Talk:MOO

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other forms of Moo(ing)[edit]

Remember that cows go moo. This might indeed be an important note for purposes of text disambiguation, especially if in some very humane and technologically advanced epoch (even one possibly occuring very soon) cows can access the internet and might go searching for the origin of the word "moo" in relation to their species and original quadroped form.

"If you are looking for the game "Master of Orion", abbreviated "Moo" or "MOO", see Master of Orion. For other uses, see Moo." - Available at article Moo and via the link at the top of the page (quoted).

Merge[edit]

As proposed recently by Kipper2258 and RoySmith merge links have been posted. This is designed to make one comprehensive page, rather than many scattered ones.

  • I am not a party to this proposal, and object to the implication that I am. I believe I mentioned the idea in passing at one time in association with one of the various deletion votes for PythonMOO, but I am certainly not in support of the current propsal. --RoySmith 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Phantasy_World: Comment: It might be worth looking at the whole "List of popular MOOs" section at MOO. While I think the general concept of MUDs and MOOs is encyclopedic, individual ones probably aren't. There is some interesting historical material in LambdaMOO, and (to a lesser extent) LinguaMOO and MediaMOO, but overall I'm thinking it would make sense to merge the significant parts from those individual articles into MOO and have one good article instead of a smattering of trivial ones. I'm not sure, however, if that discussion is in-scope for this particular VfD. --RoySmith 13:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, and yes, it was mentioned during one of the many MOO article deletions (PythonMOO, PhantsyWorld), but sorry if you feel that this is misplaced. I recall you mentioning merging all articles (apart from maybe LambdaMOO), but nonetheless okay. Out of interest who decides whether it should all be merged? The merge article implies that it can be done by anyone with support from talk.
I would recommend that you just be bold and perform the merge. None of the articles involved in the proposed merge are actively being editted, and most are just stubs, so acting independently would hardly be considered a reckless act. --Allen3 talk 17:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I will.
Oops, will rvv my own on LambdaMOO, see that all the content is here. ∴ here…♠ 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all complete, and forwards have been set-up (including recreation of previously deleted articles for redirection by admin). I have marked it for cleanup, since I probably won't be able to do a good job myself, and it needs doing. Good luck to whoevers task it becomes.

First MOO server?[edit]

I thought LambdaMOO was first in fact, perhaps only in significance. What was? ∴ here…♠ 19:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the same thought myself, and as a MOO owner I set to find out, it seems the first (I cant confirm this) was a test MOO, which itself was rather popular, which was pulled down. I only have managed to retrieve broken bits of info, but I will make it a task to find out.

It seems it is the first 'public' MOO, however a MOO which seems to go by the name of AlphaMOO, was in existace before it. However, even if that isn't the right name - it seems the first was a test MOO for the server, and was shutdown a while ago. Ian 13 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find a source for this, that we might include and reference in the main article? Introducing Lambda as the second, without mention of the first, frustrates me to no end ;). ∴ here…♠ 23:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The hunt will continue. I am seeking documents from old moo'ers that seem unavailable online. Ian 13 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean ?[edit]

LambdaMOO was created on the famous Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) by Pavel Curtis

Xerox PARC is a building, a center, not a machine something runs on.

Ture, maybe "within" would be more suited, updating... Ian 13 17:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "LambdaMOO was created at the famous Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) by Pavel Curtis"

I deleted PythonMOO[edit]

To whom it may concern: As a user, I must insist that PythonMOO is not notable in the grand scheme of MOOs. There are maybe a dozen regular users, including myself. If you want to list notable MOOs, go for stuff like BayMOO (high-population), Rupert (SunNET hub), YibMOO (notable founder), or something... but Wikipedia is not a MOO directory. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね)

I notice how you target PythonMOO since you are a user, yet you choose not to investigate other listed MOOs and check their notability, also it looks a little like a directory already - so why do you not choose to clean it up and improve it? Ian 13 21:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning up and improving it is a long-term project, which I will surely work periodically, but I know that the PythonMOO entry is nonnotable now. As such, its immediate deletion can be considered the start of some cleanup and improvement work. Furthermore, it is not Wikipedia policy to fail to clean up a certain portion of an article or set of articles merely because other sections or other articles exist which are equally bad or worse. In other words, you can't say: "You can't clean this mess up because there are other messes too!" This'd paralyze the site into inaction. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit and recommendations Fennec, hopefully someone will consider the recommended BayMOO (high-population), Rupert (SunNET hub), YibMOO (notable founder) soon. ∴ here…♠ 02:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seems I have misjudged the situation, I just feel if things are not proposed and voted on like in AfD, what people feel is notable can change articles. Ian 13 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LambdaMOO (the MOO) =[edit]

