Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Conventions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Current tasks

With so much to do, I'm often not sure what to do. I guess finding citations for most of the articles is perhaps the biggest thing at the moment. That should also help us separate conventions that would pass WP:CORP from those that probably should go to WP:AFD. --Farix (Talk) 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That list certainly looks intimidating. ^_^; --PatrickD 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel that all I can do is just nibble here and there at the list, and eventually it will start shrinking. But I know that some of these articles are going to need rewrites to reflect the sources we can find. --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And that's something I loath to do. --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohayocon

It looks like Ohayocon staff is publishing their attendance numbers direct to their wiki page as evidenced by this thread. I've put a note on their discussion page asking where they came from and warning about WP:OR. I'd ask on their forums too, but they need to manually approve accounts and mine hasn't been approved yet. (One of the reasons I don't like phpBB at all.) --PatrickD 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not anything particular to phpBB. We use to do the same thing when Tsubasacon's forums were still running on IPB. It wasn't until I switched the forums over to SMF when I changed to settings to use email authentication. I just thought that administrator approval was too much of a hassle. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New templates

With some states having three or more conventions, I am starting to groups some conventions in a single states (or section of the country) in templates. My idea is sort of like this:

  • California
  • Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho)
  • Mid-west and Texas
  • Southern United States
  • Central East Coast and Northeast

Any thoughts? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What states fall into what regions? It also seems odd that California is on its own while Texas is in with the entire midwest. Maybe it would be easiest (and get the least opposition and accusations of gerrymandering from others) to go with the official US Census Regions (West, Midwest, South, Northeast) --PatrickD 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I guess maybe the US Census Regions might be a better idea. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of new templates, I made one for AnimeCons.com so that the articles that link to the site can at least have a bit of consistency. (The link text seemed to be all different for each con.) I've put it in place on most cons that link, but there are some that link to every single year. I'm not sure that's necessary...although is probably something which could be discussed as part of the effort to "Create a standardized format under which information should be organized." --PatrickD 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is great! I like it. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's good, though you may want to explain the syntax on the Template:Talk page. It took me a while to figure out how you did that, but once I did, I went ahead and changed over Sakura-Con's links-- RoninBK T C 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision to the idea for templates

What I think we should do is this: set up templates for the regions as defined by Patrick, but with those states who have multiple conventions and have articles, we should also do the same. I think I will create the US Census-based ones first. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So every state with two conventions will have a template? That seems like overkill.--PatrickD 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No. But say in the case of California, which has three or four, then yes. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Template

I'm currently on an infobox updating kick...just FYI...  :) Also, for what it's worth, Shoujocon now has most of its references and appears to be a largely complete and accurate article. --PatrickD 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Con articles that link to other cons' sites?

Is it appropriate that the Big Apple Anime Fest and Shoujocon articles are linking to AnimeNext's web site? Neither was ever affiliated with AnimeNext and are merely in the same geographic region. --PatrickD 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

External links should be to resources or information about that particular convention. If the article is about one thing and there is an external link to something else, then the link should be removed. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daigacon

Remember Daigacon? (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daigacon) It's baaaack! --PatrickD 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion. But I knew that this was going to happen. --Farix (Talk) 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs for a number of cons

Just to give you a guys a head's up, I only nominated events in good faith. All of them are just nominated for deletion, which doesn't mean that it will definitely result in deletion. Although, I am a bit uneasy about No Brand Con now, but we'll just let the consensus decide on this now. If it survives an AfD, no big deal. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Going a little wild with the AfDs lately, aren't you? Perhaps we should be putting in some reference links before nominating everything without references for deletion. --PatrickD 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but I also think the logic that just because a convention is small, it is therefore not notable is flawed. Some cons will be notable simply for being the first in that province or country. Instead, we should focus more on finding sources for these conventions to substantiate their notability and only send them to AFD if we can't find the sources or the article is not salvageable once you remove all the information that can't be verified. --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Should articles in Category:Anime conventions in Canada and Category:Anime conventions in the United Kingdom also be in Category:Anime_conventions or is that redundant? --PatrickD 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make them sub-catagories? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
They are sub-categories. --PatrickD 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't like having either of those two cats around. There aren't that many convention articles to need more then one category and I do believe that both of those cats were created to show a bit of nationalistic pride and to separate themselves from the "American" cons. --Farix (Talk) 12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Con

