Talk:Charles S. Roberts Award

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was to move. --liquidGhoul 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Currently, the article states: "Originally the awards were called the Origins Awards and it was only in 1988 that Charles Roberts agreed to let his name be used. The split from the Origins Awards occurred in 1987, after Fortress America by Milton Bradley Company won an award. Fortress America was not considered a traditional historical wargame by the grognards in the wargaming community." 
Do we have any sources for that? In 1987, the CSR was taken over by Rodger B. MacGowan, and he received permission from Roberts to use his name. It is not clear whether the awards formerly hadn't used that name at all, or had used it with a separate permission, or without permission at all. Was "Origins Awards" an official name prior to 1987, or just a common shorthand? Did it refer to the H.G. Wells Awards, too? Also, sources for the split (disagreement over Fortress America) would be very welcome.
Who were the original organizers of the award? It seems to have had informal or at least simple origins: "The originator of the CSR Awards was John Mansfield (at that time editor of the amateur magazine Signal). John collected ballots from attendees and based these awards on this voting held at Origins I."  Later on I guess that the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design was involved, but I don't know for sure. I guess older gaming magazines like Albion or Courier might have more information - does somebody have access to them?
What were and are the specifics? Is there a jury? How is it formed? Or a public vote? Then who decides on the nominees? What is eligible at all? --Jonas kork (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all really good questions and I think a history of the award would make an excellent bit of investigative journalism for a game magazine, before these people pass on and the cultural memory is forgotten. -- GreenC 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and organizers 

message: The award website is dead. There have been no awards for 5 years. There is no activity online or in any sources showing the award is alive. I read in online forums (now lost) that award organizers stopped giving it out due to apparent lack of interest vs. amount of time and energy required to manage it. This is about as good as we are going to get. So the question is which is more accurate description of the award in 2018: the award is alive, or the award is defunct?  A reasonable period of grace is fine but 5 or 6 years, a dead website and rumors of abandonment all add up to "defunct" as being more accurate at this moment. That doesn't mean the award no longer exists (it does historically) or that it can't be reconstituted in the future. But right now it is more accurate to describe the current state of the awards as "defunct". One would need to produce sources showing some glimmer of life to say otherwise. It the award comes back, the article can change to reflect it. -- GreenC 00:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It has returned as of May 2020. -- GreenC 21:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The award is defunct  

message: What purpose could this divide possibly serve?
What is gained by not listing awards in chronological order? By making up this arbitrary 2009 split?
CapnZapp (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the section starts at 2003, not 2009. And this section exists because someone took the time to fill it out. Anything previous to 2003 is missing data. Feel free to contribute and rename the section. -- GreenC 14:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "recent" vs "previous"