Talk:Meridian 59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Developer commentary[edit]

Discussion regarding past development teams - Seperated out due to incomprehensabilty

{{From Mike Sellers: The posts below have become a sad reminder of a dysfunctional team from the past. There are a number of untruths and half-truths being spread here. I'll note these below as I have personal knowledge of them.

-- The personal knowledge seems to be very flawed. The game demo that the Kirmse brothers made is what made raising money possible, though the Sellers raised the money. The Kirmse brothers ran the development team that built the game, except for a few artists. The Kirmse brothers were consulted heavily by 3DO before the acquisition happened, and the acquisition would not have happened without their consent. Finally, they continued to run the game development after the 3DO acquisition. During the whole time, there was a large disconnect between what people said they did and what actually occurred, and this appears to still be the case. People who worked on the game know the truth, both from the Archetype days and the 3DO days.

  • Once again, the facts. I'm being careful to speak only to what I know firsthand, unlike the comments above.
    • The Kirmses' early demo made much of the later fund-raising for the company and the game possible. Contrary to assertions made here (and below), Terra Nova Interactive was nevertheless a company (not an "empty shell") prior to the Kirmses' arrival with its initial funding secured, and both business and design documents in place.
    • When the Kirmses joined the company they were hired. We brought them on as junior partners, but this was not a merger or joining of forces. The company was already in place, there were no discussions even vaguely along the lines of starting a company or merging groups. They were offered salary and stock as junior but key members of a small team.
    • The Kirmses did not run the development team. That responsibility fell variously to Mike Sellers and John Hanke. The Kirmses were key members of the team, being the main programmers, and were responsible for their activities and for interfacing with world builders, but they did not have functional or management oversight on these or overall project concerns.
    • The Kirmses were asked for their input on the acquisition by 3DO (in what was later seen as part of an effort to be overly democratic in management by Steve, Mike, and John), but they did not meet with 3DO, were not part of the discussions there, and had no significant part in the acquisition. The acquisition could have gone forward without the Kirmses' consent, as they were corporately not in a position to block such a decision. The only thing they could have done would have been to withhold the code, something which was not considered a realistic concern until after the acquisition.
    • The Kirmses were not in management positions after the 3DO acquisition at least through the end of 1996. They were responsible as project leaders for the continued development of their code that formed the foundation of the game.

It's very sad to see that someone continues to try to revise the early history of this project.

The actual facts are:

  • Andrew and Chris Kirmse invented the scripting language in 1993 on a hike on Mt. St. Helens.
  • They started implementing the game during 1994.
  • The entire client/server system, including very basic gameplay, existed by late summer 1995 when they first talked to the Sellers brothers and other suitors about forming a company. Eventually, the Kirmse brothers decided to work with the Sellers brothers.
    • Partly true. The facts:
      • The Kirmses wrote the client/server system and the script engine.
      • Andrew and Chris Kirmse responded to a call for resumes by Mike Sellers on Usenet
        • Absolutely untrue
          • The Kirmses contacted Mike Sellers because they already had a working game engine and the beginnings of a game. They were not interested in employment, as both were in various stages of university at the time.
            • Not true. From Mike Sellers: After having worked with a group in Sweden that did not make sufficient progress on the game (by then well into design and pre-production), I put up a call for resumes on Usent. Several people including Andrew and Chris Kirmse responded to this post. I still have the resumes Andrew and Chris mailed in someplace (including claiming programming credits back to when they were young kids). Deny it if you like (though why you would is beyond me), I have your letter in response to my post and our subsequent emails.
    • The Kirmses were hired by the Sellers and were awarded stock in Terra Nova interactive, which already existed. There were no discussions about forming a company.
      • Absolutely untrue
        • Terra Nova already existed, but it was an empty shell as no money had been raised. All money was raised using the early version of the game that the Kirmses had created, together with a little artwork that Chris Sellers created.
          • Not true. From Mike Sellers: You're speaking about things you don't know about. Terra Nova was incorporated in 1994 and again in mid-1995. We raised early money (approximately 10-20% of our total budget) before we hired Andrew and Chris. Steve and I jointly met with Andrew in Vienna Virginia, and drove down to meet with Chris at college in Blacksburg, to discuss hiring them into the company. Steve and I made them an offer for salary and stock, negotiated, and hired them. This was not a company formation nor a meeting of corporate equals. We hired them as programmers (not CTOs). Again, you can say these things if you like, but I have the business plan and corporate and employment records.
    • In the summer 1995, no significant gameplay existed other than basic navigation in a very limited 2.5D world. All game elements were implemented after September 1995.
  • Mike Sellers, Steve Sellers, Andrew Kirmse, and Chris Kirmse all joined together in late 1995 as co-owners of the company later known as Archetype Interactive. All four of them became employees of the company. The Kirmses were co-CTOs of the company and were responsible for all programming and program management. The Sellers were responsible for fundraising and art management.
    • Partly true. The facts:
      • Terra Nova Interactive existed before the Kirmses were hired by the Sellers, having been formed in 1994 based on Mike Sellers' prior company, New World Designs.
      • Terra Nova Interactive became Archetype Interactive after a trademark dispute forced the change.
      • The Kirmses, as with all other employees, were awarded stock in the company. To that extent they were partial owners in the company, as were all employees.
      • The Kirmses were never officers nor co-CTOs of Terra Nova Interactive or Archetype Interactive, nor did they hold any executive or managerial position within the company at any time. Steve and Mike Sellers were the officers of this company.
      • Absolutely untrue
        • After joining with the Sellers to create a viable Terra Nova company, the Kirmses were co-CTOs
          • Not true. From Mike Sellers: Once again, these are unfortunate half truths. I have corporate records, tax records, employment records, etc., for Terra Nova and Archetype Interactive. Andrew and Chris Kirmse were never co-CTOs and never held an executive or managerial role in Terra Nova or Archetype Interactive. Steve, Mike, and John were the sole company executives and directed every major decision on the game and in the company. Andrew and Chris were the primary programmers but had no managerial or executive title or role. There is no basis in fact for saying otherwise.
      • The Kirmses were responsible for programming, but reported to Mike Sellers and John Hanke for program management. Art and design were led by Mike Sellers with production oversight by John Hanke. Steve Sellers was CEO and led all business development and funding activities along with Mike Sellers and John Hanke.
  • Andrew and Chris Kirmse wrote the client-server and scripting engine for this game. They also led the scripting team (as large as 6 scripters at one point) who developed and implemented all game play.
  • After 3DO's acquisition of Meridian 59, Mike Sellers was moved off of the project and was laid off 7 months later.
    • Partly True. The facts:
      • After the acqusition by 3DO (the Kirmses did not participate in the discussions for this, despite this being reported elswhere), Steve Sellers was moved to business development for the company
      • John Hanke became internal producer for Meridian 59.
      • Mike Sellers remained as Lead Designer and set up the internal customer service system. After the game's release he was moved to a lead position on a new online game product.
        • Incorrect
          • Mike Sellers did not participate in any Meridian 59 game design after the acquisition, and very little before it. He was still given a designer credit on the product.
            • Untrue. From Mike Sellers: I'm not sure of the motivation here, but these statements simply aren't true. Many people did a great deal of work on the design of Meridian 59 before its initial release, including Damion Schubert, Rob Ellis, and others. I have no desire to take anything away from anyone else, but I'm no longer going to sit idly by and let others claim to have done things they didn't, or claim I didn't do work I did. I was the lead designer on Meridian 59 from its inception (before we hired Andrew and Chris) until its first release.
      • In January of 1997, 3DO shut down all Internet projects and laid off the entire division except for a skeleton crew maintaining Meridian 59.
        • Incorrect
          • Meridian 59's development team actually expanded during these layoffs.
            • A half-truth. Parts of M59 staff expanded (scripting, CS), while others contracted. All other Internet projects at 3DO were discontinued, and all employees working on these projects (whose staff greatly exceeded M59's staff), from the VP on down, were laid off.
    • Early in 1997, having left 3DO, Steve and Mike Sellers and John Hanke formed their next startup, The Big Network, which was acquired in 1999 by eUniverse.
      • Steve Sellers went on to be the COO of a company not in the games industry.
      • John Hanke went on to be CEO of Keyhole, now part of Google.
      • Mike Sellers went on to be a Senior Designer at Electronic Arts, and now is CEO of Online Alchemy.

