Wikipedia

Talk:Gen Con/Archive 1

< Talk:Gen Con
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Archive 1

More "See also"s?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems like some of the other noteworthy events at Gen Con, especially long lived ones, deserve either a brief mention in the write up, or an addition to the See also section if a page exists. Stuff I'm not sure I can write, but think might be worth adding: The Klingon Jail and Bail (which I believe is another charity activity), the NASCRAG events (Zef/Fez/whatever they're doing these days. Charity again?) [1]), the D&D Open, Game Base 7/Board Game rentals [2]. Paint-and-Take. Mind you, some of that probably doesn't belong, this is more of a brainstorm; I welcome additional thoughts or people to just |be bold and add good stuff. Alan De Smet | Talk 03:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

True Dungeon: LARP or Not

Before making changes to remove the "True Dungeon is a live action role-playing game" claim, please see and contribute to the discussion on exactly that topic over at Talk:True Adventures.

Trim True Dungeon entry?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The True Dungeon entry is getting a little large. It's not a big deal, but people who want more information can easily follow the link as it has its own page. (In contrast, the costume contest doesn't have its own page, so a longer entry makes sense.) Not a big deal year, but probably worth keeping in mind before anyone expands it further. Alan De Smet | Talk 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is "SPA: Activities for the Better Half" really noteworthy?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not totally sold that the "SPA: Activities for the Better Half" are really noteworthy. There were only 11 events. Only 95 tickets were sold in pre-reg. Maybe in a few years if it sticks around it will be noteworthy, but it really felt like a last minute addition this year. I'm tempted to delete it for now. Alan De Smet | Talk 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And so now that the program has gone for six more years and has hundreds of events every year, how do you feel about it? 97.113.21.157 (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd call 156 "hundreds". Sadly I can't easily get previous years data, but I think that's the baseline. I'm not specifically opposed to adding it today, it's clearly had staying power. If you can find some third party reliable coverage, it would be an obvious addition. That said, the Events section is badly in need of more citations and could use some pruning, especially for items that lack their own articles. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well it was up to over 200 in 2013 so "hundreds" might finally fit, haha. Though it is true that looking for "coverage" of SPA seems limited to people discussing the old ball-and-chain icon as sexist (though that was apparently changed in 2011). 73.51.12.28 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it has already been removed from the article, so it is probably a moot point now. 2601:D:9400:3CD:39D3:B71E:6970:7CB1 (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Different enough to split up this article?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Have Gen Cons Indy, SoCal, France, UK, and others become (or were from the outset) different enough from one another that the main Gen Con article should focus on Indy and the others should get their own pages (or page)? The timeline seems to be getting cluttered from the addition of these other events - and it seems like there might be some benefits to a split - for example - True Dungeon can only be found at Indy and SoCal... UK has a long history if its own... and so on... Junior rookie | Talk 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's really not that long of an article. It's too soon to split them (although it should certainly be reconsidered later). The timeline is cluttered, but showing the growth, movement, and forking of the convention is part of why the timeline is interesting. The timeline neads some love, but breaking it into a timeline per con will take away the ability to see the growth. Alan De Smet | Talk 02:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... the article itself is pretty short - and would be shorter without the timeline... Perhaps when the article gets long enough the split could be per location along with a separate article for the timeline - then it would remain possible to see the growth across all locations... Junior rookie | Talk 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gen Con South? Gen Con East? Gen Con West?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I stumbled across http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/gh_tourneys.html and see that several editions of Gen Con South, Gen Con East, and Gen Con West are listed... Are these real? Junior rookie | Talk 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question here - googling "gencon south" produces a number of other web pages with references to the event - as does googling for east and west... looks real to me... adding 'em to the timeline...Junior rookie | Talk 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gen Con numbering and dates

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Gen Con has used a few variations for numbering over the years. Roman numerals for Gen Con I through Gen Con XVI, then Hindu-Arabic numerals starting with Gen Con 17 and ending with Gen Con 20 or Gen Con 21. For a few years the naming format might have been something like "Gen Con '89", until at some point (don't know when) there was a change to a format like "1990 Gen Con Game Fair". Recently another change to something like Gen Con (Location) 2006... I don't have any program books or old Dragon Magazines handy, but it would be nice to add the name used and dates for each event every year... Junior rookie | Talk 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Between the above and the updated timeline, we have:
  • Gen Con I - Gen Con XVI
  • Gen Con 17 - Gen Con 20 (or 21)
  • Gen Con '89 - Gen Con '96??? (don't know for sure which years may have used this, but the timeline cites some references showing the common usage, if not official usage, of this format)
  • 1997 Gen Con Game Fair - 2002 Gen Con Game Fair (not completely certain of the first year of use for this format... following the citations referenced by the timeline - it's probably at least as early as 1997, if not earlier)
  • Gen Con (location) (year) - 2003 to present...
So, who's got program books or old Dragon Magazines available for citing additional references? Junior rookie | Talk 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Day of Thunder" L5R event

