Talk:Califur

Dubious Tag Removal

I have removed the dubious tag from the Califur X posting as all of the information is posted on the Califur website regarding GOHs and Special guests. Links are below: http://califur.com/guests-of-honor-goh/ http://califur.com/guests-of-honor-goh/special-guests/

SiriusKarma

I have removed the Patron and Sponsor Listings, I dont feel that they should be posted in a publicly indexible format unless you can contact each one of them and ask for permission, there is a reason Califur doesnt Publish this information on its webpage. --Alohawolf 12:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Was the list published in your conbook? If so, I'm going to have to disagree with the removal of them, because if it's okay to publish their names in the conbook, it should be okay to publish their names here.  --Douglas Muth 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. Indeed, I just found it by searching on Google.


 * We've had some people remove their own names individually, and I don't see a problem with them doing that (I tend to adjust it so that it just has it as a HTML comment that is not displayed on the resulting page, e.g. Person 1, &lt;!-- Person 2, --&gt;, Person 3 ). However, if they supported a convention, I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned unless they have a problem with it themselves. After all, they paid good money for that status. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, I must strongly object to the removal of patrons and sponsors from this page for the following reasons:
 * Their names were already published on Calfur's own website, as GreenReaper noted
 * I do not see any moral, ethical, or legal issues by reposting this issue here
 * I think that our listing of peoples' names in this regard should mirror our exclusion policy. If individuals do not wish to be listed, they can contact us individually and we will remove their names.  I think it is a Bad Idea to not publish an entire list somply because a small number of people might object.


 * My 2 tuna. --Douglas Muth 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

At least for Califur.0 and Califur.1, it should stay offline as we never published it on our webpage, and we do retain copyright on the conbook, however that isnt where the issue lies, for Califur.0, and to a lesser extent Califur.1, the names were printed soley as Legal Names, due to human error, we are trying to determine how they ended up being listed on the webpage, because it ought not be. --Alohawolf 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Copyright covers expressions of ideas, not facts. A list of names is just factual data, unless it is arranged in a particularly novel manner, and is thus not subject to copyright. If they were, it would be illegal to write that list of names for any other purposes, which is obvious not the case. On the other hand, copying a recipe from a recipe book (whether including the list or not) would be an infringing act, as it is an expression of the recipe, which is an idea.


 * I agree that it would be unfortunate if legal names were used when that was not the intention. Thanks for adding back the fandom names of those sponsoring Califur 2. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I need to note, it has been taken off the Califur Page until we can determine Status.. however, I have edited the list I reposted enough, that it can stay on the page.. and hopefully within a few days, they will match. --Alohawolf 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The list on the Webpage, and the list on the Wikipage for Califur.2 should match now, I would rather the names for Califur.0 and Califur.1 remain offline, due to the difficulty in replacing the fan names with real names.

--Alohawolf 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove Instance Paragraphs
I would propose moving the history items for each convention year off this page, integrating any missing information into the specific instance pages already linked from this one, and then renaming the Origins section to History to more generally describe the convention as a whole. BlueOtter 11:16, 8 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Making those changes would fit the usual structure. -- Sine 12:44, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

I had attempted to do this editing and remove the instance paragraphs, but was denied. I would like access to be able to reformat this page a bit as it needs it.SiriusKarma


 * Agreeing with the change suggested above, but what was the attendance at Califur 0? Califur says 326 whilst Califur 0 says 328.--Higgs Raccoon (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2015 (EDT)

Wrong date for AltFurry Discord controversy
That happened in 2017, not 2016. --Equivamp - talk 20:16, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
 * My mistake. The Califur and Califur 2017 must match, if you wish I will step aside so you can edit without edit warring. - Spirou (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
 * No need; I've updated the article to reflect the proper year (plus a bit more info) and that's probably the extent of what I can add for now. I might see if I can find a backup copy Casey Hoerth's/Len Gilbert's "call to action" video (didn't have the foresight to archive it myself when I saw it before everything went down) but even that won't be added until later--edit away. --Equivamp - talk 20:54, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Califur 2017 Controversy (Removal)
The controversy surrounded Califur 2017 is heavily documented on its page, having it duped on the Califur page seems redundant and actually breaks the flow of the article. Thinking of streamlining the entry and remove the duplicate info, unless somebody has a good reason to hold it over on this page too. - Spirou (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (EST)
 * I would agree that it should be left for the Califur 2017 page, similar to how the chlorine incident at MFF 2014 is left out of Midwest FurFest but does appear on Midwest FurFest 2014. I see no reason for having two versions of the same incident on two different pages. --FrostTheFox (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2018 (EST)