The facts remain:

  • Andrew and Chris Kirmse wrote the client-server and scripting engine for this game
  • Mike and Steve Sellers formed Terra Nova Interactive in 1994 to create "Meridian" (later called Meridian 59 at Chris Kirmse's insistance that it had to have a number in the title).
  • The Kirmses were hired by the Sellers and were employees of Terra Nova Interactive, which later became Archetype Interactive, well after the project was under way, and primarily for their client-server technology. They were awarded stock in the company but had no management role (despite being called "project leads")
  • The Kirmses had little role in designing the game, either before or after the acquisition by 3DO
  • The design of M59 was originally done by Mike Sellers, later joined by Damion Schubert. Damion did a large share of the low-level design, while Mike focused on user interface, story, systems, and world layout. Many others contributed to the art and world layout.
  • Steve (CEO) and Mike Sellers (President), along with John Hanke (VP Marketing and biz dev), were co-responsible for the management of the company and the project from day-to-day issues involving technology, art, design, and production, all the way up to funding and the acquisition of the company.
  • Andrew and Chris Kirmse had no role in the acquisition discussions with 3DO. The figure cited elsewhere that Archetype was bought for $5M in stock is incorrect. The actual price was between $7-8M, but, being a stock-swap deal, fluctuated with 3DO's stock price.

'What is this junk? A huge block of unreadable text is not acceptable here, as it does not advance the discussion for improvement of the article. The above does not make any sense, as one can not learn who said what, what is supposed to be fact, and what is supposed to be fiction. The whole thing is useless garbage. (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Release date[edit]

I found two launch times from 1996:

  • September 16 or 17
    • the date on a press release posted by Mike Sellers at exactly 12:00 AM on Sept. 17 [[1]
    • note though that it says the game is available, but won't be on store shelves until "early October"
    • also another 3DO press release dated Sept. 16 says that M59 "will be introduced tomorrow" ([2])
  • September 27
    • the date of "public release" in a 2001 press release from NDS ([3])
    • Andrew Kirmse also used this date at MobyGames ([4])
    • if shipped on this date, it would correlate with their "early October" plans from the 16th

My guess is that the game officially ended its beta phase on Sept. 16 or 17, but didn't ship until the 27th (and therefore the 27th would be the most relevant date). I know this is all pedantic, but since I've already bothered to look I might as well post what I found. --Mrwojo 19:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think I based the Sept. 16th date that I put in the article off of the NDS site and some old 3DO press releases, but just looking at your points here convinces me the game was more likely released September 27th. Nice work. - user:defunkt 21:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Necessary clarification of spell schools[edit]

In this section, "Players choose from seven skill/spell schools, six of which are based on patron gods in the game world's mythos: Weaponcraft, Shal'ille, Qor, Kraanan, Faren, Riija, and Jala. Each school has a different focus and application in gameplay." it says "six of which," while seven things are listed, although weaponcraft doesn't seem like it fits. Please correct this misunderstanding.--Notmyhandle 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Scepter of Goth and Pirate Communities[edit]

Recently, someone attempted to add links that were related to some pirate communities. I've removed the links... and then one of the links were reposted with a more "innocent" name (an unofficial forum), but there are very few posts and activity for the forum to even be worth mentioning in Wikipedia. There was also an addition of a small paragraph claiming that a number of people are searching for pirate servers. Wikipedia is not an advertisement vehicle for pirate communities.

