Talk:BronyCon

Locations
The "locations and dates" table should have more information on past meetings! Right now, all it has is the upcoming meeting. dogman15 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem is that even EqD can't tell us a lot about the first and second one, other than the director being at the second one. Rainbow Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 03:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any source anywhere that tells when and where these first cons happened? dogman15 (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this, but apparently the WSJ source verified some details with the September con. As for the first one, moar digging is required. Rainbow Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"established by male fans"?
The final sentence of the opening paragraph has a couple of disputable elements: firstly, there is the misinterpretation of the term "brony" as applying only to male fans of the show; secondly, as the article itself attests, the event is organized by a woman. Therefore, I wonder whether this sentence is even necessary- It is certainly misleading.

(You'll have to forgive me if I have posted this observation in the wrong place/format... it's my first time using the discussion page!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhymeDragWithDrag (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Logo?
Should I add BroNYCon's logo to the article? COOLTUX345 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not notable? Reliable sources?
Someone keeps slapping a "this article may not meet notability requirements" on this article, which requests more sources.

This article has a hojillion sources already. How many more sources can we add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.81.141 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * of sources != notability. There must be significant coverage and lasting effect. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unsure on what point you feel there is insufficient evidence of notability with regard to "significant coverage" given citations to multiple reputable news sources, including the Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post, and cannot see how "lasting effect" is presently a valid problem, and so would request more specific clarification. Reviewing WP:EVENT, it lists the following requirements, which I believe are all met:
 * "Lasting effect": This requirement is limited by the statement "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.". Considering both the recent nature of the con, and that the there is some evidence in favour of lasting effect via the discussion of the movement in general in the traditional media citations such as the Wall Street Journal article, as well as the interest in subsequent repeats of the event with rising attendee numbers, this language indicates that it would be entirely incorrect to consider this as failure to prove notability; it explicitly says you can't do that for "recent events with unproven lasting effect" and establishes months as the timeframe.
 * "Geographical scope": The criteria for notability here is being reported outside the local region. This is met by existing citations. If more evidence is required, please request it; it will exist.
 * "Depth of coverage": Much coverage of the event discusses the curious nature of it, and provides "analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines", to quote from WP:EVENT. Again, evidence exists here; if you feel it is lacking, please request more citations and I am confident that they can be found.
 * "Duration of coverage": The requirement here is that coverage is not a "brief spurt". Major news sources are cited between October and November 2011, which indicates that it was not. If this is in dispute we can discuss this in particular at more length.
 * Finally, "Diversity of sources": The requirement here is that "A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article.". Sources are wide-ranging as the Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post are cited, so this criteria is met.
 * There are more sources available than are cited here, so if you could explain what specific evidence is lacking, considering WP:EVENT and the above, I would be happy to attempt to locate it to improve the article. --Namegduf Live (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A citation to the New York Post has now been added, in addition to the above-mentioned sources. --Namegduf (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirected to My_Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#Internet following
This convention is actually covered in more detail in the main article. Redirect. 216.252.10.254 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not true. The information there is just a simplified version of the "location and dates" table. A consensus should be made before redirecting or deleting this page. EvilHom3r (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If this article is deleted or merged, it's just going to come back again this summer. BronyCon 4 is expected to have close to 4,000 attendees, and you can bet there will be even more news coverage then. dogman15 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CRYSTAL. Phearson (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * XP dogman15 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support per previously stated reasons and WP:CRYSTAL. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does WP:CRYSTAL even apply if there's been past conventions? Wagner u t c  18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See Dogman's comment. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge. Not enough third party reliable sources or significant coverage to establish notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - I'm not saying it will, but BroNYCon 2012 will most likely receive a lot of news coverage. For now we can merge this article. Jeremjay  24  ''' 19:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I cannot see how citations to the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post, as well as a range of other third-party sources, over a period of time, can be considered insufficient "third party reliable sources or significant coverage". --Namegduf (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note that there has now been added a citation to the New York Post, in addition to both of the above. --Namegduf (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it's true that WP:CRYSTAL discourages making decisions based on what might possibly happen in the future, the convention has been plenty notable in the past. There has been significant coverage in the news; see the previous discussion on notability. There are plenty of other conventions which have their own article. The fact that there is more content on the topic on a different article should be an encouragement to improve this one. A lack of content on a notable topic is not a good reason to delete/redirect an article, that's the whole point of stubs. I volunteer to improve the quality of this article. 194.151.221.94 (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a new image
The current one is really old, the location looks ugly, and surely there are much better images from the January 2012 Bronycon. Where are some free images from that one we can use? dogman15 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a look around and I couldn't find any free images, we'll probably need to request for permission. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys can try asking PurpleTinker (the first chairwoman of Bronycon) over on her deviantart page: purpletinker.deviantart.com 173.85.173.42 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

