Talk:Diary of a Camper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Diary of a Camper is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 25, 2008.
August 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted



I searched google for "Diary of a Camper" and turned up some potentially useful links. I picked out the ones that were from more professional sources (IE, not forums, etc.). I haven't really read through them yet (I'll probably do that later), but here they are for anyone else who wants to contribute. Some of them, like the first one, only really make passing mention of the film.

--Drat (Talk) 08:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noting for posterity: Most of these don't mention Diary of a Camper in any more detail than do the sources that I ended up using in the article (Kelland, Lowood). Lowood is an excellent source for the origins of machinima. — TKD::Talk 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

URF or the Rangers?[edit]


[1] seems to imply that United Ranger Films wasn't yet a separate entity when Diary was released. — TKD::Talk 04:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Although URF OFFICIALLY broke away from the Rangers clan a good while after their early movies, the people involved were part of the Rangers, and were the same as those who would later form URF. In the .zip for the Ranger Gone Bad 3 preview, the main man behind the Ranger films explains the whole story, which is a vital reference. I think I'll host it on my site and link to it, but has the .zip here: It's tricky to decide what to do in this situation though, as I believe most of the early films were released under the banner of United Ranger Films, even if they were not separate. I suggest labelling them all as URF movies, but explaining on the URF page - as I've tried to - that URF was part of the Rangers clan when they were made. Sound good? --Psyklax 08:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable, and, given the sequence of events as stated in the docs accompanying RGB3, URF would be unambiguous and complete. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 09:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This film, Diary, also begins with 'United Ranger Films presents...', as I watched it yesterday, so that clears up the idea that URF always existed in some form or another, whether as part of the Rangers clan or not. --Psyklax 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]


I am currently translating this excellent article to Spanish. I am not able to figure out what Real name established in Salen (note 15) means. ¿What is Salen? Thanks (and congratulations, this is good stuff). Chabacano 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that means that the real name (as opposed to the online pseudonym, which is more common) of the person mentioned in the text is established in the reference material by Salen (Katie Salen, that is), listed in the full "References" section below. It's footnoting shorthand; sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the translation work and the compliments. — TKD::Talk 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I just took a look at the article in Spanish. Not sure what the conventions are there, but don't forget to translate the full "References" section over; that's what all of the notes refer to for full citation info. — TKD::Talk 10:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) I was thinking that maybe he was established in Salen (a city) o something alike. And yes, I have to translate the References section, the traslation is not finished yet. --Chabacano 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Release descrepancy[edit]


This article states that DoaC was released on Oct 26, 1996, approximately 1 month after the "full commercial release of Quake". However, Quake's article states that the game was released on June 22, 1996, over 4 months before the release of DoaC... I don't know what's right, but it sure doesn't look like that is.Hezekiah957 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Hezekiah957

Thanks for bringing up the discrepancy. I double-checked my sources; Lowood did indeed say both "barely a month after the commercial release of the game" and "October 1996". Given that the October 26, 1996 date has been corroborated by other soutrces, and that I can't determine which release Lowood was in fact referring to, I've decided to remove that clause forom the article ;it wasn't that important of a matter to begin with. Quake was indeed released in stages — the shareware release preceded the first full version — but, unless Lowood is referring to something even later, I, upon review, don't see the dates matching up either. Thanks again for pointing this out. — TKD::Talk 06:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Too short?[edit]

Resolved: Length isn't a criterion for FAs. If you have specific concerns about comprehensiveness, I'll be happy to try to address them. — TKD::Talk 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda feel this article's too short for a Featured Article. Cuyaya (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree -- I started reading it, then all of a sudden the article stopped! User A1 (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
See the promotion date. There has been a trend for featured articles (and to an extent articles in general) to get longer and longer.Geni 09:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Featured articles are decided based on quality, not quantity. The reason this is such a short article is that there isn't enough information from reliable sources to justify a longer article. Una LagunaTalk 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
And besides, it's still longer than Hurricane Irene (2005). GeeJo (t)(c) • 11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if I am being curt or rude, I read as many FAs as I can -- they are by and large excellent. However is not the articles date irrelevant? Do we not judge FAs by today's FA critiera? I am not suggesting the article should take this road by any means, but isn't this partly shown by the existence of a FA review process? In terms of quality I have reservations with regards to the referencing and the establishment of notability (I think it *is* notable, just that the article could drive it home some.) Of course it's easy to comment, rather than work -- Don't take me to seriously here. User A1 (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Length has never been an actual criteria per se it's just with articles in general getting longer people new expect FAs to get longer.Geni 13:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Not only this article is too short, but it also lacks something really important. Non gamers might read this article and get 0 idea out of it. This article appeals to gamers and people that are fond with the terms of video gaming. HaGamal 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was quite good in this regard. There weren't any moments where I felt like the article was relying on a bluelink because the editors couldn't be bothered explaining the term. Length doesn't bother me a great deal. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The article topic is simply too narrow to appeal to any wider audience. No amount of added information will change that.
Peter Isotalo 08:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article meets the FPC requirements and therefore qualifies. I was suprised to see it on the main page too. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers[edit]


14-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed them. Most talk pages don't have them, and people can read timestamps, usually. :) — TKD::Talk 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the turnover of discussion here is so low, I've marked non-current items {{resolved}} so that it's easier to tell whether anything is outstanding. — TKD::Talk 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Revised references[edit]


14-Oct-2008: The article is a featured article, so I figured I should discuss having changed the references (which is not a simple text change). I corrected the URL for source "Playing the movies" (which had pointed to the same URL as "Machinima jukebox" also at ACMI). I then added the date to source "Machinima jukebox" as "2006-04-28" as stated within the webpage's HTML ("View Source" in MSIE) from the meta-tag named "DC.Date.modified" (near line 22) in the HTML:

Note that many webpages have internal modification dates (in meta-tags), even though those webpages might not display a date, in a manner similar to photo meta-data which records the date/time stamp "behind" the photographic images. Inside the webpages, a meta-tag date is typically auto-generated by some webpage editor-tool, although I have hand-edited webpage dates when developing my own websites. In general, the webpage meta-tags are a good source of such information. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A belated thank-you. — TKD::Talk 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)