Jump to content

Talk:Anime Expo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updates

[edit]

Replaced speculative elements of the previous revisions with factoids whose sources aren't so hard to cite. Things that could be added:

  • Upload AX logo
  • Upload a photo or two from AX
  • Comprehensive list of AX guests of honor
  • Attendance figure for each year's convention

--67.161.73.117 12:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

The Anime Expo Logo, and the Society of the Promotion of Japanese Animation Logo are copyrighted by their respective users. Without explicit consent, those logos may not be uploaded to the Wikipedia. --AllyUnion (talk) 1 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)

That would be trademarked, not copyrighted. Although look at other articles on corporations, trademarked corporate logos are shamelessly uploaded all the time.--67.180.209.147 9 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
Why could they not be copyrighted as well as trademarked? -- Seitz 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you can copyright a logo, but a trademark offers stronger protection, so it's a moot point to do so. Would you like a crash course in intellectual property rights?--208.54.15.129 23:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm always happy to learn something new. I was thinking of comic book and cartoon characters, which are commonly copyrighted and trademarked. My understanding is that copyright and trademark each offer protections that the other does not. For example, I don't think a trademark would prevent the logo from being uploaded to Wikipedia, since the logo is not being used to imply that Wikipedia is a product or service of Anime Expo. However, a copyright might prevent Wikipedia from using the logo, unless it qualified under "fair use". -- Seitz 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think about it, the logo is already copyrighted. Works are now automatically copyrighted by default. They may not have registered the copyright, but it is still protected under copyright law. -- Seitz 04:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights apply to a specific instance of creation. So going by comic book character examples, you can't copyright a character. A story with a character in it, or even just an illustration with the character, can be copyrighted, but that does not apply to the concept of a character. Similaraly, you can't use copyright to protect all instances of a logo. That's where you have trademarks that protect the design and concept. Also, copyright and trademarks work differently. Yes, all works are implicitly protected by copyright. For a trademark, you need to put on the (tm) symbol next to your logo. However, that is a weak form of protection and is on weaker ground for defence in court. The better form of trademark is the registered trademarkt, which needs to be filed with the US Patent Office. Then, you can legally put on the (R) symbol. Now, while copyright is almost universal, trademarks need to be registered individually country by country. That means a logo that's printed with (R) in one country may not be legal to be printed that way in another country.--208.54.15.129 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that AX has a Service Mark on the logo. This may have been upgraded to a TM, but I'm not aware of it. Daroldhiga 23:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeCon 91

[edit]

The history section starts with Anime Expo 92 and makes no mention of Anime Con 91. I've been out of touch with California anime fandom for ages; are people still trying to forget that? Wyvern 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The political history of AX dictates that AnimeCon 91 and AX be considered separate. But there wasn't anything forgettable about AnimeCon, and it wasn't bad blood either. There wouldn't be AX without AnimeCon, so it has a place in AX history as a footnote. Short of spinning the yarn about a subjective memoir, that might as well be all to say about it.--208.54.15.129 23:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention of AnimeCon to the History section a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anime_Expo&diff=53274225&oldid=49839605 -- Seitz 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Anime Expo's political history, you could also footnote the splinters of Anime America and Pacific Media Expo.--208.54.95.1 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Userbox

[edit]

I just made a userbox for AX for anyone who is a fan of the con:

This user has atteneded ANIMEExpo before and loved it!AX


十八 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorialized History, Error in Organizational Structure

[edit]

As full disclosure, I have been involved with AnimeExpo and the SPJA since 1992. In any case, I am changing the HISTORY portion, since being the largest does not automatically mean "premeire" and this may be interpreted as editorialized content. It would be best for all if this page were more neutral and not inject value terms like "premeire." Also there is an error in the Organizational Structure. Chair position was compensated in 2005 and 2006. In 2005 Chair and two vice-charis were compensated. Not all officers in the SPJA are compensated, its more accurate to mention that the CEO and the CFO are compensated. Also it should be noted that most compensation is not a "full time" salary. The CEO and CFO in theory can live off of the salary, but it is not a wage that can in any way be called market-competitive given the titles or responsibilities. Should this be moved to a separate SPJA page? I will make a few changes here in any case, if someone moves it to an SPJA page that is fine with me.Daroldhiga 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please start the SPJA article.--Outis 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I violated my own rule here, "far below" is editorializing on the salary. Will remove the word "far." Daroldhiga 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

