Category talk:Conventions

Terminology
Some of the articles in Category:Conventions are terminology related to conventions, e.g. Artists Alley. Should those be in this category? If not, where do they belong? Mwalimu 19:31, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they can stay, for now. There's not enough pages about these terms that they are getting in the way of the other pages, and there's a bit too little to create a new category.  Don't make changes you don't need to, I think.  Almafeta 19:45, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up this category?
Looking down this category, I noticed that it's starting to become cluttered, mostly due to conventions with multiple years being mentioned multiple times.

I'd like to propose splitting up this category as follows:
 * Main articles about conventions would stay in this category. (Anthrocon, Califur, etc.)
 * Articles for specific convention years would be split off into seperate categories called "Conventions by year 200x", with this category as the parent.

The benefits of splitting up this category would be:
 * Easier navigation this category
 * An ability to navigate conventions by year. The yearly categories could also be tied in with our "births" and "deaths" categories.

What do folks think? Is this a good idea or am I way off? I figure I could implement all of this inside of an hour but would like a reality check from at least one or two others first. Thanks! --Douglas Muth 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have Category:Events by year. I don't think we need conventions by year specifically, at least not at this point. I'm leaning towards agreeing that taking conventions of a specific year article out of just Category:Conventions is good, although it feels worth noting that some gatherings have grown to conventions to events. -- Sine 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh! I hadn't even noticed that.  In that case, I like your suggestion better. :-)  --Douglas Muth 21:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a see also to Events by year at this category, and checking that each article is in an appropriate year event category along with removing the bald conventions category? Let's give this a few days for any further discussion, as it's a category issue. -- Sine 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. My only question is, what do you mean by "bald conventions" category...?  --Douglas Muth 21:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Conventions, of course. It is bald of specifics. -- Sine 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, well I think Category:Conventions is useful for convention articles that are not about specific years (Anthrocon and Califur come to mind), as well as serving for a parent category for the 5 sub-categories underneath it. --Douglas Muth 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely; I only meant removing the category from Anthrocon 2005 and the like, as you suggested. -- Sine 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for this. Perhaps we can make subcategories for the main conventions. Such as make an Anthrocon category and shuffle off all the specific Anthrocons into that to clean up this category. We can also include links to the staff and GOH categories. Thoughts?--Kendricks Redtail 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't strike me as too useful--the main convention articles already should have See alsos to staff and guest of honor categories, and they have the template by year. -- Sine 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the categories though. For people browsing through the categories, this could be easier and more organized?--Kendricks Redtail 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see why someone would prefer to go into a subcategory for, say, Anthrocon, and then onwards, rather than jsut clicking on Anthrocon and arriving at the main Anthrocon article, which clearly links to the Anthrocons by year. -- Sine 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true. I'm just trying to figure out ways to easier browse the categories as this whole discussion seems to be about. It's just an organization thing, really.--Kendricks Redtail 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would depend on how many topics were in it. If it were just the yearly entries, it doesn't make much sense. However, I can imagine the case where there are some things might not be mentioned in the Anthrocon article but which are clearly linked to Anthrocon. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of Conventions
I am in the process of creating a custom google map with pinpoints for each location of the hotels for known running conventions (based on the ones listed on this site). I started it at about 1:00 PM EDT today but it should be done fairly soon. I think this may be useful to post to this webpage. What do you all think? --Jouva 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already been done, I'm afraid. link Spaz Kitty 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I just noticed that as I came back. Oh well! --Jouva 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Further talk about subcategories
There is some discussion about subcategories of Category:Conventions going on over at Talk:Anthrocon 2010. -- Sine 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be discussed here. I believe we should to take the individual instances of each convention out of this category and put them into one or both of these:
 * Convention-specific categories such as Category:Anthrocon (which might contain other con-specific topics, like The Zoo and Adam's Mark)
 * Category:Convention instances - with subcategory Category:Upcoming convention instances for future instances of conventions that have previously occurred, as opposed to Category:Proposed conventions which contain events that have never occurred. Template:Timeline of conventions shows that while conventions can end, the majority have continued indefinitely; cases like Conifur Northwest 2006 are the exception to the rule.
 * In either case, the main articles about the ongoing conventions would remain in this category. Thoughts? --GreenReaper(talk) 03:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Category:Conventions for events (Blarg 2006, Blurge 8) and Category:Convention series for Blarg and Blurge, articles which describe the whole run of events? I don't think there's any way to have the wording not be awkward, but I think it's more intuitive to have the specific events in Conventions.
 * I would like to (continue to) see Conventions-which-have-happened separate from Conventions-which-haven't-happened yet in terms of categories. -- Sine 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The trouble I have with keeping all the specific events here is that it focusses on the more minor topic while relegating the major topic to a subcategory. From an encyclopedic perspective, I think the series as a whole is more interesting (though you can certainly find plenty to say about, say, Anthrocon 2007). If you asked a fur to name conventions, they would probably give the series names. On a practical note, keeping individual events here would not solve the problem of overcrowding which is making this category unwieldy. Perhaps it's not necessary to categorize them at all? They will already be under Category:2007 events and linked from the articles about the convention series. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tangent: Perhaps even with Conventions-happening-right-now... that would be transient of course but would be applicable a couple of days a year at least for most events, and signify excited editting / sudden outdatedness / more to come real soon. Although a template might be better I suppose, hmm, a template which put such a category on? -- Sine 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, a template would be suitable for that - like on Wikipedia. No reason we couldn't have that here. I don't see people using it as a pointer for things that are current events, though - that's more what Upcoming events on the front page is for. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another possible tangent: here's sitll the whole when does a gathering / furmeet / party turn into a convention bit... -- Sine 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What has defined a convention is people saying that they are running a convention and other people agreeing with them. Many events (some quite large ones) take great pains not to call themselves conventions. I believe naming something a convention strongly hints at elements of programming and/or some form of overnight residence, and preferably both. Historically we have stretched the point when there is only one major furry gathering in a particular country (TransFur springs to mind, though there is clearly programming there, and even some dealers). Conventions also tend to occur regularly but infrequently - usually once a year. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While my inclination is still to restrict convention to a specific sort of event, "what people call a convention" is a succinct definition and I am leaning towards agreeing that it should work for category purposes here...
 * I really like your idea above of having specific events (making up names is fun, I'm going to provide examples again: Spork 10 and Spoonerific 2007) in the Year events category and taking them out of Category:Conventions entirely. It sidesteps where events that haven't happened yet should be, and the occasional but persistent fuss about what is a convention!
 * One point might be a Spoonerific event which began as a little meet then grew up to a convention... I'd say stick with just Category:Conventions on the article. Similarly, an article about a person gets a category for that persona's current fursona species, without adding categories for past species. -- Sine 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I've removed individual convention instances from Category:Conventions, and modified all of the convention timelines to use Convention timeline header and Convention timeline footer. If we wish to have Category:Anthrocon etc. populated with those conventions and their convention instances, we merely need to add something like (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What defines a convention
I would like to make the suggestion that we define what a convention is.