Also, someone claimed that Meridian 59 was based on another game called Scepter of Goth. We'll need proof or citations...

edit: My apologies. I just found the proof of the inspiration. Perhaps a citation will help. Isolocis 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Re: Pirate Communities

Granted this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement method, pirated servers are none-the-less part of meridian 59 history, and thus should be allowed to be mentioned. Perhaps as a stub with a link to a separate page.

I have re-added my history, and the link to the forums, while not large, are still unoffical meridian 59 forums. If this doesn't satisfy you, i will compromise on leaving just the history part as a stub with a link to a new page, and no link to the unoffical forums. Daenks 05:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The following entry is a copyright violation:

"Shortly after 3DO shut the game down on August 31, 2000. A developer of the game leaked the server software and the files for Meridian 59:Renaissance to a player, and since then there has been a thriving community of free-to-play servers."

Because of this, your entry has been deleted. Please don't add it again. Isolocis 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think an important piece of the history of this game here lies with the pirate servers. Pirate servers ran from the initial shutdown of the game until they became illegal by Near Death Studios Inc. taking over the abandoned project legally. It may be reasonable to separate that piece of history from the official page but I think it's still worthy of mention.

Eventually when NDS bought the project there was a fight on pkHQ forums (I can't seem to reference it since the forums were also taken down) between the pirate server administrators and hackers (Darq, CoExE, Lubricant & MM) and Rob Ellis telling them that he will be taking legal action if the pirate server Administrators don't shut down their servers. About 18 months after that discussion was ignored by the pirate Administrators most servers started shutting down due to the letters sent to their ISPs. I think it's important to show how much interest and commitment there was to this game as the pirate community was around 80-100 people online at a time. There were many young teens amongst the pirate server Administrators who literally "grew up" with the game playing it for 24 hours a day at times with no sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • re: The following entry is a copyright violation:

Excuse me. But how is that a copyright violation? It is simply a historic fact. A developer DID release the server software. and there HAS been a thriving renegade community.

Just because the Nazi's massacred millions of jews doesnt mean it isnt history. This is something that has/is happened/happening. How does that information not belong on this webpage? There is a difference between disagreeing with the moral implications of what is posted, and declaring it illegal. That single paragraph does NOT contain any copywritten material, nor links to it. I am going to re-add it, as it is information about the game, Meridian 59.

Daenks 17:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just removed a link to becuase that is a forum dedicated to pirate servers.

Someone keeps replacing the link to a forum related to pirate servers. As I have said, this isn't an advertisement vehicle.

Isolocis 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request: I know this has nothing to do with links, but is there any way PC or Moo could fill in the timeline gap between DA and Evolution? Oriumpor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


The link to Gilroy's site ( is a legitimate site that should remain linked on the page. It's the primary fan site for the game. Psychochild 10:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A user has been adding in links to a website hosting a pirated version of the software. These links have been removed. They also deleted the external links section and replaced with only their link. This section has been replaced with the information that was previously there. FattyMoo (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That same user is continuing to add links to the pirate version. His IP is, from the change log. What action is required to get an IP blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Near Death Studios founded by a couple of the original developers is still running the game for a fee so I removed references to this obviously pirate server.

I've killed the advertisement for the pirate server a couple of times as well.
Looking through the article history I see this phrase :

"Shortly after 3DO shut the game down on August 31, 2000. A developer of the game leaked the server software and the files for Meridian 59:Renaissance to a player, and since then there has been a thriving community of free-to-play servers."

If this could be sourced and was rephrased "a small community of pirate(or illegal) servers." it might belong back in the article. It seems to be both relevant and interesting. And there's no problem on WP talking about copyright violations, so long as we don't link directly to the pirate servers.
Oddly enough I can't find any MMORPG articles that even mention unofficial servers. I thought they existed for most popular MMORPGs. APL (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI: This domain is getting blacklisted for persistent linkspamming. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Source[edit]

Described in Matt Barton's Dungeons and Desktops: the History of Computer Role-playing Games (viewable at Amazon) on pages 399-400, with a screenshot. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much - I will incorporate any useful information. Cheers! CoolMike (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't have a source but pretty funny[edit]

