Talk:Animania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Animania is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk). See our portal to learn more.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Animania has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Animania has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is for a photo from the convention and/or a picture of the mascots.

Contents 1 Revision Conflicts 2 Notable events 3 On documenting future conventions 4 Problems with the latest edits

[edit] Revision Conflicts

Two segments have been continously removed, yet both are fact and not hearsay or opinionated. Animania was criticised by its inaction and the official Iron Artist tournament IS now run by Oztaku pty. Ltd. It is not vandalism --Discosid 12:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sid, please stop vandalising the page by revoking all the updates that were made since your last edit. If you have a valid points to add to the article then I would have no reason to be posting here, but you insist on continually undoing the major and beneficial changes that have been made to the article.

To address your concern about your removed point on "Iron Artist": firstly there is no such organisation as Oztaku Pty Ltd. Secondly whether you or your friends wish to organise an event called "Iron Artist" and claim it is the "official" event has no bearing on Animania, but you cannot claim that any events that have run at current or previous Animania's have somehow become "property" of some third party. Unaju 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oztaku exists here,a publishing company which has its titles stocked at multiple stores from Kinokuniya to Borders. Secondly, I was the person who organised the event at Animania in 2005, Louis Lee was later informed about the seperation of that event into a independent entity, so yes it does have a bearing on Animania and I can claim it as "property" for a third party. --Discosid 13:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also another point that the criticism listed was a valid fact. Cartoon Passion a vendor at Animania 2005 was caught selling bootleg stock and was in clear violation of Animania's code of conduct yet no action was taken against this matter despite Animania's reasoning of raising entry prices to counter the bootlegs. --Discosid 13:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In regard to Oztaku, DiscoSid must be referring to the trading name of a sole trader, it is NOT a private company as DiscoSid had stated. In any case DiscoSid would not have sole credit for organising the "Iron Artist" event in 2005, it was organised as part of the Animania Festival. There were several others heavily involved in organising the event prior as well as on the day, and as I stated previously anyone can create and your run their own event called "Iron Artist" wherever they wish, but they cannot take "Iron Artist" from anyone or any event. --Unaju 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DiscoSid claims to have proof that 1) vendor was selling bootleg stock at Animania 2005 and 2) that was reported to the organisers during the event. I am not aware of any such evidence from 2005. And finally, DiscoSid please read the relevent paragraph from 2004, the ticket price and lack of vendors are two separate items. --Unaju 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was the person who brought the idea to the table and no one knew what was happening till I actually told them, I don't believe that others were "heavily involved" in the organisation of the event. In the second point, evidence was given by various attendees including Animania's own forum and the Manifest forums which is currently offline. There are a few facts here: 1, I brought the idea to the table and the documentation covering the email was sent to various staff via email. 2, Prior to the event, no one, not even the hosts knew what was happening till they were briefed by myself. 3, Events on stage of day 1 ie. sound and script was not present until I gave Animania staff the appropriate data. Queenie Chan, Daniel Douglas, Avi Bernshaw, Alaister Hoy and other participants at Iron Artist 2005 can vouch for all of that.--Discosid 13:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, guys, time to take a step back here and see if there's a reasonable way to resolve this before someone gets called in for violating the 3 Revert Rule (see WP:3RR). As I see it, the main problem at the moment is the mention of Iron Artist. It was certainly an event in Animania 2005, and whether it is an event in future conventions is currently unknown (except, possibly, by Aurora staff). As I see it, the article makes no claims about IA making future appearances, which is correct. The main sticking point seems to be the fact that IA is the creation of OzTaku, and the extent to which this means that OzTaku "owns" Iron Artist. IANAL, but basically I think this can be summed up easily: OzTaku is free to hold Iron Artist wherever it likes and call it the "one true Iron Artist", and Animania can hold its own Iron Artist and call it just that because there's no registered trademark on the name - and, indeed, a quick Google search shows several other references to drawing competitions with the same name around the world, so I'm not even sure if