[edit]

Can you really attribute 40% growth purely to a change in management? I think this is not very responsible. I will edit it. If someone disagrees with me they can change it back, but even with the political reorganization that occured in the 2003-2004 period, I think this might be a bit disingenuous. Daroldhiga 23:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, using the official numbers from the AX website (I had to calculate this once myself, but the figures sound about right) there was an average annual growth of 25% prior to 2004. In addition, since 2004, the average growth was 32% then 21% in 2006, suggesting that attribution of this jump in attendance to a change in management is not good public discourse. I will make corrections on the page, but I justify it here, but do the math yourself:

# percentage growth year to year average growth to current year
1,750 N/A N/A
1,693 -3.257142857 -3.257142857
2,057 21.50029533 9.121576238
2,138 3.937773456 7.393641978
2,918 36.48269411 14.66590501
3,826 31.11720356 17.95616472
4,883 27.62676424 19.56793131
6,400 31.06696703 21.2106507
9,700 51.5625 25.00463186
13,000 34.02061856 26.00640816
15,000 15.38461538 24.94422888
17,000 13.33333333 23.88869292
25,000 47.05882353 25.81953714
33,000 32 26.29495736
40,000 21.21212121 25.93189764

Daroldhiga 00:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Table Daroldhiga 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed error on Table Daroldhiga 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention two things regarding attendance: 1) The more important value -- regular attendee growth -- is around 15%. As far as I know, this has remained constant longer than the up and down growth of all attendees (which includes exhibitors, industry, press, staff, etc.). The 2007 value will seem like no growth but the regular attendee level still went up 15%. (There were far less exhibitors.) 2) Since I oversaw Registration for two years (2006 and 2007), I have the data but I'm not sure if I should be posting data because that seems like self-referencing/self-publishing which is awkward. Even more awkward for me is having to wait until the AX site is updated in order to reference it.DrSlump (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for the attendance numbers of 2023! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.86.235 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential references

[edit]
  • Lillard, Kevin (2006). "Con Report: Anime Expo". Newtype USA. 5 (9): 99–101. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Mike Tatsugawa and Anime Con

[edit]

I'm interested to know why Mike Tatsugawa was written out of the history section. He certainly played an important enough role in the convention's creation and history. A page detailing his numerous endeavors has been created. I can understand how the PMX split is also a sore issue, but there's no debating it happened. Maybe if it can be written in a NPOV manner it can all be put back in. For the purposes of his own article, I simply said there was a "management dispute" and left it at that.

Also, Anime Con is certainly relevant, but probably not embedded in this article. I created one specifically for it and did a minor edit to this article to hyper link to it.

Kensuke Aida 12:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Faye?!

[edit]

Ugh. Does Man-Faye really need the additional exposure in this article? I have nothing personal against the guy, but it doesn't exactly seem NPOV to claim: "but one that has stood out was Man-Faye" in the sentence about cosplay at AX. I mean, honestly now. That's a matter of personal opinion and can distort people's views as to the type of cosplay that is more common at AX.

I'm trying to be fair and neutral about this. He has his own article on Wikipedia about him and his dispute with the SPJA, which is all good and fine. A link to that would be preferable if it needs to be included. Kensuke Aida 07:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Expo → Anime Expo (event) — I've seen some people throw around the term "anime expo" to describe any of these "conventions". I request that this be moved to "Anime Expo (event)" and this redirect to anime convention with one of those "Anime Expo redirects here. For the anime convention named Anime Expo, see Anime Expo (event). I could have done this, but I just am wishing to see some consensus before we do this. Note, just like AFD discussions, I am not using this as a poll. I am using this for consensus. —ViperSnake151 00:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

I'll be adding a hatnote. ViperSnake151 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it because you have not demonstrated that it is really necessary. You need to first demonstrate that the term is being used differently other then referring to Anime Expo. Can you provide examples showing the term "anime expo" used in place of "anime con" or "anime convention"? --Farix (Talk) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote would seem to be fine either way. Hatnotes aren't very intrusive, are they? Dekimasuよ! 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Cosplayer image

