Talk:List of furry conventions

message: How should the list be organized? Alphabetically, or by attendance numbers, as in List of conventions by attendance? Chaos386 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is currently ordered by attendance. It seemed as good a way as any. GreenReaper 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not not, and I doubt it ever was.  It's alphabetical.  Why isn't is in a table that's sortable?  Heck, it's mostly out of date... 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Order? 

message: I was wondering, wouldn't be a good idea to have a sortable table here, like they do at the list of Science Fiction conventions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitdude (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the furry conventions are already listed in that, although admittedly you can't sort by furry and another column. The intent of this page was really to give more information on these topics, a-la list of furry role-playing games, while not promoting topics that could not satisfy notability criteria to the status of full articles. It might work better for some uses, but I worry that we are likely to lose information or decrease the chance of adding more information if we switch to a sortable table - it's not very conductive to expansion. Any examples out there of sortable tables that also achieve this goal? GreenReaper (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is also a list of furry cons on the article list of Science Fiction conventions.  Isn't this article a little redundant? Rabbitdude (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was intended to give more detail than the list there is trying to give. For most of these conventions a short stub could be written, but there is not sufficient information for a full article. This is where the short stub goes, as opposed to furry convention (which was getting long in its own right). Personally I am not entirely sure that we fit into that SF list, either, but I was invited to add furry ones there, so I did. GreenReaper (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable tables? 

message: A Poll taking in 2007, showed that currently 800,000+ Furries Worldwide.  <-- Has been confirmed by a bunch of Furries including a few staff members from Fur cons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosan (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to do better than that. What poll, what staff members, when and where? How do you "show" 800,000 furs? GreenReaper (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As noted in my earlier edit summary, that bit of information would be more appropriate to include in the article Furry fandom than in this one, provided of course that a good reference can be found.  --Mwalimu59 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Furries World Wide 

message: A Poll taken in 2007, have showed that over 800,000 Furs around the World <-- Confirmed by Staff from Anthrocon, and MFM. -- Stop deleting the post, are you could be faced with vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosan (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Furs Worldwide 

message: I have moved RBW to the discontinued list as it has ended as of RBW 2010. --LH (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RBW 

message: *Yiffing, Tinysex, online roleplaying, MU* and the entire history of Furry culture needs to be included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.53.83 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Without taking sides on whether the suggested content is appropriate for Wikipedia, I'll just say right off the bat that doesn't belong in List of furry conventions purely from the perspective of the most appropriate article for the proposed content.  General discussion about about what goes on in furry fandom as a whole belongs in Furry fandom.  If you believe it's relevant to what goes on at furry conventions per se, it would belong in Furry convention.  --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TS MUSH and CSIs portrayal. 

