Talk:Juggling convention

Not a copyvio

This was listed as a copyvio from [1] - that article is taken from Wikipedia under GFDL, and clearly states so, rather than the other way round. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 16:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

List

Why the list of some conventions at the bottom of the page? If a convention is large enough or notable enough they should have their own wiki page, with a list (if appropriate) of all of the venues so far. Saying "Four best attended conventions" is very vague and just wrong. The numbers for last few years are: 648 Portland 2006 674 Davenport 2005 808 Buffalo 2004 And from the same source I found out that the Portland number includes 123 day passes, and who knows if those people were returning (duplicate) attendees. Meanwhile, the Berlin Convention has a show venue of 600 which is always sold out to people who have pre-registered! On top of that there are (even last year when it clashed with 4 other conventions in Europe) about 150-200 extra people who watch the show on video screens in the gym. The Berlin convention is growing and the IJA is shrinking, why not list the Berlin at the bottom of the page? And there are conventions in France that get more than 600 people turn up year after year. Why not list these? If a list is needed, just move it to the page about that particular festival if it has one. Maybe a section at the top or bottom of the page that lists notable conventions is needed, but I think an encyclopedia entry on conventions should be more about conventions in general, rather than just lists of "big" conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.159.14 (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2007

Sydney Convention

I took out the sentence about the Sydney Juggling Convention being "the only juggling convention in Australia" as an annual Melbourne Juggling Convention is starting this year. Popstar dave 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juggling convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]