Talk:NASCRAG

Old discussions
No spoilers!

75.21.78.31 00:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

NASCRAG as oldest and largest
I see it says "Citation needed" where the entry states Nascrag is one of the oldest and largest independent roleplaying tournaments at GenCon. I was told this by both Len Bland - Head of Nascrag, and Randy Porter - The official GenCon Historian (Keeper of Ancient GenCon Lore). But I don't have an on-line reference to that fact. What is needed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.144.127.200 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 October, 2006 (UTC)


 * While online citations are great since they're so easy to check, traditional citations from books or other sources are welcome as well. Pretty much anything that, say, I could independently check  would be reasonable.  The simpliest solution is probably to convince NASCRAG or the Keeper to add such a claim to their website.  Then just adjust the claim to say, "So-and-so claims that NASCRAG is one of the oldest...". Alan De Smet | Talk 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed
NASCRAG's been around for seemingly forever, and is clearly a Gen Con institution. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of web references from Wikipedia acceptable reliable sources about NASCRAG. So this is a general call for citations about NASCRAG to help improve the article. Web is nice (easy to check), but print sources are also good. Maybe a writeup in an old Dragon Magazine. Old Gen Con programs would be another good potential source. Whatever you have would be great. Below is a list to append them to. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * - Article talks about and interviews Carole Bland, NASCRAG's organizer.
 * - Pretty awful citation, only noteworthy that in 2004 someone in an interview referred to NASCRAG.
 * - Apparently NASCRAG is noteworthy enough to justify 35 or so paragraphs in this magazine.
 * - Pages 45-47, Awesome stuff. It's titled  "The 'AD&D' Open", but is dominated with a discussion of the formation of NASCRAG, especially why it was formed.

Tom Lommel in Fear of Girls
I disagree with the removal of the refernce to Tom Lommel appearing in "Fear of Girls". FoG is all about gamers (uber-gamers) and D+D and was hugely popular in the gaming community. If a wiki can't make those kind of cross-references then it's defeating it's own purposes.

The Nascrag article leads to the GenCon article because Nascrag presents a gaming event at Gencon. Perhaps to keep more properly to form, the Nascrag article should point to a Tom Lommel article which would, in turn reference FoG. However, Lommel doesn't rate his own article (yet). Removing an interesting, wiki-internal reference is pointless.

You miss the point on what Nascrag is. It's not a corporate entity. It's a relatively small group of people who put in a lot of personal time to stage gaming events for people. If one of the core people is mentioned in another wikipedia article in a D+D related enterprise, it's ridiculous not to connect the two. Should we mention FoG in the True Dungeon entry because Tom wore a TD shirt in one of the scenes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NascragMan (talk • contribs). NascragMan 13:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultimately the article is about NASCRAG, not Lommel or FoG. What useful conclusions about NASCRAG can be derived from  knowing the connection?  Did NASCRAG influence FoG or FoG influence NASCRAG?  If so, that's absolutely relevant, just be sure to spell out the connection when you re-add the detail.  If not, it's off-topic trivia and articles can easily drown in such trivia.  The goal is to provide a summary of the topic, not to play Six Degrees of Wikipedia. (A reminder: you can use ~ to sign your posts.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If Lommel was the head scorekeeper or the artist for Nascrag, you would be correct. But he isn't.  He's the public face of the group - the star of the show.  The fact that a high percentage of GenCon attendees recognize him as Doug Douglason from FoG (and the soon to be released FoG2) is not irrelevant.  It's an interesting and relatable fact to the people who might read a Nascrag Wikipedia article and certainly warrants the 7 lousy words and cross-link I gave it.  NascragMan 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Citations in NASCRAG
The following were copied from here


 * Please do not delete citations in articles, as you did in this edit to NASCRAG. Wikipedia needs more citations, not less. If you feel a citation absolutely must be removed, please include in the edit summary a clear reason why. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * those citations lead to inaccurate information. also, the web pages cited do not exist at this time. 76.224.22.14 03:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(End of copied text)


 * "Inaccurate" in which way? And perhaps more importantly, can you provide a better citation that provides accurate information?  As to the link being dead, that is a shame.  However, they may come back as the NASCRAG site finishes their revamp.  The old links may eventually become valid at archive.org (it takes some time for things to appear there).  Either way, for future editors who want to improve the citations, it gives them a starting point: "there once was relevant information here, maybe you can find where it moved?.  Finally, the citations include brief quoted text showing exactly what is relevant, which can persist beyond the page in question. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NASCRAG is Wikipedia article-worthy?
If this is primarily known for being the longest-running Gen Con event, then it should have its own section in the Gen Con entry, not an entry of its own. Particularly considering it is, what, half as long as the main entry for one of the world's biggest gaming conventions? I cannot help but assume this article is written and maintained solely by people within the group. 107.16.46.91 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article appears to have enough citations to third party sources, and the event is referenced sufficiently that it looks to have notability. I'm going to remove the flag. --Blythord (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)