Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community of Myth (computer game)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was MERGE into Myth (computer game). Herostratus 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Community of Myth (computer game)
Non-notable fancruft that fails the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" criteria. Also, note (despite the confusing title) that the article is not referring to a computer game called "Community of Myth", but to the fan community of Bungie's Myth series.--TBC TaLk?!? 10:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Speedied by me, but reopening - if anything, the Myth World Cup appears to be an assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC))


 * keep. This article is about the fanbase of the game. I wrote a lead explaining why the fanbase of this game is a notable phenomenon. Gimmetrow 15:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete A dedicated fanbase that writes mods and maps and such does not make the commuinity itself notable. The article is little more than a linkfarm, and Wikipedia is NOT a free webspace provider. Parts of the article are also nothing more than a game guide. Resolute 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The notability of the fanbase is not that it makes maps, but that it has completely taken over actual development of a commercial game, without compensation. This is a very notable phenomenon, even if some of the current content of the article is cruft. Gimmetrow 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the content is cruft, and that the fanbase has taken over development can easily be mentioned in the articles on the games themselves. I still do not buy that this article needs to exist. Resolute 23:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The game is notable because it won some awards, was innovative, had a long sales run, etc. The community is notable because it took over the software development from the franchise owners. When this was happening (with signing of non-disclosure agreements, etc, circa 2002-2003), it was covered in the general gaming community and considered a notable event, even unique, among commercial games. This point is perhaps obscured somewhere in the dev histories and lists of groups, but this is AfD, not a FA review. I'm not defending the cruft - for instance the section on development history is probably impossible to follow except to one of the developers or core beta testers. Gimmetrow 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Whoever wrote this article has waaay too much time on his hands. Still it is encyclopedic as covering an important phenomenon in the gaming world and conveying interesting information. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. While many online communities develop their own slang and in-jokes, the Myth Community is fairly unique in the way it has so many cultural divides. Online communities (such as World of Warcraft) might have server-division but nothing comes close to the Marius/PlayMyth, WWII/Reg/AvA, rank/un-rank divides while retaining major interaction. Also one of the older online communities outside of the RPG world to still have major tournaments that get advertising by the original creator (Bungie) and even sponsorship (MindscapeFX and a 'clothing company' just sponsored a small Myth II tournament'.


 * Game development being taken over is one thing. But running two major (they can both handle over 1200 players if need be) gaming servers, an annual tournament which since 2003 has had approx 32 teams of 10ish players, UPDATES to the game (not just higher res and compatibility with modern computers) including huge modifications to actual gameplay, graphics and unit behaviour in Myth III, the fact that three games are being maintained (most communities like this are just the one) and the vast depth of the culture are what makes it important. We can clean this thing up a lot, but keep the core of it. The main Myth page was just getting too bogged down with really note-able things about the game that wouldn't go anywhere else. Several people suggested a new page and it is a lot better for it.


 * Despite having written a lot of it, I'll admit the development history section could possibly be deleted, or certainly summarise it in a smaller amount of space (that's looking back on it, I didn't hate it at the time). (The Elfoid 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Prune considerably. Delete at least everything in the "Language of Myth" section, condense "general hubs" to one paragraph, delete everything in MWC section and everything else related to MWC except one sentence linking to the main article, to avoid redundancy. I would also severely trim the mapmaking section, but don't feel impartial enough to do it myself. Argyrios 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did a general trim to give an idea of what level of detail is appropriate. Please review. That same sort of harsh treatment needs to be given to the mapmaking section, but someone else needs to do it. Would also appreciate dev history trim, as indicated above. Argyrios 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be worth making an entire page for map-making and thus remove it from here entirely. Just an idea...(The Elfoid 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Many gaming communities produce maps. While some idea of the mapmaking aspect of the Myth community is interesting background information, I don't think a separate article on it is a good idea. One article on the community should be sufficient. Gimmetrow 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not defending everything in the article, but the Myth community itself is very notble as explained by other respondants. Ace of Sevens 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Servers and Community hubs should merge really as both main servers ARE hubs. A little more information on them could be used.


 * Development history could be put into a table perhaps (I can't do this as I don't know how)? Along the top you could have developers (Bungie, Mumbo Jumbo, Project Magma, MythDevelopers and Flying Flip) and along the side the list of games and map-making tools. So each block would list all patches that company releaased. For reference material:
 * Bungie created Myth: The Fallen Lords v1, v1.1, v1.2 and v1.3, Myth II: Soulblighter v1, v1.1, v1.2, v1.2.1, v1.3 and v1.3.1, Fear/Loathing v1, v1.1 and v1.2 I believe. I may be wrong on those.
 * Mumbo Jumbo were responsible for Myth III: The Wolf Age v1, v1.0.1 and v1.0.2. Their Vengeance work I know nothing about.
 * Project Magma (in association with MythDevelopers) created Myth II: Soulblighter v1.3.2, v1.4, v1.4.1, v1.4.2 and v1.4.3. Project Magma on their own created Myth II v1.5, v1.5.1 and are working on v1.6. Fear v1.2.3 Updates to Fear/Loathing were made to all Magma patches but Mac support was only added in Fear v1.6 and Loathing v1.5.1. Their only other work was Myth: The Fallen Lords v1.5.
 * MythDevelopers created Myth: The Fallen Lords v1.4 and v1.4.5 (v1.4.5 was Mac only), Myth II v1.4.4 and Myth III: The Wolf Age v1.1, v1.1.1, v1.1.2, v1.2. They also did Vengeance work of some sort I believe.
 * Flying Flip (a second incarnation of the core developers from MythDevelopers...work could be listed together perhaps) created Myth III: The Wolf Age v1.3, v1.3.1 and are working on a new patch currently, or considering it. Ballistic, v1, v1.0.1 and v1.0.2 were released by Flying Flip but rather than being a new program it is an update of Vengeance and could be listed as part of Vengeance's dev history as opposed to on its own.