I hear that when it was purchased at 3D0, the 3D0 team discovered that about 20% of the players were using the game as a platform for cybersex. This led one developer to suggest that they run with that and do a sex oriented variant, which was nixed by executives. Developers called this suggestion internally Meridian 69. - (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia user Seader is constantly removing the link to my team's 100% legitimate, license following open source project, claiming that it is an advertisement for a "private" server. Seader's acts of intended harm towards this project do not stop here. I can show evidence of trolling, harassment, personal name calling, and more by the same person. Please see this article's revision history. I don't know how to report an abusive editor, so I'm doing it here. Daenks (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO and if you're convinced your link should be there, propose why on this page and discuss with other editors. CaptRik (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
i do not care about your project here and do not intend to harm it since I don't do anything bad towards it. I just remove an advertisement link which has nothing lost in Wikipedia anyway. It does not matter at all if your server is license following or legitimate. Fact is that it is your own runned private server and the private homepage you are linking in this article is not about the open source of this game. Calling it this way doesn't mean that it reflects the truth. The whole homepage is about your own server 103 and about the changes there. And that's why this link can be seen as abusement of Wikipedia for advertisement reasons of your own server. This site is in conflict with at least one of the guideline points shown in captains link.Kind regards Seader (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The site provides a unique resource, it is the only actively maintained version of the Meridian 59 server and client code base. We are not advertising anything but the project itself. There are no ads on the page, no donation links, only free services, and free source code. The project located at the page does run an instance of the Meridian software, but the running server is not the focus of the website. Said server is not "private" in any way, it is free and open, just like the project. The site in question provides several benefit to wikipedia users. 1) It allows the users to learn more about the game and its source code through documentation, discussion, screenshots, a wiki of information, and forums. 2) It allows the users to access the latest changes made to the game, and test them out on the project-run instance. I would also like to mention that the other open source project related to Meridian 59 (which is a subproject of our own) has not had its link contested, when both projects offer near identical services. After reading the link provided by CaptRik I see that there is a possible conflict of interest, being that I am the leader of this project; however; I believe that I have demonstrated that the url in question adds to the article. As I stated earlier, this particular person making the removal has ulterior motives stemming from his own experience with our project, to which I can provide evidence if required.Daenks (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You can try to kill me credibility here as much you want with your personal attacks which are not related to this article in any way. But compared to you I dont care about your project here in Wikipedia and am not intersted in harming it, I believe in Wikipedia and work on it for years with thousands of edits now and would not abuse it for my own personal gain. Your claims about my person are a violation of several wikipedia guildelines as: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and I kindly ask you to stop this nonsense. To your edit in the article: As far I see it it violates the guildeline Wikipedia:External links in the points: 10, 11 and 13. When you enter the linked private homepage the first things you see is "Meridian 59 – Open Source - Home of Server 103" directly above the tool with which you can create an account for your server, followed by news about your server like: "Server 103 Changelogs", "Server 103 Charter" and "Server 103 Statistics". Your whole so called "opensource project" is about your own server and is not about changes in the game in general or other existing servers. Everything there is specificly about 103 and thatfore setting this link into the article is advertisement of your own serve and thatfore and the guidelines there should not be any space for this wikipedia. I dont delete the other link because compared to your homepage it is bot full of advertisement for one specific server. kind regards Seader (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I have not insulted you, nor called you any names. Only related this behavior to some similar behavior and offered to provide evidence of it if required. Yes, there are sections of the website specifically about the server; but the greater content is about the project. Take as an example. The Main page and the links and talk around it are all about the open source project. However, there is a "Try our Demo" link. The server you are so adamant about is essentially the "Try our Demo" for this project. Due to the nature of the project, it requires a little extra screen real estate. Point 10: "Social networking sites, chat or discussion forums/groups, Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." The URL is none of the above; though it does contain links to social media and forums, but these are not linked directly. Point 11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Though the site contains a blog, most of the site is static, the blog is a sub-feature of the site, and not its purpose, and not what was linked. Point 12: "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." Again, the site contains a wiki, but that is not what is linked, nor is it the primary function of the site. Finally, We write and maintain tools that allow other meridian servers to form, including a directory of other servers that anyone may add to at any time. Just because no one else has taken our code and spawned their own instance (to your knowledge) does not mean it will not, or has not, occurred.Daenks (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It was not point 12 it was point 13 as you can read above. Point 13:"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.". This private homepage which I guess is also runned by when I look at the editors name of recent edits, is not about this game in general and about its mechanics but like I already mentioned specifically about your own server 103 and the changes and the changed mechanics on it. Also your site links to its own blog and forums and is as a private homepage not written by a confirmed authority. Kind regards Seader (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please define "private" homepage, versus a "public" one? is maintained by a team, for a project, regarding meridian 59, which is open source. It is listed as an open source project, not as a server, and the primary focus of the site is to get people involved in the programming aspect. I apologize for citing the wrong rules, but as you have pointed out for me, the site is directly related to Meridian 59, the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daenks (talkcontribs) 15:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I am warning you not to put continue this advertisement before this discussion is over and other confirmed users have mentioned their opinion on this or you will be reportes as an abusive editor. Seader (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
per Wikipedia:Edit_warring, we are both liable for our edit war, regardless of who is "right"Daenks (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes we are. Are you willing to wait for other confirmed users opinions on this? I hope so. I am talking about confirmed and not newly created ones like I am Rook. Seader (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This is clearly a personal vendetta against the first concentrated use of the Meridian Open Source project which is easily the most significant thing to happen to the game in ten years. The person editing/controlling this article appears to be letting personal grievances from real life scenarios interfere with the primary directive of this article which is to provide the most factual information about Meridian 59, and not this user's personal opinions. Referring to the first community based open source project (since the owners of the game released the open source, for this exact purpose) as a "pirate server" only goes to show how personal this attack is. The game server being referenced, Server 103 of the Meridian 59 Open Source Project is recognized by both the owners of Meridian 59 (through correspondence, other citations needed)and through the official fan site [1] I will start working on Wikipedia based actions against the corrupt editor. I am Rook (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
nice puppet account created just for this case now by Daenks or one of his other guys from 103. kind regards Seader (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm a user on servers 101, 102, and 103. And on the Gilroy Forums. You are a corrupted editor and you will eventually be dealt with through terms of service from Wikipedia, or a work around. Enjoy your tantrum while it lasts. I am Rook (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah ok so I am corrupted since I weight Wikipedia and its guidelines more than a game and a gameserver I am playing on? I already stated why this link is to be seen as advertisement for only one specific server and tatfore and the guideline #13 it has nothing lost in this article. Kind regards Seader (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Can I suggest everyone stop attacking and reverting each other and focus on discussing the link. There's 2 opposing views here, so as it stands please leave the page as it is right now until consensus is reached. I suggest the link is raised at WP:EL/N for a wider discussion. CaptRik (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I already requested third opinions. kind regards Seader (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok cool, why not link to the discussions in a new section below this one then anyone viewing this page can join in. CaptRik (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I opened this discussion here: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Open Meridian Project URL on Meridian 59 17:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daenks (talkcontribs)

Third opinions[edit]