message: The recent deletion discussion has resulted in one editor removing the majority of events listed on this page. As this list grows, it becomes hard to keep updated. Inclusion criteria such as a night's stay, the presence of dealing, longevity of an event (3 years?) and/or minimum attendance (200? 250?) - possibly with exceptions for the largest event in a country - are all reasonable ways of reducing "churn", and decreasing the chance of presenting inaccurate data.
However, I strongly disagree with the position that a convention must meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria to be included. Part of the goal of this list (unlike the lists of anime conventions or science fiction conventions) is to provide an appropriate level of coverage for events that don't qualify for an article of their own. In many cases, that may be only one or two lines, which is perfectly suited to a list item. Secondary sources are beneficial but not required for this purpose.
What are your thoughts? Where would you draw the line? (Relevant data is available on WikiFur's list of conventions by attendance and timeline of conventions.) GreenReaper (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion criteria is furry conventions that have received significant coverage from a single news source. Just one. That's generally how list articles are organized. But you have to have that news source, otherwise the convention shouldn't be included. SilverserenC 22:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inclusion criteria for a list like this is that each item on the list be notable with a separate article, otherwise it will just be filled with indiscriminate trivia. See also List of science fiction conventions, List of comic book conventions, List of anime conventions, etc. Rangoondispenser (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SAL and specifically WP:LSC and WP:SALAT. Lists can be a combination of notable subjects with their own articles and non-notable subjects that fit into the inclusion criteria, but these require a reliable source discussing them in order to be included. WP:LISTCOMPANY would also be an example of how this works. Many featured lists use this format, including List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas and List of tallest buildings in Toronto as examples. SilverserenC 23:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion criteria of this list of conventions should follow the consensus of other lists of conventions, not List of tallest buildings in Toronto. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean articles like List of gaming conventions? I should also note that many of the conventions in the lists you mentioned are not actually notable. Having an article doesn't mean one is notable, when that article has no reliable secondary sources. Regardless, each list makes its own inclusion criteria and is not constrained by other genres. SilverserenC 23:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly like List of gaming conventions which clearly states in the first paragraph that "This is a list of noteworthy gaming conventions" which leads to the footnote "A convention is presumed noteworthy if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the convention and satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except all the non-linked ones are not noeworthy. Guess they just slipped through? Regardless, that is not the inclusion criteria of this list. Other lists criteria do not apply to other articles. Per WP:LSC, there are three kinds of lists that can be made and each list gets to determine what kind of material it will include and which of those three it will be. And this one is the third. SilverserenC 00:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is often spam like this on Wikipedia. That's no reason not to clean it up. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I would concur with removing some of the smaller and less notable conventions from the list (as has been done within the past day).  However, I would not concur with the notion that having its own article should be a necessary condition for notability.  While that's certainly a sufficient condition, I think we should make some allowance for conventions that are notable enough to deserve mention in an article like this, but not notable enough for an article of their own.  If memory serves, that was part of the rationale for creating this article in the first place.  mwalimu59 (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you okay with my criteria that there has to be at least one reliable source discussing the convention (and in more than a bare mention)? This is pretty much the requirement for things on any list on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 03:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think setting the bar at one is a bit low.  I think there should also be a minimum attendance.  My local paper will cover anything they are invited to.  If I invite 5 friends bowling in costume, and make it a charity event my local paper will do a story on it.  We also kind of have the problem of what makes something a "convention"?  Ridernyc (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 100 people then? You're not going to have that many people for a bowling event and yet it's low enough for the smaller conventions that get significant news coverage to be included. And one reliable source is the standard for list articles. That's just how it is. SilverserenC 19:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 100 people is just some arbitrary number you picked. And, no, in fact more than a hundred, including several hundreds of people do in fact show up for trivial events, including bowling events. 100 people is a bowling event, a school play, or a mid-size family reunion. And, no, it is not true that "one reliable source is the standard for list articles"; the standard for list articles about conventions like this is in fact that each entry on the list be notable enough for a stand-alone article. See List of science fiction conventions, List of comic book conventions, List of anime conventions. That's just how it is. Rangoondispenser (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And it says that where in policy that the criteria of different lists apply to each other? Because the WP:LSC guideline clearly explains the three available criteria to choose from, with this list going with the third one. SilverserenC 21:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy you are looking for is Wikipedia:Consensus. List of science fiction conventions, List of comic book conventions, List of anime conventions, List of gaming conventions, etc. show that consensus is that lists of conventions are limited to notable conventions. Another policy you could check would be WP:UNDUE, in that listing trivial furry conventions while not listing other trivial conventions gives undue weight to furry conventions. Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus discussion on any of those pages that says their inclusion criteria applies to all oher convention articles. Feel free to link it if it exists. And the criteria for inclusion in this article is clear, only conventions that can be found to have a reliable source significantly discussing them. Any furry convention where such a source cannot be found should not be included. SilverserenC 04:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus here that this list should include non-notable entries, and even if there were, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"  per Wikipedia:Consensus. List of science fiction conventions, List of comic book conventions, List of anime conventions, List of gaming conventions shows consensus on a wide scale that such lists should include only notable entries. We can't just ignore wide consensus and give WP:UNDUE weight to any old non-notable furry convention we can find a website for. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The maintainers of these lists have decided that they will not attempt encyclopedic coverage of which are not sufficiently notable to have their own articles. That does not mean that it cannot be done, nor that there is a consensus that it should not be done. More importantly, if these events are not covered here, it is unlikely that they will be covered anywhere on Wikipedia, which incorrectly makes notability a criteria for any coverage. A couple of lines in a list is not undue weight when more important conventions have both several more lines and their own pages. GreenReaper (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus and even policy are clearly against your argument to include everything.  I recommend either attempting to reach a compromise or moving on. Not going to go over this forever, because one editor wants to ignore massively and long established consensus.  Ridernyc (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct, Ridernyc. There is absolutely clear consensus that non-notable Small, local, or niche genre conventions should not be listed. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small, local, or niche genre conventions. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  See the top post. This entire section is an attempt to reach a compromise. The problem is that Rangoondispenser insists on Wikipedia's definition of notability as a criteria, which is not acceptable to me, or to others. GreenReaper (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: in fact this seems to be the consensus and used by the majority of fan convention lists     more then ample precedent here. Ridernyc (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And there are plenty of lists that don't follow that, but instead choose one of the other options from the three at WP:LSC. Each list gets to decide which option to take and is not beholden to the others. Articles and lists only have to follow the precedent of formatting, not inclusion style from the options. This list was created to follow the third option, which is to include conventions that have received significant coverage from at least one reliable source. SilverserenC 20:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to find a list that uses this criteria you keep quoting.  Also at this point you are the only editor pushing for this so yes, every list can choose it's own criteria and yes consensus seems to be going in the direction I outlined above.  Ridernyc (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of you isn't a consensus. It's not anything close to a consensus. Furthermore, the two other editors in this discussion, Reaper and Mwalimu, do not agree with your criteria, so you have no consensus. And I pointed out two such lists above that use that and I was only looking in Featured lists. If I looked in lists in general, I would find a number that follow my criteria. SilverserenC 20:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The inclusion criteria you cite only states that it is a sufficient condition for inclusion on the list, not that it's a necessary condition.  Notability is not a black or white issue; there are shades of grey, and where it comes to the degree of notability required for a convention, I do not buy into the assumption that the shade of grey required for a standalone article should be the same as that required to merit inclusion in a "List of conventions" article.  As has been pointed out previously, inclusion in just such a list has been mentioned in past discussions as a compromise solution for conventions that have some degree of notability but not enough to merit a separate article.  I'm basically repeating what I said earlier in this thread but I still stand by it. mwalimu59 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is you need to define the "shades of gray", which is why most list do not have shades of gray. Ridernyc (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If by that you mean we need to identify inclusion criteria that are sufficient to merit being included in the list, I agree with you.  What I'm primarily disagreeing with is that having a separate article should be the sole criteria. mwalimu59 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

