Jump to content

Talk:San Diego Comic-Con/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Other controversy

Could someone who writes for this topic possibly read this information and find an appropriate way to write about it? http://www.milehighcomics.com/sandiego/sdcc071608.html DigitizerSF (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't my take, but just relaying what I've heard from other in the business from comic book shop owners (who are now refusing to attend SDCCI) and publishers, and should be well researched and included in the Criticisms section:
  • Is it about comics anymore?
  • Needs to move, regardless of what the organizers and promoters think.
  • Should focus on comics only and nothing else.
  • Ditch the celebs.
  • Needs to address the dismal state of the comic, manga, and anime sales in the industry.
This is just a really small number of complaints I've heard from all with in the industry. You'd be a liar if you found somebody in the comic industry that has a different POV. The Mile High Comics woes, which he has repeated year and year, not just in the single letter, shows that with comic book shops going out of business is HUGE numbers, and the industry going ga-ga over 5000 copies sold when in the early 1990s, they'd go ga-ga over like a million sold, the industry is dying. Holding say over the death of comics is, of course, Diamond. Diamond is, however, exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, as Sherman only covers the manufacturer of finished goods or services (i.e. Standard Oil, or if DC bought Marvel, Image, and Dark Horse, that's "source" creation, as Diamond just delivers product, and the companies can go through UPS, UPSP, DHL, or FedEx for delivery if they wanted to). Also, I recommend that all comic book and manga/anime articles in Wikipedia be combined and re-written, re-researched, and such into a nice, large, comprehensive article on the whole medium-industry. Apple8800 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Also:

An interesting and verifiable (by someone who has saved their convention programs) piece of evidence of the level of commercialization is the percentage of panels that are announcing new products or services (ie, strictly promotional). In past years (I'm a San Diego native and have gone to many a comic con), the vast majority of panels were about industry trends, emerging techniques & technologies, workshop-style QAs, and other informational discussions. Now, the vast majority are solely promotional.

To put it another way, the difference is similar to a blog that is strictly informational, and a blog that announces a company's new products/services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.208.251 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dates

I added the dates of the convention and added that it is at the Convention Center. Joey Babbitt 08:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Unclear & uncited paragraph

If anyone can help, I see three problems with this paragraph originally appearing under the subhead Trivia. One is the vague wording (see possible definitions in boldface below), another is lack of citation (if this is an eyewitness account, it's non-verifiable original research), and finally, even as trivia, I'm unable to imagine the encyclopedic value of two celebrities happening to meet or even collide with one another -- every newspaper and magazine has celebrity anecdotes that are much more indicative of some life-aspect than just two of them meeting. Celebrities meet each other all the time. And celebrities attend Comic-Con all the time. I guess there's a "so what" factor here. It's trivia, but for the reasons I've just cited, I need to ask what makes it interesting trivia that would have some value here.

Trivia

In 2002, Ben Affleck and Arnold Schwarzenegger ran into each other [as in "met" or "collided"? unclear] as as they were being led through the back areas to separate panels promoting their then-upcoming movies Daredevil and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.[citation needed]

--Tenebrae 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The story illustrates the changing dynamic of the Con being more and more oriented toward the entertainment field. Trust me, in past years two major stars would not parachute into the Con to promote their new movies. By 2002 things had changed. Dgabbard (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The sentence still cannot be added due to lack of verifiable reference. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Locations and Dates?

Missing a whole lot of years, there... should the entire section be removed? No real purpose to it. --Fitly 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As another editor notes, there are way too many redundant wikilinks. Policy is to have one link per subject per article or section. It's going to be a big job to de-wikilink all but the first mention of a particular name in the chart. I'll make a start, and maybe other editors could pitch in.--Tenebrae 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know--I made the box. Instead of spending a week making it "perfect", I wiki-linked everything. The task of delinking some words is infinitesimal in comparason with creating the box from scratch and reorderering everything. Removing wikilinks would take someone less than a half hour, whereas making the box took the better part of six or so hours. Imagine the repetitiveness of organising over thirty years of history into wikiformat inside a box (taking most of a day), and than go through over a hundred names and sort through repeat links. That can be another day's project. Just be thankful I did the harder, longer half. Dark jedi requiem 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Um...I am. See Dec. 30 comment at bottom of your talk page. --Tenebrae 06:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Than who are you informing policy of? Dark jedi requiem 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to Dark jedi requiem: This is the page for everybody who edits this article.
I went to your Talk page to thank you specifically for one thing, making the chart.
On this page, I'm asking every editor who come here to help on a task that could use multiple volunteers. No one has to help who doesn't want to. It's strictly voluntary. My first posting in this section was not directed to you or anybody else in particular.
I hope I've answered your question.--Tenebrae 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, guys- I can't promise I caught EVERY duplicate link, but I think I got most of them while I was not logged in. Hope that helped. (Also removed reference to one person who supposedly appeared at every convention since the late 70's but has no mention on the Internet except for one minicomic done in modern times. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably self-promotion or vandalism, so i got rid of it.) ChrisStansfield 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it really so hard to put names in alphabetical order when you add them? I mean, it's only a matter of respect to both the attendees and to those of us who keep going through the article to alphabetize. ChrisStansfield 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Kudos on all your hard work! And yes, unquestionably, the names should be alphabetized. --Tenebrae 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Exclusive Toys

Should there be a section mentioning the exclusive toy releases which have become such a large part of comic con? I'm not suggested a complete and detailed list, but maybe some highlights and an overview of the concept.--Torchwood Who? 10:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable, Torchwoodwho, but it would be pretty hard to find enough information about the toy exclusives at every Comic Con. CoolKid1993 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is hard, if not impossible... so I added a section about the exclusives and hope to expand it as I find more information.--Torchwood Who? 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there some guest listed when the Comic-Con site does not say they are going to be there?

