Talk:Anthrocon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment[edit]

Events section should be expanded to clarify things that are not self-evident, i.e. "Artists Alley" and "Masquerade"

Merge with Zoo (Anthrocon)[edit]

Merge Both articles are relatively short, and the Zoo (Anthrocon) is not notable in itself to be worth a Wikipedia article. Zelmerszoetrop 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this merge suggestion. GreenReaper 08:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I, the guy who wrote the article, don't mind either way if it's merged or not. I wrote it as a separate article because Anthrocon is getting to be a little long and wanted to add information to the parent article without making it lose flow and become bothersome to scroll through. If there is a concensus that merging it into Anthrocon won't make it begin to be too long, then go for it. However I disagree that it isn't "worth a Wikipedia article", I have been asked several times what the 'Zoo' is. FMephit 19:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends how much detail we go into. We do have a separate page for it on WikiFur, but then we have separate pages on most furry topics in WikiFur. I think the key is that it seems to be wholly related to Anthrocon, so it should be included in the Anthrocon article. If it was something that every furry convention had then that might be a different matter, but that doesn't appear to be the case. GreenReaper 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that one of the purposes for WikiFur is expansion of articles that do not meet the 'nobablity' pseudorequirement of Wikipedia, and because of that I think that it should remain unmerged there. As far as here, either merged or unmerged (I disagree with notability as an article requirement, but there might be other compelling reasons to merge) as is better for the article(s). I agree that it's only a part of AC and would fit in with the parent article, as long as adding it won't make it too winding. Anthrocon has had several editors, I don't know how many of them have an opinion on it. Also, I'm not familiar with other conventions in this fandom so it's possible that they have an analog to the Zoo and that might be something worth mentioning in the article/section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthrocon.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Anthrocon.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Original Research Tag?[edit]

Could someone please point out what is being referenced by this tag? I left a note on the talkpage of the user who stuck it in (Hi, if you're reading this! Thanks for coming by to help me out), but I'd like to get some other people's opinions of what might be referenced by it. Bengaley 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not my tag, but I'd guess the sections "Typical Anthrocon programming", "Themes for Anthrocon", and "The "Zoo"". --Sopoforic 21:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New Newspaper Sources[edit]

Well, it's another year. Right after Anthrocon, HUNDREDS of journals posted to LJ, DJ, FA, DA, and other places that I don't dare care to think of.

But also, the time to start looking for new articles. Right before, during, and after major conventions, local media tend to pick up on the happenings, and report on what's going on. These articles are useful to help expand the ammount of sources for conventions, and I'd like to start gathering them here to see if we can actually use them as sources for anything.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_515974.html was written on Friday, and goes over Myth vs Fact, mentions the 2.5 million that AC brings to Pittsburg, and has a bit of the interaction between Kage and the horrible horrible fail 7Chan raiders.

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A32443 Talks about Furry Tales, a musical that is being developed and was shown at AC. Not certain how much sourcing it can be used for this article aside from trivia (Inspired a play, balarny)...

Anyhow, these are just two that I can find right now. Anyone in Pittsburg, please step up with anything you can find! Bengaley 15:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny TV show reference to Anthrocon[edit]

I just watched a funny episode of "Back to You" on Fox, where a reluctant news reporter went to Anthrocon to interview some people in animal costumes and made fun of them with animal jokes. Later we see the reporter getting ready to leave and several people still in costumes approach him and threaten him. During his live interview, he is surrounded by them and nervously saying how wonderful it is. "It's so much fun, that in fact I am in danger..." *people turn and look at him "...of staying the whole weekend." JBR0807 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Further information at WikiFur:Business or Pleasure (though we don't have the bit at the end yet). GreenReaper (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-graded to C-class[edit]

I've moved this article down to C-class because I believe it no longer meets the tighter standards for B-class articles. The large lists may contain valuable information but do not help the article flow. In particular, a list is not appropriate for "typical Anthrocon programming". This section duplicates furry convention in most areas and does not elaborate on the exceptions, except for the Zoo (which should be one sub-section of a section detailing these differences). The news coverage also needs to be integrated into the body of the article or at least added as a separate section rather than languishing in external links. GreenReaper (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the lists of themes and guests of honor could be better presented as a combined historical table. GreenReaper (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The data dump for the attendance looks good in that spot. I think I'll move the Themes down to the Guests and form a by-year table there. Also, I'm going to invert the years to put them in ascending order. --That Grumpy Old Guy (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthrocon. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

TODO in prep for GA[edit]

  1. Check for grammar, readability, spelling, and MOS. Expand parts of the article where necessary.
  2. Check for valid references and add more where necessary.
  3. Check for unnecessary info and remove if found.
  4. Keep the article stable for as long as possible. Find and revert vandalism where possible.

Good luck to my fellow furry community! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthrocon. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anthrocon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no concern
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    no concern
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    There are 20 sources given, only 3 are not the convention's website. Of those three, Ranting-Gryphon is also a primary source. The other two are used to source ticket prices (Buzzfeed) and the income the convention brought to Pittsburg in 2009. Many additional third-party sources are needed to make this GA quality.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    no concerns
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concerns
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concerns
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Not all of the images are equally relevant. The last one is a picture of two guests from one year. Other guests aren't pictured at all, so this seems like undue weight. I'm not sure the other four enhance the article. The directors in the 2007 picture are not identified. If you feel this many image are needed, they should be formatted into a gallery, like the one at New York Comic Con#Gallery. The infobox caption lacks context - I shouldn't have to search the article to understand what ballgame its talking about. Is that logo specific to the 2017 con?
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    2B is a serious red flag. If that issue is addressed within seven days, I will complete the review. Otherwise, this will be a fail. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    No improvement. Failing review. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)