 * Whatever, someone do something with this and it can be made better I'm sure. (The Elfoid 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Obvious strong delete - Unverifiable original research/no reliable sources. Wickethewok 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I should point out this has had industry media coverage in Gamasutra, which is the premiere industry publication. (Meaning it's aimed at developers, not customers.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace of Sevens (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, that link is in the lead. Gimmetrow 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for the Myth Community are from websites that really have not got much more credibility than myself as a member of it. Many people within the community are watching over this, and regularly it gets scruitinized (since I've written the most I usually handle complaints from the community) and I'd say all server admins, map-makers and tournament organisers etc. who could be contacted have been. I can gather quotes proving all this if I must I guess but to be honest its not easy to find everyone - but its as accurate as it can be and based on the collective opinion of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs)
 * Reliable sources are external, news reports. Doing personal interviews is "original research", which is not for wikipedia. Gimmetrow 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well what about original websites and things? Myth Community, though noteworthy in many ways has been fairly self-contained and not publicized since around the end of 2004 because the growth of PlayMyth.net's side of things ended after Myth World Cup 2004 and at that point the PlayMyth decline began (from mid-2002 onwards the community had been growing again). What about non-personal interviews e.g. official statements? It is impossible to find just about anything relating to Myth that classifies as reliable since everyone goes on aliases. 'some guy called wight slayer' is of very little guaranteed proof to anyone but I can safely guarantee the Myth Community would keep this authenticated and accurate since that's what they do. This is one of those horrible situations where politically correct rules don't quite work and things should be bent...not that I expect it to work.(The Elfoid 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Keep but edit heavily The content here is quite thorough and probably way too wide-ranging for a single page. Most of the sections on this page could be condensed to a small paragraph with the deleted text relegated to it's own article. As for attribution, as Elfoid pointed out it is difficult to 'prove' most of the facts presented here since most of the original sources are websites that are no longer active, but as someone who has followed and been active in the myth community for several years, and who maintains an archival site of myth articles and content I have not found any major errors in the content on this page. Of course the question someone raised of whether so much detail about a particular computer game even belongs on Wikipedia is a seperate (and valid) question.  (Vinylrake 12:49, 01 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Weak Delete This article is way too huge, and most of it is not notable and should not be included on wikipedia. However, there might be something salvagable from this article, cut back heavily or simply delete. Altair 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is not worthy of an article. The phenomenon is interesting, and some information from the article might go well on the page for the game itself. Heimstern Läufer 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now map-making has its own page its use has been lost significantly. As has the shrinking of Dev history. I say keep, but there's useful things we can put in here (The Elfoid 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete. Being interesting does not a notable article make. Mention it on the series page, sure, but not on its own page and in such ludicrous depth. GarrettTalk 00:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (re-voted below)


 * Comment - I don't entirely understand the last three delete comments. This is a sub-article of the main Myth article, repeats little content, and seems well below "ludicrous depth". If an "interesting" and uniquely notable event in game software development does not merit a short article, then surely the content should be merged, not deleted. Gimmetrow 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ps. It is difficult to balance criteria for existence that contradict each other. ex. "This is nothing but a link farm, delete it" vies with "Delete this article, there is no verification for the content" Vinylrake 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - I chopped both the Myth Development and Myth Mapmaking sections of the page each down to a fairly coherent, if not particularly well written paragraph. The article itself is greatly reduced in size and scope.


 * Someone with the ability PLEASE put the dev history into a table for me. I just can't do tables. Once its done I can tinker with it but I can't get the basics right. I am in the process of getting more details on the matter. A list of Myth Community projects (MythAlice, recent news articles, a note on the playmyth/marius magma/mythdev wars that almost broke the community apart would be noteworthy too in a little more depth - its rare for a community with such closely knit groups almost destroy itself when money's not involved. (The Elfoid 11:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Garrett|Garrett]]Talk 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - I suggest that the article be merged into the article about Myth, the game. This is clearly something that should be grouped with the game's article. Kopf1988 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge appropriately. This is what my previous vote was really meaning, so I'm re-casting as merge. The community getting permission (and source code?) to continue developing is unique and thus pretty noteworthy, but I still don't think it's noteworthy enough to have its own page. [[User:Master Thief


 * I go with merge. When we made this page more was on it. Now map-making stuff has its own page, so does MWC and so do Myth II Tournaments. Without that it lost a lot of its value and a merge is fine. (The Elfoid 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.