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Someone recently added a claim that the Legend of the Five Rings event "The Day of Thunder" was the largest collectable card game event ever or since at Gen Con. That seems a bold claim for an event that apparently only drew 240 people and did so a decade ago. It's not entirely implausible, checking the 2006 event database the largest potential CCG event size appears to be 300. and the most tickets sold through preregistration is a mere 25. Can anyone find a citation? — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The event actually drew over 500 people over the course of the qualifiers. Check the registration numbers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.240.171 (talk • contribs) 21:19, April 18, 2007.

The qualifiers prior to Gen Con? That would be outside of the scope of the Gen Con article. Either way, I don't have access to registration numbers; if you're aware of a public source of that information (perhaps a press release from Alderac?), please do cite it. In the meanwhile, a journalist covering the story concluded the number was 240, so that's what we have to work with. Furthermore, even assuming 240 or 500 is accurate, the claim is that it's the largest, to date. Maybe that's a huge event, maybe it's really small; it's not clear. Who can validate that claim? Who has even credibly made the claim? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
A reminder, you can and are encouraged to sign your posts with ~~~~. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps another way of looking at it is, why is the Day of Thunder noteworthy? Based on my understanding, it is a very noteworthy event in Gen Con and gaming history. Whose written what about it? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic: the Gathering debut in 1993 deleted

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When someone flagged "noteworthy events" entry for Magic: the Gathering with {{fact}} I did some investigation and I now believe the claims were incorrect. The claims were that MtG debuted at Gen Con, and sold out within a few hours. The official history (Microsoft Word document in a ZIP file) disagrees. It says:

After two years of testing, Adkison's company, Wizards of the Coast, renamed the game, printed a limited edition of the cards and launched a month-long publicity campaign. The tour ended at 1993's GenCon, the world's biggest game fair, where the Magic: The Gathering game became an instant sensation, selling out a six-month supply in six weeks!

So MtG debuted a month ealier. And supplies lasted at least two weeks after Gen Con. The only claim I can even slightly support is that they may have sold out of the copies they brought to the convention, but that's extremely common. (The special edition figs WizKids release sell out promptly. The Order of the Stick board game sold out very quickly as well.) So, absent evidence supporting something noteworthy about MtG at Gen Con 1993, it should stay removed. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the timeline

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think we need to separate the extra Gen Cons away from the main ones of Wisconsin and Indiana. It would flow better, and better show that the extra Gen Cons have usually be unsuccessful in lasting for long (although I'd love for Aussie's to stick around).--Bedford 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I really could go either way on it; it's a tough call. It's good information, but I doubt any one ay of presenting it will be ideal. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
WHat we could do is have a separate timeline of altenate Gen Cons, or just list the various attempts of other Gen Cons in non-timeline form. Maybe talk about other American ones, British ones, European one, and of course Australia.--Bedford 16:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say start a seperate listing called "GenCon Expansions" or "Other GenCon related shows". --Marty Goldberg 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have added the breaking news of the Gen Con LLC bankruptcy. Right now the reference is to John Kovalic's Livejournal Blog. John is a reputable source in the industry, and so I trust this as news. Nevertheless, the reference should be updated to a proper news story link if someone can find one. 99.233.74.73 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the lead paragraph is the right place to mention the bankruptcy. Either "History" or "Noteworthy events" seems a bit more fitting. 72.17.147.138 (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Some Anonymous Editor

Citation collection

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Possible citations for the article. Feel free to use them to expand the article, or to add citations you don't have time to integrate. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bankrupcy details

Gen Con Acquisition Group

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Gen Con For Sale and A Purchase Offer is Pending!
Eleventh Hour Offer for GenCon
shadzar-talk 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All of this is now added. I linked to the Blog instead of the Forum version; both are "official", but the blog happens to be the "press release" blog and is a bit more clear. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What do you say? Would it be a good idea to nominate this one anytime in the near future? It's not looking too bad at the moment. BOZ (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes! I can get the process started later today. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Having reviewed some GANs myself, I thought it would be pertinent to mention that the images in this article need quite a bit of work. Some of fair-use images need to be a bit smaller, and a lot of them should probably be removed, the logo gallery especially goes against the fair-use policy's "minimum use" requirement. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links to individual conventions

