Talk:Project A-Kon/Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Project A-Kon → A-Kon – perhaps we should move this page to the official name of the convention, A-Kon. --Relisted Cúchullain t/ c 16:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)  Relisted a second time --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Disavian (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment what's the common name? From the section just above this, it was named after an anime, Project A-Ko, so wouldn't the nameplay remain popular? (especially considering the singer Akon having the same pronounciation as the proposed title. ) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was under the presumption that the con went by the name A-Kon these days rather than Project A-Kon, thus proposing the move. I could be mistaken, thus opening the discussion here to see if there's any consensus in that direction. Disavian (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another piece in the puzzle: their facebook is under the name Project A-Kon. Disavian (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect information
The "A-Kon" in Project A-Kon is not an abbreviation of Anime Convention. It is a reference to an anime, Project A-ko. I would have editted the information myself, but apparently, too many people like to vandalize this article, and I'm not entirely certain how to bypass the protection mechanism. Cobaltknight 12:32 25 June 2008


 * Do you have a source to back up that claim? I'll have to take a look at the current statement, but I can a fact tag on it. --Farix (Talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong tone
The way this article is written seems to reflect A-Kon's ideals; written by moronic fanboy dorks, FOR moronic fanboy dorks! Why is it everything relating to closely followed subjects seems to be written by some crazed fanboy idiot with a skull made of latex? PsychoJosh 13:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is fine up to the sentence that begins, "A-Kon® 17 also held The Pokemon Trading Card Game"; starting there, the article pretty much turns to crap. The "recent news" section reeks of POV, and lacks references. Can someone with decent skills fix this up, please? --Bored118 01:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, also fixed some things with HentaiFest-Hentai_Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hentai Jeff (talk • contribs)
 * The "recent news" bashing A-kon 17 is very opinionated and angry, but a lot of patrons feel that way. Could someone put something back in about A-kon 17 expressing why many people are angry, but without the article being biased? I've heard of a lot of dissatisfied and angry people, so I think it needs including, but I don't know any official references to sight. Digitamer2 12 February 2007


 * Find some sources first. Wikipedia's not a place for rumors or opinion...but if there's a write-up about how people are unhappy, that could be a potential source. --PatrickD 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What was with the random Pokemon crap? I took out most of that. A lot of the HentaiFest stuff also seemed irrelevant too, though some of it remains (do we need to know what's on the tshirt of "Hentai Chris"? Um, no). Frecklegirl 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) "(do we need to know what's on the tshirt of "Hentai Chris"? Um, no)."

Yes we do Hentai_Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hentai Jeff (talk • contribs)


 * No, that's clearly non notable and not important. I'm taking it out --AW 17:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ again, leave it alone.


 * I agree with AW, but if you think HentaiFest is important, then you can help your case by providing reliable sources that mention it. Otherwise, the information can be removed and will likely be.  --PatrickD 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think the fact that I'm usually there working the line would be enough. Hentai Jeff 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but your word does not meet our verifiability requirements. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * reposted from TheFarix‎'s user talk:I ask that you please leave the A-kon article alone, I am currently working on a full rewrite of the page which will include citations for everything (including most of what is tagged right now, me keeping the speculation of the con being named after Project A-ko (100% not true and Meri the con chair will explode whenever she hears anyone saying this)) However as a point of reference I would like the article to stay as it is currently so others can add on and be included in my process for a rewrite. Thank you for your understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hentai Jeff (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have some ownership issues with the article. But the information is unsourced and can't be added until after a third-party source is provided. --Farix (Talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he has ownership problems, he is however right to want to keep the article this way, please stop messing with the article 208.189.200.254 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And he was rightfully blocked for his campaign to keep this unsourced material from the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * for a total of 7 hours, look he's working on a full revision and wants this up as a point of reference, it dosen't hurt you or wiki to keep it up till he's done. stop being a wiki-nazi 208.189.200.254 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I love it when you invoke Godwin's. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Look, the information had been challenged back in March. Verifiability states that any information that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. If it is not sourced within a reasonable period of time, it may be removed. Nine months is more then reasonable to leave a challenged statement on the article. In fact, its down right excessive. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The information has been challenged and remains unverified after nine months, therefore it can no longer be included. --Farix (Talk) 01:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ::sigh:: why won't you just give the hell up? this article should be of no concern to you, infact I would think the ones maintaining it all this time are more qualified. Reverts will continue until Jeff's new rewrite is up or you give up. And I'm sure there are others out there that agree with me 208.189.200.254 (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and not tell other editors to "give the hell up". As a Wikipedia editor of two years, a participant of WP:ANIME and WP:ANIME/CONS, and also someone who has been slowly working at cleaning up and improving multiple anime convention articles, it is my concern. But because you have threatened to edit war over the inclusion of challenged and sourced information, I have requested that the article be semi-protected. Now if you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies on requiring third-party sources to verify information, then you should take it up at WT:VERIFY instead. --Farix (Talk) 03:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's been made clear that WP groups are irrelevant in this edit war, you came in and vandalized the article and have simply refused to follow the wishes of those already trying to fix it, leaving these up doesn't hurt you or wikipedia, or do you have a bad experience with ppl who actually care about the article? You don't need to pull out your "Citation needed" sign and picket this article. as I said please leave the article alone. I imagine Jeff will be editing the article again once he's home from the hospital (just had a baby boy I ironically met him there and we had a long talk he has some great ideas that I would love to see come into fruition if you would just let this article be) 208.189.200.254 (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making further uncivil comments about other editors. Please assume good faith by not calling the changes made my other editor's "vandalism" because you simply disagree with them. If you continue to make such uncivil remarks, you will be blocked. Every article can be freely edited by anyone on Wikipedia. There is no group of "authoritative" editors that can prohibit other editors from making changes to the article. Nor can they truly prevent other editors from altering the content they include. Frankly, I don't know who Jeff is, but that really doesn't matter in improving this article. If Jeff can add information backed by third-party source, then it can be included in the article. --Farix (Talk) 14:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)