Talk:List of science fiction conventions

Sorting question

Not sure if this should be listed alphabetically or by geographic location. MPS 17:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be perfect if it were a table with colums you could sort by, name, city, state, month. Can that be done? --Tbmorgan74 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It can and it now, mostly, has. Month still needs to be added, any suggestions on what to do where this varies? Do we include spring, summer etc. where this is the stated 'date' of the con?--Niu 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you know....but that sort doesn't work.... 71.74.66.119 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By any chance were you using Safari? If so, this seems to be a known, but unfixed, bug. See the topic "Sortable table fails in Safari?" below. Mikek999 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the sorting issue. I was not logged in. At the end of a table and before and other content you must put a pipe right curly bracket or it won't enclose the table. That got rid of the mystery curly bracket at the top of the article. I used the caption option to put "sortable table" at the top. Sorting did not work with Firefox 3 and now it does. I don't know any Safari users who can test this. Mrmeval1 (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

cons by date

Should we create a cons-by-date cross reference index. I have created the bones of one on my wikispace

http://genre-groups.wikispaces.com/US+Conventions+by+Date

That may be a good home for it. But it would get better attention on wikipedia itself. If anyone agrees, I can move that outline to here, and link people to that new one instead, not duplicating. --Tbmorgan74 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to now add this as an additional column to the tabled version. I can do this if you concur. --Niu 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, A date column. I suggest we call it "Typical Month". and specify a format of 05-MAY. That makes it sortable, and robust enough to be relevant years later, while not over specifying the exact date which will change from year to year. --Tbmorgan74 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that we now have a next date column, is it the consensus that this is preferable to a 'typical month'? If so, I'll go through and get some more dates added.-- Niu 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some more to test it a bit but it seems the dates are not currently sortable but I can't work out what's wrong. There's details at Help:Sorting if anyone else wants to try and figure it out.-- Niu 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The "typical month" did not work out, because of failure to sort. And the real value obtained is knowing the exact date, and which cons conflict with each other. Con runners can take it upon themselves or let the public edit their next date once a year. Over the years, cons that are chronically never updated will float up to the top of the sort list, and thereby draw attention to themselves they need updating. Alas the sort is still not working. I posted the problem to the relevant help discussion page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Sorting#Sort_key --Tbmorgan74 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge the other con lists here

I think we should merge the Anime and multi genre con lists here, with a column for subject matter. Call the resulting list the grand unified list of cons!. --Tbmorgan74 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The anime list has a active discussion with drama! That could wait until they are ready.--Tbmorgan74 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging other lists to this one would create an additional set of criteria to be met and it may not work in crossover. For example, the Anime criteria require that the convention has run on three consecutive occasions (or two with a third announced) as well as having 2000+ members. If this was applied to this list, a large number of significant conventions, most notably the Eastercon would not meet it and we'd end up with no end of discussion on 'exceptions' to the rules. This does however make me wonder about the criteria for this particular list but I've begun a separate discussion on that. -- Niu 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to bounce around too much, as I mention in the other thread. I think too restrictive a criteria is a bad thing. Any data that may be important enough to exclude a con should instead get a column, and let the sort work it out. (assuming sort works properly). Some columns worthy of consideration are "Number of years in operation" which is equal to "what number con is the next one" and "Size of last con" in attendance count. A small new con in a smaller city should not be evaluated against the biggest con in the biggest city. A reader in a small city should get the same chance to find out about his new local con as someone who lives in a major city. --Tbmorgan74 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the anime conventions can be merged here without a lot of controversy. The editors of that page have (what I would charitably call) a subculture-specific definition of notability. Avt tor 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree more is better to a certain extent and if we really were going for an all out 'super table', it would work. I believe the concern on the Anime list is that people are using Wikipedia in order to advertise their convention. Personally, in the interest of completion, I don't see that it matters *why* a convention is listed. However, I would suggest that we look to first merge the less actively managed lists of conventions (i.e. comic book cons) or those without their own page (i.e. gaming conventions) to assess the effectiveness and the best way to run the table before trying to tackle the additional baggage that comes with anime cons. Do we need to put this to a vote?-- Niu 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that perhaps the merge should take place under List_of_multigenre_conventions else we enter the debate about what's SF and what isn't. What are your thoughts on this? -- Niu 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the multigenre conventions would mind being merged into the SF list, as long as a category column were added to the table; I think it would be confusing to merge non-multigenre conventions onto the multigenre page.Avt tor 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy, casual, user contributions.

