Jump to content

Talk:Anime Matsuri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other reliable sources for Anime Matsuri and other Anime conventions.

[edit]

While Yes, Animecons.com does provide info when it comes to the various Anime conventions, however I don't agree it should just be restricted to just the website itself as they take weeks to have some of the info being updated. Personally in my opinion, I think that some sites with actual/reliable sources from like twitter, Facebook, AnimeNewsNetwork, Online Newspaper articles, and especially the Anime conventions OWN website can also provide some information on the Anime conventions! The only thing is why "restrict" getting sources for Animecons.com if there are other websites where we can get the information. --73.166.187.154 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reliable, non primary independent source Wikipedia:No original research available in animecons.com that would be the preferred source in this case. While the con has published the number, and in certain cases primary sources can be used, it serves no purpose in this case due to a better source publishing the number. Also, the citation used broke at some point, leading to errors on the page. Esw01407 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean you HAVE THE RIGHT to go and remove information/sources regarding a Anime Convention on twitter, Facebook, AnimeNewsNetwork, Online Newspaper articles, and especially the Anime conventions OWN website and leave only Animecons sources. It's just not right. :(--73.166.187.154 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to fix and repair the citation if you must use them, the link is broken. Primary Sources are not the preferred source for editing Wikipedia. Specifically for Anime Conventions, over time many conventions remove this information or lose it when they change content management systems, and you are stuck using archives IF they are archived. Animecons.com essentially acts as the non disputed convention information clearing house to prevent this. Esw01407 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but I don't want to have to deal with this issue over and over again when updating the page here. I don't understand what with you on having the page wiht ONLY sources Anime Cons.com. Come on be real here, Their are also other sources from Twitter, Facebook or articles on website that also deal with information besides Anime Cons.com. You shouldn't dismissed just sources just because they aren't from a Anime Convention website that updates info here. If that's how you want the article to be that way then so be it.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough Esw01407 on removing ALL reliable sources, your going back to your old ways as usual!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Full disclosure, I was asked to weigh in here.) At this point we need to decide on one of the two sources: Facebook or AnimeCons. There's no need for both, as this makes it a redundant citation . Either one would be fine, although AnimeCons does tend to be the most frequently used citation for the very reason Esw said - social media links tend to disappear because they're not meant to last forever and can be lost whenever the con switches over. AC is just more stable. I'll drop a note at WP:3O and WP:RS/N about this, to get a wider consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, some of the sources I also find can also be on the Convention's website and also their is archive.org

3O Response: As WP:OVERCITE says, "Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources". It is not necessary to agree on "one or the other"; two is a completely acceptable number of citations and is not over-referencing. I agree with User:Esw01407 that event web sites are particularly prone to link rot and AnimeCons.com is a good stable source for archived information. But I agree with the others that removing all citations other than that is ridiculous. I was unable to find in the edit history an example of a revision with an excessive number of references after a statement, and if there were, my first effort to reduce the visual clutter would be to reduce the number of references per footnote, not to delete the footnote entirely.

There's a reason that {{One source}} exists. The date and location of a con is not the sort of fact I expect to experience bias, but any single source might have innocent errors, and might be subject to link rot. Over-reliance on a single source is bad.

(There's also the unfortunate appearance of shilling for a given site by trying to reduce the visibility of alternatives.)

If you insist on having a single [ref] per statement, then mix them up: use AnimeCons.com for one statement and Facebook for the other, even though both sources include both statements.

Wikipedia sources provide two functions. Primarily, they serve to justify statements in Wikipedia itself, but we should not completely neglect the secondary function of providing a reader with a source of additional detail that does not appear in Wikipedia. Providing links to sources with different contents (i.e. which are independent of each other, rather than the WP:IS sense of independent from the subject) gives a reader access to a greater variety of such additional detail. WP:OVERCITE is complaining about too many sources per statement; we should be much more generous in the number of sources per article. There's a point of diminishing returns (the seventh source doesn't add anything that the first six didn't already say), but two or three are almost always valuable.

tl;dr I think User:Esw01407's critics are right in this case. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anime Matsuri. 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:

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) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed attendance

[edit]

I've just done a clean up of content regarding disputed attendance numbers. Just to note for all;

  • Controversial claims must have good reliable sources. Particularly if they are suggesting someone is being dishonest.
  • Documents uploaded to someone's dropbox account, regardless of what they may appear or claim to be, is nothing like a reliable source.
  • Claims that are made by comparing numbers on two different sources is original synthesis and not permitted here. Find a reliable source that has done the comparison.

Thanks. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the dropbox bit, I have conceded and and have made an edit removing all dropbox sources, and replaced them with reliable third party sources (public statements and official declaration From the Mayors office, as well as the City Of Houston all published online by the city) (*see edit 01:25, 20 October 2022‎ )
However my edit has been undone and revised to a previous edit which once again uses a private dropbox link as a primary and sole source of information. I don't understand why some dropbox documents are being allowed, while others are being ignored. Im fine with allowing any dropbox links, or alternatively no dropbox links. But to pick and choose what is and is not valid seems disingenuous at best. Especially since some of the documents I myself have provided via dropbox are official declarations under sign and seal of the city itself (which might I remind is the parent entity of the purported "reporting agency", Houston First.) as well as email communications from that very same reporting agency stating quote
"the promoter of Anime Matsuri, Not Houston First, will have an accurate figure for total attendance for their event"
Why are these private dropbox documents from an entity whom have themselves made the assertion that their figures are not accurate are being presented as fact. while other supporting documents are being ignored.
I propose we revert to the 01:25, 20 October 2022‎ edit which contains no dropbox refs, and whos attendance figures have all come from reliable third party publishing. (the city of Houston) 240B:11:C4A1:4D00:496E:296D:BBBE:4A5F (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime_Matsuri&oldid=1204874692"