Talk:List of Renaissance and Medieval fairs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reenactment, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ReenactmentWikipedia:WikiProject ReenactmentTemplate:WikiProject ReenactmentReenactment articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Festivals Low‑importance

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Festivals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FestivalsWikipedia:WikiProject FestivalsTemplate:WikiProject FestivalsFestivals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Company hosts

I added Company section because I thought it fair to show this information to make the article more neutral. 68.200.249.29 (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make the article "more neutral"; all it does is give you a place to advertise for Mid-America Festavals. Stop adding references to it (as you also did here). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all is this about advertising rather it is about showing the Fact that some festivals are Hosted by companies. Sorry I meant no harm Good Sir or Madam I only Meant it as a good faith edit. as you can currently see I added the other company I know of which is Renaissance Entertainment Productions. Well, until my block is lifted I bid you adieu 68.200.249.29 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. it's more than the information just isn't really necessary on a list page. What does a reader gain from seeing what company runs a fair on the list page? It's way less important than, say, how many people attend the fair. To that end, having a separate column like that really just makes the company seem far too important. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, really? You're still adding this in? Alright then. I still think it's advertisement, so I'm going to get a third opinion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the companies were notable (I'm dubious that they are) and had articles, I think I could support including them in "See also". But I do not think it's relevant to incorporate in the list for each fair. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory; the addresses have no place in this list. I'm removing this information. Also, I think some of the information in this list, particularly attendance figures, needs to be sourced or removed. cmadler (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good call. I've added a few and I'll toss in a bit more. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 68.200.249.29: I don't know if you are trying to promote fairs or not, but we work by consensus here and within site policies and guidelines. See our rules:

What Wikipedia is Not, especially the parts that say we're not here for advertising and we're not a directory like DMOZ
Consensus

The stuff you're adding to this article goes against our guidance. I agree with others' comments above; please stop adding it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRF and dated info

I've undone this edit because http://www.trfbeefeaters.com is not a reliable source. In general, self-published sources are not acceptable to use. Similarly, http://fatcatwebproductions.com/the_paper also seems relatively unreliable because there's nothing claiming that it's not just some guy updating it.

Incidentally, this is also why the numbers on the page are relatively outdated. The numbers on here are the last numbers we've gotten from good sources. I suppose the list should be updated to reflect the years in the sources, so I'll go ahead and do that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Paper Magazine is a perfectly legitimate source. It is used by Google News, has names of editors and contributors clearly listed on the site, gets millions of hits, and by all reasonable appearances has no bias on the subject. You didn't make any effort to check into it, just said maybe it's 'some guy' updating it. You came to that conclusion how?

I fully admit my earliest edits to this page were lacking in citation, but this is as strong of an unbiased citation as you will find for renaissance faires. The book you have citing almost all the attendance statistics on this page does not say where it got those numbers. If you really want to be stringent, the entire attendance column should be removed as unverifiable. Most if not all renaissance faires are privately owned, and thus not subject to public disclosure and oversight with regards attendance. There is no 'renaissance faire governing body' which goes and manually counts visitors to each fair. I would be willing to wager that virtually all of these numbers were self-reported at some time and then just parroted back by various books, newspapers, and websites.

I'm getting sick of having to recheck my facts and edit this page back each time you revert my changes. I propose one of the following:

1) Accept the source as acceptable and leave as is.

2) Disprove my source and remove my edit. I'd expect you to show why the book you cite is somehow unbiased. How did they get their numbers?

3) Just remove the attendance column all together.