To make it easier for third opinions I will quickly summarise my opinion why I am against this link here: The discussed link is how I already explained violating against #13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. ... Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.". The article is about the game Meridian59 in general and not abot Meridian59 Server 103. The private homepage is only about the game mechanics and changes of one specific server which is also owned by the same person who runs the homepage (potential conflict of interest) and not about the game in general. I also see it as advertisement of this one specific server since when u enter the homepage the first things u see is "Home of Server 103" and "Server 103 Changelogs", "Server 103 Charter", "Server 103 Statistics" and also the tool with which you can create an account for this one server to play on it. It also links only to the forum, IRC chat and blog of the developers team of this one specific server. Even the linked game wiki on this homepage is only about this one server and it also links to the server 103 github group where people can submit code changes for server 103. The guideline #13 and the easy to see advertisement effect for 103 of this homepage are what make this homepage not suitable for the Meridian59 article. Kind regards Seader (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to request for third opinion[edit]

Hi. As the issue has been raised at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Open Meridian Project URL on Meridian 59, it is no longer a candidate for a third opinion -- a third opinion isn't a fourth or a fifth or a sixth opinion, but a third, and "forum shopping" is not allowed. But I hope the following may help:

  1. The edit warring appears to have died down now, so I'm not going to report any of you to the edit warring noticeboard now, but please take this as a final warning.
  2. The proper procedure here is described in the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, usually referred to as WP:BRD. It says that it's OK to boldly do something, but if that is reverted in good faith, you don't edit war, you discuss.
  3. Following WP:BRD would have meant that the addition of the link would have been reverted, so you'd have discussed while the link was not present. That's the state of the article as of now, so there's nothing to do (otherwise I'd have reverted it to that state). To re-add it would be edit warring again.
  4. @Seader: you were ill advised to add the subsection above. No 3O volunteer is really going to give an opinion without reading the whole discussion in detail, and nobody would be influenced by one side's "summary". I'm sure you didn't mean it badly, but it is inappropriate to do that.
  5. Regardless of whether the disputed link and the remaining one belong in the article (which the noticeboard will advise on), they emphatically do not belong in the article's text. Links that aren't used in citations are placed in the External links section at the end. I'm going to do that now, and I'll erase the Open source projects subsection since it will then have no text. That's without prejudice to your recreating it if you have some suitable text to write in there.

