Talk:List of conventions by attendance

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Needs more data. -- Siege(talk) 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean like the data that might be found at the AFCIS? :-) ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

FWA on this page shows 557 people in 2006, but the FWA wiki page says 563. Unsure which one is right. --Brody

Fixed. Spaz Kitty 08:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing this page, or a page like this one, listing conventions historically by attendance. That would show more accurate data instead of just ranking cons by their most recent popularity. For example, Megaplex attendance peaked in 2005 with 387 attendees, but it only appears on this list as #10 with 185 from this year. This makes the list inaccurate because it is not clear that it's showing only the convention's most recent year. (That is, one would expect a ranking by attendance to list the con's -best- attendance.) Any thoughts? skippyfox 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean kind of like the Anthropomorphic Fandom Convention Information Sheet?----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Minimum requirement?[edit]

So I noticed that we now have conventions with as few as 4 attendees on this list - does this really constitute a 'convention'? I mean, I've been to furry get-togethers with more than 5 people (for example, Tiger Paw regularly holds big parties), but I wouldn't go so far as to list them as a true 'convention'. Spaz Kitty 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While it's been a long time since this question was posed, I'd like to direct those coming across this in the future to check out this discussion on Template_talk:Conventions where this was discussed in depth and some consensus reached about what qualifies. -- BlueOtter 15:24, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Most recent MFM data?[edit]

There doesn't seem to be data for attendance at MFM XII (2008) anywhere on this site. Does anyone have an updated attendance record for it? I really doubt it dropped from 2007 to 2008. -Ian The Cowboy Fox 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What belongs on what list[edit]

There are a couple of things about how the list is managed that seem to merit discussion:

  1. Some of the "conventions" listed might not really qualify as conventions and as such should probably be removed from the list. See Template talk:Conventions for a more detailed discussion.
  2. Cape May Fur Meet might be the first instance of a "devolved" event, i.e. an event that was in the past considered a convention and which still occurs but which no longer qualifies as a convention. Shall we add these to the "Discontinued or cancelled events" section?
  3. How long should we keep recently cancelled events on the main list, especially while there is a possibility they may only be skipping a year? When I've maintained the list in the past, I've left them in the main list for at least a year after the last occurrence, and usually until the end of the following year. My thinking is that an event that skips one year should never have to leave the main list. I don't think FA: United! ever did when it skipped a year. By those criteria, RBW 2010 should still be on the main list since it was less than a year ago and is currently planned to happen again in 2012. Nakamacon is more iffy since it was over a year ago but I think it too should be allowed to remain until we have a more definitive statement that it's not coming back (or at least until the end of 2011).

Thoughts? Dissenting opinions? --mwalimu 12:21, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

CONCUR:I agree with your first point - the definition of a convention vs other types of gatherings should be uniformly applied to lists across the Wiki. I agree with you that "devolved" events should be treated as "discontinued", though the title of this list probably needs to be changed to make it more inclusive to encompass such events. For your third point, I would suggest 24 months would quality a cancelled convention as 'dead', and would allow the examples you provided to remain for comparative purposes until they would be most unlikely to reoccur. BlueOtter 14:51, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree with removing Cape May Fur Meet from the main list. However, I think FA: United was an exception. Most events, once in a state of suspension, do not return in subsequent years, and keeping them in the list is misleading. Perhaps we could change "ongoing events" to "active events" and remove any dubious ones to "recently inactive"? --GreenReaper(talk) 15:22, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
First, let me apologize for the edits before clarifying this point. I didn't read the notes in the editor. Where would Elliott's Winter Carnival, Summer Celebration, and Fall Festival fit in this list? According to the rules above, I'd think they should be combined. The thing I'm curious of, however, is whether or not they should be added with or apart from Elliott's Spring Gathering. The non-spring events are completely different than the spring event, other than the fact that they're run by the same group. Thoughts? --Mamu Dingo 15:59, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Since it's come up again with regard to Furry Connection North, should an event that has been cancelled remain on the main list until one year has passed since the last occurrence, or at least until the end of the year if it was within the current year? --mwalimu 18:34, 3 September 2013 (EDT)
Not unless the section title is changed. It is clearly not an ongoing event if it has been discontinued. If there were more question about whether another group would be taking on FCN, I could see us leaving it there. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:47, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Per continent?[edit]