Editing that table is not easy. Its intimidating to casual users. I suggest we create a header section at the top called "Incoming" instructing people to add as plain text new conventions with as much information they have, as best they can. Then experts will monitor that section and translate the data into the table as they can. --Tbmorgan74 04:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I will try to assist with this. -- Niu 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for Listing

Currently the only 'criteria' mentioned on this list is that the convention should be annual but several of them aren't. Is this something that needs to be enforced or would we be better off removing this? It's my personal opinion that the list is not so long that we need to start refusing entry to some conventions but I'm open to other schools of thought. -- Niu 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think more is better, for the purpose of this table/database. I would not delete anything unless it was defunct or a bad link. Some editors removed a lot of records to lists of other types of cons (like anime). I have previously remarked that those other con lists should be merged into 1 super table with subject matter in a column. --Tbmorgan74 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge & Criteria:Consolidated decision.

I propose this plan of action:

• Recognize that the community of SF, anime, fantasy, comic book cons are interconnected and have mutual interests.
  • The con-runners, the fans, the dealers, and the guests are the audience. Their interests overlap.
  • For example, it is of keen interest to know that anime con may conflict with a sf con in a neighboring city.
• Continue to add to the table and improves its features.
• Add any con that anyone goes to the trouble to want to add.
• Use or create columns to adequately describe and catalog them.
• Starting with the least controversial, add other genre cons with a column for subject matter, but don't remove them from other lists.
• Tell the other communities what we are doing.
• Later, when it shapes up, re-name or reorganize the list to describe what it is at that time. --Tbmorgan74 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'll add a genre column. -- Niu 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Genre column is a good idea. These are interconnected but different communities have different needs; anime may not want to merge. Avt tor 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The content from Multi-genre is ported over, and that list is ready to be retired, removed, or redirected. Avt tor, can you do so for us, I think you are quailified to to it right. --Tbmorgan74 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comic Cons have been merged--Tbmorgan74 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort is fixed

Hurrah! The problem was that some rows did not complete their number of columns all the way out to the end. you must have exactly the right number of ||'s. I discovered the probable cause by making a copy of the table to my user page, and kept cutting it in half, till I found a portion that sorted. That clued me into the nature of the problem. So I fixed all the missing ||'s I could visually find. But some still proved elusive. So I had to keep creating copies of the table, and cutting in half, till I zoomed in on the half that was not working. If I was sure that 1 row of 10 was bad, I could visually find it. But not 1 row out of hundreds. Let us pray for a wysiwyg editor that people can use reliably--Tbmorgan74 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I feel silly, I'd assumed it was that and gone through checking it line by line. Apparently I can't count. Nice one for getting ti fixed! -- Niu 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy improvements?

• Suggestion 1: For conventions that move, show the location of the next convention (for example, Worldcon will be in Yokohama, Japan). This will make the list more useful.
• Suggestion 2: Only include cons that are noteworthy, i.e. that have their own Wikipedia articles. Avt tor 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with with being too restrictive. This has moved beyond an index of noteworthy cons with wikipedia articles. It has become a comprehensive database of cons spanning many disciplines and many countries. That itself has value which exceeds a list of links to encyclopedic articles. Its become an article itself, or even more powerfully, a functional applet tool greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe noteworthy cons should have a separate simple list. The two resulting pages would be clearly indicated that they serve different purposes. --Tbmorgan74 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria

• Criteria for inclusion: This database should include any convention or conference that is of interest to the interconnected network of fans, organizers, dealers, and guests that are usually associated with science fiction, fantasy, comic-book, and other entertainment genres. The event should be an ongoing concern with a reasonable expectation that future events will be scheduled.
• Criteria for removal: Defunct events that have not been held in the past 2-3 years, events with broken or non existent links, or events that cannot be found in a Google search are candidates for removal. Please discuss before removing.
• Adult Content: Hard core Adult entertainment events should not be listed. Moderately risque events with significant crossover into the afore mentioned communities may be listed. If the external hyperlink takes the user directly to a page with adult content, do not list the event.

