Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of furry conventions/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [1].

List of furry conventions

[edit]
Toolbox

Well written, and has pictures and citations. If you have concerns, please address them. And, I will fix them as soon as possible. Thanks. miranda 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, look at the "discontinued conventions". I put the recent dates for the conventions because those where when they were last held. miranda 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you should remove the Date column then, since you or someone else will have to update the list every time a convention is over. If there is a extremely good encyclopedic reason why the Date should be there, throw it on me. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held. Also, not to be a bother, but, your sig is over the signature limit. Could you please change the length? Thanks. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you or someone else will have to update the list every time a convention is over. Could you just at least change the column name to something else? Date could be all the dates, or the event was only for that period of time. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really won't be a problem, since some of Wikipedia's articles will be updated everyday. Sure, people and I will update the article once conventions are over with. miranda 08:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But could you rename the Date column into something more specific with the reason above? Thanks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. :) miranda 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh...ok...can you at least tell the readers what the column is for? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Next held" would be a more descriptive title? Or "Date occurring", since it may have been held without a new date being announced. GreenReaper (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the "Next held" idea, but some dates are the last ones. I think you should just put a note for those that are most recent. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Citations to WikiFur are reliable, since it's relevance to the subject matter. And, people who sponsor these conventions post on this website? miranda 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the link says. "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." (italics mine). How do we know that the people who post on the website are reliable? You would have to prove their reliablity as dictated by WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Miranda's defense, if there's anywhere that has reliable information other than the convention sites or staff journals, it's WikiFur. We're a wiki, but we have a community of experts. We get details like attendance directly from people who run or attend the convention, normally within a day or so (I chase a few con chairs up every year to ensure that our timeline is complete). We also cite multiple sources if we think official ones may be questionable.
There are probably some conventions without any other published sources for this information. Unfortunately updating websites is usually the last thing people have on their mind after a con. They also have a habit of throwing away their old websites every year, so it can be hard to keep the primary source around. You may be able to find attributable reports in our list of convention resources.
The ones least likely to keep good records also tend to be the smallest, which may help if it is necessary to exclude them. GreenReaper (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that the information is accurate? Anyone can edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that information posted on any website is accurate? Some of these events are at the level where the official website is one page of HTML, and good luck getting media coverage of a foreign event involving 200 people. In some cases, we are the only source available. If that's not good enough, I suggest you ask those concerned directly, like I do. GreenReaper (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can never be 100% sure of any source's reliability, so we have to go off what is more likely to be reliable by looking at their reputation and methods. For example, the New York Times is an established publication with a reputation for fact-checking; therefore, it is considered a reliable source. For less well-known sites, an about page or proof that the site is supported or owned by a large publishing company is helpful. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. I've been here a while, I know how it works. :-)
WikiFur has run almost four years now. It has original news coverage and even a convention coverage checklist. I believe it is highly reliable on the topic of furry convention attendance. However, there may be no sources you consider reliable to back this statement up. There are occasional links from newspapers, but given that the last time the site was mentioned it was called an image archive, I feel they lack authority in this area.
WikiFur was never intended to be completely verifiable; given its topic, the site would exclude 90% of potential content with such a policy. I encourage you to make your own determination of its reliability, perhaps based on comparison of our figures for those events which do have other sources. The references concerned only rely on WikiFur because editors know of no better source. GreenReaper (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WikiFur. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Someone has replied to the effect that WikiFur has no reliability and the direct citation should be used whenever possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the latter. The former may be the only conclusion possible within Wikipedia's definition of reliability as a function of verifiability. GreenReaper (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • In major conventions, attendees receive a bag with a convention book (or conbook), a lavishly illustrated volume featuring themed artwork, fiction and articles submitted by members and the Guests of Honor, along with a description of the event's programming, staff, rules, guests and any charity being supported by the convention. - this sentence has a lot of punctuation, it would be best to split this up in some way because it reads akwardly.
I split the sentences into two. miranda 08:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not summarize the list itself very much. I.e. first/most recent conventions in each geographical region or where they are held, etc.
Introduced in the late 1980s, furry conventions originated in California, with ConFurence. I'll add more later. miranda 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well until then, I can't support because this is substantial to the prose of FLs.--TRUCO 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references column should be unsortable.
Can you please help me with that, because I am kind of a intermediate n00b on that issue. miranda 08:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Sorting#Making a column unsortable.--TRUCO 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed. miranda 01:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all browsers can handle 3 reference columns, see {{reflist}}
I will do two. However, I tried with IE and Firefox. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will do. Thank you. miranda 08:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I probably won't get around to a full review today, but please check the article for MOS and prose glitches:

  • Date ranges should use en dashes, see WP:DASH.
Fixed. miranda 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the conventions should be in present tense and the discontinued should be in past tense. miranda 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But these conventions still exist; it should be "Run and staffed..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed those. miranda 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How it should look (800px width)
Can you be more specific about what you find to be "not readable" about it - are we talking about a physical readability issue, a clipping problem, or something else? If it is a technical issue, what browser and what OS you are using? I have attached a picture of how it should look.
The original table is unusable on small/low-resolution devices (anything lower than 1024) - for example, at 800x600 the description of Anthrocon is spread across 17 vertical lines (as opposed to four in the redesign). The intent of the changes is to split the combined description and references onto a second row, where they can make full use of the width of the table, while decreasing its minimum width. The date column was placed to the left so that both it and the name could remain sortable (sortable tables don't like colspan in general).
Aside from compatibility with handheld devices/netbooks, I feel this makes it more readable, and makes better use of the space available, as it ensures that you don't have a five or six-line paragraph stuck in one corner (which happens even on higher resolutions). This will become increasingly relevant as further details are added to those sections over time.
The comment about Chrome in the history is in relation to a clipping issue; it does not imply that it was intended solely for Chrome, just that it was one browser I was testing on. The design was prototyped on Firefox. I am aware of the "grey line extending into the second row" issue in IE7 and I am actively working on fixing it. There is also a flow issue on the Windows 7 build of IE8 (Beta 2), but that has been fixed in IE8 RC1.
And if you're referring to readability of the wikitext itself - I agree completely, but it can be converted to a template used by each convention entry, potentially ending up quite a bit more readable than before. I just didn't have time to fix table issues and do that last night. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you can revert me back. miranda 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm....well, I kind of like how it's formatted now, but you can ask other people if they object to the formatting issue. miranda 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The initial version laid the information out in a clear manner, but it demanded too much in the way of width, and caused the height of items to vary wildly depending on the description. You can resize your browser window to see how it looks as screen size decreases (30% of WikiFur users are on 1024x768; it still functions at that width but is definitely getting longer). The challenge is to make it as clear while also allowing it to occupy less space.
I'll have a go at fixing it up to use templates and improving the presentation of both the wikicode and the displayed table later tonight when I get off work, incorporating all your changes to that point. I'm reasonably confident we can reach a version that everyone is happy with, even preserving the images on the side. GreenReaper (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now implemented this. The relevant templates are {{furry-con-list-start}}, {{furry-con-list-start}}, and {{furry-con-list-end}}. The initial versions of these correspond to the original table style. Changes can be made to the list page containing the data without affecting the formatting, and vice versa. GreenReaper (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-implemented the style changes I made earlier using these templates, along with a few tweaks (adding a bit of padding, hacking around the column line on IE and turning the background of the second row white to distinguish it from the next item). You can see a comparison of the designs on my Nokia N800. This is admittedly a contrived example, but it's not that far-fetched. GreenReaper (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of ISO date format is very confusing, especially for the date ranges. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? There's only one possible interpretation of an ISO date. It also happens to be sortable; the original format was not, even though it was in a sortable column. GreenReaper (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dates should NOT be in ISO, but following this format. miranda 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as it says right there: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness." Now, it is unfortunate that the - (hyphen) in the middle of there conflicts with the wish to use – (en-dash) to indicate a multi-day event; this is why I used . instead of - to separate the day, month and year. I'm open to other representations that are easier to understand while maintain conciseness and sortability, but I things like "September 29 - October 2, 2009" are both too long and unsortable. GreenReaper (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to make regular date formats sortable, using {{dts}}. The date formats themselves aren't confusing as such, but the ranges are messy. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • As a worldwide Encylopedia, is there a reason the article is structured as US and "rest of the world", as though a dichotomy? Are Furry conventions a particularly US phenomenon, requiring that the US is treated differently? Furry conventions happen all over Europe (UK editors remember Eurotrash on Ch4?) - is the rest of the world list really comprehensive? Only 2 in the UK, which is 1/5 the size of the US?