it could be trademarked easily. So, to that extent, I think all that's necessary is to mention that Iron Artist was in Animania 2005. If it appears again, then it might be time to think of how to attribute it. Confusing Manifestation 14:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and about the bootlegged merchandise - tricky. I'm willing to believe that there were bootlegs there, and even that it was brought to a staff member's attention and that nothing was done about it. However, "I'm willing to believe" is not enough for inclusion in the article. There are certainly several claims about it on the forums, but I don't know how useful that is in citing a reliable source. I know I've already done it to show some of the criticisms against Animania, but there's a difference between saying "people had these criticisms about Animania" and "Animania was definitely letting Cartoon Paradise sell bootleg merchandise" and I think having the second one in the article would severely compromise the neutral point of view - while at the same time, having the first one there is important in maintaining the NPOV. Confusing Manifestation 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the Animania staff recently announced that there would be an event similar to Iron Artist to be held in 2006. Whether or not it carries the same name is still to be determined. However because the anime convention scene is as small as it is and there is a large degree of cross pollination of convention goers between the various conventions, the distinction has to be made that the tournament being held by Manifest, Supanova, Anime.au, AICon to name a few is not the same one held by Animania if indeed they do have another one.--Discosid 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your opinions ConMan. I hold the opinion that the current article does not warrant the expansion of the "Iron Artist" topic to the other events unrelated to Animania. Further evidence of this is that my understanding that most of the events at every Animania (including "Iron Artist") were organised and enacted by Volunteer staff with no evidence (written or otherwise) that the Intellectual Property about the events would be owned by the individuals. Add to this the evidence that the events were organised and enaced by multiple people, and the argument of property becomes very shady. In regard to DiscoSid's last point above: many other events share the same names betweem different competitions without incident, such as AMV, Cosplay, Idol, and so on. In the case of DiscoSid's event I think the obvious choice would be to make the name of the competition unique, rather than expecting everyone else to change their competition names. --Unaju 06:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Written evidence exists, I have proper documentation of all competition rules and regulations, process of how the event is to unfold, dated at least 6 months prior to Animania, I also have emails with date stamps to Aurora Events executives. Powerpoint files used during the day was also dated and I do have a copy of that as well, its only shady becuse you choose to believe it as shady. Let's look at it this way, the hosts of the event, Mitchell, Avi and Mike did not know the protocol or process until they were told a day before the event by me. Something that all 3 men can attest to. The use of cameras and layout of the event itself was directed to the volunteers only 30 minutes prior to the event by Mike who was under my orders. Use of sound and slideshow was directed again by me an hour prior to the event when I went through this with Damien McCormick. All competitors and Iron Artists were again chosen and asked to participate by me which again they can attest to. Now which part of this entire event was organised by another person? Prior meetings with Aurora Entertainment executives established that I was in charge of running the event after I brought the idea up with stake holder Dexter So and the chairperson, it was made clear at the first volunteer's meeting of 2005 that I had come up with the concept and that I would be organising it. Again evidence of me bringing the idea to the head executives exists within chatlogs that I have and would gladly show the world if I was asked. The request that other cons not hosting the Iron Artist tourny exists because its a national tournament in which a final would be held at one of the larger conventions. I do not see this happening for AMV, Cosplay or Idol. --Discosid 13:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think what this all comes down to, then is that the article should say that Iron Artist was held at Animania last year, then when this year's events are known to mention them, and if there's an Iron Artist event it would be something you should discuss with Aurora personally, and maybe a mention of any such dispute could be appropriate for the article. Likewise, maybe the article needs to reflect the fact that Aurora handles the overall structure of the festival, but individual events are actually run by volunteers. Does this sound fair? Confusing Manifestation 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with it as it is, that there is a mention that their current 'iron artist' is not related to the national tournament being held at the other conventions. There is no NPOV in the message.