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In these two edits, DreamGuy removed the links to individual conventions on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a web directory, no reason for these to link to outside websites" and they serve "no encyclopedic purpose". This seems overzealous to me. I believe per WP:ELYES that these links count as links to the official web site. Normally I'd be with you: you just need a link to the "main" web site. However, that usually is plenty because the official web site links off to the other sites. In this particular case, the Gen Con franchises(?) aren't well linked from the main site. So the links are appropriate. Indeed, as they contain information not appropriate for inclusion in the article (the full information about specific events), excluding the links makes the article weaker. Perhaps they should all be collected in External links; it seems less clear to me, but I'm open to the idea. But I think the article is stronger with the links included. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alan De Smet on this, and I think that having them in the table is the most convenient location for them. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gen Con/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hey. I'll be doing the GA review for this article. When I review, I like to give generic suggestions first, and let the editors of an article work on them before adding more specific statements. Here are the initial suggestions:

Images
  • File:Gen Con Indy Logo.png needs to be replaced with a smaller version. See the tag on the image's page. Image removed.
  • "Unusually elaborate games, like this custom board, are a draw for many players." - this caption reads like original research. Who says they are a draw? Removed.
  • "Cardhalla at Gen Con 2005." --> "Cardhalla at Gen Con 2005" - periods only go at the end of captions that are complete sentences. (FIXED — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
WP:MOS
  • Game titles, such as Dungeons & Dragons, need to be in italics. I see at least a couple of cases where this needs to be fixed.
  • The paragraphs in the article are short and choppy. The paragraphs with only one or two sentences need to be combined with others or expanded.
  • There are several instances in the tables where a dash is used where a endash should be used. See WP:DASH.
    • (I think I've fixed this. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
Sources
  • There is quite a bit of information in the History without sources. Anything possible controversial or with a statistic needs a citation. For example, "Attendance steadily rose from 5,000 paid admissions in 1985 to a peak of 30,000 in 1994, making Gen Con the premier event in the role-playing game industry."
  • Most of the attendance stats in the tables have sources, but a few do not. These need sources because they are possibly controversial.
  • The Noteworthy events are almost entirely unsourced. This section should possibly be renamed with something less POV sounding. What makes something noteworthy?
  • There is at least one citation needed tag.
  • The link for the author in Ref 32 is messed up.
  • The random link in the references section should be put in a Further reading section unless it is already cited in the article.
External links

That is all for now. I'll give the editors of this article seven days to make these initial fixes before I look more in-depth at the the text and sources. Nikki♥311 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll look into some of these things soon. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the subheaders of the external links and fixed ref #32. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: External links in the tables: These are links to the official sites for individual events. They're good external links, as they're full of more in-depth information. The more general links (For example, the "main" Gen Con UK one) isn't a good enough replacement, as those sites don't typically link to the previous years. We could move them all down to "External links", but it seems like they would turn that section into a bit of nasty blob. I think the current position is a slightly better solution, and as such warrants an exception. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. That sounds fair enough. Most rules have the occasional exception. Nikki♥311 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Nikki311: I've seen on other review pages a style where people strike out things that they believe are resolved. I don't know about the protocol, so I want to check: is marking off things we think we're reasonable addressed acceptable? — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You can reply within my list above, but I'll strike things out when I consider them done. Nikki♥311 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that everything in the "Images" section has been addressed. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the in-table external links; I think that if all of the cons were linked there, it wouldn't be as much of a problem, but having just some linked is kind of weird. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be sufficient to include the links as refs instead of straight links? BOZ (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The links can stay (see comment above), but if there is consensus to remove them, I don't think making them references would be appropriate because they aren't technically "referencing" anything. Nikki♥311 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see so many people replying to my review! I will check your work later tonight and mark off items from the list that I consider completed. Nikki♥311 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your input has been helpful so far. :) BOZ (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I plan to get to work more on this article over the next day or two; I've been really busy with some other stuff recently, but I think that I'll be able to start referencing some more of the stuff and fixing the grammar/punctuation/style errors. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, great. Just leave a message here when you are done and want me to look it over. Nikki♥311 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know we haven't been very active lately... however, since our other project has been put on hold, I plan to focus on moving this one along, if you're willing to give us more time. :) BOZ (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How is everything coming along? I see that a lot of work has been done. I'm on vacation right now, but I'll be back home with regular internet access on Jan 4 or 5. I'll look through the article then if that is okay with everyone. Nikki♥311 02:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) We've done a lot of work, and hopefully it's a lot better, but it might not be quite a GA. Have a look at it when you get a chance and let us know what you think! BOZ (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Review part 2