    • It would probably be OK to merge them. I think the main reason we had them separate to start with was that attendance was very different (more tens and low hundreds than hundreds and thousands) and it would not be fair to compare a non-North American con to those in other areas. The original list came from WikiFur's timeline of attendance, so it was particularly intended to display that factor. And yes, there really are only two in the UK. There's not such a history of big sci-fi conventions over the pond, and furry fandom was relatively unorganized there until RBW and ConFuzzled started up, although there are some long-running and well-attended furmeets. India and China are far more populous and don't have any! :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an un-needed scrollable box in the table that should be removed (i assume the text in it was shortened?)
    • Can you be more specific about the box? What browser are you seeing this on and what OS? (Maybe a screenshot?) There is a scroll directive there - it was added to prevent IE from clipping off the text, and the scrollbar should not actually show up as there is enough space; but there may be another way of doing it. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox with XP, at 1280 x 1040 px. I see scroll bars under the descriptions for FA:United (in New Jersey) and Furry Fiesta (in Texas). Did you check this at different font sizes? I use the one larger than default for example. Can think of any other reason. But why are they needed? I cannot actually scroll anywhere - all the text is visible already.
  • The dates look unappealing and confusing to me. Hidden sort key should be used, then the date can be formatted in any way, which keeping sortability. Isn't there even a specific date sort key template?
  • Considering it is a sub-article, is there a need for such a long lead. Sticking to WP:LEDE is not the be all and end all, but this one is the length of some Good Articles. Some of the info given seems very specific to certain cons. Yobmod (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the long lead would be necessary, because past FLs have a long lead before the list. miranda 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good introduction to the subject is always welcome, but there are no rules saying that it must all be in the lead. Many other FLs have (short) prose sections after the lead but before the list itself. Thelead only needs enough detail to introduce the topic, so an ignorant reader like myself can understand what is being listed and why. More information might be needed, but can go to a prose section.Yobmod (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that "Nähe von Hamburg" is not a place, it is a description. Should be tranlated as "Near Hamburg".
Okay, I will change. Thank you. miranda 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Ref #3's title is different from the actual title of the webpage
Taken out. miranda 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date format is incorrect. It should be YYYY-MM-DD, rather than YYYY.MM.DD according to MOS:NUM, though I fail to see why they need to be in the ISO 8601 format at all
Yes, I agree with this, and changed it, but Green Reaper wanted to change it back to the ISO. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the way in which you had done so broke the ability to sort by date. GreenReaper (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you do it like MOS:NUM suggests, and do {{sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}} Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)
Right. And it wasn't done like that. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsitency when the list states "Canada" when they take place in Canada, but not "America", "US" or "U.S." when in the US.
Took Canada refs. out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took that out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrolling in the Camp Feral! and Mephit Furmeet entries should be removed per WP:ACCESS and other MOS guidelines
I can't see via Firefox, but I do agree that the scrolling should be taken out. miranda 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sponsored by the Northeast Anthropomorphic Association and community website Fur Affinity, FA: United had 310 participants during the first year in 2007. sounds too much like an advertisement
Took the advertisement out. miranda 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning in 2005, the only furry convention held on a cruise ship. is not a complete sentence
Made it a complete sentence. miranda 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2008, sponsored New Leash On Life and Pays De L'ours. is also not a complete sentence, and it is unclear whether the convention sponsored the two, or if they sponsored the convention
completed the sentence. miranda 04:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out. 03:58, miranda 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Per MOSNUM, (post by registration coordinator on 2006-11-20 needs recasting with the date written in words because it is part of a sentence
  • from 2008 to 2009 -- should be "between 2008 and 2009", I believe.
  • I stopped about halfway down the page because there's no point repeating myself for other list entries that do the same.