text: But why? Why not figure it out on a per-event basis, leaving the shades of grey undefined? There are going to be some events which everyone agrees should be listed, and others which everyone agrees should not. That at least gives us an upper and lower bound on inclusion. Anything else requires a decision here. Over time, if further criteria become apparent, they can be added to the list of upper and lower bounds. GreenReaper (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, GreenReaper, your suggestion is that we include only the "events which everyone agrees should be listed" (the notable ones with their own article), and if someone wants to add a non-notable one, "anything else requires a decision here," meaning it requires consensus here on the talk page? Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's the consensus of editors that notability is an upper bound. It may be that the consensus decision is that one source is sufficient, or one source plus a demonstrated size, or [. . .]. It should be higher than the "average" necessary to achieve listing at actual discussions. We will probably only know what editors are comfortable with once we have had a number of decisions on individual conventions. GreenReaper (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria 

message: I've protected the article for three days. I don't want to get into the content of this (I don't do fur, plus I have certain opinions about the article as a whole), but it seems to me that Rider's question is valid. I have not gone through the list of references in the BronyCon article (its text says nothing about fur) and I have no intention of doing so: Badmachine, please provide the relevant links to combine the two. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm on it. :) -badmachine 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you like my admin tone of voice? I've been practicing. Good luck with it. The page will be unprotected in three days, and I hope I won't have to jump in again here. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: very professional. i am having trouble sourcing this, and i wonder why the inclusion of BroNYcon is not covered by WP:BLUE, considering the definition of furry. it seems to me that inclusion of conventions dedicated to anthropomorphic ponies is a given, but since there is opposition here, i will re-evaluate my opinion, and keep looking for sources. and i am sure that you won't have to 'jump in' again, at least not because of me. :) -badmachine 07:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with WP:BLUE is that someone can just as easily cite WP:NOTBLUE as an example that a source is needed. Besides, BLUE, common sense or not, the connection has been challenged, so a source making the connection has to be provided. SilverserenC 08:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Additionally, WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are essays, not policies or guidelines, and cannot be used as a justification for inclusion or removal of content. That would be why its inclusion is not 'covered' by WP:BLUE. Essays should generally only be used to express opinion (e.g. Don't forget IP's are people, too!). -50.32.32.82 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Also as I cited above, WP:SYNTH is part of policy and it trumps these essays.  Ridernyc (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your position seems untenable, aside from being an experienced user, you don't even have a definition of 'furry' that would exclude bronies.  Very odd position to make and require sources for. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sorry but Wikipedia requires sourcing.  Sorry if that upsets you but you can not state something and not source it here..Ridernyc (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, last year's Anthropomorphic Research Project survey found that nearly 1 in 4 furries identify as bronies. Of course, this doesn't say how many bronies identify as furries - perhaps a question for a future iteration of the Brony Study. (The ARP survey also found deep division within the fandom as to their opinion on bronies, though naturally those who felt they were also bronies had a high opinion of them. My personal perception is that they have become more integrated over time.) GreenReaper (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Seriously considering this as grounds to add BronyCon. Is anyone objecting?--SexyKick 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Horse News's discussion of the addition is more relevant as a reference than upcomingcons itself - their summary was "Bronies = very specific Furries.". An opinion of the Anthrocon operations director is that it was a "furry friendly" event. On the other hand, these are not official sources, nor probably what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources, nor do they say outright that BronyCon is a furry con - because it isn't an "organized gathering of furries". It's a convention for what some consider to be a subset of furry, revolving around a specific media property, i.e. My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. So the question comes back to: does that count? And do we just lump it in with the general furry cons, create a separate section for more specific conventions, and/or have an entirely separate list (which already exists at the above page)? GreenReaper (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: No war