The article is looking much better, but I don't think it is quite a GA yet. Here are some suggestions:

  • The paragraphs are still short and choppy.
  • Some of the sections in the history section are too timeline-like. A lot of the paragraphs begin with "In (date)".
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and it shouldn't introduce new information. For example, "Most Gen Con attendees are men between 20 and 39 years of age who earn more than $50,000 per year.[4]" should be located elsewhere.
  • A good bit of the events sections is still uncited. There is still a citation needed tag.

A lot of good work has gone in to this, so I'll give everyone more time to work on it (maybe another week?). I also like that the timeline was moved to the end; before, it interrupted the prose sections when it was in the middle of the article. Nikki♥311 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I'll see what we can do. BOZ (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I cleaned up a lot of that. I'm not sure what else can be done about the sourcing, other than to remove much of the events section, which I am hesitant to do. It's clear to me that the article would be a whole lot better if I had a copy of the 2007 book "40 Years of Gen Con" by Robin Laws; without that, I am at a loss with how to cite most of what's there outside of many going to the actual GenCon website. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a dilemma, for sure. The article can't be promoted to GA with a section that is so under-referenced. Can that book be accessed through the "search inside" function in Google Books or on Amazon? Maybe another person who frequently edits this page has that book? If the official website can source some of it, that would be great...a primary source is better than none at all, IMO. One more thing...besides working with Good Articles, my other stomping ground on Wikipedia is articles about female professional wrestlers (dumb, I know!). During my editing a few days ago, I noticed File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - Gail Kim.JPG, which is an image of Gail Kim at Gen Con Indy 2008. Do "celebrities" frequently appear? Anybody worth noting? Nikki♥311 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah, not dumb, nothing wrong with that. Yes, celebrities do often appear, though no like A-listers or anything. The majority of people you see there are writers or artists who have something to do with role-playing/board games/wargames/card gaming/video gaming industries, but you will also get people associated with anything like sci-fi, horror, action genres, you name it. People that I have seen in person, or that other people who were with me have met there include: Walter Koenig, Ken Foree, Hayden Panettiere, cast members of MythBusters, Dean Haglund from X-Files, and a bunch of people I can't even think of. ;) I can't remember whether I saw Bruce Campbell there or not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I'll see what I can do with getting the events section sourced; even if we can't get it up to GA yet, I don't count this as a loss because the article is improved substantially, and won't take much to get it to GA on try #2. BOZ (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The official site doesn't seem to have a whole lot of specific info on events, but more like general info. Here is a list of some of the guest signers from outside the gaming industry who appeared last year; Gail Kim as you mention above, Peter Mayhew who was the guy in the Chewbacca suit, and heh, David Faustino from Married... with Children! I'm going to look around to see any free previews of "40 Years of Gen Con" as you suggested, but after that I'm pretty much out of ideas. BOZ (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've searched, but the only free preview I could find is the one we're already using. I may make a few more edits on the article here and there, but I don't see any major improvements coming soon. I've petitioned for help from a few people, but I don't know what kind of response I may get. BOZ (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll keep the article on hold for another day or two in order for them to give a chance to reply (and help if they can!). Then, regretfully, I'll have to end the review. I hate to use the term "fail", because the article has improved so much, so just think of it as a "not pass yet". Nikki♥311 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer to look at it that way, too. :) If at first you don't succeed... BOZ (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've closed the GA review. Good luck with this article in the future. :) Nikki♥311 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and thanks for all your help! :) We'll let you know when "round 2" comes up. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disjointed

