think anyone doubts the authenticity of the reference. If so, please speak up. --Theblog (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the link worked yesterday. Removing dead links is not good practice unless we're sure they're dead anyway. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[5] is a working link to the article. Just needed to search "Threshold" on the 404 page to find it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This text "This article originally appeared in Computer Games Magazine #156" appears at the link, so I believe that could be used to supplement the reference in the future. --Theblog (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of WP:Citation templates include url= parameters. I suggest citing CGM directly and including the CGO link. Flatscan (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Theblog (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

Can someone add this [6] to an archive? The previous talk page got messed up with the delete and I pride myself in having no useful capabilities with the Wikipedia system despite 4 years of use. Thanks. --Theblog (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Protonk (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over sources

Primary sources can be used in limitation and with caution, and the usage of primary sources in this article falls clearly within the limitations imposed. It has also been noted that blog post by experts in the field can be used, once again with caution, but that's always a given. --Scandum (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the old usenet archive able to be used to verify opening date? Kallimina (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We would really prefer not to use it. Only under narrow conditions (mainly an article about that usenet posting itself) would we use usenet postings. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the central role Usenet played for mud announcements it doesn't make sense to exclude Usenet as a source, given most of the reliable third party sources about MUDs used Usenet for their primary sources. You can search http://groups.google.com/ (Google archived Usenet as part of Google groups) for primary sources about Threshold, but few Usenet posts qualify, and as Protonk mentioned, they can only be used under narrow conditions. At least the currently used Usenet post indicates that Threshold was up and running as early as 1997 and that at that time the 18+ age requirement was already in place. --Scandum (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't see what it was being used for. I saw it and tried to link it for verification that the mud actually existed at that time. Kallimina (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD

I plan to AFD this article - all of the coverage is trivial and consists of either list mentions or mentions in other context. I see no improvement from the last article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• ...Please don't. I'd rather not repeat that debate. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• From WP:DELETE "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Kallimina (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. That would apply if the DRV lead to the old page being moved here. The DRV and the AFD were about the *old* page they don't apply to this freshly created from scratch page. This page was never kept because it's never been at AFD. If that was allowed, it would be an instant out for anyone who's page was deleted, you could just create a new one while it's at DRV and then claim the new page was protected from AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "protected" from an AfD. The policy just suggests giving it time so that editors can improve the page. The DRV has barely been over and it's been hit with two AfDs already. That doesn't seem appropriate to me. Kallimina (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with being courteous and giving it some time? --Scandum (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for what? People ran all over the internet looking for references and we are still left with some trivial mentions. What's to wait for? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Print source. Those have to be ordered from a library or dug up on Microfiche and the international source still has to be confirmed. The internet is typically not the first place to look for references for things like this. I think, also, they are still deciding on whether or not TMS and TMC can be used as reliable sources. There's a lot to wait for. Why are you in such a hurry to AfD it again? Kallimina (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we get the closing admin's opinion on this? From what I understood, they closed the DRV because this article existed, giving it the okay to go ahead and progress. I don't think it's unreasonable to give it some time to get better. It pretty much hasn't had the chance due to all the abuse it's received between edit warring, bans, AfDs, DRVs, speedy AfD, and now your AfD. I think respecting the spirit of the policy would be a good idea. The DRV has been closed for less than 24 hours, and you guys have already proposed as speedy AfD and now your AfD. Kallimina (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

An AfD would not be procedurally out of line at this point - the DRV was closed because it was a discussion about undeleting a version of the page that was no longer the present version, and was in every regard inferior to the present version. Thus, as a DRV, it was moot. An AfD of the new version would not be out of line if an editor believes it is deletable. That's the flip side of the page being undeletable via G4 - if it's not a recreation, it's a new page and can be AfDed separately.