[edit]

I have removed the image of the cosplayer because it is an extremely poor image. It is very blurry and show very little detail. It looks like it was taken on a cellphone. We shouldn't be adding images just to be decorative, but that is exactly what this image is doing for the article, and even fails at that. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it too. Kopf1988 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) has restored it once again without engaging in a discussion or explaining why the image in necessary or what the image is suppose to be illustrating. All right, I've requested for additional input from WP:ANIME. --Farix (Talk) 15:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement

[edit]

Having the image on the left creates more far more white space between the infobox and the first section. It also disrupts the reading flow of the text since the eye naturally wants to follow a line down the left side, but the image indents the text and disrupts that line. By placing the image on the right, it fills in much of the white space and doesn't disrupts the flow of the text. That is why you never see profectional article place "interruptions" on the left or only in the first couple of lines. Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) is claiming that it creates white space between the lead and the TOC, but it does not. There is no more or less white space between the lead and TOC whether the image is on the left or right. Given Ucla90024's previous history on this article over a different image (see above), I suspect that he is not editing in good faith. --Farix (Talk) 00:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly see more white space between the infobox and the first section when the photo is on the left, but there is no additional white space between the lead and the TOC when the photo is on the right. And given that you have removed the previous discussion above in violation of WP:TALK gives a good indication that you are not editing this article in good faith. --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What same size? 206.170.104.63 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay Photo

[edit]

Cosplay is an important element of the conventions. Thousands participated. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles do have more pictures than we generally have on our anime convention articles, yes (furry convention even is a GA, but that's a more general scope). I agree with having a picture, but I'm not sure about the placement and I am against that picture. It's fuzzy. Plus there's a 'thing' in the bottom left corner. Here's a better example, and I could ask if it could be licensed under CC-Share-alike-Att. Thoughts? Kopf1988 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the article is this image suppose to illustrate? The image was located in the history section, which mentions nothing about cosplay. While it may be a free-use image, it should still serve a purpose in illustrating the content of the article instead of being exhibitionist. If more images are to be added to this article, it should be images of events or actives occurring at the convention. --Farix (Talk) 11:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "better example" picture has photographers in front at lower left corner. The placement was done so as not interfere with the info box. Since so many people participated in cosplay (not "majority" of attendees, less than 1/2 of the 44,000 attendees participated), it is an important part of the expo. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The example Kopf1988 is better in that it illustrates an activity at the convention, i.e. people taking photographs of cosplayers. The cosplay image you are attempting to include doesn't add anything to the article. And please stop stalking me around or you will be reported to an administrator. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that picture is better; he can post it if he wants. Stop taking off other's picture and insert your own narrow minded views. This is for everybody, not just your own view. Apply some common sense and be bold and let others participate. Stop stalking me since every time I posted, you deleted. You will be reported to an administrator. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree and I've not been the only one who has in the past. The image doesn't illustrate anything in the article and is purely for decorative/exposition purposes. In fact, I see no grounds to add such images to the article at this point. The fact that people who attend the convention cosplay isn't something that is worth mentioning in the article. The convention's cosplay programing is worth mentioning, but the image doesn't illustrate that. --Farix (Talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not useful to the article at all. It is not specific to this conference only and adds nothing but decoration. Wikipedia is not here to be your personal image gallery. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If based on your definition, half of photos in wikipedia are "decoration" and should be removed. As an example,what is the purpose of an old picture of a 2004 Anime Expo's exterior so useful? It just shows some people outside of some place, without any identification without any sign of AX. Have you been to this expo and know something about it? Don't know what your agenda is, just because the photo is not to your liking. Both of you have no journalism skill and are sick. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the personal attacks to yourself. Please comment on the content, not the editors. As for journalism skill, Wikipedia is not a news source and journalism skills are irrelevant here. If you want to practice journalism, I suggest going over to Wikinews or finding some other outlet. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add that Wikipedia articles are not intended to be image galleries - that's what Wikimedia Commons is here for. We include only the types and quantities of images that would be of encyclopedic value to an article. If an image is not to be used for this article, that's okay; it can remain on Commons. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to avert Edit War