John de Lancie's documentary
John de Lancie is doing a documentary on BronyCon, and I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned in the article. But, I can't seem to find any reliable sources. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge
I am proposing merging of the documentary article (BronyCon: The Documentary) into this. It's a matter of a bit of symbiosis notability: the convention is barely notable without mention of the Documentary, and the Documentary really isn't useful unless we've talk about the convention.

It may be at a future time that the documentary, once released, gains significant attention as a film (maybe Ebert will review it, I dunno...) at which point resplitting could be an option, but that's CRYSTAL. Instead, merging now assures both topics aren't going to get deleted in the short term and there's plenty of space for coverage of both. --M ASEM (t) 16:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the documentary doesn't focus exclusively on just the convention. We could say the same thing for Wasteland 2 (anyone who plays Fallout will get the hint) just because most of the sources focus on the Kickstarter. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The focus is still the convention, even though it will bore out more than just that. The point is that right now, both the con and the documentary barely pass notability. Together, they clear it with no problem.  Later, the documentary may get more coverage and be notable on its own, but that's not the case right now. --M ASEM  (t) 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think merging is a bad idea, but I think the convention article should at least have a history or overview subsection, just so it would be more elaborate. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm against the proposed merge into the Bronycon article. This is a proper, feature length professional documentary production that focuses on more than simply Bronycon itself. Pelenor (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Moved from Talk:BronyCon: The Documentary Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But there's minimal notability for the documentary itself currently. It may become one, at which point a separate article would make sense, but we can't project that. --M ASEM (t) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an outsider, I very much would like to see that the documentary would one day get it's own article a little while after the release when we can objectively report on it's reception while being able to cite more sources. At the moment though it will benefit both articles to have them in one place. (Sorry if my terminology isn't up to scratch, I haven't contributed to Wikipedia before)--94.174.18.126 (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging is probably the right idea, for now. The movie hasn't yet been released, so it would be a slightly iffy case if its notability were challenged. Merging them makes both stronger in the short term, and more likely to survive until the future when they may grow to stand on their own. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you guys do merge it (*sigh*), be sure to include the film infobox. I like that thing. dogman15 (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's not a good reason for content inclusion. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support Limited to no current notability, merge it. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I say wait it out. When the movie itself is released (and it shouldn't take too long), it'll receive coverage and we can go from there. --HelicopterLlama (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

July 1st fire
If we do want to mention the small fire that happened, there are plenty of sources about it, contrary to what Ciaran Sinclair said.
 * wwwexaminer com/article/fire-disrupts-bronycon-2012
 * http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/convention-news/20161-summer-2012-bronycon-almost-live-update-the-con-catches-fire.html
 * Other "not reliable" sources, like Everfree Radio and Equestria Daily. dogman15 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Equestria Daily is of dubious reliability, at best. Everfree Radio is not reliable. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a small inconvenience to the overall show; it was an accident, fixed in an hour. Maybe if it was started by some anti-brony group or something, it could be noted, but its so trivial to be of encyclopedic value.  (There is a very slim, very CRYSTAL chance that the incident may work its way to the show based on comments on how PEter New managed the evacuation, suggesting Big Mac as Ponyville Fire Marshall or something, but there's no reason to include now based on that.) --M ASEM  (t) 21:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to mention that when I removed it, there were no sources and the fire was still going on. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well of course there aren't going to be any articles on something as it's happening. dogman15 (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you even read or watch the news? Notable events are covered in real time. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We need a history section.
We have all these sources, in addition to the fact that G4 is going to talk about it on Attack of the Show tonight. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me set up something. It won't be perfect as there's no real information as to why BC#1 started that's sourcable to reliable works. --M ASEM (t) 21:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note from BronyCon PR Staff
Hello, this is Brightsong from BronyCon's Public Relations department. I wanted to let you know that our website is, indeed, a credible source for our staff roster. I'll be editing the page to take down the citation needed tag and will instead link the citation to our staff roster. Please do not edit it again.