Shouldn't they be held off the list. Like the actors and actresses from Smallville none of t hem are listed on the site. So they should be taken off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the list will begin to list the people who attended the convention during an event, a panel discussion, or to promote something in regards to attending Comic-Con. Not all guests are listed on the Comic-Con website. CoolKid1993 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of visitors

the amount of visitors is confusing. Is it the amound of passes sold? an estimation? If I have a four day pass and I go all four days do I count as 4 people or 1??? Is the number the total amount of people or people per day? If you have access to this info please post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.33.231 (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The number of passes sold to seperate people is the amount that Comic-Con reports as their actual attendance. So, in other words the total number of people who bought any sort of pass are a part of the final tally. CoolKid1993 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. NYCC, SDCC, and every other professional for-profit convention uses a turnstile count for attendance. If you buy a four day pass, you are counted four times. I'm not sure if they also count staff, guests, janitors, etc. You can compare this to the attendance figures for a non-profit fan-run convention like Otakon which counts true attendance. Otakon 2010 had 29,274 unique attendees. They only sell 3-day passes, and they count each pass once. I do not believe they count staff, guests, etc. If Otakon used the same counting method as NYCC they would have an attendance figure of 90,000+.

Since each convention only publishes one number, and does not make public its specific counting method, the solution is to just change the wording. Instead of saying "X visitors" or "X attendees," say "attendance figure of X." Calling it an attendance figure leaves the counting methodology ambiguous. 4.58.0.2 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Who decides what is "unsourced" and needs reverting, and what is unsourced but reasonable..? Is it wholly arbitrary? For example, the recent revert over attendance numbers from an unsourced-but-precise number to an unsourced-but-vague number just seems odd. (Added to which - the source for the numbers is further down the page...) ntnon (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible bias regarding charges for booths

There's a quote here that stood out immediately to me as being unprofessional and objective: "Other major conventions, Wizard and New York Comic Con to be specific, charge ridiculous amounts of money for table space." I'm pretty sure this is too biased for Wikipedia, so with your permission, I'll go ahead and change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.136.173 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

feel free.--cooljuno411 08:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 13:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


attendance

I fixed the attendance numbers with the ones Comic-Con officially posted in the 2009 souvenir book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.70.58 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The largest... or not?

Isn't French Angoulême International Comics Festival larger? See the official site: http://www.bdangouleme.com/news-526-the-fauve-is-contented 129.72.189.92 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Article does not give a references statement of attendance. Link provided is not from a reliable third party sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The linked article does give a reference of attendence. As for a reliable source, there is none for San Diego plus I understand the source for the number in the article was the Con itself - not much difference there... The Angouleme article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angoul%C3%AAme#City_of_Festivals ) also mentions "nearly a quarter of million." 129.72.189.92 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read the article, the attendance for the 2009 convention come from two seperate third party sources. let me post them here for you:
Pickard, Anna (29 July 2009). "Comic-Con: revenge of the nerds". Guardian. Retrieved 30 July 2009. Every summer for the last 40 years, San Diego has hosted this international festival of "comic books and popular arts". Famous for its elaborately costumed attendees and passion for sci-fi, fantasy and everything superhero, the event has mushroomed: last weekend it attracted nearly 140,000 people. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Reid, Calvin (July 27, 2009). "Soldout in San Diego: Another Booming Comic-Con". Publishers Weekly. Reed Elsevier Inc. Retrieved 27 July 2009. David Glanzer, spokesperson for the San Diego Comic-Con, said the unofficial attendance figure for the soldout show is about 125,000—capped at that number by fire marshals—although the show organizers will provide an official tally in a few weeks. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
I should know, I am the one who found them.
Now if you can find a reliable, verifiable, third party references given a higher attendance figure for this convention in France, then the statement would have to be chaged to largest comic convention in the Western Hemisphere. Unitl that time your statements are unsupported by verifiable third party reliably sourced references.
I am not afraid to be proven wrong, as I am fallable, just please provide citeable references to back up your statement. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I've missed it. But that's not the point; here's an article that mentions 200 000: http://www.lexpress.fr/culture/livre/bd/un-monumental-musee-herge-et-une-super-production-tintin_736991.html , and here's another one: http://www.livreshebdo.fr/actualites/DetailsActuRub.aspx?id=1381 - they are not that hard to find if you a French speaker. Also check out the Festival d'Angoulême 2009 wiki page in French. 129.72.189.92 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, the relevent policy is WP:NONENG. It says that those can be used, and the statement will be changed accordingly, and you can make a statement about Angoulême International Comics Festival being larger/st with those references as long as you follow the aforementioned guideline. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have also found english news articles that support what you are saying, and have editted the article accordingly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Guest lists