--Tbmorgan74 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed criteria.--Rabbitdude 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See discussion below about proposal to split defunct cons into a separate table rather than simply deleting them. GCL 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the Adult Content proposal. It could become very arbitrary. Who do you mean by "Adult"? Porn? Nudity? Partial Nudity? A little bit of ankle? Would you consider a picture of Princess Leia in her slave girl dress grounds for "adult" content? It's a listing of SF conventions, not BDSM conventions. -- farrellj (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is intended to exclude conventions that are not about SF, but rather about the more risque elements of popular culture, with (in some cases) a vague SF flavor (horror scream queens as attractions, that sort of thing). It is not intended to exclude any actual SF conventions. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change

We have moved beyond the title of this article. I suggest this new title: "Sortable database of genre conventions"--Tbmorgan74 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Either that, or something like List of speculative fiction conventions. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you get into the whole ugly question of what, if anything, "speculative fiction" means. Most of these have only the vaguest of connections to science fiction, which is why I think the merger was a hideous mistake in the first place. (I notice that there is no way to sort by genre/purpose of convention.) This list in its present form is of no value to anyone but hucksters who don't care what the nominal purpose of the convention, show or exposition is. --Orange Mike 13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We can always go by the definition here. There is a genre column; If you don't think the genre listed is clear enough, feel free to change it. Every column in the list allows you to sort by it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Split off historical cons

Unless there are objections, I think I will split off the older historical cons into a separate table. Tbmorgan74 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbmorgan74, I appreciate the effort you're putting into maintaining this article. Personally, I would prefer to have one table that clearly differentiated active vs. defunct cons, rather than making people look in one table and, when not finding what they need, then have to realize that they can check in a second location. However, I could accept it as long as we make the second table easy to find, either by having it in the same page or with prominent links from this page to the second. For the moment I added three defunct cons here, because it required research to determine whether those cons were still active, defunct, or on temporary hiatus, and I want to spare others having to duplicate that effort. I would eventually like to add entries for those conventions that lasted for significant numbers of years. GCL 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please observe the split that has been made, current vs historical --Tbmorgan74 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cons in need of clarification

These cons are legacy cons or were imported from other lists and lack even basic contact information. Please update the entries for them as you can, with a wiki link, and/or weblink, plus all the other details. If nothing can be found for the entry, we can just remove it. As you complete them, cross them off the list using strikethrough. --Tbmorgan74 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Philadelphia Comic-Con
• Motor City Comic-Con
• Wizard World Chicago
• Wizard World Philadelphia
• Wizard World Los Angeles
• Wizard World Texas
• Planet Comicon
• The National Comic Book, Art, and Sci-Fi Expo
• MO-KAN Comics Conspiracy
• Mid-Ohio-Con
• Con-Sequential
• Tampa Comic Book & Toy Convention
• Cleveland Comic & Si-Fi Convention
• Nashville Comic & Horror Festival
• The Small Press Expo
• Vancouver Comic-Con
• Montreal Comic Books/Original Art/Non Sports Cards Con
• Chiller Theater Convention
• Cinema Wasteland
• Monster Mania
• NecroComiCon
• Shriekfest
• Texas Fear Fest
• DemiCon
• DucKon
• Falkon
• Gateway Con
• Imladris
• Nordcon
• Parcon
• RosCon
• RustyCon
• Chicagolandz Comic-Con

Article size

We may seem to be be getting large in size. Wikipedia:Article size clearly gives us wide latitude. It specifies that tables are exempt from the 10 printed pages of readable prose recommend size. Furthermore it specifies that we discuss file size issues before taking rash action. That is what I am doing now. I propose that the benefits of a sortable table outweigh the desire to make a shorter article size. If the table were to be broken up by country, continent, genre, or date, then we would lose the ability to sort and re-sort it by any other parameter to get useful findings. --Tbmorgan74 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we only include entries noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article. For the time being, I agree. Readability is a form of utility, and the sort function will help users find the information they want quickly, which is the point of readability. If at some point this gets long enough to warrant a split, I would recommend splitting by country. Alternately we could just split in multiple ways. That's a later discussion. Avt tor 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree that we should strive to have entries that are worthy of further mention. I strongly suggest that we not devolve into the pointless debate that is "list of anime conventions" The heavy handedness and elitism there is appalling. I propose that black text entries are in need of further eloboration. Rather than in need of intimidate deletion. We should undertake a long term goal to rectify their lack of definition and create articles for them, making no hasty or overly broad deletions. Not every small con deserves its own article. I propose to make this meta article: "Small Regional or Niche Genre Conventions". That will be a single article with many stub sections describing cons that have no home elsewhere. An Incubator if you will. The database will link to the internal tags. If the stub sections grow into their own article, then there is an established process for splitting them off. --Tbmorgan74 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created Small, local, or niche genre conventions --Tbmorgan74 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not in favor of listing conventions that don't have Wikipedia articles. I think if people want to have cons listed here, they should create an article first (in Wikipedia, not some other random site). Avt tor 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