[edit]

Recently there has been the beginnings of an edit war between two interested editors, both feeling that they are working in the best interest of the article. The content is as follows:

In 2009, various members of the SPJA requested a vote of no confidence against the Board of Directors and the new CEO due to "multiple internal issues". The letter is quoted saying "... could possibly have cost us the chance to put on AX2010 or an AX2010 that the attendees truly deserve" and calls into question the $8,400 spent in airline tickets by the new CEO in a visit to Japan, among other things. [1]

This was to be placed in its own section at the end of the article before the references. In one removal, the summary read:

Reverted 1 edit by Zeno McDohl; Rv; not a controversy nor a reliable source. using TW

and in the second removal the summary read:

Reverted 1 edit by Zeno McDohl; Not based on a reliable source and WP:UNDUE. (TW)

Now that being said, the placement of the content does not fall under WP:UNDUE, IMHO. However, it may fall under removal under WP:NOTNEWS, unless it can be shown that significant coverage can be found regarding the event. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the information most likely would belong in the previously deleted stub article Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation, or in the section Anime Expo#Organizational structure as a subsection, as well as a move of other conventions hosted by the Non-profit organization into subsection of that section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war, as Zeno McDohl is the only one who has supported the content at this point, and it is not just between two editors. Further, he already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk‎#Reliable source? in which he claims that both Farix and I reverted his addition because we somehow have a conflict of interest by falsely claiming we had both attended the convention at least once and that somehow made it a COI (for the record, neither of us has). He then claimed I had a COI because I made a post in 2005 to my personal blog giving my reactions to some the licensing announcements that year. As for the content itself, as noted in the other discussion, the source is clearly not a reliable source (a two man blog site), and is a clear WP:BLP violation without verification in an actual, high-quality reliable source as it is potentially defamatory towards the CEO. ZM's lack of editing history before this additional also makes his push for it and determination to discredit anyone who disagrees with it rather circumspect, IMHO.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I created this section to avoid rounds of addition and reversion by the editor attempting to add the content. The actions of said editor, are as you said, questionable. Yet maintaining assumption of good faith, I was hoping that creating said discussion could lead to a consensus regarding inclusion or exclusion of the content, and give a chance for said editor to provide reliable source references regarding the supposed controversy to persuade us one way or another regarding possible inclusion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed source is based on a letter of unknown origin reported by an obscure self-published website that is barely a year old. The letter has not been picked up by any other anime news sources, including AnimeNewsNetwork.com, AnimeCons.com, or Mania.com, in the month that the letter was supposedly released. Since there is no way to verify the authenticity of the letter, it's contents shouldn't be included in the article pro forma. But even if the letter is authentic, this type of "con drama", unless reported by a reliable source like the ones mentioned above, has no place on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 01:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AnmaFinotera has shown she has no intention of a civil discussion. The initial edit I made was reverted without an attempt at discussing it, and when I brought it up on the Helpdesk looking for a neutral party, a "discussion" broke out there when she replied to me. I only made 2 edits which were reverted, and I did not continue in order to prevent an edit war and instead went to the Helpdesk. I have provided the only source I know of right now and I have no intention to continue discussing this with the way I've been attacked. I'll post any more sources here if I find them. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you were the one that first attack AnmaFinotera and I with this statement, "I do not think 2 people who have a conflict of interest over this matter count."[1] When AnmaFinotera asked on what bases you were making your COI claim, you state, "You both have at the least attended the con,"[2] even though you had absolutely no evidence to back up your claim and it was quickly refuted by both of us. Up until then, AnmaFinotera has been very civil towards you and didn't question your motives behind the edits. But your followup comments clearly showed that you lacked good faith towards both AnmaFinotera and myself. This type of behavior indicates to us that you are simply attempting a POV push. As for starting a discussion, you need to read WP:BRD as it is incumbent on you to start a discussion about a reverted edit instead of either AnmaFinotera or I. —Farix (t | c) 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consider that an attack? Hoo boy... Regardless, it doesn't warrant attacking right back with things like "You are some no name nobody represented by pixels on a screen". --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were very much an ad hominem attack as you were deliberately trying to discredit both AnmaFinotera and I by claiming we had a conflict of interest based on no evidence whatsoever instead of explaining why Animenews.biz should be considered a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not think" means it is what I think, not what I'm trying to prove. I didn't provide evidence initially for the COI I think you two have because I'm not here to prove that. If I was, I would have included that in my rv edit note and asked about what to do in the case of a COI on the Helpdesk instead of asking about valid sources. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added this now that ANN confirms it. This should also confirm animenews.biz is a reliable source. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, one story that ended up being true does not automatically turn a 2 man blog into a reliable source. I agree with both AnmaFinotera and Farix on this one. StryyderG (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems like late comers like to take over the edits here recently. No one is allowed unless he or she is doing them, even if the information had came from the Anime Expo's official site or facebook. They put the information out before press release them to other organization. He or she only prefer one reference site. If came from another source, he or she will take them out. What is the purpose? There are all kinds of mistakes in Wikipedia. Just because no one cares to correct them doesn't mean they are all correct. Then you have admins who are careless about fairness or correctness. A little power goes straight to their head. 64.183.42.63 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • By your comment, I'm going to assume that you were the person I blocked for having a long, long history of edit warring, even going so far as to open up a few sockpuppet accounts to make it seem like you had backup. As was said below, the reason that the content was removed was because all that AE had confirmed was the years of the convention. You put in dates that were essentially original research, as you cannot predict what days that AE will hold an event - they have postponed for various reasons in the past and it's entirely possible this could happen in the next few years. They were also most certainly incorrect, since the con coincides with fourth of July weekend (usually) but is not always held on July 1 - 4. If they kept their typical schedule, the dates you gave were pretty easily proven wrong. I also explained below that Wikipedia is culpable for any misinformation that is added to the page. Like it or not, people pull information from Wikipedia and because of that, we need to make sure that we do not add information that is not 100% confirmed by the official sources. If we put in the wrong information that poses a potential legal issue and the last thing we need is for AE to file an official email with Wikipedia saying that we are allowing someone to deliberately spread around misinformation because they misinterpreted a press release. All we have so far are years, which is not enough to add to the template, especially since this fact is already in the article elsewhere. So in other words, the information you were trying to add was not correct except for the years. As far as sources go, not all sources are equal. Official sources are best for this sort of thing, followed by very trusted news sources. However some sources will report on rumors (or misinformation on Wikipedia) without actually verifying the information. Some sites rely entirely on fans reporting information, which again - can be spread around via incorrect data on Wikipedia. That is why typically Wikipedia prefers to use only a select amount of sites for sources. If you have a question about a new source, ask about it, especially if the source is contested. There's usually a good reason. Now as far as your tone goes, please be aware that these are considered WP:ADHOMINEM attacks since you're essentially accusing specific editors (which you do not name, but it's pretty obvious) of improper behavior. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

