Talk:SIGGRAPH

xkcd

any way to work this in? | http://xkcd.com/365/ 24.63.4.126 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The XKCD comic, while humorous, does not contribute to the article. Anutherdavid (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if someone did... 81.227.142.14 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Will

ACM SIG and conference

SIGGRAPH, though part of ACM, has become its own entity. Newbies to SIGGRAPH may not make the connection and digging through ACM's extensive history and sections would bury SIGGARPH. Let's leave it separate and give it the independent page it deserves for being such a great conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.5.58 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 September 2005

I propose to move SIGGRAPH to SIGGRAPH (conference) and ACM SIGGRAPH to SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group), and to recreate SIGGRAPH as a disambiguation page. I find the current situation with SIGGRAPH describing the conference and ACM SIGGRAPH describing the Special Interest Group confusing. —Tobias Bergemann 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer disamb links at the top of the articles, which would clear up confusion preserve the ease with which the articles can be linked to. — brighterorange (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

ed2k links

What is the wikipedia policy regarding ed2k links in articles? Is there a special format that should be adhered to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.54.212 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 February 2006

2013 and 2014

Siggraph 2013 will be in Anaheim. Siggraph 2014 will be in Vancouver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.225.34 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All upcoming Siggraphs have been added Blueal (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Links to papers

All links on the page to the 2000 to 2007 papers seem down. (i.e. http://www.cs.brown.edu/~tor/sig2000.html)

There's just this message left:

This page has been removed at the request of the ACM Publications Board.

The 2008 to 2010 links work fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.14.185 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit discussion

Please correct me if I'm not doing this correctly, but I want to create a forum here to discuss repeated edits by the user "Randykitty". Multiple users including myself disagree with this this major edit and would like to stop the "edit war". Please advise. Thank you. Terrence Masson (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• None of the editors who have tried to insert this directory info into the article (without any supporting independent reliable sources) seem to be only occasional contributors at best (and you yourself are a COI editor). Whether a scientific conference is held in Rome or Milan or Tokyo in a certain year really does not have much impact on the meeting nor is it of much (if any) significance. Info like this belongs on the website(s) of the conference, but not in an encyclopedia. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Randykitty (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I also refer to a similar RFC here, where there is a clear consensus that this kind of info does not belong in an encyclopedic article. --Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because someone edits a lot doesn't make them right. It would seem many agree with me, and WP own guidelines ask you to : "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." So how do we compromise? I would ask you to follow those guidelines and ask professionals in this field (like me and others) to add citations. Your opinions about impact are simply not shared by those of this community, and repeatably so; while the information is also very much not indiscriminate. So I'm going to keep re-inserting this very relevant information whenever you delete it, and ask for your cooperation at a compromise. I'm happy to hear suggestions of formatting or citation, etc. and will do the work to update the data presented. If you have an intractable position please say so now we can go to other dispute resolution means and not prolong the disruption to the SIGGRAPH Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrencewiki (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please have a look at the discussion that I linked to above (Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation). I understand that you and others in your community have an interest in having this information in the article, but it is at this point against the consensus in that RFC. You can participate in that discussion and see whether you can convince the other participants. If so, we'll restore that content, but until then it goes. Opening up yet another RFC here seems counterproductive, as the case here is identical to that at Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've read it and it does not in my opinion relate to this case. I would like a 3rd party to comment before you continue to delete this section. I don't see any offer of compromise on citations or formatting yes is that correct? There would seem to be countless examples of content and formatting like this SIGGRAPH page in other WP entries, with less citations than we have; which would seem to invalidate your argument as well. I look forward to either compromise advice or arbitration while this content remains. Terrence Masson (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have explained my position several times and the RFC that I linked to is about exactly the same situation as here. So if you want to waste the community's time on yet another RFC, please do so or revert your re-addition of this list. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's now been three days, so I assume you're not going for another RFC and will remove the list. --Randykitty (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Just adding a voice from "the SIGGRAPH community". Was there a quoted external reference to this information (other than a few tens of thousands of people who might object to errors)? No - otherwise I wouldn't have looked at the Wikipedia article repeatedly. Was the information unbiased and correct, and holding information that's a pain to find by means other than having it conveniently present on the Wikipedia page? Absolutely. It would be lovely if SIGGRAPH would sort their website and have this archive information somewhere that it can be referred to, but as far as I know, they haven't; the nearest is this, which is only a subset of the information. (Yes, I'll report it at the conference this year, but I'm not holding my breath.) SIGGRAPH's web presence has a long history of being inconsistent and impossible to navigate. I think a disservice is being done to readers by having this information removed from the Wikipedia page by an overzealous adherence to the Wikipedia rules rather than the goal of providing accurate and accessible information. If those of us interested in reading this information on Wikipedia were in a position of authority to update the SIGGRAPH web site, obviously we should do so rather than "host" things here - but we do not have that authority, and there's no evidence that the SIGGRAPH web maintainers are inclined (or have time) to do so irrespective of how useful its users would find it. There are many other list articles on Wikipedia, and I don't feel an RFC on a discussion page relating to an unrelated conference that's ten times smaller should be read as authoritative reasoning for reducing the availability of information. I'm not going to contribute to an edit war by restoring the list, but I do want to be clear that its presence was a useful resource. Fluppeteer (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Basically, what you are saying is that there are not even sources for this info, which makes the case for removing it even stronger. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

