Talk:TubMUD

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

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Telnet links in MUD articles

As telnet links were actually enabled following arguments about their contribution to MUD related articles, I'll reinstate it as an inline link. A copy of the discussion from 2005 is below. There is a lot of other stuff on HELP DESK, etc. on how to use telnet links in articles, but I didn't spot anything in the MoS which seemed to apply. --Aelmon (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from 9 years ago notwithstanding, telnet links really aren't appropriate. Including them is essentially treating Wikipedia as if it were The Mud Connector or Top Mud Sites, i.e. a promotional directory for players to use to find games, and to make a long story short that is the sort of behavior that gave MUDs a bad name of Wikipedia for most of a decade. It also isn't doing any favors to an article that has zero WP:GNG-satisfying citations to make it look any more promotional than the general language of the article already does. So I am asking you to revert your addition of the telnet link. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telnet links

It seems that while external links to IRC servers (e.g. - [1]) and FTP servers (e.g. - [2]) link correctly, links to telnet servers (e.g. - [3]) do not get handled properly. I'd like to think this is a simple thing to fix, hence my posting it here. Comments? —Locke Cole 12:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

telnet is an obsolete protocol, and should not be encouraged to be used, there shouldn't be any links to telnet-servers from wikipedia at all _→AzaToth 13:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRC and FTP are obsolete as well, so the "it's obsolete" argument doesn't really hold a whole lot of weight for me. As for links to telnet servers, while they continue to disappear, there are still bulletin boards (for example) that operate on the internet that may be worth linking to. —Locke Cole 13:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So we shouldn't be linking to servers that only support HTTP/1.0 either? How is whether or not the protocol is considered deprecated at all relevant to anything? (and AFAIK IRC at least hasn't been deprecated by anything) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some might argue that IM has largely replaced IRC (especially where the IM protocol supports having groups of people together ala an IRC channel). But that's really besides the point and not something I want to debate: whether or not it's obsolete is irrelevant. Afterall, I note that the old gopher protocol is supported: [4]. So can something be done for poor old telnet? :P —Locke Cole 14:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Define obsolete... Telnet is still is use, remote Linux shells, finantial institutions MUD games etc still use them, as well as remote administration of routers, printers and what not. Now granted there are no longer a huge number of public telnet services available, but still. It's usefull if you want to provide a direct link to for example a MUD like telnet://discworld.imaginary.com or whatnot...--Sherool (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in my case I was specifically thinking of MUD servers that are open to the public. And like I mention above, for whatever reason, the Gopher protocol is still supported. So telnet seems like a given. :P —Locke Cole 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this won't hurt anything (it's not like people are using telnet:// for anything else) and it might be useful I've gone ahead and enabled it in MediaWiki. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ævar! —Locke Cole 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]