Can I comment that some of the information within that article seems trivial, for example the proportion of genders, since this could be done for any or all of the MOOs, it hardly seems notable or worthwhile, and just a section of reams of data, but this is my view. Ian 13 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay. I was on-the-fence about merging all these MOO articles into one in the first place see here, and I would hate to see nothing but a long series of reductions in content as a result. The data is similar to that included in other communities (towns and cities) and is of genuine encyclopedic value. Why delete it? The lambdaMOO section should live on containing all that might have been included in a full article, and re-split to it's own article if warrented (further discussion on Talk:LambdaMOO). ∴ here…♠ 19:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and merge decision[edit]

I think that the current article is all over the place, and that a big part of the reason why it is all over the place is because 3/4 of the article is used to describe individual MOOs. In my opinion this is not the way to do things. The article should have perhaps 1/3 of the article maximum to describe notable examples of it, and overall should be providing generic examples of what MOOs are. I for one have no idea of what a MOO is, and, after reading the article, still have no idea. My understanding is that a MOO is a derivation of a MUD, as some form of talker, like how MUSHes and MUCKs are (note: why is MUCK a redirect to MUSH? They are different things!)

I have heard of LambdaMOO and think without question it warrants its own article. How many others do is debatable. I had even been advised that it was practically the only MOO of any consequence. If so, it would be reasonable, in my opinion, to make a separate article for LambdaMOO and link to it from here. This would help to clean up the article enormously.

In comparison, the MUSH article looks nice. On reading that article, I know what a MUSH is. It also has a handful of separate articles for MUSHes of historical significance, one being Star Wars MUSH.

I think that one big problem with these kinds of decisions is that there is no confirmed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/precendet set as to what to do with internet that is not related to WP:WEB. WP:WEB is naturally irrelevant for cases such as this.

So, in my opinion, LambdaMOO should without question be unmerged. And the article should include one heck of a lot more about what a MOO is. Zordrac 20:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LambdaMOO was just merged into this article. See discussion above and at Talk:LambdaMOO. I would recommend working on filling out the MOO article itself before reversing the recent merge activity. Nothing will be lost if LamdaMOO lives on right here for a bit longer. ∴ here…♠ 21:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I think we should leave LambdaMOO here for now, and consier moving back. Looking at other MUD articles, this one does seem rather odd. I tihnk LambdaMOO back to its on article, and disgard seperate sections/articles for other MOOs altogether, mainly because they are not all that important on the small subject of MOO. Consider listing major MOO developemtments (like sunnet and features of interesting moos). But a key thing would be to build on what a MOOs is, any suggestions on my proposals? Or I may just be WP:BOLD Ian13 17:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. However, I do think that a famous / historical MOOs section will be hard to avoid, but:
  • LambdaMOO should be mentioned and linked
  • keep the info on MediaMOO
  • remove FracturedMOO (what claim to fame has this?)
  • dunno on Lingua. No news since Jan04, were they huge in the past?
Regardless, go ahead and move LambdaMOO back out to it's own. ∴ here…♠ 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Its just because this seems to lack so much general information, and as Zordrac said, its just about moos, it just reads very badly.
Right, I've put the bit about LambdaMOO (the MOO) into the LambdaMOO article. I have also reformed the article, hopefully making it an article, that someone who knows little about MOOs can make use of. All are welcome to revise and correct, however as far as I know all is accutate, and verified by the MOO I wizard. The well-known moos needs expansion. I will try and add to this, but if anyone else can assist, that would be good. Ian13 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now. I don't know if other MOOs warrant their own articles or not. But I think that the way you've got it displayed now is great. Then you can decide on an individual basis whether other MOOs warrant their own pages.