Any three of the following four criteria:


 * More than 40 attendees
 * Rented Facility (Limited to Hotel, Meeting Hall, Convention Center, campground or other banquet hall, (specifically a space normally used for hosting an event (not a house))
 * Required preregistration or payment upon entry.
 * Publicized at least six months prior to the start of the event.

--Alohawolf 22:45, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

An even simpler definition:
 * While I don't argue that Aloha's suggestion is a reasonable definition, I believe that there is an even more precise difference between an event, and a convention:
 * "A convention, is an event which is overseen by a Corporation, rather than an individual."
 * The difference is significant, universal, and easily verified by outside parties such as ourselves.
 * --Woody (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (EST)


 * We had some discussion of this a few years back which may be found at Template talk:Conventions/Archive. I don't think the question of incorporation came up in that discussion and it's a good criteria, so thank you for bringing it up. I would ask if there are some smaller conventions that haven't incorporated but are generally considered conventions (events about the size of Gateway Fur Meet, which may or may not have incorporated, I have no idea). --mwalimu (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (EST)


 * I just checked with Rama, who oversees the Dealer Room, Art Show, Artist Alley, and he confirmed they are indeed incorporated. Arguably, since the creation of FCLR, everyone who plans on starting a convention, now has the resources to do it properly and as such, to the best of my knowledge, even the smallest conventions are now incorporated.--Woody (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (EST)


 * Given that ConFurence ran for a decade without incorporation (as far as I'm aware), and was widely recognized as the first furry convention, I don't think it can be seen as a universal component. It has been and remains possible to run a small furry convention as a sole proprietor, unincorporated association, etc., even if it might not be seen as advisable. What we can say is what we already do say on furry convention - most furry conventions are incorporated, typically as non-profit organizations. But it's said there, so we don't need to repeat the definition, just link to it. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:27, 22 February 2016 (EST)

Online conventions
What is the best way to deal with online conventions vs online events? I think it should meet the same requirements other than the physical "hotel/venue". While some online conventions were the result of canceled in-person events, others were birthed online from the get-go. Furality was not connected to an IRL convention, and while its second year it did pay VRChat as a venue, most other similar online conventions did not. VBLFC was also just announced as a separate event from BLFC and it's run as a separate convention than the physical one (rather than the replacement of the in-person event.) It would not meet the "six months notice" even though they have been working on it for months before the announcement. I think that if it fits the format of a convention other than lodging, it should count as a convention. Do we exclude conventions that canceled in person and just streamed to twitch/Livestream with no registration to view from the list of online conventions IE: Virtual Anthrocon? And while we are on the topic, what do we do with hybrid conventions? I am aware of plans for existing in-person conventions to utilize the format of online conventions (such as VRChat) to run a virtual and physical event at the same time with content synced both ways. This is what makes it complicated to maintain a separate list for online vs physical of existing conventions. It still makes sense to keep them separate in statistical pages like attendance ranks, but not in categorical lists like ongoing conventions. --Foxxer(talk) 4:10, 2 April 2021 (EST)