Talk:Curious Pastimes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Notability
Upated and improved the entry and removed the deletion request. The CP campaign certainly has enough attendees (and nonattendees who may be interested in details for completeness) to warrant an article. Sources outside of Curious Pastimes' own website and those of participating factions are hard to locate, so I have been unable to provide much, but I had added what links I could. Please comment if wished. 206.230.48.34 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you'd like your article to survive a non-notability challenge, you'll need to meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). To summarize the guidelines: cite a few third-party sources who provide non-trivial coverage of CP. A single source might be enough if it's really in depth and from an obviously reliable source (say, any major newspaper). Note that announcements of events is trivial coverage won't cut it. I wish you the best of luck. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of references. There're hundreds of references out there, of course, but they're on links-pages or in people's blogs. Not much use. What the heck; if it gets deleted, it gets deleted, and no skin off my nose. I just feel it needs to be in for completeness, as it's one of the major influences on UK LRP. Never mind. 206.230.48.34 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to track them down and add them! I'd love to see more LARP groups listed in Wikipedia, but unfortunately there are editors who are very strict to the notability guidelines. So I'm just trying to help people to keep good articles in the Wiki, and not deleted for failure to meet rules they may not be familiar with. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Seems to have worked, anyway; nobody's reinstated the challenge. Cheers - David Moore. 206.230.48.34 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to track them down and add them! I'd love to see more LARP groups listed in Wikipedia, but unfortunately there are editors who are very strict to the notability guidelines. So I'm just trying to help people to keep good articles in the Wiki, and not deleted for failure to meet rules they may not be familiar with. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of references. There're hundreds of references out there, of course, but they're on links-pages or in people's blogs. Not much use. What the heck; if it gets deleted, it gets deleted, and no skin off my nose. I just feel it needs to be in for completeness, as it's one of the major influences on UK LRP. Never mind. 206.230.48.34 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
Tricky. I have the 800-figure for Renewal and the 50-to-150 figure for faction sizes directly from the administration team, so I don't have a web reference for them. The Gathering (2500+ players at largest) and Maelstrom (900+ players at largest) figures I can get, but not sure I can find a citation that there are no other large fests on the scale; it's hard to prove that something doesn't exist. Davidtmoore 07:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would this qualify? Jhereg Website It's from the websites of one of the participating factions. Or is that too close to the organisation itself? Davidtmoore 08:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1. Are there bigger LARPs: True, proving a negative isn't going to work. Perhaps you can find a third party who is willing to describe it as the third largest? Failing that, citations showing the sizes of the two larger ones would be a good starting point. 2. Citations from interested parties (like Jhereg) aren't the gold standard, but they are an acceptable source. (They can not, however, establish notability.) If the citation is actively doubtful (I don't think this one is), rephrase it to something like "So-and-so claims that...." 3. Deep links: I'm quite confident that linking to a publically available web page is perfectly safe and not copyright infringement. Framing the page would be different, but we're not doing that. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The concern about using deep links stems from this page on the CP website, denying permission to link to any part of the website except the top-level page. If you feel it can be safely ignored, then fair enough. Davidtmoore 07:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1. Are there bigger LARPs: True, proving a negative isn't going to work. Perhaps you can find a third party who is willing to describe it as the third largest? Failing that, citations showing the sizes of the two larger ones would be a good starting point. 2. Citations from interested parties (like Jhereg) aren't the gold standard, but they are an acceptable source. (They can not, however, establish notability.) If the citation is actively doubtful (I don't think this one is), rephrase it to something like "So-and-so claims that...." 3. Deep links: I'm quite confident that linking to a publically available web page is perfectly safe and not copyright infringement. Framing the page would be different, but we're not doing that. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added the Jhereg link for both the Renewal and Maelstrom numbers. Now I need a source for faction size. I might drop that line; I'm not going to find a source for either end of the spectrum, but the average sizes of the factions can be deduced by dividing the total number of players (800) by the number of factions (8), which serves the sense of the paragraph well enough. Davidtmoore 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Campaign Setting
The Renewal campaign setting is NOT based on the LT Erjeda but is and always has been a unique construct. It does draw some elements from Europe and Asia (as do/did many LRP systems from that era). In the main I think it is unfair to say that it is based on the LT system.
I am commenting here, but hesitating to change the page as I am a Director of CP and I am being cautious against an apparent bias. If any other contributors of this page want to comment how they would like to see or verify this proposed change then I am happy to correspond.
I am new to commenting on Wikipedia so I hope this is the correct forum to raise this issue.
Unkle jimmy (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jimmy. The original statement was based on the strong parallels between the two settings: the lands and more than half the factions (which were based but not directly named after real-world cultures, viz Wolves not Norsemen, Lions not English etc.) bore the same names as in Erdreja, although they have diverged a great deal since then. I'm not suggesting that the CPverse was entirely derived on the Gathering setting - it had its own unique map from the outset, for instance, and the Fir Cruthen, Malandanti and Nomads were distinctly different from the Bears/Dragons, Tarantulas and Unicorns - but it certainly appears to have been intended as a revisioning or reimagining of that setting. Is this a very unfair impression? Davidtmoore (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Minor Changes
Changed the campaign reference and the logo. I am treading carefully so as not to upset the Wikipedia guardians. If anybody else wants to chip in??? Interesting discussion on the Maelstrom (Profound Decisions) page concerning problems of references. Unkle jimmy (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Providing an alternative logo is fine, especially as you - as a director of the company - are giving permission for the logo's use. Changing the text is fine, especially as you've given your reasons here. The only etiquette to observe is that, if any of your own text is changed, you shouldn't change it back until it's been settled in the Discussion section. Davidtmoore (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