for the extneral link business see right below--Tbmorgan74 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We did. And they were deleted. :-) So what's the choice? I think a link to a niche wiki which has content that is not verifiable to Wikipedia's standards but which is nevertheless reliable is better than no link at all, or no entry at all. Not all conventions are notable enough to be covered by the media so that a Wikipedia article can be written (plus most of the conventions I go to specifically stay out of the media limelight for the comfort of their attendees). GreenReaper 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

wikifur

The furry guys added their own stuff. The debate over the external links is documented here:Talk:Furry convention#External links. I don't mind links to a well organized specialty wiki for a niche con. But its the same debate as is mentioned in that discussion, and I think we should conform to the same result they reach, be it external links, or not. --Tbmorgan74 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Entries

A large number of conventions have recently been added to the table. Some of these new entries duplicate already-existing table rows (or in some cases the same convention may have been added twice). As a resident of Huntsville, Alabama and a friend of some of the people running the Rocket City FurMeet, I was able (I believe) to select the better entry for them and delete the less-accurate duplicate. I have refrained from deleting other duplicates as this would be better done by those with knowledge of the particualar con(s) -- especially if there is any any difference in the information in the duplicate entries. Mikek999 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also working on cleaning up duplicates--Tbmorgan74 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Wikipedia entries

• Why are links to "furry.wikia.com" being represented as if they were Wikipedia links?
• Why are conventions being entered that don't have a Wikipedia page?

Avt tor 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

These are interwiki links, not Wikipedia links - look closer, the colour is different. You can get one with [[WikiFur:...]], like an interlanguage or meta link. WikiFur is one of many community-specific linked in this manner through the Interwiki map.

Conventions without Wikipedia pages are being added because this is intended to be a list of conventions, not a list of conventions that Wikipedia has articles on. If Wikipedia decides not to cover a convention because it can't find enough "verifiable" sources, then that's its call, but it's not much use for people who are looking for information. Of course, if there is or should be a Wikipedia article then we link to it, but apparently that's only the case for a minority of furry conventions (see the AfD for Midwest FurFest). We would rather link to a page that has good information and will be regularly updated than make a redlink to a page which will be deleted if it is created. GreenReaper 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Colors of con names

Please use the following as link guidelines when editing this article. --Tbmorgan74 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blue text: Con has a link to a wiki article.
• Red text: Con has a broken link. Action required:
  • find or create the appropriate article to link to.
  • create the link.
• Black text: Con has no link, and an article may or may not exist. action required:
  • find or create the appropriate article to link to.
  • create the link.

Proposed new lead paragraph

"This is a haphazard list of media fandom-bilking expositions, anime conventions, comic book shows, furry gatherings, a few science fiction conventions, and everything else remotely connected with imagination or "sci-fi" (but not necessarily with actual science fiction). Please be aware that many of these events (particularly those called "shows" or "expositions") are run for-profit for the benefit of the persons or corporation putting them together, and may have nothing to do with actual science fiction or science fiction fandom. You might as well go ahead and add more "conventions" as you find them; no quality control or evaluation has been exercised in compiling this list, since Wikipedia is an indiscriminate compilation of lists."

Obviously, too, you will need to pick a new name for the article, since the old name is false now. --Orange Mike 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not add a "For-Profit?" column to the list of identifiers? Then you could identify each con as "Yes -- For Profit Corporation" or "No -- Fan-Run" Artemis-Arethusa 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And 'this list' needs to be changed to 'these lists'

Sortable table fails in Safari?

The sortable table does not appear to sort -- no change to the order when a column heading sort button is clicked, though the button itself does change to indicate sort order -- when using the Safari browser (Safari 2.0.4 running under Mac OS X 10.4.9 on an iBook G4). It does work using the Firefox browser (Firefox 2.0.0.3 on the same OS & computer). 4.153.8.130 17:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to work running Safari 3.1.1 under Mac OS X 10.4.11 on an iBook G4. Not sure if the issue was related to Safari, the OS, or Wikipedia, but with more-or-less current versions of each the issue appears solved. Mikek999 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Icon?

