News talk:Further Confusion 2008 breaks fursuit parade record

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

Should the news article be renamed to something along the lines of "Further Confusion 2008 Concludes, breaks fursuit parade record", or even go as far as not keep the record breaking out of the title entirely? There's enough information in the article about FC '08 itself, and doesn't center around just the broken record. TBG 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the article was originally started because of that record, and to begin with just had that information. It was expanded later with further information. Ideally the title might have been changed; however, it was not. We typically would not rename a title more than a day or so after its publication. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Parade count[edit]

Strangely, on-site, FC staffers claimed only 364, the first 12 of whom were just people holding a dragon puppet and not actually fursuiters at all, and thus should not be counted. Was the number really only 352?

Watching the two videos that seem to be completely continuous footage: and , I count only 354 suits, keeping the following notes:

52 = green roo64 = croc 71 = fat tauren 103 = large white/black thing before blue 128 = white/grey husky red shorts 148 = blue arm/ear thing in chinese hat 163 = kiv 186 = last of CATS 167 red fox after CATS 170 red shirt 178 last cetacean 180 = jager? 188 = iago? 192 = dog in wagon 200 = floppy white rabbit in blue dress 215 = purple skunk in red dress 219 = dex 222 = box head guy (come on, that's not even a fursuit) 231 = dusty 242 = heavy panda in red kimono 255 = red/black panda 269 = roxicat 273 = blue coon 275 = sinatra 292 = dark thing in blue/white pimp robe 307 = tall cyan thing with blue spots 320 = heavy thing with white chest blue arms/legs dark blue spots 336 = reindeer, 337 = girl pushing panda on floor 354 = orange thing at the end!

This isn't counting the 14(?) people drumming and holding the dragon (they're not in fursuit either). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

The official count was 387, from this post. I have asked Frysco if he could explain how that official count was derived, and why it appears to differ from the video record - he's told me he will forward it to the people who did the count. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Has there been any update on this? If the number is indeed 354, then it would basically invalidate this entire article. I think we need to resolve this one way or another soon. --Douglas Muth 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has contacted me about it. Think we need to drop a note on the article informing readers that there is a question over the figure? --GreenReaper(talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that pending a response from FC, that would be a good idea. References in the form of YouTube videos were cited here, which I would imagine is a pretty good source. --Douglas Muth 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Frysco just prodded me about this. Apparently, he did respond in full later on 3 March. Unfortunately, it looks like Hotmail immediately junk-filed it (I get a lot of spam, so the settings are pretty high), and I didn't catch it in my normal review. My bad! I'd switch to Gmail, but it's done the same with Giza's mail . . . and though I don't use it much, it gets even more spam.
Frysco states that the person doing the count was seated in the Coffee Garden and counted each costume that passed by during the course of the parade. He suggests that different numbers could however have been recorded at different points in the parade route, because people can join and leave the parade at any time. One example that he gave was that that several fursuiters do not go through the dealer's room, either through lack of desire to or because it would be impractical given the size of their costumes (from my own experience, I would agree that it can get pretty cramped in there). He also said that some drop out during the parade but re-join it for the photoshoot. According to him, the number did not include the dragon dancers.
I'm going to replace the note at the top with a footnote summarizing this issue and linking the videos. The increase is high, but in line with the rapid increase seen elsewhere (for example, Anthrocon 2007 recorded 152 more than Anthrocon 2006). --GreenReaper(talk) 13:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the "official" number popularly floated around at FC itself was 364, and apparently contained both the non-fursuiter dragon people and mister silver box head, which is not an animal costume, and then later this "387" number popped up. And yet this camera in the youtube videos is positioned near the start of the parade just a few dozen meters down the hall from the outdoor congregation point all the suiters queued out of, and is apparently the only contiguous, provable video source of record. I would contend that if cons want to have an official number, it should probably be one based on evidence and not an anonymous "we promise." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Numbers given out at the con are good for immediate news reporting and getting a feel of the right number, but I've seen them differ from the "final official" values before. A random staff member going "I heard it was 364" does not count for much, especially when they probably got it from people who were hanging around at the start as well. If it was in the Furly News or otherwise published or announced as an official figure, that might be a different matter.
People do sometimes join the parade late - often because they have been doing other things in the time used to prepare for the parade and could not be part of the "outdoor congregation". Should they not be counted because they could only join half-way through? Maybe, maybe not; but as far as I know the intent has been to include all who participated. How this is done varies; some count heads passing a particular point (which might or might not be the start), other have someone walking down the parade as it occurs.
I do agree that it would be better for conventions to rely on some evidence-based method for counting such things if they are perceived to be important, just as they do for the question of attendance figures. I hope anyone reading this who is responsible for such a figure consider doing so for future conventions. For WikiFur to say that the official figure is wrong, though, would require us to assert that the person who took that figure was either mistaken or lying. This is something I'm not comfortable with doing on the evidence shown. A difference of less than 10% recorded at a point later in the parade is within the bounds of credibility. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:01, 18 March 2008