Seems someone has decided to repost Anime Con. The article is a rewrite of the original, so none of the speedy criteria would apply. But overall, the article is still mostly original research, probably coming from an old AX staffer. So should I send it back to AFD? --Farix (Talk) 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd use the {{db-afd}} tag on it first to save time. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
{{db-afd}} would only apply if it was the original article up for deletion. New or reposts don't fall under this criteria. Reposts would be tagged as {{db-repost}}, but that only applies when the reposted article is "substantially identical" to the deleted article. --Farix (Talk) 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Make another AfD again, I say. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to put up the OR and Unreliable tags on the article and mention the previous AFD on the talk page. If those issues aren't going to be dealt with, then I'll send it back to AfD. --Farix (Talk) 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe a different focus for improving some of the articles?

I noticed that other Wikiprojects set out to have one article per week as a focus of improvement. How does this sound to others? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That only works when there is a large team of knowledgeable editors willing to do the work. That was why WP:AMCOTW closed shop. --Farix (Talk) 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I've pretty much been trying to update an average of one every week or two anyway...time permitting. Maybe not in terms of adding new content, but at least for cleaning up what's there and finding some sources. For example, Shoujocon, Animaritime, MangaNEXT, and PortConMaine. Mostly just trying to put enough references to warrant the removal of the references tag... --PatrickD 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACen

Hoo-boy! Check out the ACen article... Drama! --PatrickD 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be the standard someone complaining about something which happens to all cons. But in the end, it doesn't appear to be significant. It doesn't even rank anywhere close to Otakon's mini-drama with their Artist Alley, which isn't mentioned in Otakon's article. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I also think we should give a great deal of scrutiny to these "controversies". Most of the time, it's just people making a mountain out of a mole hill. Other times, it's a disgruntled person trying to smear the con's name. So I suggest that we check to see if the "controversy" has made it into any of the reputable anime news services. If not, it probably shouldn't be mentioned. --Farix (Talk) 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Festival Orlando

FYI: Might want to keep an eye on Anime Festival Orlando. Someone went and thought that simply adding a link to their web site was reason enough to remove the notability and reference tags from the article... --PatrickD 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Anime Convention

Okay, someone apparently doesn't quite understand that merely being listed on AnimeCons.com does not establish notability. (I used the example of being listed in the phone book would not establish notability for a person.) Check out the Talk:Another Anime Convention page. Can someone talk some sense into him? (FYI: The Another Anime Convention page was already deleted once.) --PatrickD 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AnimeCons.com policy

I think we need to sit down and come to a consensus as to how to best utilize AnimeCons.com as a resource, and to come up with a one or two paragraph statement we can publicly post so that situations such as the current one with Another Anime Convention can be avoided.

I know PatrickD has advocated that since AnimeCons.com is editorially indiscriminate as to what it will list, it should not be used to establish WP:N. I would contend that there is some degree of editorial oversight, otherwise, the web site would have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever, under the new WP:ATT. As an example, if I sent PatrickD an e-mail claiming to be from Otakon, (which I am not,) he wouldn't publish any information I give him in that e-mail without verifying it to some degree.

I am not however saying that an article can get by with just an AmineCons.com entry and an official website. Primary Notability Criterion demands at least two sources, if nothing else. But if we don't count it as a "non-trivial" source for WP:N, how should we use it? -- RoninBK T C 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