However, I would point out that the short amount of time since its creation is not really ideal for a good push towards referencing. Looking at the state of the deleted version and the current state, the referencing has improved dramatically in a short time, and I see little reason not to think it will continue to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Yeah, I was a little bit worried about that. Well, if it goes through another AfD and gets deleted, is it forever banned on Wikipedia? Kallimina (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but at that point it's safe to say that a major new source, and probably more than one, would need to be uncovered. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes total sense. I hadn't expected it to come up so soon after the first deletion, but you can't always time these things, right? Kallimina (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phil. Beyond that, we really have to work to fix our image of "nominate until deleted" for articles. We get a lot of shit from enthusiasts for the impression of being deletionists. I don't think we need to kowtow, but we should be mindful. This article isn't promotional, it isn't defamatory. It is a reasonable stub. Let's just let it go. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with a proposed AFD, the coverage and awards are sufficient to keep it as an article. --Theblog (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

MMORPG and RPG classification

I'm not sure if an average of roughly 70 online players would classify a game as a MMORPG. I also checked out the Role-playing games category and Threshold seems to be out of place there since it's mainly about pen and paper rpgs. I'd suggest removing the rpg category and instead settle for the MUD niche (given the notability dispute that seems the wisest thing to do) and avoiding back linking from MMORPG related pages. --Scandum (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I'm not sure who put it there anyway. Kallimina (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott added the role-playing game category. I went ahead and removed it, I'm sure the MMORPG related articles will sort themselves out eventually. --Scandum (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this belong?

Threshold has a yearly convention that has run for 10 consecutive years now with players showing up from all over the world. How would you cite something like that? The hotels could easily verify it, so does it have to be in a specific article? Kallimina (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd need some kind of publication or reliable announcement of this. --Scandum (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be able to use the way back machine to combat bit rot. http://www.archive.org/web/web.php I'm not sure if an archive.org page is considered more reliable, given it cannot be altered and is dated to some extend. --Scandum (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For sites that were originally reliable (or otherwise meet SPS), the wayback machine is a good tool to you. You cite the webpage and note that the link is an archived cache. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Now we are not allowed to cite Threshold's own page for a record of this, right? Kallimina (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Threshold website is not a reliable source in general but can be cited in this article, with proper attribution. Something like, "According to the game's website, as of 2009 a yearly convention of players had been held for ten consecutive years...." with a link. A source of the type mentioned by Scandum would be treated differently. Note that the hotly debated issue about whether the game is notable enough to have an article is not the same as the question of what should be in the article; a website created by the article subject can be cited for the latter purpose but is generally useless for the former. JamesMLane t c 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think James makes a good point about the content, everyone is so fixated on referenced material actual useful information is being left out. Yeah, its a role playing MUD, but what kind of role playing mud? Elves, dragons, girls in tight leather with whips? --Theblog (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we do that without everything getting wiped out immediately? It seems very odd to have an article that basically gets to say absolutely nothing about the game itself. What makes it different? What is it known for? What is the setting for the game even? I could write it, but I'd be unsure how to source it. Kallimina (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply summarize the game play and theme. There are hundreds of book summaries on this Wikipedia simply sourced to the work itself. No reason summarizing a mud should be any different. Of course if your summary strays into comparisons or claims then you'll have difficulties. Jlambert (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources subpage

Does anyone see any value in creating a dedicated Sources section or subpage? I think that a unified list or table, without confusing threaded commentary, would be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That'd be nice, given the current trend of people dropping by to remove sources. --Scandum (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

and then people would edit war over the descriptions in the table "it's an important mention by a leading figure" "no it isn't, it's a blog entry where the mud gets a trivial mention" and so on... --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer to that would be to reduce the details allowed in the table. (1) Richard Bartle's (2) personal blog are both relevant factual details. Any discussion – leading figure, trivial mention, in response to the AfD, etc. – would occur in a quarantined subsection. Flatscan (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea Flatscan. --Theblog (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in working on this? I think this would be useful to both sides. I'll work on it in a few days if no one else gets to it first. Flatscan (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can help with looking sources since my library is excellent for this, but I can't seem to do a reference right to save my life. Thus, I'll leave this in better hands but will help gather sources. Kallimina (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I created Talk:Threshold (online game)/Sources. I'd appreciate if someone would link it in an infobox at the top of this page. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed a source and the content sourced. Have my hands on a printed copy of the actual article now. Any idea if sourcing a radio talk show is possible? Kallimina (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this help make Threshold more "notable"?