I think it might be useful to list events per continent or geographical area, because many events elsewhere are being 'buried' by the overwhelming amount of events in the US. Personally I would like to see a list containing only European events, it would make it much easier to compare. Rua Whitepaw 06:27, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Registration vs attendance[edit]

Many, if not most, furcons sell registration in advance. This allows a claim of "xxx furs have now registered". However, this is not the same as attendance. Firstly, some of those registered may not attend for one reason or another, which means a reduction in attendance. Secondly, many cons sell "on the door" tickets which don't in the original registration figure.

Do one day attending tickets "count" as much as a three-day full registration ? Are we, in fact, just counting the number of "bodies" that pass through the doors ? In addition, are registration figures acceptable here if there are no actual attendance figurs available ?

Bezel 10:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

My understanding is that attendance is the number of people who have been to the convention at some point while it is going on, so yes, one-day attendance counting the same as three-day. I'd expect registration number (with a footnote if it's only the number of pre-registrations) to be the same as attendance number, generally. I don't think events usually count the physical crowd. -- Sine 13:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I would term both preregistration passes and at-the-door tickets both as registrations - total number of registrations regardless of time (one day vs whole weekend). I would presume to only report on preregistration figures if the event posts no updated total for all registrations, or for events like Campfire Tails that offer no at-the-door registration option. I do not think number of bodies would be an appropriate figure to count to account for those who 'ghost' a convention (fail to register but trade badges or otherwise illegitimately gain access to convention areas) or only show up to socialize in public areas without registering for a badge, as those estimates are so variable, they provide little utility for comparative purposes. Posting total attendance aside from registration is less useful, in my opinion, as a convention in a large city can potentially host a public tent or table in a busy place to interact with non-registrants, but it speaks little to the convention's success or actual engaged registration / membership. BlueOtter 15:16, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Any reason to include cancelled events?[edit]

I can't see any reason to include cancelled events, which by definition would not have been attended. -- Sine 19:28, 6 February 2013 (EST)

Table format[edit]

Some recent edits by Seadragom changed the format of the main list to a table format. It looks nice but because of the rank column in particular I'm concerned that it will require a lot more nitpicky busywork every time a convention moves up or down the ranks, or especially when one is added to or removed from the main list. There would also be more line-by-line editing required when moving entries from the main list to one of the other lists, such as the one for conventions lacking recent updates (and at this writing there are several in the main list dating to 2016 or older that really should be moved there). I'm especially concerned that less experienced editors, and those with less time to tweak and refine their edits, might just decide it's more trouble than it's worth and leave it to someone else, which some of the time will mean no one else.

If there's a way to have the rank numbers be automatically generated and to update automatically, that would be a huge help. Unless that can be done, I'm afraid the article could end up becoming a big mess. --mwalimu (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

I think it's less work than you'd think initially - cons swap places all the time, it doesn't require massive refactoring unless new conventions appear or old ones disappear. As far as differences to the old list go, it's not *hugely* different, just has a bit more markup. I did have a look to see if there's a way of automatically numbering lists - seems like there might be in newer, visual MediaWiki editors but since the version we're using here is somewhat behind the likes of Wikia or Wikipedia I don't think it exists - more than happy to be proven wrong on this one though! Although even on Wikipedia, if we consider an article like "list of highest mountains" it seems they still have the rank.
Of course, with the table being sortable, if it's really a problem and is bothering people then I'd suggest just removing the numbers column altogether and moving the size column to the left and setting it as the default sort. It'll be less work, but also more difficult for people to see what rank a specific convention is in overall.
The other thing to consider as well is that, are you looking for a page to be presentable or easy to edit? If a Wiki is to take itself seriously it can't realistically be taking shortcuts on pages like this, as tempting as the idea might be. Of course, I can always volunteer myself to support the page, but that's never going to be a longer-term solution. Seadragom (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2018 (EDT)