Talk:Anthrocon 2010

call me crazy, but this is way too much in the future to even have an article. We don't know what will happen to Anthrocon or anything by this time...--Kewne 08:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to keep, since (I presume from the linked FAQ) their current contract with the hotel and convention center extends to 2010. Things can always change, but I think having a date officially announced is concrete enough to keep the stub.  2011 and beyond, probably not at this point. --Riismo 14:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no obvious reason for Anthrocon to go away, so if we have the information we might as well put it here. Heck, some people might actually want to use this to plan their vacations. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that having a specific date is sufficient for there to be a stub, although I think it could be worth marking the future events differently (perhaps with italics) on the convention template. Also, for consistency, I think all conventions which have not yet occured should be in Category:Proposed conventions rather than just in Conventions. -- Sine 19:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The naming for that sounds wrong . . . how about "Planned conventions"? Some conventions are "proposed" in that separate groups bid for them, but that is not how most ongoing furry conventions are done. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Proposed conventions already exists, and has for some time. I prefer it to Planned conventions; frankly, I get the idea that various conventions are proposed but not necessarily planned at (and then on they go into Category:Cancelled conventions. -- Sine 20:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice that Category:Proposed conventions contains (and logically seems to be the place for) conventions that haven't happened at all yet. For future years of conventions that have happened at least once (and are probably significantly more likely to happen than ones simply at the idea stage) perhaps something different would be more fitting, although I can't think of a good name for it.  Maybe Category:Scheduled conventions, but that comes with some other confusion as well. --Riismo 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should bite the bullet and make a separate category for each convention which has articles for each year. Anthrocon 2010 would then be in Category:Anthrocon, a subcategory of Category:Conventions. Only Anthrocon would be directly in Category:Conventions. This would help with the overcrowding of that category, which is only going to get worse over time. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, GreenReaper, because this article and other articles about conventions which have not yet occured should be in Category:Proposed conventions, and at least one article, Conifur Northwest 2006, is in Category:Cancelled conventions. Also because having, say, Anthrocon being a subcategoy of Conventions, and the article Anthrocon within that categeory, breaks a pattern when shorter-running or first-year conventions such as but FA: United would continue to be directly within Category:Conventions. And to Riismo, I don't think not-yet-occured conventions should be in a different category depending on wheather it is a first year event or a continuation of a series. Again, I point to Conifur Northwest 2006. -- Sine 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Proposed" just feels like the wrong wording for it, though. In my mind, a proposed convention is not an instance of an ongoing convention - it is a new one that has never happened. The future instances of Anthrocon are not just proposed - there is a greater expectation that they will occur. And there is no problem with having Conifur Northwest 2006 in Category:Conifur Northwest - you just put Conifur Northwest and Category:Conifur Northwest into Category:Cancelled conventions instead. It is not just Conifur Northwest 2006 that is canceled, after all - it is Conifur Northwest in general. As for your "also", we would not remove Anthrocon from Category:Conventions simply because it has a subcategory as well. We would move Anthrocon 2006 to the subcategory, because it is an instance of a convention, and not "the whole thing". Anthrocon would probably also be in Category:Anthrocon (perhaps piped with a *) so that people could easily get to that category. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, we contracts with both venues (or at least the Right of First Refusal) through 2010. This is because venues of that size are reserved years in advance. And yes, we really do get questions about when the convention will be held in future years. That's part of the reason why I originally created those articles. --Douglas Muth 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)