When I first saw this, I was pretty upset as well, but after a lot more thought, I do agree that it should be removed. We can link to SIGGRAPH Past Annual Conferences for the bulk of the info, and then I don't think we should have the links anyway, which leaves the info like chairs and attendance, which we don't have sources for. The only thing I think would be interesting for a Wikipedia article would be some analysis on growth/decline of attendance as it changed from an academic-focused conference to one with more popular attendance, and then the decline once vendors and studios started backing out, or analysis on how it used to have more diversified locations, but for financial reasons has been more focused on the west coast of North America. But even though I know that's fairly common knowledge amongst long-time attendees as well as committee members, I don't have any citation I can find, either. Jason Scott (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Renewed discussion about SIGGRAPH history

There continues to be controversy about the historical listing of SIGGRAPH conferences, and its repeated deletion by user Randykitty. The main argument for removing this information seems to be that "it can be found on external webpages." But that is true for the vast majority of information on Wikipedia, and is not in itself a valid reason for removal. Moreover, the page here distills down some extremely pertinent information (such as attendee accounts) into one cohesive and *encyclopedic* list---exactly the purpose of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. A good analogy would be population counts for cities: there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia that list, say, world cities by population. While this information is indeed likely available from the webpage of each local city, it is absurd to think that we should not therefore aggregate such information on Wikipedia. Why else should Wikipedia exist? If there is any concern about the validity of this information, the community is glad to add citations. But I consider it an act of abuse and vandalism for Randykitty (or any other user) to continue to delete this information without discussion or explanation.

Also, in a recent edit, Randykitty states that this information is available on SIGGRAPH's website. The burden of proof is now on Randykitty to provide this information. What is the URL of the website that lists (i) all the SIGGRAPH conference locations dating back to 1974, and (ii) additional metadata such as attendee and exhibitor counts? AFAIK a single such list does not exist, even if the individual data points CAN be collected and cited in a verifiable way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.159.53 (talk • contribs)

• No, the argument is not that "it can be found on external webpages." The argument is "it belongs on external webpages". See the discussion above and the links in my answer to your query on my talk page. This discussion has been had and has been decided. As for abuse and/or vandalism, feel free to report me. Your comparison with cities by population is so obviously invalid that I'm not going to bother to explain. As for your question, here you go (not that it matters whether that infpo is available externally). Now please stop edit warring. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• • The page you link to is insufficient since it does not contain much of the additional data (such as attendee and exhibitor counts) that has been carefully collected by Wikipedians from external articles that are not directly linked to or provided by the SIGGRAPH organization itself. This information is important, historical information that is highly relevant to an understanding of the conference and its impact/importance on the field. I also don't see why the comparison to cities is "obviously invalid," and again, if you are unable to provide a clear reason why the information collected on this page is any different, then you have not justified your decision to repeatedly delete/vandalize this page. You clearly do not have an investment in this community, because if you did you would see the value of this information (which is NOT available anywhere else in a single cohesive format---only by Googling many, many pages to aggregate the information that has been nicely summarized in this article). Why do you feel so strongly about this anyway? The argument that this information somehow "does not belong" feels enormously week compared to the argument that this information is an important part of the historical record about this conference. For that reason, I cannot believe that your edits are in good faith, but are rather just a case of you wanting to be "right."