Good luck all. I hope the resolution at the noticeboard will settle things. --Stfg (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. thx. kind regards Seader (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Per the EL/N discussion, I have re added our link, under the external links section. I added a section under "Open Source" called "Notable Open Source Projects" that simply lists our name. Is this acceptable to all? Daenks (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I also added us to the list of developers, and created a wikipedia page for our project: Open Meridian Project. I hope this is also acceptable. Daenks (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is most certainly NOT acceptable. I am deferring to APL's comment to the effect that the inclusion of the link may be reasonable, and for that reason I am not removing it. But APL also said "It was not at all appropriate for project members to add the link to their own probject, much less edit-war over it," and you have ridden rough-shod over that. The little subsection linking to your article was a See also subsection by another name and in the wrong place. You don't create sections just to contain links, period. And you don't edit war to promote your project, period. The article you created has been deleted for reasons of lack of indication of notability and unambiguous copyright violation. And you and your colleagues are guilty of blatant meatpuppetry at EL/N. Any more of this and I will report you to WP:ANI. Your only sensible course now is to STOP EDITING THIS ARTICLE until the systems for resolving the issue have finally resolved it. STOP POISONING THE WELL with personal attacks related to irrelevant off-wiki issues. And CALL OFF THE MEATPUPPETS. Consider this your final final warning before I take you to ANI.
I also advise you that if you make it look as if the only way to get your project written about on Wikipedia is to do it yourself, then you actually raise real doubts about its notability. Anyone looking at this would simply wonder why no neutral editor has thought to do it. --Stfg (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to mention that the discussion about this link is not over yet. Readding the link without a finished discussion after the edit warring should be against Wikipedia guidelines as far I know and thatfore refering to this unfinished discussion is a not valid argument to edit the article in this way. To argument that in the refered discussion one user mentioned that the link could be usefull since it is not too unusual to link prominent forks. Well if this fork is prominent or not is a question of the point of view here. I know other people who worked on the code of this game which do not intend to work with this projects team and I know that the playerbase of this projects server dropped in the last few months over 80% of which I know quite a number who have no plans of comming back in the near future. Thats maybe the reason for the quite aggressive advertisement. That the discussion has been streched unnecessarily into complexity is unfortunate. Maybe it is better we close the old discussion and reopen a new one?
Now to the edit: I can only see the reason of promotion of your own group and server in this edit and if it would still be up to date I would revert it now. First of all you declared your team as officiall current (main) developers, in the infobox, of this game. This game went open source little more than two years ago and had/has more people coding on it than only your group. During this time you also have not been the only hoster of an code changed open source server yet. Why should only your team then deserving to be named as developers in the article if your version is still "the same game", just with smaller modifications (how I think it was said)? Or differently asked: Why should your team be notable enough to be mentioned? If its the modification of the gamecode and hosting of an own server than I know at least one other person who should also be mentioned as (past) developer. I even know someone who is creating or maybe even already created real new value to the game by adding new areas, monsters and cities to the code but refuses to work with your group.
Same goes for your subtopic "Notable open source projects" where u placed the link to your groups own wikipedia article (which was already deleted because of lack of notablility). I believe you when you say that you have big plans for this game with your group but like I already said to you in the other discussion: If your team is successful with your project and you really archieve this goal like you described than this project should be notable enough to deserve at least an own subtopic in the Meridian59 article or maybe even, if the gamecode is changed enough, your "product" could deserve an own article in the Wikipedia itself if relevant enough. Then you can of course link your private projects homepage to the related article. But how it is right now your project is not notable enough, otherwise we should list all open source projects and their homepages to every open source topic too. That your projects Wikipedia article was fast deleted because of this lack of notability only proofs my point.
How I see it we have at the moment besides the advertisement aspect of this homepage the guideline point #13 and depending how you see it even #11 after which this link should not be placed in the article. The discussed homepage is actually a blog which provides all this services only for one specific server of the existing ones and which is not written by a recognized authority. Then: #13: The homepage only gives information about one specific part of the game and this one is the projects own server. How I understand this guideline the link does not fit as an external link for this article yet since its content is too specific "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject.". This will probably change when like I already wrote the project succeeds and gets an subtopic in the article but till then it does not fit. So at this point of time how I see it the edit serves only promotional/advertising reasons of the project and server in the article. Kind regards Seader (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Seader: you, too, need to stop poisoning the well with allusions to off-Wiki matters. That you "know that the playerbase of this projects server dropped in the last few months over 80%", and the question whether the project succeeds in its goals, are irrelevant here. You all need to confine your discussion to how this question relates to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:Notability depends on what independent reliable sources there are; whether the server achieves its own goals, and the size of the player base, have nothing to do with it. And of course, as you all presumably realise, WP:Notability is a different standard from WP:ELNO. --Stfg (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am sorry I know. Just to clear it up: My argumentation was a bit mixed up with the off topic and notability argumentation but the core argumentation I think its valid: I was using the off-wiki arguments since the "prominent fork" argument came up in APLs comment in the other discussion and was also named by Daenks as "notable open sorce project" or in external links as "a popular fork of Meridian 59". I just wanted to say with this that this is a fork yes, but its nothing prominent about it. 4 months ago I think I could have looked differently at it but now its only prominent feature is no more. Also I dont know about any relevant medial coverage which is about this "open meridian project" which could give it some prominent feature. So the prominent fork argument is not valid here to link the homepage in the article. Also I came up with the notability argument since this team was mentioned in the article by name for example as developer and even an own article was made for it. But since its not notable enough for its own article, for an own subtopic and at the moment also not even to be mentioned by name in the game article the linking of their page would violate #13 of the external links guidelines (with an own subtopic in the article the linking of their homepage would at least be reasonable). If they succeed (I am not arguing that they will or will not) and if they reach enough notability to get their own article then their main homepage of course could be linked in their article also. But at this point of time how I see it the edit and link serves only promotional/advertising reasons of the project and server. This were my core thoughs in this argumentation there. Sry if its was confusing. I wrote it just quickly between getting out of bed and leaving my place. Kind regards Seader (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the Github network page for the original Meridian 59 source ( Here, you can see forks that have been branched from the original source code, and the activity of each fork. The fork created by Daenks is the most active one, followed by those of the developers who contribute to that fork (notably skittles1, Gar and Morbus FYI). I'm not sure whether the Open Meridian Project meets the criteria set out in WP:Notability to qualify for its own Wiki page so I have no intention of debating the deletion of that page. For your information (and if an independent observer/admin ever needs to settle this) Meridian 59 is a 20 year old game which probably has less than 150 players remaining worldwide, including 20 or so who are in positions of volunteer developers. There are, to my knowledge, three active servers: 101/102 (run by the owner/creator) and 103 (run by Daenks) despite the Meridian 59 Wikipedia article claiming there are two. I will assume if I were to edit this to say three, and name them, it would be reverted by Seader and my account would be banned (and his would not). My point is that while Meridian 59 is a notable game (in terms of online gaming history) it is in a sense not notable anymore as hardly anyone knows about it and the only people you are going to find contributing to the page are those associated with it, usually in positions of development (see previous edits to the Meridian 59 page by Psychochild, FattyMoo and others, previous devs/admins). Any particular server is not going to be 'notable' in scheme of things however for completeness and accuracy current game servers should be listed, however briefly, in the article for that game. I have more than covered the individual Guidelines listed by Seader but no admin or independent observer has addressed those responses save user APL who commented "In that case it probably does make sense to have a link. It's not too unusual for Wikipedia articles to include to prominent forks of a project.". I would like permission to rewrite the Open Sourcing of Meridian 59 section to rectify the erroneous number of servers running, and to mention that two are run by the owner and original creator of the game and one by a group of players. I would also like permission to reinstate the link under External Links as it has been removed yet again by, and for reasons unknown to me no admin or independent observer reverted the edit from an IP address with no previous edits. Please advise if I am allowed to make those edits or if I am breaking some rule by correcting errors in the Meridian 59 article or by commenting here, or if you require further information about the game and this situation. Thank you for your time. Delerium1 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Delerium1: thank you for taking the cautious approach. I have reverted the removal at least temporarily, since APL already gave advice that its inclusion was likely OK. That was the first and only edit from that IP, and I have concerns about it. As to what you now propose, in Wikipedia it's not so much a question of permission as of consensus. Because of the recent history of this page, we need to work carefully towards that. To see if we can settle this amicably, it would be very helpful if you would create a draft of your proposed text, including sources, in a sandbox. Will you allow me to create a page User:Delerium1/Sandbox1 with a copy of the text of the article section you want to edit, plus a References section? You can then edit it in the way you'd like to edit the article, and when you've done that, we can discuss it. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes please, that would be great. Thank you again for your time. Delerium1 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done. It's all yours. Please let us know here when it's ready. --Stfg (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I have completed a draft at I've taken out the part regarding the characters/accounts, I think this would be better suited to the Gameplay section than the Open source section. I'm unaware of any additional servers still in operation however I am currently trying to find out if these exist. Please let me know if there is anything I should change. Thank you. Delerium1 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I've opened a new subsection below for discussion of this draft. --Stfg (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I still dont see any prominent feature for the Wikipedia of your team in your argumentation yet and also not even the official servers (101 & 102) or any of the others in the long history of this game are listed here by names, so I dont see a reason to change it and to mention your teams server by name. This is still an encyclpedia article and not a gaming guide in the end, so what would be the encyclopedial value to mention them by name? I myself dont want to decide if the pure existence of your open source server should be mentioned in the arcticle. My only thought is that if the size of the playerbase does not count like it was said here already, we should then also have to mention other existing servers too and the fluctuation is quite high with one server I am not 100% sure if it still exists, would have to check that. Also as far I know at least one of your teams members is also running his own open source server where people can play on if they want (even if I dont know of anyone playing there). So its more than just your teams server, besides the 2 official, where people are able to play on if they want. About the link which is inside the article now: well the discussion is still not finished yet since only one ser mentioned that it is not too unusual to link prominent forks, but like I already explained I have my doubts about the prominent featres of this "project" yet and thats why I think its too early to keep the link in the article till we did not get some more opinions of real wikipedia accounts on this. @@Stfg: Besides that link referring to my previous argumentation the title of the link in the article "prominent fork" is actally POV and also the listing of this team as an official developer in the infobox should be removed for the already said reasons. Kind regards Seader (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It said "popular", not "prominent". I have removed "popular". The infobox doesn't say "official". On other matters, you're repeating yourself, and once again going into irrelevant off-wiki matters. --Stfg (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
ok then I can give you a list of other people who coded for this game after open source too. Would you add them into the list? The off wiki mAtters you say are not irrelevant here since they make clear that it's not only one running open source server a the moment and if Delerium writes this au topic he please also considers the other servers. Kind regards Seader (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Are we talking about servers or developers? In any case, whether we include other ones is a separate issue. We'd consider each case on its own merits. At present, we're dealing with this one case. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
ok then let's discuss this who should be listed in this article as developers in the infobox after this software went open source since there has not been any medial coverage (independent secondary source) yet about the recent open source groups for this game except the listed New Yorker as far I know which does not mention the open source project team. So there are no independent secondary sources yet which recognise this group or their server yet which could give them prominent features. Using the homepage of them as a source would violate the original research guidelines actually. Kind regards Seader (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)PS: I also would still like to discuss the reason why the link to the project teams website is supposed to be encyclopedic relevant if there are actually no priminent features, medial coverages or any other secondary sources which acknowledge them. APLs comment was under the premise thats its a prominent fork for which there is o evidence shown yet, or am I wrong? And without any prominent feature the link in this article should violate the Wiki guidelines. Kind regards Seader (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)PPS: ignoring me here won't help the article. If links of groups and servers could be linked in the article which dont have any prominent feature (like being acknowledged by independent media) then there is the same issue like with naming the severs in the article that everyone and his dogs web page could be linked as well. Kind regards Seader (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Seader: I'm not ignoring you -- I've been reading everything you've written since I came here -- but that doesn't mean you're entitled to repeat the same things over and over and then expect a reply each time. Please read WP:BLUDGEON. Also, please take care how you express yourself: "ignoring me here won't help the article" reads like a threat. I intend to comment at WP:ELN eventually, but I won't be rushed into it while there's work to do here.
I'll add this: correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can discover, the only edits you've made to the article have been removal of mentions of the Open Meridian Project, mostly in edit warring mode. And that is a bone of contention, you see, especially with edits like this one, in which you removed mention of the Open Meridian Project while failing to correct the adjacent blatant error of stating that Near Death Studios is a current developer. This and the single-purpose edit warring give the lie to that "help the article" comment. By the way, that edit was edit warring, since it was reverting a reversion, and I considered taking you to ANEW for it. Be aware that from now on you are on a very short leash as regards edit warring. --Stfg (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stfg:"I considered taking you to ANEW for it. Be aware that from now on you are on a very short leash as regards edit warring." I am sorry if I annoy you but if you like to go to ANEW for this "editwar" then I cant stop you, but consider that everyone of us: Daenks, the german IP, me and also you took part of it. So there is no sense in only pointing at me.
And besides: Your critique on my edit does not change the fact that the edit I reverted was violating fundamental Wiki guidelines to begin with and that it was correct to remove this group out of the developers list. Also please remember your own advice to wait till the discussion is finished before further edits in the article are done in matters of the reason of the previous editwar. The discussion was not finished and the link was restored and even guideline violating edits have been made under your observation ( if we start to discuss the quality of the peoples work here involved ). In the end Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia and not a gaming guide. I mean my question about the encyclopedic relevance was a very basic one and if someone could have answered me this question then this discussion would have been over very quickly. A short "Yes it is legitimate after our guidelines since encyclopedic relevance/ prominent feature is not needed much here" would have been enough, but instead it was preferred not to comment it. Now I went to get the answer by myself and I think I got it. It seems that this unfortunate discussion was based on a difference in the strictness of the guidelines between this and my main wiki. In this case here it seems to be true that everyone who opens a server should be allowed to get his homepage linked in this article in the external links section. Kind regards Seader (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Seader: No, I haven't edit-warred. I did not say that nobody should edit, and obviously I have no power to say that. I was advising a specific editor who has a COI and was edit warring to stop getting himself into deeper trouble. I will post on ELN very soon, and it will be to say why I think that the external link does not violate any of criteria 10, 11 and 13, and why I think that it's inclusion serves this wiki better than its exclusion would. I will give the details at ELN. I don't know the culture of the German wiki, but your thought about that is helpful, thank you. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everyone who opens a server can link to it here, but I will explain at ELN why I think this link is helpful and how I propose to defend against WP:SPAM here. --Stfg (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stfg:: I dont see a reason to discuss the personal matters further nor do I have time now for this so I try to make it short: Your comment for the external guidelines was actually not needed anymore since I marked that discussion as solved since it does not matter there anymore. The external links guidelines points were only the smaller part of the critique on the linking of their page. The non existent prominent feature or better said missing encyclopedic relevance (which after my oppinion is needed to even think about mentioning or linking them) was the bigger issue, which I also mentioned here already. Since It seemed that nobody was watching or intended to answer this or ELN site I asked at the video games projects talkpage about if the linking is appropriate or not and if this group and its project are even encyclopedic relevant enough, since like we all know here there are no secondary sources aknowleding them. And that my concerns are that if its ok to link their homepage (without any reliable secondary resources acknowledging them) in the article it should be also ok for other people I know which also already contributed to the open source development of this game (and also could be refered to with the new yorker article as part of this "dedicated group of players") and even me and everyone else to open an own server with an own homepage and to link it in the article. I quickly got the first answer that the linking of this homepages would be allowed and thats how I came to the result that it seems that "everyone who opens a server should be allowed to get his homepage linked in this article in the external links section". And since there are no way at this moment to distinct between this groups server and homepage and the ones of others ( since no prominent feature is given to any of them via secondary sources, except for the two original ones 101 and 102 ) it is not possible without the violation of WP:POV and WP:original research to distinct and choose between the server of this group and the ones of others which could follow. Kind regards Seader (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Seader: There was nothing personal in my last message. I was actually typing it as you were closing the EL, and I was quite alarmed, after I wrote last night that I would post there very soon, that you marked it resolved before I had done so. I felt that an attempt had been made to silence me -- a feeling that is heightened by your telling me that my comment there was "not needed anymore". I came here in response to your request at WP:3O, and I'm not merely a resource that you can call upon and then dispense with at will. Why, after several days of hard work here, do you feel entitled to override all that work on the basis of a single two-sentence answer to your question on a project page you hadn't even notified of the ELN discussion? And please see WP:FORUMSHOP. I know that spotting spam isn't a precise art, and I'll take note of what Tezero said on the project talk page, but will keep an eye open for spam anyway, in case anything obvious needs doing. --Stfg (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I heard my name, @Stfg:. Tezero (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stfg:lol. No intention to shut u up. Sry if it looked that way. Was just closing it because of the forumshopping issue (by the way it was not me who opened the ELN discussion) and that I though its pointless since I did not really expect any more answers there and the link guidelines were the lower issue anyway. I thought the videogames project would be more helpfull , since in the other question involved not the external links guidelines were the topic but the relevance which is in my point of view the bigger issue which is in no relation to the ELN. I did and do not think of you as "a resource that you can call upon and then dispense with at will". Really sorry if it looks for u that way. Kind regards Seader (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)PS:Unfortunately the problem of distinction stays this way like you said "spotting spam isn't a precise art". I for example know also of a german open source server which was also opened up end of last year and I think it is still active (not 100% sure) but without any prominent features as requirement of the listing I dont see a reason why this guy should not link his servers homepage either. Kind regards Seader (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Open-sourcing of Meridian 59 subsection[edit]

