Belegarth
http://board.belegarth.com/

Making our Open look better:
http://board.belegarth.com/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=22471
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Sir Cairbre [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:01 am ]
Post subject:  Making our Open look better:

How can we seriously improve this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belegarth

I think we should have a better page than....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_fo ... nachronism

Author:  Plithut [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

One word: Graphics.

Author:  Cib [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

Defiantly Graphics.

Author:  Spork [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Plithut wrote:
One word: Graphics.


/agree

Just need more information and I don't know what to put in there.

Author:  Kensman Bam [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Not just graphics..action graphics!

Author:  Sybion [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's linked to LARP down on the bottom. Am I the only person that would change that?

Author:  Atman [ Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

A little more information would help, but too much would be overkill. Personally I think part of the draw of belegarth is its simplicity relative to things like SCA that have "Royalty" etc.
Info on units and various levels of fighting might be good additions; ie, one -vs- one sparing/duels, small group games, and full line battles.
As far as pix go, it seems like there's plenty of people on the boards willing to let their pictures be used.

Author:  ICARUS [ Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:34 am ]
Post subject: 

put info about Belegarth ie create a page with a the exact name of belegarth.

Author:  Sir Cairbre [ Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:38 am ]
Post subject: 

wow we got deleted... hey someone lets get this fixed.

Author:  Mercer [ Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

We'll never satisfy the standards of notability for Wikipedia; they've become really anal and power-mad over there, and anything short of major media coverage doesn't meet their idea of "notability".

Author:  Cib [ Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

It seems like everything is suddenly is marked for somthing on wikipedia lately... how come other organizations like the SCA is still up if Belegarth cant?

Author:  Barthalemue [ Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think that most of the Google/Youtube videos kick *, maybe they can help.

:goblin:

Author:  eyrian [ Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:54 am ]
Post subject: 

Just thought I'd drop by and say hello from Wikipedia. Judging by some of the new usernames popping up, I figured you guys might be organizing something on a different forum.

I just wanted to remind you that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, and that there are policies about soliciting people from outside places to vote in debates.

Author:  Cib [ Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

So is the main problem right now that our sources are not legit? If that is the kase should we start looking for a specific kind of source? I found out about Belegarth by stumbling upon an online article in a small town paper somewhere, should I find that?

Author:  eyrian [ Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes. The primary issue is reliable sources. Wikipedia has a policy regarding what constitutes a reliable source. Student newspapers usually don't satisfy those criteria when it comes to notability constraints.

The specific kinds of sources you should look for are those that demonstrate a fair amount of editorial control. Student newspapers are generally willing to include material without too much oversight or content control. If something is described in a larger publication, there are steps taken to ensure that the material being described is important and correct.

Author:  ICARUS [ Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

what about lady katerine's article in the Games Magazine? would that constitute notable source?

Author:  Cib [ Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wouldn't one have to ba able to read it online? From what I can tell you can't...

Author:  eyrian [ Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nope. Most scholarly material (i.e. books) is available only in print, so Wikipedia has a mechanism for citing offline sources. Check out this page.

Author:  eyrian [ Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Incidentally, one of you emailed me regarding this. Please try again.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/