 Editor in Chief Bill   | 16 Aug 2016 2:32 p.m. PST |
Currently, in most of the major forum interest areas, there is usually a division into: (blank) Discussion – for discussing wargaming and associated history (blank) Media – for discussing books, films, boardgames, computer games, and other media Should the definition of 'media' be broadened to include webpages? Up until now, discussions about webpages – such as an article about some battle – have been placed on the Discussion board. Should they be moved to the Media boards? Or do webpages, ephemeral as they can be, rise to the level of 'media' for our purposes? Is a blog article 'media'? Is a news item 'media'? I'm concerned that if media gets defined too broadly, then everything falls under 'media'.  |
| normsmith | 16 Aug 2016 2:46 p.m. PST |
I think everything you mention does fall under media, but that the shear broadness of it does require division. |
| Weasel | 16 Aug 2016 2:52 p.m. PST |
I've always figured "media" to mean books and movies, but maybe that's just being old. |
Gunfreak  | 16 Aug 2016 2:53 p.m. PST |
I've always seen media as stuff not directly related to gaming. So a wargaming blog is not media. But a blog about history with no direct connection to wargaming is media. Rule books discussion and media. History books media. |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 16 Aug 2016 2:54 p.m. PST |
Difficult, but perhaps some kind of broad distiction can be made between professional and amateur media? TV news is often ephemeral, so not a good distinction. |
| Ben Avery | 16 Aug 2016 2:54 p.m. PST |
If it's not to do with Wargaming, battles or campaigns, then I think it would make sense to put it in media. As an example, a thread about France's domestic policy on Jews and the political and social makeup of Napoleonic Britain should probably go in media as it doesn't meet the criteria you set in the board title for Discussion. Alternatively bin the media boards completely. Your call. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 16 Aug 2016 3:02 p.m. PST |
Traditionally, we've allowed historical discussion in the various (blank) Discussion boards (aside from a brief experiment with Napoleonics a few years back). |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 16 Aug 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
I've started a separate discussion regarding the possible separation of Discussion and (new) History boards. TMP link |
| Ben Avery | 16 Aug 2016 4:34 p.m. PST |
The issue you want to address isn't history per se. It's history that's irrelevant to wargaming. Separating history from gaming completely is addressing an issue that doesn't exist. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 16 Aug 2016 4:35 p.m. PST |
So it would be a separate board for non-wargaming history? |
| Ben Avery | 16 Aug 2016 4:38 p.m. PST |
No, you just put non-wargaming or war-related articles in media. |
| Bellbottom | 16 Aug 2016 4:38 p.m. PST |
If it has nothing to do with wargaming, why have a history board at all? |
| Ben Avery | 16 Aug 2016 4:41 p.m. PST |
Because you never know when you might get a query about bonnet fashions in 1807? |
| Weasel | 16 Aug 2016 10:21 p.m. PST |
Whatever answer leads to no more boards is going to be my answer on this one. |
| Goonfighter | 16 Aug 2016 10:59 p.m. PST |
Just leads to more boards to turn off, |
| daler240D | 16 Aug 2016 11:43 p.m. PST |
I'm with Weasel. I miss enough stuff as it is because of too many boards. |
| Todd McLeister | 17 Aug 2016 3:11 a.m. PST |
This is all getting too complicated. |
| Oh Bugger | 17 Aug 2016 8:04 a.m. PST |
Agreed why complicate it. |
 etotheipi  | 17 Aug 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
Up until now, discussions about webpages – such as an article about some battle – have been placed on the Discussion board. Discussing the battle – wargaming
Discussing the article – media With an article (from wherever) as a referent, you are likely to have both go on at the same time, however, a good OP and well-intentioned posters that follow it should weigh the discussion heavily one way or the other. |