I've removed the "Non-Featured, notable Guest/Attendees" column, as I can't see this as becoming anything but a magnet for the mass of unsourced and unverified lists that previously plagued this article. The current list (especially for last conventions) is well sourced and accurate to the actual convention guest lists. Opening that up to "notable attendees" or whathaveyou (i.e. some famous people who showed up) will just lead to the same problem I tried to correct, with random users adding random names to the column with no citations. It's going to cause more problems, so I'm going to remove that column, as well as the names that I removed, since the citations listed did not include them. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the two seperate columns was to stop the edit war that was starting to begin with yourself and User:GageSkidmore. However, it appears that you will not even allow a column to allow for non-featured guest/attendees. I can completely agree with the need for the individuals listed to be referenced/cited, to meet verifiability requirements, but to remove the column out right I think is not helping the situation, can you please return it. I would much having as all working towards consensus rather than one editor controlling the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't see how the section could be claimed to be unsourced, seeing as all the guests listed on the section were listed on the pages found here. I know it wasn't previously sourced on the article, prior to this discussion, but I think readding the notable guests column, with that section of the CCI website as the source would solve any reference problems. Gage (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The difference here is that program participants (as listed on the schedule) are completely separate from actual guests of the convention. "Non-featured guest/attendees" has no bearing on the convention guest lists (since they were not invited by the convention to be featured guests), and strikes me as unencyclopedic and a magnet for listcruft and massive listings of unreferenced additions - which is what we had before. Also GageSkidmore's edit summary when he did a wholesale revert ("rv to list of people who are actually recognizable") was totally uncalled for, since A) Different names are recognizable to different people, and B) was removing massive amounts of now sourced and verified information. In addition, the column compressed an already overloaded table, and frankly, looked bad. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see why notable non-featured guest, and attendees, cannot be listed, as long as they are referenced. As long as they can be verified by a reliable source to have attended, they meet base criteria for being added to this article. Their attendance, believe it or not, matters, and draws a significant number of the attendees (see Hall H). Some may disagree with the changes in SDCC, but Wikipedia is not a place to argue that, it is suppose to be a neutral collection of facts in an Encyclopedic format. Therefore, I reitterate my point that as long as they meet the policy/guidelines I set forth earlier, they should be included.
Furthermore, non-featured guest, are still guest of the convention. Their names are still listed in the convention program.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I still think the addition of a sixth column is unnecessary. However, if the additions have reliable sources, I have no problem with them being added to the current guest column. My objections to GageSkidmore's wholesale reversions were more due to the inaccuracies they re-introduced into the article (such as one year being listed twice) and his remark about "actually recognizable" guests. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from as far as removing the cited featured guest. Thank you for coming to a compromise with us. Now would you like to readd the column or shall I? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)Why is there still object to including the names to the non-featured guest list? I had thought that we three editors had reached a compromise, and consensus. I can understand the need for references that the individuals attended, however, that can be easily done by tagging the names that don't with Template:fact tags, and replacing them with the refering article/source when they are found. The list of notable non-featured attendees in the category for those attendees does not harm the article, if included. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take on the situation, since I came across this today - the "Featured guests" column appears now to be accurate and reliably sourced from what I can tell, and accurately reflects the convention's actual invited guest lists over the years. The old list, from before MikeWazowski's edits, was a complete mess, full of a lot of random celebrities who just happened to be at the convention, in addition to some of the guests. It looks like GageSkidmore's reverts, in addition to being a little uncivil on his second reversion, simply erased all the work making the article more accurate and took it back to the original mess. There shouldn't have been an edit war after this point, as Skidmore was in error, and that *should* have been that.
Now, in my opinion, the addition of this new column for "Non-Featured, notable Guest/Attendees" is an invitation for a return to the previous mess - RightCowLeftCoast's most recent edits, even after he made a point of adding in the note "Place notable guest here, alphabetically, with wikilinks and/or cited reference (if available)" are a perfect example - his addition of a huge number of unsourced and unrefernced names flies in the face of the warning message that he himself added. That mass of names is unsourced, and contained quite a few duplications from the actual guest column. I think Wazowski was right to remove it - and to further that point, since I also think that the new column is going to continue to be problematical (plus to the fact that the actual guest list column appears to be completely in agreement with the actual convention guest lists from the past), I'm going to remove the new column as well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the need for finding sources, but as Skidmore had said, at least in the 2009 row, a source is already readily available from the SDCC website, and thus merits inclusion in the article, with a reference note to that source. Furthermore, using that bench mark, I have retained (somewhere, I have to dig through my pile of Comic Con swag and stuff) a copy of the program book as far back as 2005, and those would be reliable sourced reference for those years as well.
That being said, I can understand the caution of having the column and the possibility of addition of non-referenced attendees, however I believe, as did Skidmore (as far as I am aware), that only limiting the information to featured guest only is exclusionary, and does not benefit the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's exclusionary - not all participants in panels are advertised special guests of the convention (and just becuase they're listed in the schedule doesn't mean they actually appeared) - if they were actual guests, they would be listed on something like this page, for instance. There's probably several *hundred* notable people on the panels and programming events - who's to say who is more notable, or deserves to be mentioned? Listing *all* of them doesn't seem feasible - and picking and choosing a random few seems *just as* exclusionary, and that's just going to lead to another potential mess like the prior state the section was in. Also, most panel participants are *not* invited to the convention *by the convention istelf* - most panels are proposed to the schedulers either by the participants themselves, or by their respective studios and/or representatives, who then plan the panel participants themselves. If future readers have a desire to look at a list of panel participants, then perhaps a link in each section along the lines of "For other programming appearances, see this link". TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
However, as we have seen comic-con.org doesn't archive more than the previous year, as far as I am aware, the program book. (Found the 2007 program guide. Have to wonder how far their archive goes back.) There are other articles, that only choose a select number of notable attendees or awardees, as representative of others who fall within its scope, so I don't think that form of inclusion is as exclusionary as not even providing a place to list notable attendees as you have done in your edit, by removing the column. Furthermore, the notable attendees, who aren't featured, but are panel members, are just as important to the convention, and if anything are a major attractor for the significantly larger attendance in recent years, and are thus significantly notable to the article itself.
As I have said before, if the attendance can be supported by a reference it should be included.
For instance, Hayao Miyazaki made a highly notable, rare, and well documented appearence to SDCC, as sponsored by Disney Studios last year. But he himself was not a featured guest, and thus by your standard should not be included in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"Notable attendees" is a completely arbitrary designation - should we include them all? Where do you draw the line? *Why* must everyone possibly notable be included? The convention has, as most do, a very specific guest list - separate from panel participants. Notability is subjective, as we saw when Skidmore made his comment about certain names being "actually recognizable" - many of the names he removed as unrecognizable are quite notable in the comics community. However, there can be no argument about who was actually invited to be a guest at the convention - it's right there in print and/or online.
