Talk:Live action role-playing game/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

List of live action role-playing groups

We get the occasional drive-by editor adding links to their favorite group. While inappropriate (and quickly reverted), it does suggest something is needed, a list of live action role-playing groups. And now one exists. A category might be easier to maintain, but lacks the ability to add short descriptions to each entry. At the moment it's just what I could remember off the top of my head. I ask that people add more groups that they remember, especially if those groups are already represented with an article here on Wikipedia. Alan De Smet | Talk 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article status

I'd like to move the article towards WP:GA, in keeping with the WP:RPG goals. --Ryan Paddy 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples of RPG Good Articles

Dungeons & Dragons is an example of a role-playing game article that has achieved WP:GA status, so it may be useful as a comparison.

Dungeons & Dragons has now reached Featured Article status. --Ryan Paddy 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

References and sources

Let's add references and sources for anything potentially contentious in the article, as per WP:V. I've started added key references and removed the unreferenced warning at the top. I've added some citation needed tags against info that seemed contentious to me, if you know of reliable sources for any of those bits of information please add them, and if anything else seems contentious to you please add more citation needed tags so we can either source the info or remove the text if it's unsupportable. --Ryan Paddy 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs work to conform to WP:LEAD. It's too brief and doesn't really overview the content of the article. --Ryan Paddy 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall structure

The number of subjects covered in the article seems lacking, and there is a bias towards discussion of larp classification.

Classification currently takes up more than half the article. This may be because classification is contraversial among larpers, and because it provides an opportunity for larpers to discuss their preferred variety. I don't think this is very useful to the average reader. Could it all be done in two sections, one about mechanics and one about settings (like in role-playing games)?

In terms of missing subjects, what about: a description of what taking part in a larp is typically like (see the Dungeons & Dragons article for an example), a section on larp publishers/manufacturers and other larp-related businesses, psychological theories of larp (there is a lot of academic material), larp's relationship with similar activities like tabletop rpgs/improv theatre/live combat games/childhood pretend/educational roleplay/therapeutic roleplay (again, there is some reference material out there), and larp in the media?

Also, the larp theory section still seems a bit abortive. Shouldn't it be talking about what the theories are, not just who is having them? And the history section mentions the very start of modern LARP but not antecendants and later spread, or contraversies. --Ryan Paddy 05:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Right now there are three images: a foam-weapon battle, some fantasy foam weapons, and a B&W of some people in Victorian costume. The images give too much of a slant towards live-combat larp and historical/fantasy genres. Also, the foam weapon photo is duplicated in foam weapon. I think the foam weapon photo should be removed and a new image added that is preferably neither medieval/fantasy nor foam weapon live combat to make the images more representative of the diversity of larp. Maybe something futuristic? Suggestions? --Ryan Paddy 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that more images of more diverse LARPing situations would be an improvement. But it's not like the article is so packed with images that we need to remove some to make space for better ones. The latex weapons do illustrate an element of LARPing. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, if there were plenty of other suitable images available then the latex weapons pic should be the first to go to make room for them. It's redundant to have both a latex weapon battle scene and latex weapons pics, and the weapon pic is shown on the linked foam weapon page and so is doubly redundant. Foam weapon fighting seems overrepresented in the text of the article, and the double-up of related images reinforces that. The bias isn't surprising, as a lot of live combat larpers (like myself) have contributed to the article and some think that all "real" larp involves live combat. --Ryan Paddy 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, instead of the distant battle and weapon closeup images there'd be one image showing live combat with a well-costumed combatant in close-up in the foreground (showing their weapon clearly) and a battle ranged out behind them to show the potential for large scale in larp. That would convey the same live-combat info in one picture. --Ryan Paddy 01:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's premature to be removing on-topic images. The best way forward is to find more and better images. I'm looking for what images I can. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep my eyes out too. Main thing will be to get permission from the photographers and subjects (or find photos where the subjects aren't recognisable like the battle one). Also to get decent-looking photos, there's a lot of average stuff out there. --Ryan Paddy 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd be good to have an image for Mind's Eye Theatre / World of Darkness given that it's a major area of larp. Something like the vampire pic used in this New York Times article might be appropriate, but I imagine there would be copyright and permission issues around re-using that image? --Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2