Should there be another iron artist this year, then changes will be made to reflect that after the event has transpired.--Discosid 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Iron Artist" competition held at Animania 2005 was not part of any national tournament to the best of my knowledge. DiscoSid's claim that future "Iron Artist" events held at Animania will not be part of a national touranment are unnecessary in the article. Unaju 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh jesus, just because it was not part of any national tournament to the best of your knowledge doesn't make it not true. Its like saying that just because you've never heard about JFK being killed, means it didn't happen. Check Manifest, AI-Con, Supanova, upcoming Anime.au and upcoming AVCon and Oztaku. They will all tell you that the Iron Artist tournaments that they are holding are all linked up into a national tournament.--Discosid 06:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't continously say that I'm 'claiming' as if its hearsay, its not hearsay, I was part of Animania since its conception, who the hell are you to say that what I'm saying is rumour or not official? The people who came up with the idea of Iron Artist for Animania and ran the event for Animania are no longer a part of Animania, so as much as you want to extinguish the truth and make Animania sound like a clean and happy event, it wasn't, they split for a reason and that does belong in Animania history. This Wikipedia is about information and history, its not a sheet of propaganda showing how great the convention is and not giving the reason as to why the split occurs prevents a NPOV.--Discosid 06:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable events

The event scored a mention in the Sydney Morning Herald on the second page of its main section.

Is a mention in a newspaper really that notable to include it like this in the wiki article? While the newspaper article can be used as a source, I don't think there is a need to mention the newspaper article itself beyond citing it as a reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see your point, and I think I only put it in so that there would be more than one "notable" event of that year, so its removal probably won't cause me too much pain. Of course, I think it was also poorly worded, since it wasn't just a "mention" but an actual article - the entire 2nd page article was the one linked which pretty much focused on Animania. That said, no, I guess it can go, but I wish I could remember something else memorable about it to replace it ^^; Confusing Manifestation 12:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On documenting future conventions

At some point (I would assume) Animania will fall into some kind of regular pattern - each convention will be fairly similar in terms of events, and the number of conventions held in each city will be constant as well. Even between 2004 and 2006 there isn't as much change as the jumps in 2003 and 2004, simply because of the handover from the clubs to Aurora. That was the reason I had all post-2004 conventions lumped under "2004 and beyond", although I'm willing to accept that can be broken up. However, I think it should be kept in mind that the article doesn't need sections on every single year, and could be best served with a single section describing significant events in each year, something like this (but in prose, not as a bulleted list):

• 2004: Run by Aurora, in Town Hall, a few notes on any new events
• 2005: Mini in Brisbane, new events at Sydney
• 2006: Brisbane and Melbourne, new events at Sydney

Then another section could possibly detail the common complaints, especially since they tend to be of a similar nature each year. Just something to keep in mind when you edit the article. Confusing Manifestation 15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That is something to consider. It would be cleaner and more logical by merging ALL the history (2002-2006 and beyond) into a single "History" section. --Unaju 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, have something like "History" with subheadings "2002", ..., "2004-present", and then another section "Current Animania Structure" which details a "typical" convention of the most recent batch? Confusing Manifestation 13:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much did the History section as you requested (although I thought of it immediately and did it even before glancing here *smile* Good ideas!) Kopf1988 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the latest edits

Now, some anonymous user has added the section about the figure of 7,000 people at Animania 2004 being a "through the door" value and thus controversial. Because it's unsourced, I plan on removing it, but there's a little problem - the media release that mentioned the 7,000 is now unavailable on the Animania site. I'm going to leave the number, but remove the link, but I hope we can find an alternative source to replace it. Confusing Manifestation 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That user was me - and yes, all references to previous attendance figures are no longer online. The only thing left is the trader guide which tells any potential traders to expect 10,000 people "based on research", but doesn't back up the claims with any figures. As an attendee of Animania 2004, I witnessed their counting system - they had volunteers at the doors counting people with a clicker, regardless of if it was their third or even fourth time through the door - but "7000 through the door was the figure released to the public" a few weeks after Animania 2004, which has now been removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.43.227.18 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unfortunately, you saying you saw them with clickers isn't what we'd call a reliable source of information (no offense). But, like I said, what would be nice is some kind of source for the number of people attending in any year (2006 in particular, given it's the most recent one). Confusing Manifestation 11:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's completely fair. As for numbers for any given year, it seems they will not be releasing them from now on, as an art trader has reported from emailing them - but again, they're also not a reliable source. It might be fair to change the article re: attendance to "not reported", since there are no figures publicly available.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.43.227.18 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Oh, and just fixing the unsigned templates (in the future, add ~~~~ after your message just so we know who said what, thanks). Confusing Manifestation 04:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)