Miyazaki is definitely a notable individual, but he was only part of the Walt Disney presentation (according to this press release, and was brought in by Disney, not the convention. So yes, I would have not included him - since he was not a guest of the convention. If you had a reference that claimed he was an invited guest of the convention, that'd be different - but then again, if that were the case, the ComicCon website would also back that up. There's nothing personal or arbitrary in that decision - you have to draw a line somewhere, and since the convention provides such a clear demarcation, I don't see it as being an issue. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
By notable, I mean someone who fits the Wikipedia definition of notable. I would say that anyone that is documented to have attended, that is already notable enough, per wikipedia, to warrant their own wiki-article, should be sufficiently notable to be included in the row for that year, under the column that was deleted by you.
As I have said, requiring a reference that the notable individual has attended is a must, as it falls under the verifiable nature of content required by policy and guidelines of wikipedia.
Only including featured invited guests is exclusionary and does not benefit the article. Furthermore, as I have stated before, the significant growth in attendance is due to those notable attendees, and thus their attendance is significant to the article itself, and the events recent history.
I understand that there are a group of purest, who decry the present evolution of the Convention, towards Mass Media, and away from comics. I get that. However, Wikipedia is for documenting the event, and not choosing sides on that issue. Therefore, we should error in being inclusive of notable attendees that can be verified by a reliable source, rather than being exclusive and denying the article the documentation that the notable guest attended and participated in the event.
I shall ask for a third opinion regarding the matter. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I for one would like to thank TRFS for agreeing with me in regards to actual convention guest lists vs. attendees. RightCowLeftCoast's desire to include "notable attendees" (or whatever he's calling it) will just lead to the same problem I tried to correct, with random users adding random names to the column with no citations. It's going to cause more problems, and is hardly exclusionary - it's just not necessary. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I can understanding removing those who are not referenced to have attended. However, those who have, who are already notable, per wikipedia to already have their own article, who are verified by a reliable source reference to have attended meet the requirements set forth in wikipedia policy to be included. What is being proposed goes against those requirements of additions to the article, and basically makes a special rule based on consensus of 2 of three active confirmed editors that only featured guests documented in a single source should be included in the list of attendees for any given year of the event. How is that not exclusionary?
I have already conceded the problems which you have mentioned have occurred in the past, and have shown that by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that there is already an established solution. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that it would be unwieldy and subjective to try to include every single attendee notable enough to be in Wikipedia — that would include maybe 75% of every writer/artist working in comics today, not to mention TV stars and C-listers in the autograph room. Maybe the column name is part of the issue; instead of "Featured guests," perhaps it could say, "Official Comic-Con guests." -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps as a compromise there should he a different section all together for non-comic media guests, and comic media guest, for the featured guest are predominatly within the comic industry, however, a significant portion of the convention in recent history, (which if you need me to I will back up with references) including exhibit floor space, panels, and what not come from media outside of the comic industry. Such as Movies, TV Shows, TV Channels, Video Games, Anime, etc. This way neither list has to compromise the size of the other.
Of course requirements of verifiable reliable source references is retained. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Another possible compromise is that those listed of notable non-featured guest be limited to those who were panelist in Hall H, Ballroom 20, and Ballrom 6CDEF. Those panels are the largest in the convention and draw the largest numbers of attendees, as well as requiring significant logistics and attendee management in and of themselves. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A column could be made for "Panelists" or "Official Panelists". That way you don't open the door to every current notable comics professional who's attending or who maybe got comped by his company. Alternately, you could have a list of "Exhibitors", which would be companies and not individuals. The fact that Sony Television was there may be more notable than some New Zealand star of the syndicated Forest Warriors or some such -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere! I agree to both columns being added. And both would be easily referenced to the program guide, and other reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
If there are no objections to the columns being created, I shall create the columns on 3 December 2009. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
One big objection right here. You've still not managed to show WHY another column is really needed (other than the fact that you want to add it) - and now you're talking about adding TWO? That's only going to leave massive amounts of whitespace in the earlier years, and as for who to add, (as I've tried to point out from the beginning) other than the published list of invited guests, it's all going to be subject to the whims of individual editors. Who decides who's more notable? As Tenebrae points out, we don't want to "open the door to every current notable comics professional who's attending or who maybe got comped by his company" - that's exactly what we had before, when I went in and cleaned up the section. RightCowLeftCoast's idea to limit it to certain panels is just as exclusionary as he's claiming others are being. Say Ray Bradbury got one of the smaller rooms, while the Twilight cast filled a larger hall - are you honestly going to claim that those kids trump Bradbury? By equating size with notability, you're excluding names on an arbitrary designation, and I'm sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Other articles on conventions that list guests appear to only list the invited guests (such as Balticon, Dragon Con, or the New York Comic Con - they don't list all the panel participants, just the invited guests. What you really need to look at is creating a separate article for some of this - in my opinion, it's way too much listcruft if we go past what's in the article now. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
1. I am not the originator of the two additional column idea, however, I do support the idea now that another user, Tenebrae, has suggested it.
2. When documentation can be found to support addition of panelist from earlier years, they will be added accordingly. As I have said before, it is within the guidelines of Wikipedia to make sure that content is verified by a reliable source, and any addition would have to meet said guidelines. This the main argument for only having "featured guest", as there is a single source that list them all. To only limit the section to a single source, although meeting the minimum set forth by the guideline, it is exclusionary towards other reliable sources that can be used to cite the panelist and exhibitionist of a given year.
3. If we list all panelist, then it won't be exclusionary, if that is what you are suggesting? For if it is, I would be more then happy to support that more inclusive listing of panelist. I was only suggesting listing larger panels in order to compromise on which panelist would be listed. However, it appears, and please correct me if I am wrong, that if a column is added for panelist, that all panelist verified by a reliable source such as the programming guide should be added.
4. If we were to limit it to only larger board rooms, it would be equally exclusionary as only limiting those listed as you are supporting now to only featured guest.
As an alternative compromise, due to the present size of the article, we can spin of lists of featured guests, all panelists, and all exhibitors to a sub-article, or each to their own sub-article. Granted it would only move the current debate we are having, but this way the argument doesn't impact the time that can be spent by other editors, or ourselves, who wish to improve this article.
Presently, we have two editors who are supporting inclusion of two additional columns, and at least one editor who opposes the idea. I understand that in the end that means nothing per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, however it is definitely a direction towards consensus regarding this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Official comic-con guest"

