Talk:Moria (1983 video game)

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Video games Low‑importance

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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Train simulator (disambiguation) (3 participants)
Preston Arsement (2 participants)
Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

free-moria

I'm an involved party, so I don't feel comfortable adding this to the article, but some people might be interested in this:

free-moria - a project that is seeking permission from individual Umoria contributors to relicense the source code as GPL and/or public domain

It hasn't been widely publicized yet because there are still a few people that haven't been contacted yet. --HunterZ 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______

I'm not familiar with the wiki format here, so I'm hesitant to make changes, but regarding lack of sources, Dave Brevik of Blizzard stated in an interview that Moria and Angand were the inspirations for Diablo. Here's a source:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_48/289-Secret-Sauce-The-Rise-of-Blizzard.3

______ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.162.111.136 (talk) 00:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Notes from the co-author Jimmey Wayne Todd

Robert's memory seems to have lapsed a little bit. So, I'll fill in the holes. In 1982, Robert created a random dungeon generator using VMS Basic that was not interactive and only printed out the dungeons. In 1983, Robert and I were walking from Nelson Engineering Lab to the Physical Sciences Center and began discussing writing our own version of Rogue. Since Robert already had a dungeon generator and I had a character generator, we combined the two and began working on Moria. I created the encryption routines, the save and load routines, the death routines and a lot of other functions, while Robert created the movement, monster and combat routines. Version 1 was created and the executable was released to DECUS (Digital Equipment Corporation User Society). Robert insisted that we would "never" release the source to anyone. I graduated and moved on while Robert continued to work on Moria and released Version 2 and on. In 1986, I was surprised to see that Robert copyrighted the source and released it to DECUS. And he failed to mention that I was in fact, the co-Author of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.206.34 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to disambiguation by year, the option which most participants either supported or are at least fine with. (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moria (video game) → Moria (roguelike) – WP:AT ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. This game is a roguelike, a type of video game. Moria (PLATO) is also a videogame. The current title should point to the disambiguation, Moria, where the games are listed. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@0.31.205.108 and Ahecht: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NCGAMESDAB, the way to disambiguate video games is by year, not subgenre. However, a better disambiguation would be to move Moria (video game) to Dungeons of Moria (video game), but that would only be if neither game is the primary topic. Given that the only information on the web about the PLATO game is either taken from that single Armchair Arcade article or from Wikipedia, it seems that the "roguelike" game is the primary topic. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because Moria has many other more prominent uses. Therefore it is disambiguated ambiguously, failing WP:AT. "video game" is a partial disambiguation and ambiguous with other topics on Wikipedia, as such cannot remain where it is. Dungeons of Moria (video game) or Moria (1983 video game) is fine by me. You statement of disambiguation by year seems to indicate that Moria (PLATO) is also incorrectly named and it should be renamed with the year. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:PRECISION. The disambiguation cannot be more precise than needed. It is unclear if Moria (PLATO) is even notable, so I don't support any move as of yet. If it is actually notable, then disambiguating them by year is fine._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It already fails the WP:PRECISION test. It is not precise enough to unambiguously identify the topic, since the PLATO game exists as an article. If the PLATO topic isn't notable, then feel free to AfD the article. As it exists right now, this article is not at the right page name because it is ambiguously named, being ambiguous with the PLATO article. As long as that PLATO article exists, this article cannot use its current title. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but it would be jumping the gun to move this article before determining whether the PLATO articcle is independently notable. Otherwise anyone could just create a random article about a trivial topic and use it as justification for a move._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, this is a serious case, since the PLATO article was created in 2007! This is not a random recent creation, it has existed for over a decade. This blatant violation of WP:PRECISE has existed for too long, and must be moved. Some random user didn't create the PLATO article yesterday, or even last year. Several different users have edited the PLATO article, and none of them proposed it for deletion over that 14 year existence. Otherwise anyone could say hey that decades old article isn't relevant to violations of policy. We could delete it tomorrow. You could delete it, but it is a long standing problem, and should be moved because it has existed in the wrong place for much too long. As it stands now, it still hasn't been nominated for deletion, so thus, this article needs to be renamed. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support some move, but not the one proposed (roguelike) is an adjective - so support Moria (roguelike video game) or Dungeons of Moria (video game) or Moria (1983 video game) are all fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambiguating both games by year per WP:NCVGDAB.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambiguating both games by year per WP:NCVGDAB – e.g. Moria (1983 video game) and Moria (1978 video game). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I oppose the roguelike renaming, perhaps this is the most practical for these two games called Moria. Michaelcook (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IJBall's proposal. Standard disambiguation practice. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while I support some rename, "roguelike" isn't a good choice. These are both ancient "dungeon crawl" games, distinguishing by genre will still be confusing. Disambiguating by year is an improvement, but I don't like that either. The natural way to distinguish these games is by platform, but Moria (VMS video game) isn't quite right either. 75.162.124.147 (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If "roguelike" is used then what would the PLATO game be named? Moria (dungeon crawler)? These two games are unrelated except that they are both "dungeon crawler" video games, with one of them a roguelike flavor. It's important to note that Moria and Umoria (UNIX Moria) are synonymous. Umoria was a continuation of the Moria game - Moria 4.8 became Umoria 5.0; ported to the C language, released only initially on UNIX but later to multiple platforms, and game improvements made - when people say they are playing Moria this is the version they are talking about. Using the platform (VMS, UNIX, etc.) doesn't work either as that C language conversion became a cross platform game (MS-DOS, Amiga, etc.), all of them are Moria. Finally, although the full title is The Dungeons of Moria it is a title rarely used, and since the earliest days has just been Moria. Michaelcook (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.