message: I would like to see Califur added to this list given that it is the daughter convention of the first furry convention: Confurence. The media on this convention has been astounding, mostly do to the presence of rock bands at the convention over various years and its proximity to Los Angeles.
CBS/KROQ covered the event for a number of years. SiriusKarma (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide links to reliable sources, we can make it happen. Looking around, the closest I can see is stuff like this and this, and associated galleries. I guess they do demonstrate that the event exists, and the guest of honor one year . . . GreenReaper (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, some months ago, an editor removed ConFurence from this article.  I'm not sure why.  It should not be difficult to find at least as good of references for that convention as for some of those listed, and as a matter of historical interest, ConFurence certainly deserves to be mentioned.  It was after all the first larger furry convention and for several years the only one that drew significant attendance numbers.  mwalimu59 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: So be bold and add it! GreenReaper (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Califur

message: I've removed all those entries which didn't meet the inclusion criterion of "one news source", plus some spam clearly written by the conference organizers (talking about the convention as "ours"). I'd also advocate for the removal of all the "references" that are the conventions' own websites, often with multiple such links for a single convention; that looks like linkspam to me. Huon (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam removal 

message: While accuracy is important I feel that restricting the list to events large enough to attract the attention of the "If it Bleeds it Leads industry" is a disservice to the Fandom. The Major Media does not want the masses to be happy with entertainment source that do not require the buying of the product of the companies that pay for advertising on their media. 
  The point of the list is to show members of the Fandom where they can meet up with other members of the Fandom. The Conventions Web site should be enough cited references to be an entry on this list and if we list every annual event with more then 2 furries are inviting other furries to join them. Then soon every meet up will be over 500 strong. It is entirely possible that the conventions we outcast for having to few in attendance are staying small because the editors of list like this one are to prudish to pass on the invention for the Fandom to come to the little convention. 
   I fear the dissension makers for this list are not members of the Furry Fandom. I have never heard of any Furry telling anyone  "your group is to small to be important".
  Accepting others for who they are is what I love most about being a Furry. Please give the little convetion the support they need to grow, let the Fandom know every time The Fandom is invited to get together
  - John 8/27/2018    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwktrucker (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Cons 

message: What about including Megaplex as an active convention? Sure, it might not be quite as large as FWA, but it's been going strong for a number of years now. Tomatogoatee (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megaplex? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of furry 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/20090414201132/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_575023.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_575023.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.polarden.org/confurence/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed several entries to the list for multiple sources that fail WP:RS. The note clearly states to add conventions with significant outside coverage. If anyone would like to re-add several notable cons that have had coverage, please seek consensus first. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List is cluttered with [[WP:RS]] fails. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of furry 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/20120117234515/http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/2011-12-14/making-fuzzy-friends-midwest-furfest-94888 to http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/2011-12-14/making-fuzzy-friends-midwest-furfest-94888
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Various redirects are under discussion regarding conventions which would be appropriately covered here, if sources could be found. Currently these go to furry convention because this list was there at the time of their creation. GreenReaper (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncovered furry convention redirects under discussion 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Califur. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Jalen Folf (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Califur" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Since 2019 the convention "Confurgence" has been on haitus, but I am having trouble sourcing things like news articles to reference this.
Again, since 2019, "FurDu" is now the largest convention and has been added to the list, however, the only article about the convention in 2019 is from the Gold Coast Bulletin and it is behind a paywall, so I am unable to source it for a reference. We have screenshots but those can be doctored and there is no way to add them as a reference. I am also hesitant to reach out to the paper, as the reporter they sent last year was less than polite.
Ptwinters (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Paywalled sources are accepted per WP:PAYWALL. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added references for FurDU, still unable to find updated reference for Confurgence. Thank you so much for your help, I am still quite new to Wikipedia editing. Ptwinters (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also debating whether or not FurDU is at the point of its own Wikipedia page, it receives outside coverage every year from the ABC, Marie Claire did an article in 2018, and local news outlets usually cover it. It was also the host of the Ursa Major Awards in 2019. It also attracts a large international crowd from all over the world, due to Australia and the Gold Coast, in general, being popular for tourism. The only issue is size, it is the largest convention at the moment at 850 attendees but that's the max capacity of the hotel, and there are issues with sourcing a larger venue so it may never get bigger. Ptwinters (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues sourcing reputable references for Australian conventions 

message: Some time ago, I made a draft for Megaplex, at Draft:Megaplex (convention). Posting here to discuss the merits of spinning out a new article for Megaplex. My reasoning is that it is among the largest furry conventions in the United States and has sufficient information that would warrant it having its own page, similar to Furry Weekend Atlanta and Anthrocon. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinning out an article on Megaplex