• • • Also, I do not see anything in the previous discussion that implies that this issue has "already been decided." All I see is you begging the question of your own arguments, and then making the final edit. Only one other Wikipedian favored your arguments. That is not a consensus; that is just death by badgering. The issue deserves to be discussed further, and unless you can provide both (i) a crystal-clear reference to Wikipedia policy that prohibits inclusion of such information, and (ii) a clear consensus from editors beyond yourself, then the coin definitely falls on the side of not outright deleting content that has been carefully collected and curated over the years by many Wikipedians. This should be a site that serves and is developed by a community; not a tyranny run by editors who have too much time on their hands.

Ok, I am trying to take Randykitty's concerns into accounts by creating a new table that includes only the attendence and exhibitor numbers. This information is highly relevant to understanding the trajectory and impact of the field in the broader context of computer science. For instance, contemporary scholars are quite interested in the impact that emerging ideas from artificial intelligence and machine learning is having on adjacent disciplines. Providing quantitative historical information on participation in different academic communities is quite valuable for understanding these trends, and providing this information through an objective, sourceable mechanism like Wikipedia is much more likely to give an objective viewpoint than reading, e.g., the promotional materials of organizations like SIGGRAPH, whose chief mission is to promote its own field. Again, this information is also not available in one cohesive form externally. Since this is a new addition to the page, this table should be discussed by the broader community (not just Randykitty) before it is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.159.53 (talk • contribs)

• Sigh. Obviously that info is not available externally, because you have put hardly any references. And the few sources that are in this section are press releases, the organization itself, etc. What you need are reliable sources independent of the subject. So tell me again, why should this addition of unsourced/badly sourced stuff not be challenged??? --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am adding references now. If content on Wikipedia is not completely perfect (e.g., citations, etc., have not yet been put in) the default action should be to improve it, not to delete it. That is how we make Wikipedia better. Also, there's no reason to doubt the authenticity of attendance numbers that come from the organization (in fact, falsifying these numbers would likely be considered an act of fraud under US law). There is no plausible reason this information would be considered questionable under WP:Reliable sources. Not sure you have an authentic leg to stand on here; seems you are trying to come up with a reason to delete this information simply because it is not your cup of tea (and even though it has an important purpose in terms of aggregating and communicating knowledge that serves a very large set of readers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.159.53 (talk • contribs)

• Sorry, but this is just an attempt to evade 3RR. Reverting partially still is reverting. In any case, this still is unencyclopedic information. Is there any source that discusses attendance trends, for example? If no, why include it here if nobody is interested enough to write about it? This is just using WP to further the aims of the conference. Also, why include numbers of exhibitors (mildly promotional at best: the more exhibitors, the more others will want to exhibit, too, a huge source of income for meetings like this). The current reference 47 looks like something that somebody put together themselves. It doesn't look like an RS at all. etc etc --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think you are perhaps concerned that I am someone working for ACM or SIGGRAPH, trying to promote the conference? I can assure you, then, that I am not. I am an academic who deeply cares about these issues and this community, trying to improve accessibility to data that is difficult to obtain otherwise (even though I have now included citations to nearly every citation in this table). You, on the other hand, are a Wikipedia editor who is merely trying to be a pedant, and doesn't give a damn about who you hurt or help in the real world. I am really trying to add something helpful and valuable to Wikipedia, while painting within its lines. I have gone to great lengths to add the citations you asked for. I have given thorough justification for why this information is pertinent and notable in the broader academic context. I have no idea why you are still being such a zealot about getting rid of this information. Let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.159.53 (talk • contribs)