Copyvio?

[edit]

I am asking if this image is copyvio. File:Anime-Expo-2009.jpg in wiki commons and G4TV Anime Expo coverage. I do not see any evidence that this image was released by its author. --KrebMarkt 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good spotting. I've nominated the image for deletion at Commons as it violates Commons' ban on non free-use images. —Farix (t | c) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I had permission to use it, but whatever, I'll just post a new one once AX2010 starts. Kisuka (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]
  • do=due? pubisher=publisher? Thanks for the correction. Also this "One of the main causes of the tension is SPJA's new CEO, Michael Lattanzio, decision to cancel the SPJA's contract with BAM! Marketing, Publicity, & Promotions, a public relations firm that provided services to the SPJA since 2004." is not grammatically correct. Who did it? Ucla90024 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

[edit]
  • When "Lattanzio noted that this year's total through-the-doors attendance exceeded 100,000 (which should not be confused with actual passes sold). From a financial standpoint, Lattanzio said that numbers were up 15% from last year." How can it be down from last year? Through-the-doors means people in the convention center during the 4 days. Turnstile is the number of passes sold? Or did they actually count the people? Bband11th (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original 2016 & 2017 information was correct. But someone wants to do extra work? You can only lead a horse to water, but you can't make him to drink. 64.183.42.70 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lattanzio

[edit]

Photos

[edit]