AnimeCons.com accepts submissions from anyone, but those submissions are all checked with reliable sources (usually the convention's own web site, sometimes usenet posts...especially in the case of ancient anime cons from the early 1990's, etc.) Even if the con's chairman himself submits data, I won't list it unless I can verify it. (I also get a lot of guests attempting to list themselves as guests at cons they were not actually listed as guests at and merely attended...particularly Anime Expo.) Although I think the site can be used as a reliable source on data such as dates, guests, attendance, and other information that is listed, I don't think it establishes notability. Think of it like a phone book...you can use it to verify your phone number or address, but the listing of your name does not make you notable.
...and this is assuming we're talking about the event or guest listings. News reports such as this or con reports such as this are a different beast. --PatrickD 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and although the site takes submissions from anyone, not every "convention" is listed. The site's Policy on Listed Events can be found here. --PatrickD 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for helping to clear that up. Personally, I think that AnimeCons.com is much more than a phone book. It's a historical record; I bet you have data that some convention committees may have otherwise lost to committee member turnover, or simple antiquity. You provide information that is verifiable and most importantly, attributable. I do think that AnimeCons.com passes the definition of a secondary source, and as such, should at least count as one non-trivial mention towards Notability. Please note that I'm not saying that an article can get away with AnimeCons.com alone, and I continue to argue that point in the Another Anime Convention AfD discussion. -- RoninBK T C 10:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, all of the notability guidelines will not count directory listings towards establishing notability, even though WP:ATT considers directory listing as reliable sources. All that AnimeCons.com's listings gives are the convention's name, where it is located, and when it will run. It also provides who will be attending as guests, the price of admission, general events that will be held, attendance figures, and sometimes press releases. In sure its a glorified directory listing. --Farix (Talk) 14:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. For example, if there was an article for "O-Conn" which is a one-day event held at a high school in Helotes, TX, this page would verify it's information...but that event is unquestionably non-notable! Sure, I list it...but I do not list it because it's notable. Now if I went and wrote up a report and took photos, that might begin to establish some sort of notability...but the mere listing does not in any way. --PatrickD 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Format/Template for Convention Articles

Well, it looks like I'll make my suggestions for the Convention articles.

Should include:

  • History
  • Venue/Location
  • Attendance
  • Admission Prices
  • Events
  • Influence
  • Cosplay (if its big enough should probably have its own section)
  • Organizational Structure
  • References
  • External Links (homepage, organization homepage, maybe one or two others)

GOAL: To achieve GA, A, or FA status.

I have included a plausible example. Kopf1988 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No longer underconstruction for the moment, so feedback please. Then I will continue to update it. Example topics would be-
  • Should we use the table?
  • What to include in the table?
  • Should it be a graph instead?
  • Should the guests list look like this or this. (note the introduction paragraph will probably still look like this one.
  • Is the history section long enough? Is it too long?
  • Should there be more pictures? Where? --Kopf1988

