Talk:Tapestries MUCK

Mergability? Or deletion?
I don't know much about Tapestries MUCK besides what is already noted in this article. This seems to be for the most part reiterating the content of the website, though--if this can't be expanded, maybe the article should be deleted or replaced with a redirect to a list of furry role-playing games or something similar, which could include links to web-sites of the various MUCKs, including this one. --Krishva 06:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about choice 'C' - do nothing. This looks like a fine little stub. -Willmcw 08:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was written before I ran over the article to wikify it and clarify the text. Though it's improved, I still think it's not terribly significant; are all online MUD games to be considered notable? FurryMUCK is a fairly widely-heard-of game of a similar variety and was the subject of at least one magazine article in a tech magazine, but Tapestries MUCK, for the most part, is not a recognizable name outside of furry fandom circles.  --Krishva 09:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Willmcw. Tapestries is about 1/3rd the size of FurryMUCK, but it still has a few thousand users.  As a tangent, I wish I could have saved the Vicki Fox page 'fore you helped it get deleted, Krishva...  Almafeta 20:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not really the size of the user base that I'm concerned with--I'm aware Tapestries MUCK is a fairly popular MU* in furry fandom. The question is whether it's really notable enough that it needs its own article, or if a link to its web page on a list of such games is enough for those who need to refer to it.  Does the game have any notable characteristics that are worth mentioning, besides being a furry sex game?  There are a few sex MUDs out there, after all, and not all of them should have an article on Wikipedia.  Is this one significant in some way?  Did it do something groundbreaking?  Did someone draw attention to it in a mainstream publication?  That's what I'm looking for.
 * I would also prefer you avoid dragging my other activities on Wikipedia onto Talk pages that don't concern them. --Krishva 02:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that Tapestries has lasted long enough and has been of interest to a large enough number of people that it at least deserves a page on Wikipedia, although it is debatable as to how much detail should be here. This sort of debate is exactly why I've set up WikiFur - the Tapestries page there can expand without such concerns about relevance. GreenReaper 02:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, set up Wikifur that gives a FURRY point of view about Tapestries and not a Wiki one. I think that it deserves it's own articile, but I think some of the information contained within could do with an edit. ~ Dan


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean . . . just because we're about the furry fandom doesn't mean it's not a wiki. It just means we have more information on furry fandom topics, which might be deemed non-notable here. GreenReaper 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mucks, especially FurryMUCK and later Tapestries MUCK were really one of the two original key parts of Furry Fandom on the Internet. When you consider that the Internet was key to the sudden growth of the fandom in the 90's, growing from a little nitch at sci-fi cons into it's own genre with about a dozen of it's own conventions, this is a fairly significant thing. It's one of the original internet cultures that really took off. Is that worth a page on something as big as Wikipedia? That's for you guys to figure out, not me. :-p (Please forgive me for not having an account, this is the only page that I have any personal interest in on Wikipedia, so it seemed silly to register one just to edit it.) -- WhiteFire Sondergaard, March 23 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.186.34 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Other MUCKs?
Is there another MUCK out there like Taps that allows human players? I want to play something human but Taps doesn't allow that sort of thing...--Serow 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Try browsing TMC. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are some out there. I have had some experience in this field, but that was ages ago. I dabbled in a MUD that was even wasnt adult related, and was surprised. I used to play Taps too, but got fed up with the lack of support, dead areas and generally lack of friendliness.


 * It's funny though, because I've seen plenty of elves to human-like beings with cat ears and tails on Tapestries..  ~ Dan

Expansion
Tagged this article because I think it could use further expansion, in the wake of the recent AfD. I have no experience with the MUCK itself, but it'd be good if someone who does could add more material to improve the article. This would also make future AfDs less likely. Shimeru 03:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that. There's very little info. When did it open? Knowledge of how long a game has been around seems useful.


 * It started in 1991. The trick is proving that to Wikipedia's satisfaction. :-p GreenReaper 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Will the head wizard's statement on it's create date satisfy that? :-p It was created shortly after QuartsWest (it's original incarnation) was taken over by root@glia.biostr.washington.edu. -- WhiteFire Sondergaard, March 23rd 2007

After people have whined about this sufficiently on my forums I decided to add some information and do some corrections myself. Let me know if there is more information you would like. I also added a link to the actual wired article that named us one of the better places to get cyber on the internet. -- WhiteFire Sondergaard, March 23rd 2007


 * I'd like to rate this as class C, because the references have improved it a lot, but it could do with being more substantial in its coverage of the MUCK's world. I'm not saying it needs individual coverage of each location, but I think the major themes/topic areas of the MUCK and examples of how they are expressed in the form of roleplaying areas would be welcome. These probably do not need separate referencing as long as their is no question about their accuracy (no questionable facts and no opinions stated). GreenReaper (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)