Whoever is responsible for the attempt to kill this article deserves some credit. For this jeremiad is attracting some unpleasant attention. 76.191.202.13 (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No it does not. Those sources are from blogs which are unreliable. Also, sources have to discuss the game itself, not its relation to Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe some of the blogs referencing the proposed deletion are RS (two or three are by experts in the field) and can be used appropriately. The blogs discuss threshold and what is happening, similar to John Stewarts prank, which is on Wikipedia. I tried to get this started in the controversy section posted above. --Theblog (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I messed that reference up, its the other guy [7]--Theblog (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, but first I would ask involved parties to read and understand WP:N and WP:RS if they haven't already. As the sources provided are still not both reliable and significant, I suggest mentioning this game in a broader article, such as List of text-based MMORPGs, per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3. One paragraph is sufficient, the cgonline.com looks like the most reliable source for independent verification. Marasmusine (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, "CGOnline.com" is not even a correct reference, it is Computer Games the magazine, the source is just there now for convenience. However, I believe the sources in the article now are all reliable and establish threshold's notability. If you would like to open up a discussion on any source in particular, I suggest you create a new talk page section. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, newsgroups and blogs are not reliable sources, and are not even verifiable. Per policy,

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

One should also read the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. In addition, one of our core policies states,

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

Hopefully, editors can work to find sources to replace the blogs and newsgroup postings, instead of edit warring. seicer | talk | contribs 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC) --And again, WP:V also states that the self-published works of experts in the field are reliable sources, so the 'no blogs' restriction doesn't apply there. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where at this page is that?

--Or, you know, Wikipedia could stop being purposely obtuse and decide to come into today's world where even "reputable sources" are citing the blogs of verified experts in the related field. Crazy suggestion, I know. 98.244.243.96 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.

seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I can read it as well as you. I'm not suggesting we cite usenet groups (as were cited in the article) or just any old blog, but one that has been repeatedly removed from the article clearly meets SPS. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly acceptable to use primary sources if done within reason, which is absolutely the case in this article. You're edit warring over the minuscule factoid that Threshold requires players to be 18+. --Scandum (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you not cite the MUD signup page itself for the age verification, or the terms of service? seicer | talk | contribs 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a middle ground. Based on the Internet Archive entry (only goes back to ~2000, was a different URL in use before?)[8] It has been 18+ since at least 2000. I suggest we use the Primary Source of the MUDs webpage, as indexed in the Internet Archive and rather than supply any direct times (since they are not verifiable) we add something to the effect of "Threshold has had an 18+ requirement to play since at least 2000" and amend as better sources for information regarding its inception are found. Ismarc (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do something like that when there is an equally verifiable source from 1997? --Scandum (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is contention over the currently used source and the Primary Source I provided would receive no such issues. The article currently only claims 18+ as of now for the game, which a Primary Source can provide information on. Once a more fitting source can be found, or a consensus on the use of the Usenet posting can be reached, then the article can be modified to reflect that the game has always been 18+. Ismarc (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If the contention was over a single source I'd agree, but the dispute goes much deeper than that. The source is valid, hence my objections, otherwise the article is back at AfD with 3 clumsy sources that barely tie the article together in a couple of weeks. It however makes sense to use the wayback machine to find the oldest version of the threshold website citing June 2006 as the launch date - but that would be in addition, not as a replacement of the Usenet source. --Scandum (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Usenet postings are dated and cannot be altered - we wouldn't want to get into a discussion about Threshold fabricating information to be used on Wikipedia - which is beyond discussion with this source because the announcement was written before Wikipedia itself existed. This source also shows it has been a long term policy. --Scandum (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I know; I've participated in newsgroups for over a decade now. However, I can sign up with a Google account and post under his alias, and there is nothing to verify his identity over mine. Therefore, how is the newsgroup posting verifiable or even reliable? If you want a test... seicer | talk | contribs 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, make a recent google groups post that google groups believes to be created in 1994 and from aristotle@thresholdrpg.com and we'll talk further. If these sources were used for original research I'd understand your problem, but your current objections are unreasonable. --Scandum (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on my challenge. --Scandum (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Notability the ONLY thing we're allowed to use?

It is my understanding that notability is obviously very important and all efforts should attempt to be used to establish it. However, that does NOT preclude an article from using ANY primary sources such as the game's website to verify some of the article, right? Those sources simply wouldn't really count in a notability discussion, but it can still be used to verify and reference part of the article. So, while the usenet link verifies the 18+ policy, it doesn't need to be used to establish notability, but it doesn't have to be removed either. All sources are not about notability. Some are used for verification just as a research paper might be. Kallimina (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally a primary sources has the following attributes: 1) It's dated. 2) It cannot be altered (edibility would make the date pointless). 3) It's clear who wrote it. Next you can only use primary sources if something is as simple as 1+1=2, if it gets more difficult than that you pretty much need an expert that says something meaningful based on a primary source or implies that the source is a credible source, which would be a secondary source.