What are we using to determine whether an attendee who participates in a panel or some other event within the convention, is official rather than non-official. Who makes said determination? Who are we as editors to make the decision that Comic-Con International as an organization as dubbed the featured guests as the only official guests? Do we have a reference supporting this change in wording? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that if, say, there is a "DC Announcements Panel" and the confirmed panels are Joe Smith, Jane Doe, and John Roe, that those are the official panelists whom Marvel invited. If Summit Entertainment had a "Twilight Panel" that includes Actor Jane, Actor John, Producer John and Director Jane, that those are Summit's official panelists.
That's a technical observation. Two other thoughts:
Aside from things like the "Marvel Silver Age Panel," which is not organized by Marvel itself as far as I can tell, most of the panels are not so much historical or cultural as they as are promotional and commercial. How much value is there in listing the names of people brought out for primarily promotional purposes? They're essentially commercials. (A panel may be incidentally promotional, of course; for example, a panel on the history of science fiction that includes Ray Bradbury may take place while Bradbury happens to have a new book out, but that's not the purpose of convening that panel.) Secondly, this threatens to become simply a list of hundreds of names. (Let's say 20 panels a day, 5 people per panel, three days of panels, that's 300 names.)
I'm not taking sides. I'm just bringing up discussion points before anyone goes to any great lengths of time and effort. -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, Tenebrae - where do we draw the line? With ComicCon, we're going to be looking at a list of hundreds - I'd say 300 is lowballing it. Before I cleaned up the article, that's exactly what we had - a messy list, with little rhyme or reason, and almost no citations. That's now changed, with every single year now properly sourced with the actual convention guest lists. We have a definitive list from the convention as to who the invited guests are/were, as most conventions do. If a line of demarcation has to be drawn somewhere, that's a perfect place, and completely in-line with how articles on other conventions are laid out. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
However, the current title of "Official Comic-con guests" is not sourced, is it? If it isn't then perhaps we need to revert the change.
As for content. If we can document/reference that someone participated in a panel, exhibit, or attended, then it meets the requirements set forth by wikipedia itself for inclusion. I have offered constructive alternatives for said inclusion, but have been faced with deletion of material. How is excluding referenced material benificial to the article?
As I have said before, I agree that non-referenced material doesn't meet verifiability policy, and is rightfully removed, but denying possible future referenced material completely flies against the spirit of Wikipedia as an open editted encyclepedia. See WP:NOTPAPER. Furthermore, with references, the addition of the categories suggested by Tenebrae, and supported by myself, would still be subject to WP:SALAT, and would be more than adequate to those requirements as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm not being understood: I'm unsure of the usefulness of having a list of hundreds of names per convention-year — a nd I'm saying this as someone who's spoken on panels at Comic-Con. Whereas being an invited guest of honor speaks to a person's high prominence in the field, being on a panel pretty much just means you're working professionally in the field. I see a big difference between those two things.
To answer the question "How is excluding referenced material benificial [sic] to the article?": The construction of any article is by necessity a matter of inclusion and exclusion. Something may be factual, but not every fact is notable. Including anything and everything removes context. If everything is given as significant, then nothing is significant. -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
However, that doesn't answer the question possed initially in this subdiscussion regarding the title of the column. Is there a reference supporting the change of the title to "Official comic-con guest"?
As for excluding content. There appears to be a consensus of editors from WPP Comics that is looking to exclude non-comic industry participants of the convention. I believe that I have already made my opinion known regarding this active exclusion. Good bye.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
re: "Is there a reference supporting the change of the title to 'Official comic-con guest'?": It appears to be footnote 19, the official program book. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
re: "There appears to be a consensus of editors from WPP Comics that is looking to exclude non-comic industry participants of the convention." Interesting - I took a look at WPP Comics and couldn't find any discussions about excluding anyone from ComicCon - or any discussions about excluding anyone from ANY article. As to the allegations that some of us are part of some cabal to exclude non-comics people, that's laughable and easily disproved simply by looking at the names included in the article now - if that were true, in the 2009 guest list names such as June Foray, Hunter & Stan Freberg, Brian Herbert, John Kricfalusi, and Ray Bradbury would have been excluded. As it is, the current table (for 2009 and all the other years) accurately reflects the real convention guest list. You also keep dropping back to the term "participants" - which should not be the focal point here, since the original dispute was over guest lists - which is now accurate and properly sourced. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
re: 'There appears to be a consensus of editors from WPP Comics that is looking to exclude non-comic industry participants of the convention.' If that's right, it's wrong. Even IF anybody can find that such a consensus really emerged within one specific WPP, it would be wrong, wrong, wrong to include only comics pros. Despite its name, Comic-Con is not just about comics. Doczilla STOMP! 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thankfully, consensus can change. Perhaps this issue should be revisited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, I may have a COI. I am a volunteer with the Anime group, and have been fortunate to carry a staff badge in the past. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents nearly a year later, I consider this article to be incomplete and of limited usefulness for it not listing the TV and film actors who have appeared at the event. I needed to confirm what year Scarlet Johansson appeared at Comic-Con and had to go to a source outside Wikipedia for that information. That renders at least this part of the article a fail. If elitists don't want the list of "true Comic-Con guests" sullied, then why not create a separate list of the non-comic guests? Incidentally, if the intent is only to include authors and artists, why are actors Kirk Alyn and June Foray included? If they're there, it's no different than listing Harrison Ford under 2010. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Commercialization section