Thank you for reading this and for your dedication behind keeping everything accurate!

~Brightsong ~PR Staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockinghippie (talk • contribs)


 * There's nothing with the website itself as a primary source for info and I don't see any reason to revert this, but please be aware that conflict of interest is frowned on and can get you blocked (likely not going to happen on this, just as a future ref). You can let us know here on this talk page what you want added and we can add it without a problem. --M ASEM  (t) 05:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Several issues with the article

 * Five issues:
 * References that don't actually support the information that's being cited need to be removed.
 * Establishing notability does not give us free reign to use primary sources.
 * Entire sections can not be primarily based on primary sources.
 * You cannot create synthesis with primary sources in order to "fill in the gaps", as is the case with information about the second BronyCon.
 * Claims that are sourced on one article are not exempt from being sourced on a different article.
 * That's synthesis, reliance on primary sources, and use of references that don't directly support the cited information. –Throwawaytv (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are very wrong. Notability does not limit article content. Once you've shown a topic is notable, you can use acceptable primary sources to discuss the topic. You can't over-relay on primary sources and overwhelm minimal secondary sourcing, but that doesn't mean that they are neither unusable nor does this prevent sections sourced only to primary. We are certainly not overwhelming the secondary source here. There's no synthesis happening at all. Further, WP:V requires claims to be verifyable; if the information exists in better detail in a different article, we can point users there to check those claims; in this case, the rise of the fandom is fully fleshed out there. --M ASEM  (t) 08:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't use citations that don't directly support the information it's supposedly citing. These include:
 * Finnish article - passing mention of BronyCon, does not support the preceding information
 * Gothamist article - passing mention of BronyCon, does not support the preceding information
 * Beast article - passing mention of BronyCon, does not support the preceding information
 * None of these references directly support the emphasized information in the sentence "BronyCon (stylized as BroNYCon when in New York City) is a fan convention held every three to five months, solely dedicated to the animated show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" which is why they were removed and the information was removed. This is issue 1, I'll elaborate on the rest of the issues on the article's talk page. –Throwawaytv (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued from Talk:My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_fandom [Appended above. –Throwawaytv (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)]


 * Citations that don't directly support the information they're supposedly citing. These include:
 * Finnish article - passing mention of BronyCon, does not support the preceding information
 * Gothamist article - passing mention of BronyCon, does not support the preceding information
 * Beast article - passing mention of BronyCon, does not support the preceding information
 * None of these references directly support the emphasized information in the sentence "BronyCon (stylized as BroNYCon when in New York City) is a fan convention held every three to five months, solely dedicated to the animated show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" which is why they were removed and the information was removed. These citations should be removed.

Since my edit was reverted twice, this needs to be settled in the talk page. –Throwawaytv (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Establishing notability does not give us free reign to use primary sources. The primary sources overwhelm the secondary sources. Out of 24 references, 3 do not support the information preceding them, 6 are secondary sources, and the remaining 15 are primary sources from fan sites affiliated with the convention, the website of the convention itself, and from Kickstarter. The primary sources definitely overwhelm the secondary sources, and they are improperly used for synthesis.
 * Claims that are sourced on one article are not exempt from being sourced on a different article. This does not need to be elaborated.