On a more general note, The Lede is well written, but the convention descriptions need work. Are they supposed to be reviews, summaries, or what? Many of them are extremely flowery and read like advertisements.

I'm unhappy about the number of primary sources for the conventions, especially those WP:SPS hosted on sites such as Geocities, LiveJournal, etc. There are also a number of references that still point to WikiFur, which has been determined at WP:RS as an unreliable source. The list should establish notability for each and every convention by use of reliable sources as Dabomb87 described above. If they haven't been covered by reliable secondary parties, they're probably not notable enough for inclusion, just as they're not notable enough for an article (I presume, otherwise they would have articles). Further to that, notability isn't inherited, and so even those conventions with articles should use secondary sources in this list to establish notability, rather than expecting the reader to click on the link to see if that article does it. Right now the page looks like Wikipedia is providing notability for the conventions, and it shouldn't be that way. I understand that this may be difficult based on the subject, but Featured status is not something that is easily attained either.

Secondly, it appears as if the authors wish to provide a guide for furry fans or potentioal convention attendees. I come to this based on the flowery, advert-type descriptions and what the nominator said above, "The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held." Same as with our episode lists which are also subject to fan attention, the list should not pander to this audience, but provide encyclopedic information to any potential reader such as one who may click on Special:Random.

The specific concerns should be fairly easy to address, but my other concerns I think may be more problematic. I hope you're not too disappointed, but at the moment I don't think it's ready. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not disappointed at all, myself; I know it is a high standard to meet (that's why it has a reward), and I appreciate the detailed feedback. I think the tone of a few of the list entries is more to do with anons who added them; regardless, it's something to address.
I don't personally see it as a bad thing for encyclopedia articles (or lists) to serve the needs of the most likely audience, as long as they satisfy other audiences as well. I'm a little surprised at all the date-hate; yes, this means the list needs updating regularly, but "when is it?" seems like a rather important item of information for almost any event (consider Wikimania).
The entries are meant to be summaries of known information relevant to a convention's notability - the sort of things you'd see in an article lede. Attendance might be split out into a separate column; it's something every convention should have, and is presumably of encyclopedic interest (so you can easily turn it into a list of conventions by attendance).
I would appreciate details of the browser/version/OS combination that exhibits scrolling, as it is not something I am seeing. GreenReaper (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have several featured lists which are kind of categorized as to the Special:Random category. miranda 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not of the date-hate camp. I didn't think I came across that way, but the date format is incorrect. For sortability, do "{{sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}" Perhaps the way to satisfy people is to just give the date of the last convention, not the date of the forthcoming one. Again, referencing TV shows, unaired episodes rarely get articles until very close to the airdate and FL episode/season lists do not list episodes until they have aired. Same with FL discogs -- unreleased albums and singles are disallowed, even if the release date is confirmed. A wikt:convention, is a meeting or a gathering of people. If the people haven't gathered yet, the convention hasn't happened.
My reply re: notability is not different from what I stated earlier, but I do think an attendance figure would be better more encyclopedic than a slogan and may help to establish notability. The problem with that is who is providing the figure? The convention organisers themselves? May they be likely to falsely "up" their numbers to make it appear as if their convention is more popular that it is?
I will upload an image with regards to the scrolling. I believe it is because of the templates being used in the tables and the images next to the table. The template probably has some size/resizing issue.
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Furry list.png. I am using Firefox 3, Win XP SP2, 1024×768, 19" monitor. I will delete the image when the FLC has closed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the picture. I'll try and reproduce that particular setup. The issue is likely to be the use of the scroll CSS parameter, which was used to get around a (worse) clipping issue with IE. In theory the scrollbars should not actually show up, but browsers vary. There may be another way to avoid the clipping problem.
ConFurence had governance issues; figures from it, at least up to the turn of the century, should be regarded as "best estimates". To the best of my knowledge, this problem has disappeared with the advent of non-profit organizations keeping computerized records. There's the occasional debate about official figures of all kinds; so far they've turned out to be either within expectations or fundamental shifts mirrored a later at other events. Obviously, there's pressure to look good, but any organization caught falsifying records would face an internal and external backlash. Public financial filings from the larger conventions tally with their reported growth, and those not doing so well have reported declines. However, attendance may only be reported verbally at the closing ceremonies. WikiFur gets this figure within days, if not hours, but it's hit or miss as to whether the convention's website is updated, and not all publish historical figures. GreenReaper (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with USER:Matthewedwards. I expected a list at this title to be a list of notable and/or recurring conventions, but this seems more of a guide to this years & upcoming conventions. As it can be expected to double (at least) in size each year with the current format, I think that it would be best refocussed on notable/recurring conventions, and seperate lists made for 2008/2009 (although they may fail WP:NOTDIR). I suspect that this is also the reason there have been lots of comments, but not supports/opposes - the whole focus of the list seems wrong for a FL. I think that such a drastic overhall would be too much work, considering it is already in the "urgently needs revies" box. So i'm going to say oppose at this time, with no predudice agains a list of recurring/notable conventions in the future.Yobmod (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of recurring conventions. Events intended to be one-offs are not included. The growth rate is more like one or two events a year (perhaps three if you consider the discontinued event section). GreenReaper (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it a list of recurring conventions, i think the date should be the last column, not the first, and should be renamed "Date of last con" or somesuch. There should also be an indication how long they have been going in the table imo. This is more encylopedic than the date of the last/next con - cons with 10 year history are qualitatively different from those with 2 years, so this should be easily seen.Yobmod (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it's at the front is due to deficiencies in the sortable table algorithm's handling of colspan - if I put it later, sorting got screwed up. The date of the first convention might also be appropriate. GreenReaper (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_furry_conventions/archive1&oldid=1140113807"