I see that there are several conventions named Icon, but what about www.icon.org.il? It's pretty much the only sci-fi/fantasy/comics/RPG event in Israel, and has been going on yearly since 2000 or so. The next iteration should be in autumn of 2008, although it has not yet been scheduled and doesn't appear on the site. It's pretty reliable, though. 212.179.71.70 (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If somebody gets the data, they should add it in. "Autumn" is pretty vague.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Glamourcon

I removed the Glamourcon entries from this table because the "adult glamour" convention genre doesn't really come close to overlapping with the SF/fantasy/comics genres. Nor does the activity that takes place at Glamourcon resemble a SF convention; instead of panel discussions, it's basically just a dealers' room. --99.140.179.169 (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After checking their web site, I tend to agree with their deletion from the list. One sees some of this in the Pop Culture cons but also a lot of sf/fantasy related stuff in those (but not, apparently, in Glamorcon). Mikek999 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ChattaCon

There's no article for this convention yet so I'm parking a useful reference here:

"Irvin Koch, spread love of science fiction". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2005-11-22. p. B5.

That obit incorrectly calls him the co-founder of DeepSouthCon but it has useful info otherwise. - Dravecky (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why ChattaCon doesn't have a page yet - it's been running 34 years now. Here's a good history of it: 1997 Southern Fandom Confederation Handbook & History Should I just go ahead and make an article for it so we can add it to the list? --Saratrice (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory

Hi, just a quick note to say that this article needs some serious cleanup. As it stands now, it's a long list of non-notable conventions and advertising, for "The con-going public,... Con Organizers... and Dealers". Wikipedia is not a directory. The encyclopedia is not here to help dealers plan their travelling circuit. I'm tempted to take the article to articles for deletion in its current condition, but I think it has a chance to be more useful. For example, List of anime conventions is nicely organised. It only includes notable conventions, rather than an unwieldy list of every convention that may have only been held once and attended by 50 people, with duplicates (e.g. Conflux in Canberra, Australia). I hope you find my suggestions helpful. Somno (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have received no feedback, I have gone ahead and removed non-notable conventions - all those that do not have an article in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an advertising service or directory. Please feel free to add back any notable ones that just don't have articles yet. I still believe this article's layout should be changed to match List of anime conventions. I question why all those anime conventions are also listed in this article. Somno (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you feedback after the fact: great job. The old version was a horrible, horrible list contrary to several core policies (as you pointed out in your edit summ), and you beat me to a long overdue cleanup. Thanks!

Also, I don't think we want to encourage adding red links to this page; see the essay encouraging editors to write the article first. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree in principle that articles should before links added, but I guess I was just trying to see the point of a list at all compared to simply a category. Somno (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If this list is separate from anime and furry conventions, should we remove those from here? Somno (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'll be working through that over time, but any help would be appreciated. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're getting over-enthusiastic, removing such old stalwarts as ConQuesT! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, OM: the link was red when I did the deletion; that's why I encourage editors to write the article first. I am still going to delete GothCon: not a sci-fi convention. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing a lot of the items from this list that clearly do not belong, however, lists such as this are allowed to have items that don't point to existing articles per the wiki rules regarding lists. Lmv4321 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

True, as long as they're likely to be articles someday - judging by the number of cons with articles that still seem to be non-notable, I doubt the redlinked ones were. :) Somno (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored a handful of conventions, most of which had long-standing articles that simply had not yet been linked and couple of of which are very notable conventions in major US cities that simply haven't had articles written about them yet. - Dravecky (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good to me. Somno (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My one issue, D, is that how do we tell, going forward, the spam from those red links? (see the last one I took out) Any way I convince you to write up quick stubs for them? Or can we just wait to add them to the list until the articles ARE created? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added to Science Fiction WikiProject

I have added this list to the WikiProject Science Fiction as I feel it falls under the scope of that project. I listed it as not requiring an assessment as it is a list and not an article. Lmv4321 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Lmv4321 for sorting the source! It not only makes editing much easier, but makes the default viewing order non-random by default. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