By the way, I think that there's about 50 MUDs which have their own pages on wikipedia. And yet they are still missing Aardwolf MUD, the most popular MUD in the world, as it has been for the past 10 years straight! Go figure! Anyone want to write that article? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Category:MU* games. 46 MUDs, to be precise. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work Ian. I never used anything but LambdaMOO -- other than a personal, now deleted, MOO I setup using the same core. I think the well-known moos section will take care of itself ;). I'm honestly glad that LambdaMOO again has it's own space to fill, well deserved. ∴ here…♠ 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad its apprechiated, took long enough :P Ian13 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion[edit]

The page is looking really good, but one problem is the opening paragraph, which IMO is far too long. It'd be good if it was split up a bit. Have a look at MUD and MUSH for what I mean there. I extracted bits from these 3 in talker and had difficulty with the MOO part. It'd be good if the opening was a bit clearer. Also, should the part about LambdaMOO's server be in the LambdaMOO article? I'm not sure if it should be or not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Also, I would say no, since LambdaMOO (the server) is the only moo server, so splitting it (like it used to be I think), in my opinion, would make it confusing like it was before. However if someone thinks this could be done well, go ahead, but I would personally not aggree. Ian13 09:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If its the only server, it should stay in the main article. Wow, I thought that there would be more MOOs in the world than just 1 server full. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all MOO servers are either ports of lambdamoo or patches on it. I will look over the first para soon too. Ian13 12:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moo Cores[edit]

Does anyone think/agree we need a section on moo cores? We've got stuff like Jays House Core in the external links but people won't have a friggin clue what it is. Andrew Northall 06:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sure don't. Yes! Please add ;). We can always split to another article, if warrented in the future. ∴ here…♠ 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go got it. Probably best to put it below the well-know moos if you ask me (called well-known cores?). Ian13ID:540053 16:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cleanup tag?[edit]

Would there be any support for th removal of the tag. The recent cleanup I preformed seems to have remained with only minor alterations, so would anyone support the removal of the tag? Ian13ID:540053 12:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, January 2006[edit]

I hope nobody finds my changes controversial, but being an extant MOO community member since 1991/1992, I found much of what was here to be debatable.

  • I fixed spelling of object-oriented; it was repeatedly used as object-orientated, which is not correct usage.
  • I added a history section with dates and names of the original releases. I got this information from the mud timeline, from google searches using aliases, and from personal association and recollection of other early MOO members.
  • I made it clear that while Stephen White authored the first version[s] of MOO, it was Pavel Curtis who really made it significant.
  • I moved the (fairly esoteric) discussion of object numbers & names past the general description of the capabilities of MOO itself.
  • I cleaned up some language.
  • I tried to clarify what one would use the MOO programming language for.
  • MOO is still maintained, I made that clear, where the original article claimed otherwise.

I think this article needs continued cleanup, so I have updated the date on the cleanup tag. There is a lot more to be said about what a MOO is, what its social impact was on the early history of the Internet (I do believe it had some!), what MOOs have been used for, etc. I don't trust that my changes on their own have cleaned up all the language and grammar issues here.

Further there is a lot more history to be put in here that is relevant. For example, the version of MOO that was hosted in the DGD driver ("LP MOO"), a list of new features that were added over time (exceptions, for example).

On the subject of MOOs other than LambdaMOO itself you can't really match the really important influence of three MOOs: MediaMOO, and also Jays House MOO and (later) Waterpoint, where much of the original community of early adopters of MOO later hung out. The continued maintenance of MOO by Jay Carlson, etc. is an outgrowth of that community.

MOO (and MUDs in general) is/was an important chapter in Internet history. I think this article should reflect that.Ryandaum

I have changed date tag bac to october, since thats when all the work first started (I hope you don't mind, but it's standard convention). Ian13ID:540053 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can I quickly highlight NPOV, with consern to your last comment (the work so far has been very good!). Ian13ID:540053 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why someone changed "the first/the oldest" to "one of the first/one of the oldest" to De digitale metro and MOOsaico ? If they were the first, why can't it be stated ? - paf 18:40, 31 May 2006 (WET)
Do you have any sources to say they were the first? I would personally doubt that they were the first, another MOO may have come and gone before them. Ian13/talk 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, it's simple. You *wont* find any ref regarding any moo prior to MOOsaico in Portugal or Brasil. You can check in http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moo about the first MOO in Brazil - [...] "Em maio de 1995 o primeiro MOO do brasil foi instalado" [...] (In May 1995, the first brasilian MOO was installed). During that era, Internet access was almost restricted to universities and a couple of providers. There were *a* MOO and maybe 10/15 Talker servers :) Maybe the popularity of MOOsaico over those times was its "uniqueness". You wont find any other moo (in portuguese) on all the MOO listings from that time (you will get AtlantisMOO after some time. Also, I've never received any email/complain about stating it on the web front http://moosaico.com/ for so many years. Regards - paf, 15:37, 01 July 2006 (WET)

