Talk:MUD trees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I did some wikification so far, but most of the links go off in slightly odd directions, so someone may need to do some disambiguation. 09:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VFD stuff[edit]

This actually isn't "Derek Snider's" MUD Tree, instead it is one he stole from the alt.muds.diku faq and was created by a poster in 1994. It has been "stolen" for use in research papers (someone actually got their doctorate with this).

I've never heard of an "alt.muds" hierarchy nor have I found anything to backup what you said. Perhaps you could be more specific? I know of a different, general mud tree by Martin Keegan and found a FAQ for, but it just had a link to the same page. Also is it that Derek Snider gave permission for the tree to be GFDLed or that you don't think he can copyright it?
State on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page why you don't think this page should be deleted. There's nothing wrong with the intent of this article -- something on the relationship between MUD codebases would make a great addition to the MUD article (or even a good article on its own). An unexplained ASCII tree isn't very informative but that can be fixed. I just have a problem with its copyright status and the only evidence presented says "DikuMud Heirarchy (c)1995-2000 Derek Snider". --Mrwojo 01:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • MUD trees - an example but no content or explanation - Texture 17:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's also an exact copy from the site it lists in ext. links ("DikuMud Heirarchy (c)1995-2000 Derek Snider"). --Mrwojo 17:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for same reasons as above. Psychonaut 18:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Its fate should be the same as Dikumud. I vote to merge them. Mikkalai 02:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree: Dikumud should stay regardless, but it should be at DikuMUD instead (currently a duplicate substub). --Mrwojo 03:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I fail to see your logic. If dikumud stays, then its tree definitely belongs there, regardless external links.

Mikkalai 16:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

          • I fail to agree that the post should be deleted. I think it was a harsh decision to vote it down in the first place, when an edit may have been in order. Since "Dikumud" is not its derivatives, putting it on the Dikumud entry doesn't make sense. The "MUD Family Tree" entered into the public domain in 1993, and was posted on and is considered the public domain, and is NOT copyrighted to Derek Snider, as the page it is from indicates, as this was an adaptation from a previously released copy, which was copied and constructed. In fact, I believe the original tree changed hands many times before being "Claimed" (unlawfully) by Derek Snider, if that was his intent by putting (c)1994-2000 Derek Snider on his web page. Furthermore, a "MUD Family tree is not the same as the MUD itself, and would serve as a lineage / navigational tool for other entries. Ebube_Dike
        • Mikkalai, I disagreed with the idea that whatever happens to MUD trees should also happen to Dikumud since they aren't the same thing. Ebube_Dike, if a person makes changes to something in the PD then they hold the copyright to the changed version. I can't find the post you mention and you say its from the site the claims copyright. I've replaced the text with the copyright notice. --Mrwojo 07:51, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and Wikify. Lists and schematics in this form are not copyrightable, see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Are_lists_copyright? . If anyone complains, refactor the tree into a list and then Keep. Schematics like this should be wikified and used to index topics in the wikipedia. 12:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


MUD trees was the start of a decent article, not a copyvio. (see: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Are_lists_copyright? ) . Shouldn't have been listed on VfD in the first place. 10:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This wasn't about whether it was a copyright violation. It was listed on VfD with most votes to delete. [1]
Delete: Texture, Mrwojo, Psychonaut; Merge: Mikkalai; Keep: Someone who signed User:Ebube Dike (there is no such user), and one anon IP.
Mikkalai's reasons for keeping it were refuted by Mrwojo and not addressed. I discounted the non-existent user, and the IP. This left 3 votes to delete. Angela. 00:28, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. I was counting like this:
Reasons given for votes were:
A. "I don't get it" . {Not a valid reason for listing on VfD} (1 vote to delete by texture)
B. "It's a copyvio" {Should have been listed on Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements }(2 votes to delete from Mrwojo and Psychonaut).
C. 1 anon IP pointing out that it's not a copyvio. Is it a specific policy to ignore people who post using just their IP even if they make valid statements? If so I'll just drop the matter here.
Don't know what to do with User: Ebube Dike either, leaving with 0 valid votes for deletion and 1 vote to move. Page was not listed on Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements at all. 13:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've just realised that whilst there is no User:Ebube Dike, there is a User:Ebube dike, so presumably this is someone who hasn't yet learnt to sign as opposed to a fake vote. Based on that and the suggestion that the copyright violation allegations are spurious, I have reverted my deletion of the page and listed it on cleanup so others can decide whether it is copyrightable and edit it accordingly. Angela. 06:37, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm switching over to a vote to keep since I don't feel that the other reasons mentioned for deleting this article were valid and, thanks to stepping up to the plate to refute my actions, I have something to go by that says the copyright issue isn't clear. I do believe it treads a fine line on creative selection, but it would be difficult to come up with a different classification for the muds mentioned. "Why mention some and not others?" leads into my suggestion for cleanup -- I think a typical hierarchical "list of" article, such as list of MUDs by code base would better represent the article's intent:


  • AberMUD
    • DikuMUD
      • (comprehensive list of Diku-based muds)
      • (etc.)
  • (some other mud base)
    • (and so on)
Also, I think the "permission was given by Derek Snider" statement should be confirmed or removed. --Mrwojo 20:31, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hereby give my permission to use the DikuMUD tree. For the record, I did not "steal" the tree from somewhere else. Go to the DikuMUD website, and you will see a credit to me on their DikuMUD family tree. --Thoric 18:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we get someone working on the OTHER MUD bases? Diku is just one 'root', with the LPMuds also a strong community? Currently this... 'article' is rather Diku-Centric, without even mention of other 'roots'. -- 09:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Pirate was derived from Copper1 rather than from Diku, based on examining the source code.
  • Merc was derived from Copper1 rather than from Copper2, based on examining the source code.
  • I couldn't find any evidence for the existence of a Sequence codebase.

