Talk:MUME

Sources added in incubation

The only source not mentioned at the AFD seems to be Net Games. Google books doesn't provide a preview; how much coverage is there? —Korath (Talk) 19:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd call it a short review, most of a page if I recall correctly. I have the treeware at home and will check on it. I don't believe it could justifiably be called trivial coverage; it's certainly not just something like (for example) MUME's mudlist entry in the back of Playing MUDs on the Internet that I didn't bother adding. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the AfD mentions, and dismisses, a review at TMC (appropriately, IMO). The TMC reference currently present is an award page, which is editorially produced, and reliable where a user-generated review is not. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the full text:

MUME IV Multi-Users in Middle Earth, or MUME, simulates Tolkien's world of Middle Earth. Sauron's a mobile. The orcs and trolls support each other, and the "whities"—elves, dwarves, humans, and hobbits—are forced to defend their town from daily orc attacks, commonly referred to as "orc and whitie wars."

Role-playing is encouraged, but this is primarily an adventure and combat MUD. You need to acquire a set amount of travel points (leave the town and explore other areas) and experience points (kill mobiles or players) to advance, and that's exactly what most players are intensely focused on.

There are more than 25 levels in the game. Advice: If you're new to the MUD, don't play an orc. Most orcs are experienced players, and since orcs and trolls are on a different chat channel from the other players, you'll be cut off from communication with other newbies. ✓INTERNET→telnet 128.178.77.5 4242→ <your character's name>→<y or n>→<your password>→<your password>→<f or m>→<your race>→<your class>→<your alignment>

Stats

• Difficulty: complex
• Competition: live
• Number of players: 1+
• Interface: ASCII
• Server: DIKU
• Platforms: all

Commands

• To get information, type: help
• To send a public query, type: narrate <your question>
• To get a list of gods online, type: who ainur
• To get a list of the points required for each level, type: level

Not a hideously deep treatment or anything, but meaningful, I think. It's a good bit more than the book gives a number of nearby topics. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sources

I'm just listing possible sources. I'm not sure which ones are appropriate. Kallimina (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.lordotrings.com/artmedia/mume.asp - This is a LoTR fan site that lists it. Can we use fan sites for Notability? Kallimina (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.lysator.liu.se/tolkien-games/entry/mume.html - Verification for when it opened? This seems to be an independent source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallimina (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?id=1583 - This source says it opened in '91, but that seems to be wrong.Kallimina (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Mudconnector a viable source? They won Mudconnector's Mud of the Month in '98. I remember Mudconnector being discounted during the Threshold AfD, but I'm not sure if it was actually ever decided if it could be used in notability arguments or not. Saving this source just in case: http://www.mudconnect.com/motm/motm-0498.html Kallimina (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The MOTM is already cited, actually. I'm of the opinion that MOTMs contribute to notability, though I haven't had this tested at Articles for Deletion, which is the only place it really counts. I don't think the fansite is of any use. I'd like to give the Lysator item some credit, but there's probably nothing to bring it out of the self-published category either. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if MUME was cited in any desserations or academic papers? If so, I will go to the library and do a search. Unfortunately, I need a place to start in order to do this, so any information you have would be useful. Kallimina (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know any more about that than this search tells me. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll do what research I can and at least try to help write the article better. The problem with finding the paper sources is that, most of the time, you have to know that it was written and then go through the business of finding the right magazine. Google searches will be basically useless for finding old print material. Kallimina (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the article, I believe it is well-sourced. Now we just want to better the article, correct? Kallimina (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you think it's doing well on sourcing, you're eligible to promote it to mainspace (see the header) as long as you haven't edited it. If you start improve its style you lose that. :) That shouldn't stop you if you see something it needs, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks well-sourced to me and well-written. I graduated it, and hopefully, I did it correctly. Kallimina (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure did. Glad to see this one make it back into mainspace! —chaos5023 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work on improving it immensely. Kallimina (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)