• Could you please start signing your posts here? Four tildes (~) is all that is needed . And you might benefit from reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Like, right now. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Good point, and I will try to stay away from the personal attacks. On the flip side, sorry, I cannot assume good faith in this instance. I don't feel like any effort is being made to see a constructive path forward, despite serious efforts from my side to restructure and rethink the presentation of information and its value for the page.71.112.159.53 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• If anything, Randykitty is not assuming good faith here: the assumption (I think?) is that these edits have been made by SIGGRAPH organizers in an effort to promote their conference and bring more vendors to the event, rather than (what is actually true) an effort by an academic, unpaid and unconnected member of the community to provide his/her community with information that is valuable for future decision making, communicating with students about the trajectory of the field, etc. Where is the good faith on your side, Randykitty?71.112.159.53 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please point me to the place where, explicitly or implicitly, I doubted your good faith. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• For instance, the statement, "why include numbers of exhibitors (mildly promotional at best: the more exhibitors, the more others will want to exhibit, too, a huge source of income for meetings like this)" somehow suggests that the point of these edits is to advertise SIGGRAPH to exhibitors. The real point is to provide accurate historical data on the impact of the academic field of computer graphics on applications in industry, i.e., what numerical data is there that provides some indication of the impact of this field in the real world? The negative rather than the positive is being assumed here.71.112.159.53 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The current reference 47 looks like something that somebody put together themselves. It doesn't look like an RS at all. etc etc" This reference has now been replaced by a reference published by New Riders Press and available on Amazon, which also addresses the concern of "Is there any source that discusses attendance trends, for example?". That is exactly what this book does. It is important to realize that computer graphics is a serious academic discipline which has had a major impact on modern computing. So yes, this is a subject where people have written about and analyzed trends in the field.71.112.159.53 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• OK, one last try. As you probably know, WP has many more editors in the area of sports than in science-related topics (unfortunately enough). There are editors who go at great lengths to create stubs for every person who ever competed in the Olympics, for example. Same for the Super Bowl or the soccer world championships. Many sports-fans are also obsessed with stats. Who scored the most? What's their average? Given those interests, this stuff is also covered by reliable sources, who will publish articles about these statistics. And I don't doubt that if you put in some effort, you can obtain attendance figures for, say, each figure skating event at the Winter Olympics since its inception. You'll probably even find out how many vendors (hot dogs, drinks, fries, etc) there were at each event. I don't doubt that there would even be people who would be interested in those numbers. Yet... We don't find tables of numbers of attendees or vendors for any sports event. For the simple reason that 1/ it's an excessive listing of unexplained statistics, 2/ there are no sources that discuss these figures in their totality (that's why you need to put in an effort to get these data from different sources) 3/ there is no context, and 4/ It's really, really, really unencyclopedic.

I'm sorry for the effort that you put into this, but that whole table needs to go. After that, this article can easily be merged to the article on the parent organization, as one is not notable without the other. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It should not be merged to the parent organization. They are independently notable. Much of the information about the conference activities that was deleted should be added back with better sourcing. Here is an article that details many aspects of the 2019 conference, but doesn't even mention ACM.[1] Is this style (San_Diego_Comic-Con#Locations_and_dates) for listing annual events preferred or as prose or as a separate article? StrayBolt (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment by RandyKitty. We rarely disagree, but this is one of those times. . My general perspective is that the importance of major conferences, especially in some fields of engineering, is so great, that they should be thoroughly covered in WP. The main problem is making sure that the ones we cover are the major ones, not the minor ones that people with a COI may wish to insert. Most of us in science know perfectly well what the most important conference(s) in our fields are, but it is sometime shard to show this by definitive references--attendance is only one guide; another useful one, is citations to the publications of those conferences. The GNG is just as unhelpful as it is for academic bios or academic journals.

In such articles, the list of conferences, giving dates, place, special topic, and a link to published proceedings, is essential information. I consider attendance a possible though not essential addition, and I'm not at all sure about number of exhibitors.

Whether this conference is important enough for WP purposes, needs to be discussed, but I think that in general the major conference series of IEEE are notable, probably more so than any other organization. (at least, that's what I as a librarian taught my science librarianship students),

Whether it should bea separate article from the sig is another matter, and either option is possible. Personally, I view such series as journals, and think a separate article usually justified--but in this particularcase, and possible for most IEEE SIGs, the titles are so similar that it would avoid confusion to combine them. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing warnings at top of page