I hope you're not proposing having each of those bulleted items above as sections. For starters, admission prices really don't belong in an article or else they'll end up looking more like ads. Generally, the prices (often referred to as "membership rates" by larger conventions) are not notable enough to be mentioned. Venue/location and attendance are best rolled into the history section rather than out on their own...and by "rolled in", I mean in actual sentences and not in a big ugly table. I hate tables. As for cosplay, I can't imagine what sort of content unique to each convention would be worthy of an entire section. "People came, a lot cosplayed." I don't think Organiational Structure is necessary...and it would be difficult to determine as most convention web sites I've seen (and trust me, I've seen all of them), don't publish that data. References are essential, but belong before external links. As for the external links, the "maybe one or two others" worries me. They should only be linked to if they're relevant and not be a link to every single con report ever published. (I've seen some con articles that do that and it's a mess.) As for your particular example, I think the history section is way too short for a con that's 10 years old...and that table really needs to go. Ugh. As far as photos go, use sparingly. --PatrickD 20:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember, though, for admission prices notability only applies to the topics of articles. If I were researching anime conventions, having costs/prices/fees/rates would definitely be interesting for me to compare # of events. And I hate tables too, they look kind of ugly... but I really think the information should be there somehow.
Cosplay was just a suggestion. I suggest it being under the events section instead? I want to use lists sparingly, but it would be good to get an idea of how many cosplay events there are. Some cons are more cosplay focused than others. Some of the information that would vary would be: Does it have hall cosplay? Is there a cosplay show? Are there prizes/how many? Who judges? I'm not really sure if its that important though, or even possible to find out with most conventions.
As for History, yeah, I was thinking its too short... but I'm not too sure of what to do to it. Some stuff about who's ran it, etc?
Remember I said maybe one or two extra external links for the exact reason you are talking about. We shouldn't link to everything.
As for organization structure, I think it would be important to include, but only if it could be reliably found. Maybe on a convention by convention basis? Such as for AnimeIowa, knowing that its parent company also does two other conventions is pretty relavent, and theres at least a paragraph or two that could go there. We could also include information about volunteer rewards and such if found?? Maybe?? I'm just trying to focus on being extremely thorough.
Photos, your probably right... but I suggest... two per article at least? One will be the convention logo (which most have already), and another will be maybe a wide-area shot of all the visitors in the main room of the convention, if a good one can be found. That would definately be enough for pictures.... any comments to my comments? Kopf1988 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I mostly have to agree with Pat. Rates are not relevant to an encyclopedic article. Every convention has cosplay and cosplay contests so it's not important enough to have its own section. Organization Structures, while possibly relevant, are generally unattributable, and who organizes the convention can easily be contained in the lead. Locations, venues, and attendance can be rolled into History and shouldn't have their own sections. The Events section should be limited to events that are unique or originated from that convention. The latter of which is probably better suited in an Influences/Impact section. --Farix (Talk) 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Commenting because Kopf1988 asked me to on my talk page. I agree with Farix, and have nothing else to add to that. --PatrickD 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, good and all, but I still want to know about the exceptions. If organization structure is attributable, then I suggest we include it. As for this example, the organization has a website, detailed history, and has organized other conventions, all of which is notable and attributable. What policy are you looking at to suggest that the events section should be limited to unique or original events? Avoid deleting information, attribution, verifiability, not paper all point to including it... maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. As for locations, venues, and attendence, please read lists serve useful purposes, (which can be broadly applied to tables, not everything should be prose). Kopf1988 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A) It clutters the article. B) In most cases, it's repetitive. C) It's not very relevant to begin with. It's just using common sense and prudent editing. It's not helpful to included every detail possible. We should have articles with details for detail's sake. --Farix (Talk) 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A good article addresses all major aspects of the topic. That information doesn't fall under the category of non-notable trivia, it is easily worthy of being noted. Kopf1988 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but some of that can be adequately covered in Infoboxes. I can agree with sections on History, Events, (Cosplay would fall under a subsection,) and Org. Structure if relevant. References are required, External Links is typical, but except for the obligatory link to the convention website, most links provided should be already used under References. Influence is fairly subjective, and if mentioned at all should be under History. Everything else should be in an Infobox. -- RoninBK T C 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locations

Also, maybe they could be broken off the table, and be listed each, with the number of years after, like this:

etc. Kopf1988

[edit] Unnecessary Caps?

I'm curious if people think AnimeNEXT and MangaNEXT should be moved to AnimeNext and MangaNext in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks):

  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:
    • avoid: REALTOR®
    • instead, use: Realtor
    • but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used.

--PatrickD 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good question.... I would think to use AnimeNEXT/MangaNEXT if they have it spelt out that way in their guides, fliers, etc (only if consistent). If they use smallcaps for everything, including nime or anga, then just use AnimeNext... anyone have samples... wait... I looked at their website, and their logo uses biglowercase(opposite of smallcaps??). But whenever they write it out somewhere it says AnimeNEXT. Um.... well since both are used I would go with AnimeNext, and then redirect AnimeNEXT to it. Kopf1988 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The WP:MOS article you mentiuoned also says "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgement call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable" Looking at CamelCase's page I'd say AnimeNEXT qualifies as such, (along with artilces such as AutoCAD, KaBOOM!, CloneCD, and GameNOW.) I think it's fine as it is. -- RoninBK T C 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Article for Deletion

Another article has been added for deletion. See AnimeIowa... I won't make any arguments here, just pointing it out. Kopf1988 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Anime_and_manga_Conventions_7319.html"