UserDelerium1 has proposed a revision of that subsection. The proposed text is in User:Delerium1/Sandbox1, and you can see what it changes through this diff. Please use this section for discussing the proposed change.

My own view is that the tone is acceptably factual and not promotional. I would like to see citations for the last sentence. I want to brush up the prose a bit (in the original section I would, too) but that can wait till later. --Stfg (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean a reference to the webpage of each server after they are listed in this section? Thank you for the feedback. Delerium1 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
That might do at a pinch. Maybe. But these would be primary sources, and using them would open us up to everyone and his dog listing the servers in their garden sheds. All they'd have to do is create a web page first. If there are sources that are independent and reasonably recent that recognise these servers, those would definitely be better. If not, we may have an issue. --Stfg (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
There are a few independent sources (, various articles) that mention the original servers, but unfortunately none that talk about the more recently opened 103, which is 8 months old. The recent article in the New Yorker ( mentions one of our developers and refers to us as a "group of dedicated players" working with the creator of the game but the server and the Open Meridian Project are not named so I'm not sure this reference can be used here. Delerium1 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being up-front about that. No, I don't really think it's specific enough to use for this. I'm out of time for the rest of today but will return to this tomorrow. Is anyone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games watching this, who might be able to give an opinion? --Stfg (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
that's actually what I meant with no medial coverage ( Independent secondary sources) which gives this Server and its Team the needed prominent feature and my argument that if we mention this team and it's server then all the other servers which are accessible for players should have to be mentioned then as we'll (like you said everyone's and his dogs server). According to the original research and reliable sources guidelines I would just to mention the existence of open source servers. At the moment I don't see a reasonable reason for the Wikipedia to mention the open source project team and their server by name since there are no reliable secondary sources which acknowledge them or give them any prominent feature. Kind regards Seader (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Having slept on it, I think that we cannot reliably source accurate information about the server population from secondary sources, therefore we should stop trying to do so. The server population is probably in a state of moderate flux that separate sources will not track, and it's unnecessary WP:Recentism to do so. We all know that the statement that there are currently 2 servers was false, so it had to go. Mentioning just two while suppressing mention of the others is also a promotional thing to do, and unacceptable. I've copy edited that area of the article and included the sources that Delerium1 provided for the MDO and Skotos items (for which I thank you) but confined the unsourced part to saying that all current servers are in the US as-of this month.

I have not touched the external links section. Why is identified there as the "official" web site? --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The website was probably identified as the official site before the game was made open source, when it hosted the only legitimate Meridian 59 servers under Near Death Studios. Thank you for your work here, from what I can see the Meridian 59 article and the external links section seem informative and unbiased at this point in time. Delerium1 (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that gives a clue. In fact it has been like this since this edit way back in November 2004. Given that, as Near Death is now defunct, I think there are only two serious options:
  • Rename that one to something like "Meridian 59 web site (ex Near Death Studios)" and keep the Open Meridian Project link as well; or
  • Remove both links.
Comments? --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to go with "Meridian 59 Web Site" for the original servers and keep it as the top link in External Links, unless anyone else can provide a better link name. Delerium1 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
As is the website of the copyright and trademark holders, I think removing it would be a disservice.Daenks (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Very good point, thank you. We should probably mention that fact beside the link, I think. I've just gone ahead and done that. That is in the spirit of WP:BOLD and I won't mind if anyone reverts or amends it. --Stfg (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be a korean version as well. Daenks (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Good find. I've removed the words "and as of June 2014, all active servers are in the United States". We can never know that for sure, and I should probably have removed it in yesterday's edit. I haven't added that site to the external links because, lacking an English-language version, it probably doesn't contribute much to --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)