Or what Wikipedia writes about it:

"Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are referenced, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion unless the that specific interpretation, analysis or conclusion is explicitly stated in the primary source (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction, but a letter by the Duke of Wellington specifically analyzing the Battle of Waterloo would be a reliable source for a statement as to his analysis of that battle). For statements of interpretation, analysis, or conclusion not explicitly stated in the primary source, we must cite reliable secondary sources."

So yes, primary sources can be used, but some are better than others. --Scandum (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking about the Usenet citation. Obviously, since it's a primary source, it doesn't go towards notability, but it IS dated in a way that can't really be altered, thus aiding in verification that Threshold was roleplay enforced and required players to be 18+ at that time. Or is the consensus that it's just a bad source? I don't really know, but I don't want to use it or remove it without asking about it. Kallimina (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no consensus, just a couple of editors who think that (pretty much) every source used in this article is an unverifiable and or unreliable source. It's edit warring 101 and I've seen edit wars where Nobel price winners were determined unreliable by deletionist parties. --Scandum (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsure how to proceed

I have absolutely no idea how to proceed without this evolving into just another edit war. People are coming by simply to remove citations without comment or discsussion when there's clearly no concensus. The article, again, is not being allowed to be written which is basically what happened in the first deletion. Is the messsage simply "We're not going to let you work on this? Move on?" Kallimina (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just hang in there, once editors admit they think the article should be deleted they really have no business editing the article, since they have no consensus to work toward (since deletion consensus takes place at an AfD), hence their edits (with the occasional exception) cannot possibly be in good faith. You can revert three times a day, and I'd definitely suggest reverting as often as possible during the coming AfD if editors in support of deletion keep edit warring. --Scandum (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we just rather have editors take an article, which was deleted, taken to DRV, restored to a user subpage, not improved, and then restored, retain its unverified and non-reliable sources, some of which were self published. It's easier to bitch and complain, than to actually find sources that actually meet our core policies. Of course, instead of edit warring, you can either discuss it here on this talk page or take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you missed the gigantic talk section above here. We HAVE been talking about it before we edit. There's still some sources we're discussing, but I can't imagine that every single source has to be hashed out and dissected a million times before something gets done with it. No one's even been able to write the article with the amount of deleting that's been going on, which is exactly what happened before the AfD was proposed. People would drive by, delete, state their opinions as fact, and keep going. I'm not sure exactly how an article is supposed to get written that way. If it's a stub, shouldn't people be trying to improve it instead of just deleting any addition to it? If it still sucks in a month or so, just AfD it again, but give it a chance to get written. We're still discussing how to write it, and it's already getting slaughtered. Kallimina (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of irritating that it's the exact same people as before who claimed they had no interest just seeing the article deleted. Is there some problem with giving it more time? Should we just AfD it now and then go through the entire process again? I seriously have no idea how to proceed here. Kallimina (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I found it frustrating that the people who wanted to keep the article, wanted to improve upon it. So it was userified, and no improvements were made. Then it made its way back here through an involved administrator who should have kept his hand out of the cookie jar. So, we are back to where we began; an article with poor sources and notability that is unclear -- see the noticeboard for refusal of the primary source for that.