 * Absolutely wrong. Notability does not affect article content. There is no requirement on the ratio of secondary to primary sources; it's how much that information balances, and here it is appropriately balanced. Passing mention is perfectly fine as long as you have other sources that go into depth about the topic (which we have), and the three articles you have do support the statement, just not word for word (which isn't allowed anyway). (Specifically, each of them establish it as the premiere fan convention for bronys, and the Beast article specifically pegs it as a quarterly convention). --M ASEM  (t) 14:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims that are sourced on one article are not exempt from being sourced on a different article. This is not disputed and hence the cn tags should be restored.
 * Citing_sources: "Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support the material. " None of the sources mention what the convention is "solely dedicated to [the show]", and regardless of whether it's true or not (it's not) it has to be cited, and cannot be synthesized. None of the sources describe how the title is stylized, and again, regardless of whether it's true or not, it has to be cited, and cannot be synthesized. "Held every three to five months" is a really clumsy way of saying "quarterly", it may be a good-faith attempt to avoid plagiarism, but it veers away from the cited source.
 * Wikipedia:PRIMARY: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source". These include: "Considering the success of the event, the group opted to rerun the event, planned to correspond with the broadcast of the second episode of the second season in September 2011." (uncited); "In addition to Shaun Scotellaro, the operating of the largest brony web site, "Equestria Daily", the current executive producer Jayson Thiessen also agreed to be a part of the event as a guest of honor. More than 350 people attended this second event." (uncited); "With its popularity growing, the third BronyCon, scheduled for the start of 2012, was arranged in a larger space offered by a convention hotel, allowing for 800 people to attend." (uncited, possible synthesis); "By this point, Hasbro began to work with voice actors and other show creators to arrange for their presence at these events, as other brony conventions across the country were in planning stages." (uncited); "The event saw three of the show's voice actresses, Ashleigh Ball, Andrea Libman, and Nicole Oliver, as well as the show's musician Daniel Ingram, among other guests from the fandom." (uncited); "Soon after, plans for a summer convention were made, anticipated to be in a larger space. Early guests of honor included Lauren Faust and voice actor John de Lancie." (synthesis); "Interest in the convention sharply rose with these announcements." (synthesis); "The sudden surge required the organizers to find a larger space, eventually coming to the Meadowlands Exposition Center with a capacity of 4,000 attendees, and with enough events to cover a two-day period." (synthesis); "Numerous voice actors and writers attended in addition to Faust and de Lancie." (uncited, synthesis); "The success of BronyCon has since launched several other conventions for the fandom across the globe. At least twelve such organized events have been planned for 2012. Some of these include "TrotCon", taking place in Columbus, OH; "Everfree Northwest" in Seattle, WA; "Canterlot Gardens" in Cleveland, OH; "Equestria LA" in Los Angeles, CA; "GalaCon" in Stuttgart, Germany; and "B.U.C.K." in Manchester, UK." (uncited); "File:BronyCon-Attendance.svg" should be a bar graph, and either way it's synthesis;  and finally, "BronyCon: The Documentary [section]" is partly original research synthesized with primary sources.
 * In short, that's not how citations work. Since lack of citations is not disputed, let's deal with it first, then we can move on to my claim of basing entire sections on primary sources. –Throwawaytv (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Attendance chart
Looks like that thing needs to be updated. 6,000 attendees this time! dogman15 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another source (and confirmation from BC's twitter) has it over 7,000 now. I would wait until the con is over so that if that creeps towards 7,500 we can use that. --M ASEM (t) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any valid source saying the location will the same 2014 as it was 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.67.149 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * They announced it at the end of BC and I've seen it mentioned in twitter (and for something this size, they would know already to secure the space). --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There need to be reliable sources for the botable guests in the chart. As Jayson Thiessen said he would not come, despite being announced, we do not know if the same happened before or will happen again. Unless properly sourced, those names might be inaccurate and therefor would have to be removed. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that it is near impossible to say what VIPs actually made it without resorting to personal accounts/photos/etc., another way to resolve it is to retitle that column as "Planned Guests", which all can be sourced, and of course for any guess that actually cancelled and that was announced, that should be removed. That way the list reflects what the con has said the VIPs were to be up to the day of the start of the con. What happens after the fact is much more difficult to reliably source, though for example, given enough time, I can link proof that each stated guest this year was at the con at some point via fan photos. --M ASEM (t) 21:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While fan photos might not be reliable sources and searching for guests there might be close to original research it is certainly better than no sources at all. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(no title specified)
When will they have a BronyCon in Arizona? --24.251.87.25 (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Convention Type
Should BronyCon really be considered a multi-genre convention? It is opening up to different fandoms, but it is still primarily just one of many Brony Conventions, along with GalaCon and Everfree Northwest. Should Wikipedia create a new article for Brony conventions like how there is an article for Furry conventions? --DeathTrain (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "A Brony Tale" Official Poster.jpg