If we removed the external link column, would that discourage the spammers? The cons with articles all include links to the official website within their articles. What do you think? Somno (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to design WP around the non-spammers, not the spammers, so I think the EL column should stay: it saves a lot of people, who may just be looking for the link, an extra click. We can keep of the spam by watching the page, and I don't think it would matter: another list I watch, List of social networking websites, has no EL column and is spammed much more frequently. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Darn spammers, ruining it for everyone! :) Cool, based on that evidence it seems like a good idea to leave them there. Somno (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Meant to add: A better discouragement, IMHO, is to keep all the links blue (for which we can mostly credit your good work) - see my comment above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job on cleanup

Congratulations to whoever cleaned up this list. I noticed that the list was cleaned up earlier today after some discussion over at Talk:List of anime conventions‎ over the inclusion of a multi-genre con onto that list. Although this list still has a WP:LINKFARM problem, it at least not longer violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I had toyed with the idea of sending this list to WP:AfD, but decided against because it would have been a WP:POINT. I also didn't want to clean the list up given the pre-existing hatred of me as the primary maintainer of List of anime conventions‎, as seen in the comments above. I've always viewed that merging all fan conventions into a single list at List of science fiction conventions was a very dumb idea. Anyways, I have restored List of multigenre conventions and List of comic book conventions to their pre-merged versions, but both lists could use a cleanup and expansion. --Farix (Talk) 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this cleanup is overdue, and that we owe a debt of gratitude to those who did it (see my old remark above under the section heading Proposed new lead paragraph). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction v. multigenre

To prevent subjective opinion from determining whether a convention is a "general interest" science fiction convention which may take in various aspects of fandom from a "multigenre" convention, I've relied on the convention's own self-declaration. - Dravecky (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Information

I'd love this table to note commercial vs. fan run/not for profit in the categorization. I'd also like to see recent approximate attendance. Olszowka (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

column/content suggestions

Drop Convention website link - each article will have one anyway, and that's not really the purpose of a table which is set data so that it can be compared. Next convention date could be replaced by foundation date, which would also fit in with the idea of comparison.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with dropping website link, but not with dropping next/most recent date. After all, a notable convention could stop operating, and it would be useful to be able to see if something in the list is a going concern. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The next/most recent date will (like the website) be available on the article. An alternative is that space be used for a date range, such as (for Albacon) 1996-Present, or (for Disclave) 1950-1997. The "Present" term would only be used if the con had a future date scheduled. Only the foundation years (not months or days) are necessary. List could be sorted to see the oldest cons first (a la GraemeLeggett's suggestion), but would also show the defunct cons clearly. 76.200.133.130 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Dearly Departed

It might be useful to have a page for the "Dearly Departed", those conventions which have died and gone to convention Heaven or convention Hell. A lot of the newer fans don't even know what used to exist in their local area. When we ran Torcon 3, the younger fans were amazed that Toronto had hosted two World Science Fiction Conventions before. They'd never heard of them. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

External links

• The OSFEST Convention page
• The OSFEST Registration page

Page move?

I can't think of a modern usage of "science fiction" that requires hyphenation. Before this article is moved again, it would be wise to have a complete discussion on the topic. - Dravecky (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of science fiction conventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507042643/http://www.conquestkc.org/ to http://www.conquestkc.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820064757/http://www.lazydragon.com/con to http://www.lazydragon.com/con/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414154525/http://www.worldcon.org/ to http://www.worldcon.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of science fiction conventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302021754/http://iconsf.org/ to http://www.iconsf.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What to do when an ongoing convention changes its name

I was updating dates to freshen up the page, and ran across Wizard World, which is no longer called Wizard World. (Ahh, naming, the bane of librarians maintaining journal and magazine collections everywhere.) The convention series called "Wizard World" got subsumed into a thing called Fan Expo, which purports to be a continuation and extension of the former. I renamed the item, but kept the link to the internal reference to Wizard World. I'm unsure if this is the right thing. HacksawPC (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

LinuCon

I note an entry to LinuCon, which happened twice, now wondering if it needs to be here at all. HacksawPC (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

NecronomiCon

An editor recently added NecronomiCon Providence to this list. The article describes it as "a biennial convention and academic conference." I am inclined to say that since it does not identify itself as a science fiction convention, it does not meet the requirements to be on this list. At the same time, much of Lovecraft's work can be defined as science fiction, or at least proto science fiction, so I do not want to remove it without input from others. Thoughts? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)