Talk:AnimeCon

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

Previous AFD[edit]

The predecessor to this article had been deleted through the AFD process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimeCon --Farix (Talk) 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's an article whose time has come. There's some background info that probably SHOULDN'T be absorbed by the AX page. I also worked to overcome the notability concerns that plagued the original. Although, I unfortunately can't see the original page. Kensuke Aida 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a niche topic, I found this article interesting and informative. I worked at some of the early anime conventions, and it's nice to read about their history. I can see the argument that perhaps a single, small convention doesn't merit its own article. But as the direct ancestor of some of the largest anime conventions, I think it merits documenting. If the decision is made to drop this article, I hope the information will be integrated into another article. -- Seitz 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nobody has nominated it for AFD, so I think I dodged the bullet on this one. Most importantly, its notability has been firmly established. Kensuke Aida 08:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

...and everywhere I've seen it mentioned, it has been "AnimeCon", not "Anime Con". --PatrickD 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could presumably do a redirect to "AnimeCon" and edit instances of the word in the (currently) two articles that reference this one if somebody wants to set it up.
Kensuke Aida 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of being 2nd con[edit]

The article claimed this was the second con in the US. I've changed it to fourth and provided a reference link that shows it being such. --PatrickD 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know about Yamato-con or the first AniMagic (not to be confused with the existing one in California). AFAIK, the citation you listed can serve as confirmation about being the first in California, and for for the time being, the first with major industry backing. I also added it as being the first to break 1,000 people using your data. Thanks again for the editing/corrections Patrick. Kensuke Aida 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, AnimeCon actually had closer to 2600-2700 attendees than 2000. Now, admittedly, I'm going from ~15 year old memory. That being said, that's the # I recall getting from McLaughlin as we shut the con down. Cprael 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at issue here is that I can only go by what I can cite. 2,000 is cited according to Mike T. who can be considered a reliable source by most people (and especially in the period in question). If McLaughlin is still with us and wants to throw his hat into the ring, I'd welcome his input. Kensuke Aida 08:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Mike wants to pony up paper records, I'm just as reliable a source as Mike is, since I was running Ops Division for both 1991 and 1992, and was intimately involved in the running of both years. I'll see if I can get ahold of John and prod his memory.Cprael 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, except he'll have to publish them online outside WP so I can reference a source. Kensuke Aida 03:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, memories don't matter and would fall under WP:OR unless they can be sourced outside of Wiki. --PatrickD 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Mike published a 2,000 figure on rec.arts.anime as part of an official post advertising Anime Expo '92. It's not the most perfect citation (it's borderline WP:COI, although AnimeCon was basically dead by that point) but its the only one we have. This events in this article required a lot of research on my part because of the age of the convention in question. Internet wasn't that huge in '91. AnimeCon never had a web page. Part of the reason I pushed for this article is because source material is dwindling and people's memories are fading. Kensuke Aida 03:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I spoke with John privately (email), and it looks like the discrepancy is a "how you count" issue. The 2000 figure is apparently for paid atttendance. However, to quote John: "That 2600 figure may have been inclusive of staff and guests -- as you may recall, Gainax brought over a planeful of people... But I seem to remember 1900+ as the actual paid attendance, so Tatsugawa may actually be correct on that one ('cause after all, there were actual records that both Toren and Gainax had copies of). Let me check with Brin and Toren, as I'm sure their memories on that matter are probably better than mine (at present, my AnimeCon bankers box is in storage and not easily retrievable)." Which sounds about right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cprael (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It would seem to me then that the 2000 figure is fine. One thing I wanted to add though, but I'm unsure of its reliability is whether or not Toren Smith was at once point the temporary CEO after the actual convention but before it was dessolved. I had also heard that Gainax actually owned something like 5% of the corporate shares.
Also, if you really want to help me, I also need to better know exactly how and when the SPJA inherited a lot of AC's inventory and naming rights. Kensuke Aida 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 2000 figure is fine if you modify it to "Paid Attendance". If you're talking about total bodies in the door, you're still looking at that 2600 figure. Two different things.
As for Toren being temp CEO, I really couldn't comment. I was on the operations side of the house, not corporate (something I had to very pointedly get across to Toren at one point, but that's another story). Similarly, I couldn't really comment on the specifics of how/when SPJA acquired AC's inventory/rights. I was aware it happened, and that it was cool with John (and thus, by extension AC-corporate), but not the details. Sorry.Cprael 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag[edit]

I do not think the original research tag is proper. I would remove it myself, except that it may still be necessary to find more sources for one paragraph. Bearian 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AnimeCon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AnimeCon&oldid=1198758830"