Personally, and this is because I am a nice guy and all (and have deleted over 1,700 articles), I will personally userify an article deleted if requested politely, so that it can be improved upon for inclusion. Otherwise, I give it two weeks to see if any improvements are made. seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your frustration, Seicer, because some of us were in the process of working on the article that had been userfied and would have liked to had time to wait for more sources to get mailed to me. Many of the sources are still being verified because they're in print, not online, including a book on game design. I don't even know if I'll be able to get my hands on them, though I've managed to get at least one. (Even if it's thrown out as being a throw-away mention.) When this got made, the copy that had been userfied got overwritten. However, it's pretty clear that none of us own the article, and it got recreated. I don't think we HAVE a choice to work on the userfied version, which we would have happily done. Many other editors and admins can attest to the fact that I went around trying to find out which article to work on, what would happen should one get deleted or the DRV got overturned, or the millions of questions in a case like this. And the people interested in improving were waiting to be told how we should proceed before working on anything. Heck, I'm still trying to learn how to operate on Wikipedia without breaking the article every time I edit it. (My apologies if this is the inappropriate place to post this.) Kallimina (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. After looking at the DRV, it seems that there are two userified versions of the article. If you have one you've been working on Kallimina, can you post a link here for review? I'd be more than happy to give my opinion on this -- from someone who has authored two Good Articles and has contributed to countless other Good and Featured Articles in the past. If it is acceptable, I don't see why we can't incorporate the sources and text from that into this version. seicer | talk | contribs 04:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in my user talk/Threshold, but I'm warning you that it's pretty crappy. I had actually gone and started editing things that were unrelated to Threshold in order to try to learn how to write, cite, and in general figure out how to use templates. It had been suggested that I emulate the JediMUD article, so that's where I came up with the thing. (Every time I've edited, I've managed to break something.) It had also been suggested to me by another admin to give it a month to work on this before attempting to re-list it. Again, what happened was entirely out of our control, though, I think Phil had only good intentions. He had no idea that a DRV was going on when this was created, but what do we do now? I don't think I can request this to be userfied again until it's ready, so our only option is to work on it in open space. Kallimina (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest to keep looking for sources and maybe duplicate content in your user space if the rate at which the article is broken down increases further. --Scandum (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not really sure how to duplicate content, and is that allowed? Kallimina (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is edit the article, copy, edit User:Kallimina/Threshold, paste - so you can work on it in your user space if things become too hectic over here. Also keep in mind that the section about the game world and religion doesn't necessarily need to be sourced because it can be treated like a book summary, people can login on the game to verify it. It should read encyclopedic though and not like an advertisement, but your current work on the gameworld looks excellent to me. --Scandum (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with the deletion review, you should take it up with the Admin who made the decision, or perhaps start a deletion review review. The rest of us are just dealing with the hand we've been dealt. --Theblog (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the launch date

I looked at the wayback machine and apparently the launch date of June 2006 is a recent addition to the Threshold site. On the bright side I found an August 2006 Usenet source announcing Threshold. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.mud.lp/msg/8cd61b7e71fb6e42 --Scandum (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we tell if the Noticeboard accepts it or not? I can't really find the resolution to it. Kallimina (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Euh, what do you mean? --Scandum (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, people saying to go to the noticeboard in order to see if a source is allowed. I'm not sure how to do that. Kallimina (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not the source, but the context in which it is used given it's a primary source. You may have observed that there has been no complaint about the context so far. The noticeboard is more useful for secondary sources in that regard, as far as I know the noticeboard holds little authority and I'm not aware that the editors posting there are notable experts on references - most of them are anonymous as a matter of fact. --Scandum (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Usenet posts, forums, and other self-published sources by non-experts in the field aren't remotely reliable and can't be used as citations in articles unless the published can clearly be identified as the subject of the article. Its impossible to identify the source of a usenet post and tie it to anything reliably. This is well explained in WP:V and WP:RS.--Crossmr (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The email address had the same host name as Threshold had at the time, it's easy to verify the Usenet post did indeed originate from the Threshold staff - beyond reasonable doubt that is. --Scandum (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Because no one has ever faked a header on usenet. Its verifies nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that anything has been faked in this reference? I'd say you're grasping for straws, and I don't see the problem with this primary source given it's used to point out the simple fact that the game is 18+. The source is good enough for Wikipedia, and it's used well within the limitations provided for primary sources. --Scandum (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to. WP:V puts the burden of proof on you that wants to include the reference. The source fails these guidelines and policy. There is no way you can prove the source.--Crossmr (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But I've provided rationale that the source is from the Threshold staff. You however have not provided rationale why the 18+ claim is an exceptional claim and would hence require an exceptional source. You seem to confuse primary and secondary sources, and how each should be used. --Scandum (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't confused anything. Usent is not a primary source. Its not a source for anything since you can't reliably verify who made the posting unless they've later claimed it. A primary source is only usable in the context of being able to verify who made the posting. You don't accept some blog on livejournal as bill gate's personal blog because the writer claims so. You only would accept it if bill gates linked it from his official site and said "Hey this is me". If 18+ is an official rule for this mud, I'm assuming it appears somewhere on the official website and people wouldn't have to be digging through ages old usenet posts to find this information.--Crossmr (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoted directly from the work itself...Chapter Help, Section Rules

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                        Help for rules (General Help)                        
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Threshold is private property. Access is at the sole discretion of Michael A.
Hartman. There are no rights, express or implied, guaranteeing use/access. By
playing, you agree to the rules in the documents listed below and that failure
to obey them is grounds for instant deletion without compensation of any sort.