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Here's the thing; this article has no flow. Recently, I was adding citations and adding material to various articles from some sources that I was reviewing. This article proved especially hard to work with. I think what it needs is to be reworked from top to bottom. Not necessarily anything thrown out, but absolutely reorganized. This is what I did to both Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast when getting them up to GA, and it absolutely helped. The History section is not really a proper chronological history. It starts off that way for the first few paragraphs, but after that it devolves into a hodgepodge of recentism. The events section isn't any better, and I bet a lot of that could and should be moved into the history. The history should be divided up into sections, like maybe the pre-D&D years (1968-1973), the D&D years with Gygax (1974-1985), the rest of the TSR years (1986-1997), the WotC years (1998-2001), and the Adkison era (2002-now), and they should all be roughly equal length, give or take a bit to avoid undue weight. Right now, 2/3 of the history focuses on the Adkison years. Not good! A lot of history is probably missing, and I don't know if I will have the time to fix it while the GA nom is in place, but we'll see. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that our other project has been put on hold, I might just be able to focus on this after all. What are your thoughts on how to better organize this? BOZ (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Now there's a good question; I'm not going to have much time over the next few days, and when I am on I need to work on some other things (mainly getting Wizards of the Coast and Ravenloft (D&D module) up to FA-Class), but I'll try and check in here once in a while. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem - but since those two aren't currently nominated for advancement, and this one is...  ;) What do you think would be the best way to rearrange this one? Is my "eras" idea a good one, or should we be looking at something else for the history? Should the events section be below all the tables or vice versa? BOZ (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that an "eras" idea would work, perhapes organized in the same timeframes as the tables or rearranging the tables to match the history. I also think that any "events" section should be put above the tables, so that all of the prose is first before the tables. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll do that first, then I'll hammer out some ideas on how to arrange it by era. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, looking at it compared to the timeline makes for a pretty easy conclusion! Early years/Gygax (1967-1975), TSR/Ggyax (1976-1984), MECCA/Williams (1985-1997), MEC/WotC (1998-2002) and Indianapolis/Adkison (2003-on). Disagree, or does that work? :) BOZ (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
As I look at it, some things are conspicuously absent from the pre-Indy history but are present in the timeline, so that will help build up the sections. For example, I don't recall seeing anywhere in there about expansions to other cities! BOZ (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I've vastly improved the flow of the history section! I will work on it some more later, particularly for mining some of the sources for more info. The pre-Indy sections could still use some additional expanding. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I thought of was that some of the stuff in the lead belongs more in the history, and isn't even reflected there. The lead should explain what's in the article (so maybe it should be rewritten later), so some about what the convention actually is (and we probably don't have enough explanation of that as it is), some history, some info on events, that sort of thing. Right now, the lead talks more about current info than anything. BOZ (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There, now that looks more like a real lead. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

GA failed - ah, well the momentum kind of dropped out of that one. As you can see in the review, we improved it a ton, but it's still pretty far off the mark. If we can get those concerns addressed, we can almost assuredly move it up sometime later. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But first, Drizzt Do'Urden. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Do we want to shift the bankruptcy issue to a new section? There have been new developments (the takeover attempt, Gen Con LLC emerging from Chapter 8.) --BRPierce (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

2010 Date Wrong

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just thought I would mention that, as per the moderator announcement from http://community.gencon.com/forums/t/19707.aspx (and confirmed on the main page at http://www.gencon.com/2009/indy/cs/attendees/futuredates.aspx), Gen-Con 2010 is being held August 5-8 instead of the week afterward. I have absolutely no idea how to edit references in Wikipedia for citing this source, so I figured it was easier to just mention it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.18.119 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is a picture of women offering to perform lesbian sexual acts in return for Japanese cultural offerings a relevant GenCon picture?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Other than the mere fact that it occurred at the convention, it is hard to reconcile why that picture is useful. 64.134.171.98 (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is such a picture here? How did I miss that???  :) 108.69.80.49 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It illustrates costuming at the convention, something which is pervasive and important. While the specific "Will Yuri for..." signs are not all that representative, you'd be hard pressed to find an ideally representative cosplayer. The photo also illustrates that Gen Con is full of silly. Which it is. I'm not enamored of the picture, but it's not terrible, serves a purpose, and the article could use more, not less, photos. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Under construction?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Retireduser455656, what sort of major work are you planning for the article? — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Gen-Con listed as "smaller than E3"

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I do not know the figures on E3's attendance this year, but given the reports that badge pre-registration for Gen-Con was up 25% compared to last year, it seems that a review will be in order after the final numbers are in. Perhaps it will be "larger than E3 but smaller than PAX?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.21.157 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out in a few weeks! 99.126.204.164 (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Just read on ICV2: Up to 41,000. Looks like it is time to change the intro text! http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/23736.html 64.134.241.32 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Tried to fix that, but honestly the way sources are cited now kind of overwhelms me, so the infobox still lists the 2011 numbers, sorry.  :( 64.134.65.82 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You did your best!  :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