Foo MOO Server[edit]

It says a couple times in the article that LambdaMOO is the only server distribution, but the Foo server is widely distributed and includes a significant (though not massive) addition of features. Generally, it's more widely used than Lambda among MOOs that are game-oriented, as opposed to community-oriented. Regardless of its usage, though, it IS another distribution. 67.187.113.46 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.... do you have any sources or websites? I will have a little hunt too. Ian13/talk 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HellMOO[edit]

Hi sorry if I'm doing this wrong, never posted on a wikipedia talk page before. I am the founder of HellMOO. We've been around 4 years, have the most complex RPG yet implemented on a MOO, have over 4000 players, and peak at 80 active players simultaneous. Surely this qualifies us to be a 'notable MOO'. We've done some things in MOOcode that have never been done before. Our system creates and destroys almost 1,000 objects per hour. We have a complex weather simulation, an AI economy with autonomous agents, a queueing action system, and much more that is 'of note', I should think.

Yet when we try to add HellMOO to the 'list of notable MOOs' on this page, it gets reverted. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.63.191 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because your information is outdated, the game split into two different versions, and you no longer have 4000 players nor have 80 players on at one time. And everything has been done in reallifeMOOcode, so swagger please, move on, also didn't you shut down the game, split the community into two? Making HateMOO and then HellMOO. Also you have missed out a number of other things, this game is in general view a cybering erotic roleplaying game for about 70% of the community which frequents the now known "Hellmoo", which is known to be ran by Gilmore, aka "the creator".

Object Oriented[edit]

I revered the spelling "correction" that changed object oriented to object orientated. Object Oriented Programming is a very common programming paradigm and is spelled correctly. Oriented and orientated are completely different words. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of MOO or Origin of Name[edit]

I just came across MOO while looking through pages and I have no clue why it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monfisher (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATHEMOO[edit]

In your list of Notable MOO's I find it odd that there is no mention of ATHEMOO, which was an important MOO for online performance. It was started in 1995 at the University of Hawaii. Link to that information is here. There is also a section of captured performance taken from ATHEMOO here. There is also information on ATHEMOO in the book, "Cyberspace Issues of Teaching, Acting and Directing", Chapter on Athemoo starts on page 109.

--Joe Berwick (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the defining characteristic: programmable or object oriented?[edit]

The fourth paragraph begins,

One of the most distinguishing features of a MOO is that its users can perform object-oriented programming within the server, ultimately expanding and changing how the server behaves to everyone.[4]

I question whether the word 'object-oriented' is limiting or descriptive in this context. Is the distinguishing feature user-programability (regardless of programming language)? Is the term MOO meant to distinguish from earlier, user-programmable MUD-like systems?

Thanks, 67.247.21.108 (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article ever going to get around to explaining what a MOO is?[edit]

I read the first section and some others that seemed to have some hope of explaining in plain English what a defines a MOO and I came away not quite sure why another word for MUD exists.24.6.110.3 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is only in culture and programming. Obviously, a "multi-user dungeon" has a focus on [fantasy] gaming, whereas a MOO can be for any purpose, but has seen mostly social, collaborative-creative, and academic/educational uses.
And the 'object-oriented' part refers to the programming paradigm employed, which makes it easy for "each community member to be a programmer" (if only to a small extent like customising the user object). Arlo James Barnes 22:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on MOO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MOO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MOO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Why is it called MOO? Is it an acronym? I don't see this in the article. Shouldn't it be in the lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A605:4C00:3D0B:9C7D:862E:6B51 (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I'm dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A605:4C00:3D0B:9C7D:862E:6B51 (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MOO&oldid=1199404720"