           pk - the rules on player killing
          age - the rules on age. You must be 18 years old to play here
         bugs - Bug abuse. Don't do it. Here is more info on why.
...
rest ellided

This fact is not unusual, unsuprising, and non-controversial. Jlambert (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is on the official threshold site, cite it from there. But if it can't be found anywhere but the usenet post, its not usable for citation. It doesn't matter if the material is contentious or not.--Crossmr (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's on the official Threshhold site (telnet://thresholdrpg.com). And you're wrong, you can certainly cite Usenet on Wikipedia. See Godwin's law, Tanenbaum–Torvalds debate and Plonk (usenet) just for starters. I'm not going to change the cite just to satisfy this level of pedantry. If you believe aliens from outer space, or some other malicious entity, posted fictional adverts on Usenet over the course of many years then that's your problem. Jlambert (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that the age requirement was a controversial topic in the first place. Things such as game rules can and should be sourced to the documents themselves if possible. While it's not the best thing in the world, it's common enough to consider things like film plot summaries verifiable by watching the film. At least we aren't sourcing it to an open wiki. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, a dated static self published primary source is preferable to an undated alterable primary source. While Threshold can be treated like a book, it's a book that can change at will. --Scandum (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, actually worked on the article itself

Okay, I actually worked on some of the content itself instead of just obsessing over the sources. I know that there are places to verify the things I wrote, and I will be tracking them down to cite them. (No guarntees that I'll not break the darn reference thing again. I can't seem to wrap my head around it.) Please aid in deleting or re-writing anything you think might be fancruft. Kallimina (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a few further improvements to try to keep this article from looking like a laundry list of citations as we wait for more print sources to arrive. (Assuming this article doesn't die an ugly death in the AfD.) I would like to request that someone check it for WP:NPOV and reword/remove any fancruft. Also, I'm not sure if I need to add this citation to the 2004 reference of clan skills or not, but this is the page for it [9]. Thanks for checking my work in advance. Kallimina (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd want to write about the game the way it is today, like Jlambert said earlier, treat it like a book summary. Something like:

Threshold RPG is a fantasy based MUD set in a world with three main continents and a chain of islands. Religion based on a pantheon of Greek-like deities plays a dominant role in the story of the mud, with the ability for players to rise through the ranks of religious organizations to gain divine powers. Threshold provides a framework for a player-driven legal system where players can take the role of judges, lawyers, and the jury in order to prosecute players who are accused of breaking the law. There are fourteen guilds in Threshold which are equivalent to character classes in Dungeons & Dragons, one being a secret, unlisted guild. Players can diversify their characters further with skills acquired by joining a clan. --Scandum (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh! I think I get it. Leave out historical stuff and things like that since I don't really need to cite a summary, right? Kallimina (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, guess you could go through WP:FA to see a list of articles that are supposedly top notch. BioShock for example. --Scandum (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold was, for three consecutive years, The MUD Journal's highest-rated role-playing game. Could you please make this sentence grammatically correct? Even Threshold was The MUD Journal's highest-rated role-playing game for three consecutive years [list years] would be better. --12.159.169.4 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for the uploaded logo

Threshold used to have a graphic associated with it before it underwent the original AfD. Before I uploaded a new version, I wanted to know if it's likely to still be on Wikipedia. (No sense having two versions of the same picture up there.) Anyone know where I can find it or if it's gone? Kallimina (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead and gone by now - it's been orphaned long enough to kill it. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you'll want to upload a new version; deleted files are actually deleted (after awhile) instead of just being "hidden" like normal deletions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• What was the file name? I can restore it if you tell me the file name. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It would have been File:Threshold RPG logo.png, I believe. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. For the record, deleted files can be restored just like pages (though some files which were hit in a caching bug in August of last year will not be recreated properly. The file information page and the file itself may be deleted and restored together or separately. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of Admins?

Has Threshold added two or three more admins since Aristotle? I see where the article said three, then was revised to two and then three again. Miry Roses (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has 3 total, so only two were added. I'm not sure who keeps changing it to 3 being added. Kallimina (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Occupy Wikipedia

I read somewhere that this article received a lot of attention concerning deletion/save. Just on the off chance some people are still watching this article, I've created a proposal for a new meta project called Occupy Wikipedia (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Occupy_Wikipedia and am just interested in trying to draw attention to it so that it might gather some currency. Please spread the link around if you have any idea how that might be well facilitated (I don't) --Truth Glass (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)