Talk:Red Book (C&S)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games 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.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The removal of material[edit]

A large part of the article had been deleted. Even if the article talk about copyright violation, it must be as objective and complete as possible. All of the deletions seem to have been made from a single IP address in the UK. I have restored the article. Lord Doom (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2011

Deletion and Bias[edit]

This article is biased, unverified, and has been made in an attempt to ignore the other editors on the main Chivalry & Sorcery page which has on many occasion asked for and never received an unbiased or verifiable version of the conjecture listed on this page. 68.147.22.8 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why this article must not be deleted[edit]

All topics of this article are factuals and can be verified. The introduction can be easily verified (see external links) as well as "C&S: the Red Book". "C&S5: Phoenix" list the changes between the 2 versions and the content that can't be denied. Same remark for "C&S6: chimera". Finally, " What's next?" is also factual except may be the last sentence which is only interrogation.

All editors of the different versions of C&S rpg have been mentioned with dates and references from explicit manner in the introduction of the article. This article has not the purpose to copy the Chivalry & Sorcery wikipedia webpage but to be the most complete and objective on unofficial material. I have removed the proposal for deletion. Lord Doom (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2011

I have removed a fair bit from this article. Let me explain why;

Cites from forums and facebook are not reliable sources. Basically anyone can say they are anyone or claim anything they like on websites like these. So they cannot be treated as being reliable.
Not only can Wikipedia not act as a reference for itself, discussions on talk pages are not reliable sources for the same reasons.
The "What's next" section was all speculation, and unsourced at that. So not only is it guessing at what may happen (which encyclopaedias do not do), it was also the opinion of an unattributed unknown. Wikipedia is only interested in the opinions of notable authorities, Wikipedia editors are not.
If you are going to claim copyright violations, or pass comment on legal disputes, you most definitely need a good solid cite to back it up. Anything less is to invite libellous material.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put back some references. Let me explain why:

BGD website on facebook is official. Many companies are on facebook instead of a "traditional" website. Furthermore this article was "accused" to ignore editors.
Citations on the C&S forum were made by Mr Steve Turner himself, Managing Director of BGD and thus are officials.
Once again, the "What's next" section enlight the official position from Hugh Tyreman and was given by Steve Turner. I think it's important to give the legal position of Gamestuff Inc.

Waiting for your reply. Thanks. Lord Doom (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your added cite. It says itself; "I, Hugh Tyreman, .. am shocked that someone would make a fake account and use my name to hide behind." Can you not see the problem, then, with statements in forums? This is why they are usually not suitable, unless in an official form by an official administrator of the forum.

Furthermore what you've added says;

"The introduction and the afterward of he unofficial versions were written by Scott Bizar, the editor of FGU," - Where is this stated?
"and the cover wears also the logo of the company" - And so? What point is this trying to make and why can't it be cited?
" which is most confusing." - whose opinion is this?
"At the moment," - when is "the moment"? The reader doesn't know when this was written.
"the authors of these unofficial editions have not been identified." - Identified by whom, to whom? Wikipedia doesn't generally discuss what hasn't happened, as it usually reads as implying that it should, or perhaps will, happen. Which makes it either speculation or opinion. What this is really saying is "the editor who wrote this doesn't know, but feels that he should be told."
If any party involved in this dispute have a legal position they want to share with the world, then they should publish it somewhere, where it can be referenced. Wikipedia (or fan forums) are really not the place to do it.
--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have deleted the section. Lord Doom (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spelling[edit]

The spelling of Brittannia is correct!