Independent of the question of the table of attendence/exhibitor accounts, I have edited the page to remove any hint of a statement that might appear to be advertisement/promotion of the conference, and have made sure that the set of sources is diverse and is largely not coming from the SIGGRAPH organization itself. What remains are (I believe) short, declarative, and factual statements that are easily verifiable, such as "SIGGRAPH started in 1997" and "the review process changed to double blind in 2018." Other editors are free to check things over, but I believe, in good faith, that the page is now in line with most (yet perhaps not all) of the Wikipedia guidelines and standards.71.112.159.53 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I also want to say, especially to Randykitty: it seems that many of the previous edits have been made from the perspective that SIGGRAPH is a "money making machine" trying to promote itself on Wikipedia. This idea is bizarre for a number of reasons, namely that (i) SIGGRAPH is a highly respected academic venue (e.g., top institutions like MIT, Stanford, etc., use SIGGRAPH publication records to make tenure decisions), (ii) ACM and ACM SIGGRAPH are non-profit organizations whose primary goal is serving the graphics community; not turning a profit, and (iii) ACM and SIGGRAPH have much better ways to advertise than by hacking a crappy little Wikipedia page. (If they were interested in doing that, wouldn't the page be way better by now?). If the page sounds like an advertisement, it's likely because some enthusiastic-yet-misguided members of this community were just excited about the conference and wrote some random stuff. Killing, deleting, merging, and generally burning everything with fire is not the appropriate action here. Rather, if you are genuinely interested in making the discourse on academia better on Wikipedia, then you might try being positive and constructive, and helping to move the content toward something more factual and informative. I.e., you might try a creative rather than a destructive process.71.112.159.53 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Finally, a typical mistake made by editors like Randykitty is to bash and banish novice users for "not doing Wikipedia right." Maybe instead you should consider that these novice users are potentially folks who can bring a great deal of value to Wikipedia---if you guide them and help them in a constructive way. Deleting their edits and telling them to RTFM is, in contrast, a great way to throw away potentially valuable resources.71.112.159.53 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• You have, once more, reverted my edits. You're way beyond WP:3RR now. Please restore those tags. Several of your "references" are either not reliable sources, or not independent, etc etc. AS for promoting something: lots of people promote lost of things without any financial interest (just go to articles on politics or conflicts between countries). Anyway, you don't seem to be willing to see my point of view, so here goes: either you revert your last reversal of my edits (the removal of maintenance templates) or I report you for exceeding 3RR. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wait a minute; I reverted those tags because I made significant edits to the page in order to address them! E.g., I cut out all language that sounds like advertising, hence I removed the advertising tag. What is the point of these tags, if not to get people to improve the page? Which is exactly what I have done. Show me anywhere, for instance, that the page still seems like advertising/promotion, rather than factual statements.71.112.159.53 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I can't understand what you're saying about promotion. The issue is not about intent; it's a question of whether there are statements that are not factual. For instance, the page now is super dry and bland and just makes factual statements about things that are easily verifiable. What exactly is the problem?71.112.159.53 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe you can tell me based on the **current content** (not previous versions of the page) which maintenance tags are still needed. Surely all of them are not still needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.159.53 (talk • contribs)

• The thing is, you reverted yet again somebody else's edits. If the problems are solved, somebody else than you will come around and remove them. It is not up to you to claim that your edits have solved all problems on this page. Please self-revert. --Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Ok, I put the tags back in (couldn't directly revert, since there were constructive edits in between). Please take a look and remove the tags if appropriate.71.112.159.53 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I don't think it's entirely true that a person who makes edits must not be the same one as the person who removes the tags addressed be the edits. At least, I don't see any official Wikipedia policy along those lines.71.112.159.53 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolving self-published / third party tag

This page has been tagged with self-published and third-party tags, presumably because some of the citations refer to references coming from the SIGGRAPH organization itself, or third-party references that include data that is likely provided by SIGGRAPH (e.g., attendee counts at conferences). However, we should be careful to read the specific wording of the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, namely:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

In the context of the current page, self-published and third-party citations are used to support only the following facts:

• That the publication used to be single-blind, and was subsequently changed to double-blind.
• That prior to 1992 papers were printed in the Computer Graphics publication, and then in the SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings.
• The number of attendees and exhibitors in each conference year.

It seems fairly clear that none of these three items violates any of the terms (1)–(5) in the list above. For instance, noting some procedural details about SIGGRAPH publications is neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional. None of these facts relate to claims about third parties nor events not directly related to the source (the citations are used to reference only SIGGRAPH itself). In the case of the facts about publication, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity: in fact, one can directly check the ACM Digital Library to see that the publication history is as stated. The only possibly contentious claim is whether there is any reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the attendance numbers, though this concern basically feels paranoid: would ACM SIGGRAPH falsify attendance numbers and provide them to numerous reputable news outlets (including the LA Times)? Seems like a major legal risk (fraudulent advertising over many decades), for very little benefit. And even if they were willing to make this gamble for some crazy reason, why provide the media with declining numbers over the years? Basically I'm just trying to point out that this data falls under item (4) above: there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of this information (even if there is an unreasonable doubt!).

Overall, I'm not seeing any major point where WP:Self-published and/or WP:Third-party are really suitable for this page. Other editors should please chime in.71.112.159.53 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

nor I. Bssic statistical information about an organization can come from the official pages of the organization. If there's a reasonable challenge, especially if other sourcessay differently, then additional sourcing is needed. This will usually not bethe case for such things as attendance at a convention or number of members (with the caveat that it is possible to have somewhat varying definitions for each of these, e.g. paid attendance ; dues-paying members,). DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC) .

looks good to me as well. let's remove for now (and can of course continue the discussion here) 68.14.90.109 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)