Talk:Anime Central

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Programming Rework 2 My removal 3 Potential sources 4 NPOV 5 Re-Worked 6 Video Gaming?

[edit] Programming Rework

I am going to work on editing the programming section of the website, because that is what I have some memory of. I started by adding a section for events that were new last year, and recategorized some things. I also corrected a spelling error.

I think that perhaps the panels portion of the programming offered section should be spun off into its own section of the article if more information than is posted now is to be added. The listing elements don't convey as well the variety of events offered by the panels. For now, I recommend that we add panel names that we remember, so that they may be incorporated into the panels section later. However, failing that, specific references to panels should be removed, and replaced with categories instead.

Video Gaming, Tabletop Gaming, and CCG Gaming sections need to be added. Thanks, Thrawn1020 04:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My removal

I've removed the entire "Experience" section, which seemed to be unfettered praise that didn't add any factual content to the article. This article, like all others, needs to follow the neutral point of view policy. Best, Meelar (talk) 05:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with removal. Thanks Ishmael Rufus 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential sources

• Lillard, Kevin (August 2006). "Con Report: Anime Central". Newtype USA 5 (8): 94. 

[edit] NPOV

The "Criticism" is clearly not a neutral point of view. ...especially when using phrases like "add insult to injury". While I am not disputing that some of this information may be worth mentioning, the way in which it is presented in this article was handled very poorly. I think that section should be eliminated completely and worked into a general History section instead. It's not fair to only have a "Criticism" section and not a "Praise" section...and to have both in the article would be rediculous.--PatrickD 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Worked

I have reworked the criticism section and placed it into the history section, where I feel it is fairly out of place. I also disagree that a criticism section would be rediculous. If the complaints are substancial enough I do belive there should be a section devoted to them. As of late many of these criticisms have been discussed heavily in the ACen community. A former staff member has even gone on record saying these are serious problems, I personally feel they are in need of being addressed. While the neutrality of the section was indeed in need of some work I do not feel it should have been dismissed so quickly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.57.102.211 (talk • contribs).

I wasn't dismissing the criticism...just saying that it should not have had such an overwhelming focus as its own section in the middle of the article. Where it is now looks a lot better. When it comes to criticism, it tends to raise eyebrows when things like that are added anonymously. --PatrickD 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says "In early 2007 Anime Central came under scrutiny from some fans" and cites a link on ACenGuys.com as a source. I don't see anything "under scrutiny" there. Is that the correct link? That source has nothing to do with what it is a reference for. --PatrickD 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I left in the old source. The ACenguys link was a source for the longer artical siting where the information outside the official ACen site came from. Since I cut down the artical so drastically it no longer fits in or makes sense to be there. I have updated the source with a direct link to the criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.57.102.211 (talk • contribs).

I'm going to invoke WP:BLP here and require that reliable sources be presented for such criticism in the article. Forum posts just don't cut it as reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, why? The topic being discussed was about what people had been saying on the forums. So citing what people said doesn't count as an official source, even if thats where the information stems from? Why remove the fanbase entry as well? This is an atrical about an anime convention, something that the fans help build and have a very large hand in what happens. To ignore their contributions to the strengh of the Anime Central community is rediculous.

The "criticism" wasn't based on any reliable sources. Just to show you how unreliable forum posts can be, one of the references given has already been removed from the forum. All conventions receive complains on various forums, but that doesn't mean those complaints have any significants until a third-party reliable source picks up on them. As for the fanbase entry, as I said in the edit summary, it was entirely original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 22:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Theres no sense to argue it anymore with you, you know wikipedia better than me - I sort of pop in and out. I just wanted to expand the artical giving it a little more depth, but instead I ended up getting much of it removed. I try and take the information to a proper home.

[edit] Video Gaming?

Should we include something about how ACen has one of the larger video game selections, particularly arcade games, and as of the last couple years, the room has been open 24 hours a day? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JanusZeal (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Oops, forgot to sign it. -JanusZeal 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"one of the larger"? As compared to who? Saying they have video games is fine, but you should only cite them as having one of the largest video game selections if you are able to back that up with proper references. (Some blog or forum post saying, "ACen has the biggest video game room I've ever seen!" wouldn't be a good reference.) --PatrickD 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparative is definitely not NPOV. Besides, I've been to both ACEN and AX. AX sports a bigger game room. Even so, the point of a bigger game room is not significant anyways. KyuuA4 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just a personal observation of mine by visiting other conventions and from hearing from other people who've been to more conventions. Obviously, "largeness" is a general term, and can refer to room size, # of games, # of consoles, who's sponsoring the arcade machines, etc. I'm suggesting that we should get this information into the article, both for past years and upcoming. -JanusZeal 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal observations do not belong in the article unless they are attributable to a reliable source. If they aren't, that falls under WP:OR and would be removed. As for adding information on upcoming years, that would fall under WP:CRYSTAL and also does not belong. --PatrickD 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, and I quote myself: "...refer to room size, # of games, # of consoles, who's sponsoring the arcade machines, etc. I'm suggesting that we should get this information into the article, both for past years and upcoming." As for upcoming years, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Information is not, and will not, be merely speculative, nor would it be unverified. Information about planned events and specs would be provided by ACen management itself. -JanusZeal 16:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add a section relative to all the gaming qualities yet I'm not sure what to call it. The list of expected video games can be sited here. However, I know this list is not finalized by the Department Head yet. 12.144.116.172 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)