Talk:AniZona

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga: Conventions Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Conventions work group. United States: Arizona Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

As much as I enjoy anime, it may be overstating the case to call an anime convention "Arizona culture". However, as the equivalent conventions in other cities are labeled as such, the category should probably stand. Even if I don't like it. Cheers! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do much editing or modification here on Wikipedia so I'm not 100% comfortable with the policies on deletion here. the following paragraph seems to violate many of wikipedia's standards of quality. Here is the suspect entry

"The third year may prove to be just as boring and lacking in competent organizers as the first two years. Stay tuned for a lack of printed schedules. Stay tuned for printed schedules that are inaccurate. Stay tuned for not being tuned in to the activites because they are out of schedules or they forgot to put half the stuff on them."

I don't know if the page should be reverted, or the section should be deleted. Maybe the writer would like to reword this? 4.190.165.100 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was clearly vandalism. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 05:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the paucity of publications regarding anime conventions, where, precisely, is one to find references to them? -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google. Hasn't anyone written any third-party reports about the convention? Have their been any news articles published? --PatrickD 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are. The best is an article on AZ central that qualifies as a professional convention report. AZC is owned by the Arizona Republic (largest newspaper in AZ). If that's not a reliable source, than we might as well throw out all convention reports. "^_^" It confirms the dates of the convention, the guests, and Anthony G's involvement (but not necessarily as chair, that could be confirmed elsewhere or through ACML archives).

Now, technically, "valley" means the corridor along the I-10 in which Phoenix occupies (I'm from California originally, but that's how I've come to understand it). However, unless somebody threw a convention in Tucson or Flagstaff, I can't see the claim of them being the first in AZ challenged. AZ simply doesn't have that many population centers. Lepercon and Coppercon don't count for reasons cited by another editor. It'd be like considered San Diego Comic Con as an anime convention.

While we're on the subject, I really think Anime-Cons.com should have a search-able database by state (*hint*Patrick*hint*). That would work fine as a secondary source to prove they were the first in AZ. Kensuke Aida 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arizona Republic source was not in the article when I wrote my comment. As for AnimeCons.com... There has been a state search for quite a while now. Click "USA" in the Events section.--PatrickD 14:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it wasn't. I was answering your question. It is now. The issue is resolved. However, the state search function doesn't transcend several years as near as I call tell, so is useless in this context as a source. Kensuke Aida 09:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, with respect to Patrick's concerns, the article as I just edited now contained backup sources. However, there are three instances where is doesn't and I don't think absolutely needs it:

1. There is an attendance cap. 2. The guests confirmed by Anizona in 2007. 3. The sponsors confirmed by the convention

Frankly, I don't think any of those need additional confirmation. Especially seeing as all outside sources would use AniZona's info as their own source. There are more than enough citations now to corroborate what is written.

The only two OR problems now is the comment about being the first in AZ (which could be confirmed via anime-cons.com if there is a per-state search function), and sentence about California affecting attendance (which I want to give Miwasatoshi the courtesy of addressing). Kensuke Aida 11:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Patrick's concerns here:

Honestly, we could (and probably will) probably remove the California affecting attendance segment.

However: the "first anime convention" is directly from Anizona itself, and this is a fact that has not been questioned by anyone currently or formerly resident in the state. Note that there are ZERO anime conventions in Flagstaff, Prescott, and Tucson to this day. Never have been. You could even ask the TASS folks (or you could if their website weren't down!) - they've never held a convention down in Tucson in their many years of operation: the only regular "fandom-related" convention in Tucson is TusCon, run by BASFA for the past 33 years [1].

According to Anime-Cons.com itself, there are no anime conventions in Arizona prior to Anizona in 2005 [2]. You won't find them in any other source either: they simply don't exist. Even excluding any potential "original research", this is not just a "claim" but a provable and largely incontrovertible fact.

Finally, if any editors have remaining issues with the formatting of this article, be aware that it was originally largely patterned after the Anime Expo article. Cheers! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, I'm removing the OR tag. Kensuke Aida 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff from the 2005 convention (press releases, etc), feel free to insert as necessary.

http://se.cosplay.com/index.php/article/anizona-announces-yoshitaka-amano-as-a-guest-of-honor http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/0321anime21Z6.html Arizona Republic "Anime Fans to Gather" March 31, 2005

I think this is pretty good proof of the "first convention" status here without any further OR issues. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since press releases are just re-printed text sent from the con, they aren't really that "external". I could put out a press release saying that I walked on the moon if I wanted to...but that doesn't make it true. Newspaper articles or convention reviews from reputable sources would be considered valid external references. --PatrickD 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, print newspapers vet press releases. Your theoretical "walk on the moon" would not be considered newsworthy and wouldn't be published. What qualifies to you as a reputable "external" source in terms of anime conventions? There's not exactly a wealth of hardcopy information, and if you aren't accepting newspapers then we can rule out the Internet, because anyone can post a website! But Wikipedia protocol clearly indicates this as acceptable. Also: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Might be worth looking at. We don't need to be adversarial about this -- this is a collaboration after all. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 05:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS> I didn't include the cosplay.com reference. Not as useful, honestly, as the stuff from print resources. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdest position. Where does Animecons.com get the majority of its info from? And yet you peddle it as a reputable external source and people (including myself) don't seem to mind.

If we're going to get this ridiculous I recommend ejecting attendance numbers on every wikipedia article, since as near as I can tell they are sourced from the convention themselves and not subject to independent confirmation. This leads to the annual (and stupid) fight between Otakon and AX about how many people "really" attended AX.

Simply put, this article has an EXTREME amount of citation now given its fairly short size. More so than the Anime Boston page I might add. Kensuke Aida 09:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me.

I'm not saying put up something for the sake of putting up something, but certainly there is some relevant imagery for this article.

Kensuke Aida 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To get out of the start class, we need to cover everything. Please provide an EVENTS section if possible. See AnimeIowa for a good example. Kopf1988 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do it. Don't whine about it. Do it! The info is on the AniZona website.

However, when you make major edits, please take care to clean up the citations that people took the time to research and include. If you had followed the citations you would know that the three people cited were referenced my a major newspaper in the state of Arizona. Thus making your demand for a reference pointless and petty. If you have an issue with this, please contact the editorial offices for the Arizona Republic and inform them that they are not allowed to include the names of the convention founders because it is "fancruft". Kensuke Aida 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Patrick is right. AniZona 3 had MASSIVE problems, but it would be extremely difficult to write about them under NPOV with adequate citation at this point. If anybody wants to read about the hoopla, go here:

http://www.anizona.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=38&sid=f398487813596e1749fd89e8c0437b08

I would recommend against using these as citations because I have my doubts about the reliability of this board's archives (as opposed to say the newsgroups or ACML). People have already started mirror some of the more sensitive stuff for these reasons.

Also, Patrick, e-mail me if you want details (john.hokanson@cox.net).

Kensuke Aida 08:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't want details. I honestly couldn't care what did or didn't happen at the con. ...but unless someone can cite a reliable source within a week or so, that whole NPOV part should go. --PatrickD 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wait a week and then trash it. Kensuke Aida 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]