40 Years of Gen Con

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a copy of 40 Years of Gen Con and I could add a reference with the correct page for all Gen Con up to 2007 except for Gen Con UK 1998 (it's not listed). I will also remove sources used only to confirm date and location of the con (if they are already listed in 40 Years of Gen Con) to unclutter the table. If there is any objection please comment below.--Moroboshi (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Go for it! Anything you can do to improve the article is welcome. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

World largest tabletop game convention ?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Whath the source for "world largest tabletop game convention" in the incipit ? Spiel at Essen get over 100.000 visitors each year.--Moroboshi (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern as I thought the same thing, but then I noticed that Essen has 150,000 "turnstile attendance," which is a counting method where each day's individual number of attendees are added together for a total figure. So if Essen is a four- or more-day convention, then those numbers actually suggest Gen-Con is larger, though as you can see in the Spiel Wikipedia article there is a debate as to how big it actually is. 50.135.255.40 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Geographical radius of convention--relevant?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

As a frequent attendee, one of the things that strikes me as particularly interesting about the convention is how many of the surrounding buildings it spreads out into despite the Indianapolis Convention Center's already-enormous size. Would an overhead map highlighting all the buildings that are technically host to the convention (vis-à-vis ticketed events taking place therein) be useful for the article? I realize it might change from year-to-year; just a thought. 73.53.48.154 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find one then sure, why not! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
How would this work? Sounds like an interesting idea, but any way to easily do this would probably involve copyrighted map data or something similar, yes? Huntleigh (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Since this changes from year to year it may be hard to track. I know one year at Gen Con 1999 there were events being held in the hotel down the street. But the next year there was not. I do know that during the Wisconsin era that the hotel adjoining the center was used about every year for events. Omega2064 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Proper convention-size citations?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see the claim asserted that Gen-Con is one of the largest conventions in North America, which as much as I would like it to be true certainly seems like a fairly bold statement--I mean, do any of us really know if the worlds of agriculture or finance or whatever do not have bigger conventions?

That said, surely it would not be hard to uncontroversially make the claim that it is one of the largest gaming conventions in North America, if not the world [and indeed if not the largest in the world]? This argument has come up before, and the only real competitors seem to be PAX and Internationale Spieltage SPIEL, and yet in both cases their higher-than-Gen-Con numbers seem to always be turnstile attendance, not actual attendance? Why is this so hard to figure out? Huntleigh (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Just a note, GenCon is a good sized convention, but certainly not that large. Just look at conventions such as AnimeExpo and ComicCon International (San Diego)...I think the qualifier about tabletop gaming convention is reasonable, but beyond that...not so much. Commercial conventions are also all quite large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.102.98 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gateway Technical College really a location for Gen Con 17?

I do not have the "40 Years of Gen Con" book in front of me at the moment, but I do not remember it saying anything about Gen Con 17 being held there in part, and the program guide from that year also only has maps of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside; no maps of Gateway Technical College. Gateway Technical College is also not listed as a Gen Con site on the otherwise seemingly comprehensive "Best 50 Years in Gaming" timeline showing every location a Gen Con has been held, and the Keeper of Ancient Gen Con Lore reacted with confusion to its inclusion as a site in his overview of every year (adding "what's Gateway?" as an aside for the alleged location). Is that location a joke/misunderstanding that got carried over into this list? 2604:2D80:D399:4500:D1B9:CB7C:E517:4D30 (talk)

Nothing about it in 40 Years of Gen Con; probably a very mild and dumb prank. Removing. Huntleigh (talk)

"The Story of TSR: 1975 - 1999" attendance figure contradictions

I just used this source to fill in the missing attendance figures, since I know there has been some discussion in the past (not here I do not think) as to how accurate a source the 25th Anniversary Collector's Edition is overall. It largely lines up with numbers from other sources, though it suggests a steadier overall increase from 1977 - 1988 than the other figures here. More importantly, figures for Gen Con 1998 (the most recent convention before this source was published) clearly state an attendance of 30,000; meanwhile, the source used for the 18,000 figure given in this article is literally "some guy's write-up of the event," so I tend to think the Peter Adkison-penned source should take precedent in regards to 1998's figure. But I am interested to hear other people's thoughts on this issue (and the broader issue of whether to potentially change other figures). Huntleigh (talk)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gen Con. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gen Con. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gen Con. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gen Con. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Gen Con. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gen Con. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gen_Con/Archive_1&oldid=1136755269"