The section does not site any references, and is unbalanced only providing criticism of the current evolution of the convention without providing balanced weight from opposite opinions. The section does not document any of the benifits that have come with the increase of scope of the event to areas outside of the comic industry, in regards to attendance, increased notability, etc. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What is it?

What this article needs, at the very first line is an interjection of *what this is* (say a science fiction convention, nerd hangout etc) needs a very short summary before we get to name, where, when and all the details. --IceHunter (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Panels

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand from the article what a panel is. Could you explain? The Other Saluton (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be the default article for Comic-Con?

I posted a comment on the Comic-Con talk page expressing my frustration at being taken to a disambiguation page after entering Comic-Con in the WP search box. There are hundreds of un-linked mentions (at least) in WP of Comic-Con with no qualification as to which of the several different editions is meant. That suggests to me that one of them is so much more famous than all the rest that it requires no additional identification; and yet when I search WP for it, I get a disambiguation page and have to try to guess which one of the dozen or so is meant.

It appears that the one in SD may be THE Comic-Con, since others on the disambiguation page say "not affiliated with the San Diego Comic-Con." If that is true, shouldn't this article be the one I get by default, with the disambiguation page being available in a hatnote in case I know for a fact that I do not want this one?

I know nothing at all about Comic-Con, in any of its incarnations. I saw a celebrity photo in a WP article whose caption said it was taken "at Comic-Con," with no link, and - having seen such captions many, many times in the past - I decided finally to see what Comic-Con is. It was frustrating to be faced with a disambiguation page.


One of you experts, please choose whichever of them is the one most often meant by the simple name Comic-Con and set it as the default. If the fact that the vast majority of references in WP to Comic-Con do not specify a location means just that the vast majority of those editors are careless, in which case there is no single Comic-Con that qualifies as the primary Comic-Con (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), then please forgive my intrusion into your world. Thanks ever so much from one who is NOT in the know and therefore a typical WP user.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


While SD is the first and the biggest, it is not really special enough to get the main page IMO, the other conventions could just as eaily be meant when someone says comi-con. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you've been the last 41 years but among all comics/sf/fantasy/etc fan circles I've ever met the unmodified term Comic-Con ALWAYS means San Diego. --Khajidha (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but there are now events such as the New York Comic-Con which even uses the same logo as San Diego. San Diego may be the definitive, but one look at the disambiguation page and you'll see it's far from the only major event using the name. If the organizers of San Diego manage to somehow obtain exclusive rights to the phrase "Comic-Con" preventing any other event from using it, then that may change things. As far as I know they haven't. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comic-Con non-profit status

I deleted the line: "Educational forums such as the Comics Arts Conference help Comic-Con to maintain its non-profit status." posted by Doczilla in 2007. This claim was unsourced though it seems to be based on an article in the San Diego Union Tribune on July 25, 2007. It doesn't seem to pass the Wikipedia test for verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercoogan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Petercoogan (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Peter Coogan (petercoogan)

Back Access to programming

Something that may assist other editors, we can access programming schedules online as far back as 2006! Hope this helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion

Here is a link to the discussion that lead to removal of content regarding the Italian event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Zachary Levi

I don't know whether it should be included, but Zachary Levi has stated the following regarding the subject of this article:

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No. A wisecrack is not encyclopedic information. The "must be" part shows that it's just a guess. Doczilla STOMP! 10:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

ELNO

I've removed these external links that I don't think meet ELNO, but I'm open to reviewing them.

Some of them surely seem not to meet requirements and the others could be cited internally. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of them appear to fall under WP:ELMAYBE, however IMHO none of them appear to fall under WP:ELNEVER. The 16 July 2006 source, I have added to the Shel Dorf article, and we should look at each source and see if they fall under WP:ELYES or ELMAYBE; for instance the Crashing the Con source IMHO falls under ELMAYBE criteria 4.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with all removals. As RightCow says above, the July 2006 article is an appropriate reliable source that could be used as a reference. But as external links, none of these are appropriate. ThemFromSpace 00:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I hate to purge things that might even be slightly keepable and wanted to be really open about these. I do agree that the article deserves to be added in-line, but I just haven't gotten around to doing it myself. Was just addressing a valid tag. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
In the mean time can we at least re-add the Crashing the Con link? Can we establish a consensus for at least that?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The external link directly goes to advertising a documentary about the 2008 event. Which seems to be an issue with ELNO points #4, 5 and 6. Why do you want to reinsert it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The Crashing the Con link goes to a promotional video trying to get viewers to buy a DVD. Under these circumstances, I don't think it is appropriate. ThemFromSpace 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware it was a promotional link; it is my opinion that content regarding documentaries of the subject should be included in the article. Is there non-promotional links to the documentary? Or should non-promotional reliable sources of the documentary be integrated into the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That's alright. It'd actually be fine if it was cited internally, but as an external link it is more problematic. I don't doubt it would provide useful primary source documentation and secondary source commentary, but as it is the link is just promotional as it stands right now. I do understand the concern though; it could be useful to someone; but as a purchase is required to view the content its useless to readers wanting more information. Paywall sites and the such fall under this for external links, but not internal links, like Highbeam and Questia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Some of these are worth citing internally. None hold up for external links. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup

For those attending and editors of Comic-Con, or those who live in the greater San Diego area, there is a Wikipedia Meetup being planned. Please see the meetup webpage for more information:

If you're interested in joining the discussion regarding the meetup please join up on the talk page:

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Change in Consensus

Looking back at an older discussion Talk:San Diego Comic-Con International/Archive 1#Guest lists, that after the 2009 discussion, consensus changed to include non official guests in some form to the content in the article. As such, I will, abiding by the change in consensus add empty columns to the appropriate section, and ask editors who add individuals to the columns to abide by WP:NLIST & WP:VER when adding individuals. If there are any individuals who object to such a list to be included in the table already present list, let me suggest a compromise of including a collapsed table which can include verified panelist, and exhibitors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There are far too many exhibitors, hundreds honestly. Listing them is impractical.
I can't comment on the rest of this suggestion due to WP:COI: I'm often a panelist. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Separate articles for each year

I think this convention is high profile enough to justify separate articles for each year, starting with sometime around 2010. They dont have to be long, but each event is notable in its own right, esp. considering how high profile the movie and tv industry is there.(User:Mercurywoodrose)99.101.137.96 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Vulture.com source

For those active in editing this article I have began a discussion at WP:RSN regarding a source added by an IP editor. Please find the discussion here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The logo that is currently uploaded is from and old form, that is no longer available on www.comic-con.org. (http://www.comic-con.org/cciassets/cci05_exhform.pdf)

The updated logo can be found at http://www.comic-con.org/about.

70.186.140.34 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Michelle

Redirect for discussion concerning this article

Hello: A Redirect for Discussion has been opened which concerns this article. Editors may be interested to voice their opinion on whether or not "Comic-Con" should redirect here at this Rfd --HidariMigi (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:San Diego Comic-Con/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

4 images, 90 citations, lacks coverage per WP:ANIME. JJ98 (Talk) 00:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Is it relevant to the 2014 event? Or is it more about the organization that runs the event which is the subject of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As no object opinions in support of retaining this content has been made, I will remove it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Poster

Why should one posted made for the convention of the dozens, if not hundreds, of works created for the subject of this article every year be highlighted? Per WP:BRD, I have removed the content, due to weight concerns. Lets have a civil discussion about the addition by Nightscream.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the poster has become an iconic one, as indicated in the text and the supportive citations. For that reason, it's relevant to the con's history (though which section it should go in is arguable). I have restored it, and I favor including other works with a similar historically notable connection to the con, so long as citations can support it. Nightscream (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It's iconic? Why? Says who? Re-adding it after a discussion has begun, when there is no consensus to re-add it is not how BRD works. IMHO, the content is giving a single piece undue weight. Wikipedia is not a place to promote an individual work.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is Comic Alliance a reliable source? If it is so notable what books have given in-depth coverage about the piece? So what if Vanity Fair writes about it? Multiple reliable sources write about multiple exclusives produced for comic-con.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources cited per WP:V say so, and yes, ComicsAlliance is a reliable source for which the comics article editing community here, including myself, utilizes as a source for material added to articles.
Reliable sources are not limited to books, nor are books are requirement as a source, and I'm not sure why you imply this. Reliable sources means just that: reliable, secondary, published sources, whether it's newspapers, magazines, books, etc.
I never said Vanity Fair wrote about it. But if they did, that would be an additional source. By saying this, you make it clear that you didn't really read the material as carefully as you should have.
The material was not added to "promote" the work. It was added because the iconic nature of the poster made it relevant for inclusion. I no more added it to "promote" the poster than I've added material about any other comic book to "promote" it. Adding it to the Comic-Con article no more "promotes" than it does in the Adam Hughes article, where I also added it, any more than his article's mention of his work on Catwoman, Wonder Woman or Maze Agency "promotes" those works. So please stop attributing false motives to me.
And if those exclusives go on to attain a historical significance, then it is reasonable to include them in relevant articles as well. I notice you didn't remove the first paragraph of the section in question. Why is that one acceptable, but the second one I added not?
Sorry for reverting during discussion. I misread WP:BRD. Nightscream (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, adding the image goes into undue weight. IMHO just cause Comic Alliance writes an article about it, it doesn't mean that that is the end all be all of what should be included. If it were than we could be looking at potentially 235 thousand items written about. Furthermore, if it is notable, than are there multiple non-primary reliable sources, other than the Comic Alliance source that give significant coverage to the item? I am not finding any books that mention it, nor am I finding any other websites that give the particular piece significant coverage. Please see WP:ONUS. Adam Hughes might be notable, but that doesn't make any of his works automatically notable as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I also believe the image and the paragraph mentioning it are both undue weight. In my opinion, the image sticks out oddly and looks like a promotion in the article. JosephSpiral (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I am divided here. I think the general concept of the section is fine. I also think that the piece of artwork is backed up by a reliable source (ComicsAlliance) that would make it worth mentioning as an example of some of the more famous exclusives to have come out of Comic-Con. However, I think that given the brevity of the first paragraph, the second paragraph skews to undue weight. It would be better served to perhaps add as a sentence onto the last paragraph, something akin to, "Popular and iconic works of art in the industry, such as Adam Hughes's 'Real Power of the DC Universe', were released as Comic-Con exclusives." It doesn't need a description of the work in the section. If it is written like that, then I even think the inclusion of the work would be acceptable for illustrative purposes. I suggest removal of the second paragraph to tone down the focus on the specific work and modifying the first paragraph and only mentioning the work in question as a WP:V example. It would also help if other such verified popular/iconic works could be provided (not exhaustively).Luminum (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Glaring error about venue