I fixed the first 2 errors and left the 3rd untouched for now. --Scandum (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

MUD or codebase?[edit]

Eltanin, Fajita and Nilgiri were recently added. They're all long-dead DikuMUDs, and seem to be in the correct places on the tree, but as far as I'm aware none of them are public codebases. Does anyone know if their code was released? KaVir (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well this is an old comment, but I see you're still commenting on other things here... :) Somewhere tucked in an archive or a disk or somewhere I have a copy of Eltanin. I don't recall if it was ever truly downloadable-for-everyone or if it was a more limited a-copy-for-people-I-know thing though. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


It looks like we'll have to copy over the sources from the individual articles. I've done a couple to show what it'll look like (not that great to be honest). Is this really necessary? KaVir (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Having a separate article is not a requirement for inclusion in the MUD tree, perhaps you were thinking of the Chronology of MUDs. NiMUD's derivation from Merc is established in Martin Keegan's "A Classification of MUDs", among other works. If you disagree with the source/s, it can be discussed, but it is not appropriate to remove entries just to prove a point.[2] KaVir (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


UglyCode (UglyMug) should be on here, derived from TinyMUD 1.4.1. I'd add it myself, but thought I'd be more likely to break it! The MBA4 and TCZ codebases were then both derived from UglyCode. (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll need a source for it first, otherwise it'll just get removed again. KaVir (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


The Aime MUD software should also be here, listed possibly under PDirt. It is a scratch rewrite, though written by two coders who rewrote the PDIRT zone compiler and both ran Aber-family MUDs. Kaylus (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that show it's notable in some way? - Aoidh (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a larger burden of proof for notability in the AberMud tree than the other two trees? The DikuMud tree is full of specific items Fajita, Vego, RocketMud, etc. that are not notable in the least. It appears that the "notability" of these items is simply that they existed and/or have downloadable sources? Perhaps the request should be instead that the non-notable items be removed? Kaylus (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no particular need to demonstrate notability before including an item in an article, and while the request for reliable secondary sources was proper, the reason given was not. ALL the trees would benefit from additional WP:RS. The bottom line is that we have to abide by WP:V. Is it somehow verifiable that Aime is related to PDIRT and Aber? Even a weak source, such as a forum or Usenet post, or a primary source, such as the code itself, would be better than nothing at all. Elizium23 (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Aoidh's request for notability was confusing. Now, I'm not sure about the adding of this. The information I have is that the sourcecode is available, the authors of the source code are the same authors of Pdirt. Pdirt code is located at and the documentation underneath references Marty as the developer, the documentation for AIME collaborates this while the code itself shows similar. Marty is also credited on multiple Abersites. The oldest remaining Aber repository (a tripod page) backs up this: and - though also notes the differences, stating "pDirt, authored by Marty at Darkscapes (formerly Eradicated Worlds 2) makes an attempt to change the standard format on how zones are written." and "A new type of source code by Slate and Marty. It is yet to be determined if this should be classified as a new off-shoot of Abermud or its own animal." respectively. It also converted PDIRT formats into itself: Kaylus (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I further realized Pdirt is not even listed! This is a direct descendant of Dyrt 1.2; see my last comment for the source code. Subdir docs/pdirt.doc explains lineage. AIME — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned notability because it's relevant; just because something can be verified doesn't mean it belongs on an article. Unless there is some kind of third-party source, it does not belong in the article. I'm not suggesting it needs to meet WP:GNG, but a single third-party source is generally expected in list-type articles such as this. Elizium23 is incorrect, a forum post would not be better than nothing at all, such a source would not be reliable in the slightest. - Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You cite Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion but that does not say a thing about notability. I can also cite WP:NOT, e.g., Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and WP:DUE, i.e., weight of included items should be proportionate to their coverage in WP:RS, but this is still not about notability, while WP:GNG is, and you are correct on that count, the item in question does not need to pass GNG or any other kind of notability threshold.
I am not incorrect about the forum post, or in this case, source code; I merely neglected to mention all the caveats attached. A self-published source can be reliable for information about themselves, as long as the following criteria are met:
  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
It seems to me that the source code in question meets these criteria and would be valid self-published sources. Of course, if there is any chance they could be replaced by a reliable, secondary source, that opportunity should be taken, but I understand that in the MUD world, there are not a lot of books or newspaper articles written, particularly about this corner of the topic. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem, anyone can write source code, that doesn't mean every piece of code needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia (as longstanding consensus has shown, the talk page of List of PDF software immediately comes to mind). If no sources have mentioned a particular topic, Wikipedia shouldn't either. A forum post is not acceptable as a source, with very, very few exceptions. Notability perhaps isn't the correct word, but relevance is; relevance is determined by reliable sources. If the only sources are from the software's source itself, there's very little need to mention it on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)