Note: Renaissance Magazine lists attendance figures periodically for faires as well. Feel free to add that as a source if you'd like, but once again I can almost guarantee they just get their numbers from the faires, just like every other source.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off like a jerk or something, it's just quite annoying to have badly out of date data up here when (in my view at least) anyone can easily find better numbers with Google. I know Wikipedia isn't exactly a paragon of accuracy, but I feel if a page can't be accurate, it may as well not be on. 15 January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.155.91 (talk • contribs)

First, most books are inherently reliable because they've gone through a publishing process, i.e. they've been edited, fact checked, etc. Compare that to The Paper Magazine, which doesn't have its own article and has no information on it at all about its editing process or anything like that. All it says is that it's a "hyper-local community news & entertainment magazine" near Houston, TX. How do I know this isn't just some guy updating his own blog and masking it as a magazine?

You don't need a governing body to make a ruling about the number of people who attend. As I said, someone who writes a book that's been published through a reliable publisher (not a vanity press, for example) has probably had it fact-checked, so we can presume their process worked. If they are just parroted back, well, whatever; per WP:V, we basically echo back what the reliable sources say.

As a side note, Renaissance Magazine is in a very grey area of reliability. I can't remember if it's self published or not, but it's not nearly as reliable as, say, Newsweek. Anyway, given your options above, i went with #2. See above. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New source, Houston Business Journal, a major publication part of the American City Business Journals network. Per your own statement "[something] that's been published through a reliable publisher (not a vanity press, for example) has probably had it fact-checked, so we can presume their process worked." This is a published, print magazine (though I only have access to the online version). I still hold that all published numbers, wherever they're sourced, will eventually trace back to being self-reported, but this source is certainly as strong as that book. 16 January 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.163.154 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the Houston Business Journal as a reliable source, so that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that information about Sherwood Forest Faire (the years 1189-1199)? That information was undone. So were the Ingleside and Kerrville Ren Faires. Everything I put was accurate, I go to each one every year, and it can all be verified via the Sherwood website (listed on article) and Googling Ingleside Renaissance Faire and Kerrville Renaissance Faire. 38.128.148.128 (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria.

It seems to me that the Notability criteria for this article seems to boil down to "multiple weekends" vs. "single weekend". Is this the consensus and if not, what faire breaks that criteria (either a single weekend that belongs or a multi-weekend that doesn't)?Naraht (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's less that and more of following the list selection criteria, namely "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". Redlinks are allowed if it's generally understood that an article on the subject could be written that would meet notability. So here, a small faire that sees, say, 5000 people a year would probably not be notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria for a list of renaissance fairs? Give me a break! 15,000 attendance is notable enough. Armona (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the criteria, faires are supposed to have their own articles, or are at least supposed to be likely to have their own article. I've done preliminary research, and I really don't see an article on this fair ever existing. But you're welcome to try: go write and support an article at Renaissance of Kings Cultural Arts Fair and then it can be readded to the list. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Cleanup

I did some quick edits. I removed Four Kingdoms in IL (hasn't been held for years), and Iowa Ren Fest (just had it's 25th anniversary and largest year ever, but it's a one-weekend event). I also corrected start year for Des Moines Ren Faire (though it is technically not happening for 3 years and a new event is in its place). If the criteria on this list is "events with Wiki entries", we need to yank a bunch of these. Ditto on "2 weekends or more". Allen Huffman (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki entries are not that important as long as they are reliably sourced. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

This list article's title needs to be changed. 'Renaissance fairs' is almost exclusively a North American term and does not represent the living history events that occur across the world. The title therefore gives this article an unacceptable bias. I will wait a reasonable time for comments before making any changes. Robynthehode (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything regarding renaissance fairs (or faires) refer to them as such. Living history events are something different, especially outside of North America, although there is often considerable overlap of scope. We cannot construct a term other than what the majority of sources call them, per Synthesis. The sources are what we have to go by. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GenQuest. I think your correct in one respect. Yes renaissance fairs should be called as such because of the sources. However there are European medieval festivals / fairs in this list. They are NOT referred to as renaissance fairs so the alternative to an article name change is to remove all these and have a separate list. On reflection prompted by your comment this is my preferred solution Robynthehode (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Renaissance fairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Renaissance fairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]