Talk: Australian Annual Gimp Convention

The archive holds two accounts of the 1974 gap. One says venue issues. One says definitional dispute. They are not necessarily in conflict - both may have contributed. The current text uses "no venue could be secured on reasonable terms" because that is the more verifiable of the two claims. If you can submit the source's account in writing with their consent, the archive will consider adding a note acknowledging the disputed explanation.

I'll ask them. They're quite old now and may not want to revisit the definitional dispute.

The archive understands. The definitional dispute of 1974 is not required to be resolved in 2021.

The archive's remit is informal gathering culture in Australia. The AAGC is an informal gathering that has been part of this culture for seventy years. Its overlap with the doof in the 1990s and its documented contribution of participants to the Neo-Shed Revival period bring it within scope. The article does not present the AAGC as a doof event. It presents it as a parallel and overlapping tradition. The archive considers this distinction adequate.

Fair enough. I withdraw the query.

The archive appreciates the offer. The article's treatment of the leather question is intentionally brief - the archive's view is that the decision to dissolve is more significant than the economics behind it, and that more detail on supply chains would shift the emphasis unhelpfully. The current framing is considered adequate. Thank you for the offer to contribute.

The arithmetic assumes there was only one missed year. The archive has confirmed 1974. It has not confirmed there were no other missed years. The [disputed] tag reflects this uncertainty, not a dispute about the arithmetic itself.

I see. So it might be 68. Or 67.

The archive declines to speculate. The figure in the infobox is the best available estimate. The tag is appropriate.

Does it occur to you that you could just ask someone who was there whether there were other missed years.

Yes.