Since hard evidence and multiple eye witness accounts from multiple vantage points have called this number into question, and since FC has provided no hard refutation of this evidence outside of a verbal assurance that the count is accurate, to suggest that the claim is within the bounds of credibility is doing a disservice to the readers here. At the very least, the article should have a new preface added explaining that the entire claim is disputed by multiple sources and video evidence. Without evidence presented to prove the number's accuracy, the claim never should have been made in the first place, and arguably the article never should have been written.

Running a story like this calls into question the credibility of the site, as well. Hopefully that fact is not being overlooked while consideration is being given to this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

So far we have one video taken from the start of the parade, and an anonymous editor who is making several other claims which they provide no evidence for. Set against that is the written claim of this year's convention chair that the count is valid as stated, and was taken at a different point in the parade route.
Here is one example of the count at the start not being the count at other points. In one quick go through the photos in their gallery (I'm at work right now, will check later) I counted at least 370 costumed individuals, +1 for the fursuiter taking the photos, not including the drummers/dragon-holders or non-costumed people pushing or accompanying the characters. Another post claims over 400 suiters, albeit not in the parade.
I notice that the number of pictures in this gallery is 386. I suspect this number is a coincidence, as the counter was described as "sitting in the Coffee garden" while taking the count, while this person was in "the gift shop area". --GreenReaper(talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was at a table just outside of the first dealer's room entrance. Here was my count moments after the parade completed:

I guess that means that between the garden and the dealers room a group of people either stopped, or the person in the garden was counting people out of suits who were mixing in at that choke point. (Something that happened at the dealers room as well.)

380 strikes me as a bit of wishful thinking. And the video evidence points to otherwise. Personally I would report it accurately. Listing both the average figures cited here as well as the official figures with a note as to how they were derived. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

"Average figures" is not accurate reporting. If you report 352 and a video records 354 and photos record 371 and FurCon claims 387, that does not mean we should report that there were 366 fursuiters in the parade. Clearly, there were at least 371 at one point, because there is photographic evidence of that. We could list the separate figures given by specific sources, optionally attempting to detail the different circumstances in which they were reported. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph as described above to the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guinness, Boys[edit]

So, apparently this isn't going to change that AC goes in Guinness World Records 2009 as having the record, am I right? This year's book has a half-truth, but will next year's have this half-truth to tack onto it? IDontHaveAFursona 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering they used the 2006 figure in the 2008 book . . . besides, do they even do that nowadays? My perception of GWR was that it's turned into a "records news" book rather than being something that has the same records year-in, year-out. From Wikipedia: "Each edition contains a selection of the large set of records in the Guinness database, and the criteria for that choice have changed over the years." --GreenReaper(talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Records news?" I'd say you're right when it comes to editions since 1999. IDontHaveAFursona 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)