The article incorrectly states in the "Locations and dates" section that Comic-Con was held at the San Diego Convention Center from 1979-1990. During that time frame, Comic-Con was actually held at San Diego's Convention and Performing Arts Center (Golden Hall), and is not the same facility as the San Diego Convention Center, which has hosted Comic-Con since 1991. The Convention and Performing Arts Center (CPAC) is known today as the San Diego Concourse. Thankstelfair (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Tavix (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International → San Diego Comic-Con – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The "International" part is rarely used, Wikipedia is the first place I heard of it. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Everyone calls John F. Kennedy International Airport just "JFK" or "JFK Airport", but an encyclopedia needs to use the formal name in any but extreme cases. If you look under "Places" at WP:COMMONNAME, you'll see it only applies to extreme cases: The Hague (not: 's-Gravenhage); United Kingdom (not: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Also, WP:OFFICIALNAME is just an essay. Anyone can write an essay on any side of an issue. For a secondary consideration, the change would be at odds with the logo at the very start of the article, necessitating explanation.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Essays still hold weight, esp. if they reflect common practices. The point is that there is no guarantee that OFFICIALNAME = COMMONNAME (the latter of which is a policy). There are plenty of examples where the "official name" is not used as the article title because it simply is not the "common name". In this case, few call it "San Diego Comic-Con International" – the vast majority of press and media simply call it "San Diego Comic-Con". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
By that logic, we should call the airport article just "Kennedy Airport" or "John F. Kennedy Airport'" --Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:AIRPORTS may have different article titling guidelines. I don't think that has any bearing on the proper titling for this article on a media convention that is well, well reported on. So there's no dearth on sourcing to help figure out the common name for this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
That's quibbling with an example, and not even accurate quibbling: WP:AVINAME says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" ... yet though everyone calls it just "Kennedy Airport" or "John F. Kennedy Airport'", WikiProject Airports prefers John F. Kennedy International Airport. I could give several more examples, but quibbling misses the point. Bu here's another example anyway: n=Nobody in New York calls Mount Sinai Hospital (Manhattan) anything but "Mount Sinai." So by your logic, we should remove "Hospital" from the title of the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: The Mount Sinai example is not a good one as there are a lot of other things by the name "Mount Sinai", but nobody would confuse "San Diego Comic-Con" with anything else. And there's also a pretty significant difference between removing "Hospital" which makes it clear that it's a hospital, versus removing "International" which is just a redundant word. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, quibbling with examples. I refer you back to the John F. Kennedy International Airport comments above. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Two more examples: No one calls them anything but Stewart Airport or Westchester Airport. Yet they are Stewart International Airport and Westchester County Airport. You know, we're also not supposed to use conversational tone, and calling it "San Diego Con" or "San Diego Comic-Con" is just that. Why don't we look to how mainstream, journalistic publications put it, rather than naming an article for fanboy shorthand? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I really think the airport article naming conventions are an "apples to oranges" comparison with this RM... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, let me ask then: Why do you say they're not comparable when they use the very same disputed word? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
In Southern California, where I am from, there is the city of Ventura. The official name of the city is San Buenaventura, but trust me that nobody in California, let alone people that live there, call the city by its official name of San Buenaventura. Everybody calls the city Ventura, period. Even Wikipedia's article is titled Ventura, California. --Thankstelfair (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, and we're all in agreement that in extreme cases we use the common name. But you didn't answer my question, and I would have to think it's because you cannot give me a good reason for your "apples to oranges" claim. It's simply not — it's the same word, "International". That's apples to apples. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Accidents section

In 2010, an individual crossing at a red light was hit by car and killed in the days leading up to the convention.[94] In 2013, a young woman attempted to jump off the balcony of a local high-rise, but nearby stuntmen prevented it.[95]

It needs to be made clear how these news items are related to Comic-Con. A random person getting hit at a traffic light is not suitable material for this article. Samsara 09:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on San Diego Comic-Con. 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) 08:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on San Diego Comic-Con. 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) 00:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I dispute the edit by Bluesnote (talk · contribs). There is no consensus that only official offsite events should be mentioned. If there is a consensus the injuries and fatalities that occurred related to the event, which is the subject of this article, but not officially part of the event would need to be removed as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential source

"Comic-con" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Comic-con. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 30#Comicon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Venue Notes

The article says that it was held a number of places before 1991. As Golden State Convention, wasn't it held at one point in Anaheim? Or maybe it was already Comic Con. I note the table (that still contains a number of errors corrected in the article itself) has two events listed in the same year (July and Nov), I think that happened in one or more other years, with an Anaheim event. I was pretty young at the time, and had stumbled into it, so I have no memorabilia as evidence, but I do have a pretty clear recollection.172.248.187.160 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)172.248.187.160 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comic-Con was held at the San Diego Convention and Performing Arts Center at Civic Center Plaza, a block north of Horton Plaza on Broadway, before the San Diego Convention Center (per se) opened. The article appears to conflate the two venues in the table showing Comic-Con at the SDCC for years before the SDCC was built. I don't know when the con moved to the SDCC, so I can't fix the article, but if someone knows of a convenient source, it would be good to make that correction. There must be something in the con programs, progress reports, etc., if there's a central location for them. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"Comicon"

Anyone know what's the deal with https://www.comicon.com/ ? They claim to hold trademark to "The World's Biggest Comic Book Convention (TM)", despite nothing on the site to indicate they actually put on a comic book convention. Apparently it's been around since the late 90's and used to bill itself as a "virtual comics convention". Seems like there would have been some legal sparring between them and SDCC at some point? Walkersam (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

largest annual comic and pop festival in the world

It is mentioned that „the event holds several Guinness World Records including the largest annual comic and pop culture festival in the world“. This does not make sense because Comiket is five time larger. Before somebody wants to argue: manga ARE comics, its just the translation. --2003:C8:6F11:D100:A4F9:69D2:D552:45BA (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris@Arvin 2290 2001:D08:2300:2C6E:1765:2DA5:A70F:ABC6 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Diego_Comic-Con/Archive_1&oldid=1173537092"