Can't believe some people think an old picture is better that a new one or no illustration is better. Can't understand "recent" objection at all. There are many articles with recent pictures. Just no common sense. It is interesting to note that Youtube has many videos and Flickr has lot of pictures of anime expo and cosplays. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are recent images shouldn't mean that it should be nearer to the top. Please read WP:RECENT.
Images needed are images of the 2002 AX held in New York, and the 2004 AX held in Los Angeles. Both are unique one offs of the ones held in California. Only problem that I have found is I have not found ones that can be used under the "fair use" criteria required by WikiPedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

additional citations for verification

[edit]

55 citations apparently not enough. Maybe 100 will be adequate or the article should be as long as the list of citations? Ucla90024 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content not supported by inline reference can be removed per WP:BURDEN. If the content here is to remain, it should be supported by such references, otherwise it can be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separate SPJA page

[edit]

With the Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation's recent event additions (Project Anime, Anime Conji) as well as the scope and history of Anime Expo itself, I propose extracting information relating specifically to the SPJA to a new page devoted to the organization, its history, filing status, and governance. This is in the interest of avoiding repeated information about the SPJA, leadership, org structure, etc., when Anime Conji and Project Anime are added and expanded upon in the future. This page for Anime Expo can then remain focused on only the event's history, venue, guests, attendance, etc. While the precedent seems to have been set for major anime convention pages to have their parent organization's details married to the event page, it may need to be reevaluated for organizations that operate multiple events. Modernotaku (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is does Anime Conji and SPJA pass WP:GNG, it appears that AC was declined, but if someone can argue that the subject is notable, than I don't see why both cannot have an article. SPJA would have to meet WP:ORG as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article primarily about for Anime Conji:
  • Nina Garin (24 March 2011). "Anime lovers only". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 13 November 2012.
However, it does not appear to be enough to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Conji

[edit]

Noticed that there is no article or sub-section for Anime Conji which started as an independent anime convention, and later ran by SPJA. Should that be a stand-alone article, or a section of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cinefantastique Anime Conji 2011: It’s back, and this time it’s inter- and intra-personal and Anime News Network Anime Expo 2012 The Future of Anime Expo panel are the only other sources I know that could be useful. I'm not sure Conji has enough sourcing for an independent article yet, so a section would probably be best. Esw01407 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contract extension

[edit]

Per press release: "Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) is thrilled to announce that the venue will host Anime Expo (“AX”) for the next five years (through 2019)". Some people just don't under the meaning of "through 2019". Ucla90024 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have misrepresented the source in multiple ways.
  1. No dates listed, you have assumed that those are the dates. Official webpage does have the 2016 dates.
  2. This is a press release, so it has the usual amount of sourcing issues.
Can you provide a reliable source that these are the dates for the convention? The only event that should be listed unless you can is 2016 as the official webpage has posted the date. It seems that this is a continuation of your sourcing issues User:Ucla90024, I've made every attempt to communicate with you and show good faith, but this could have to end up at administrators noticeboard. Esw01407 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ucla90024, please do not list exact dates for the upcoming conventions. Until AE announces the dates for the upcoming conventions you should not be posting these. Ideally you wouldn't list these at all since we don't have anything beyond the year and as such, listing these aren't really all that helpful. The thing is, while LACC has confirmed that they'll be holding the events AE has not confirmed dates. While it's likely that this will be held in early July, there is no guarantee of this and a look at the con's history shows this since some of the cons have been held in late June. (And if they keep the same schedule, this is likely what's going to happen for 2017 and 2018.) You might figure "what's the harm" but the harm here is that people pull information from Wikipedia on a pretty regular basis and proclaimed it official. What you've done here by listing July 1-4 for 2017 - 2019 is basically original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. I don't want misinformation to spread because someone came on to Wikipedia and read something that, as of this point in time, is technically incorrect date-wise. The only thing that has been confirmed about AE is the years. At no point has AE actually confirmed any dates, which is an entirely different beast. I also need to point out that this could prove problematic with AE and it'd be entirely within their rights to complain to Wikipedia that we have the incorrect information. You may mean well, but this is still misinformation and it's doing Wikipedia and its readers a disservice. Please do not re-add these dates to the article, as the norm for Wikipedia is to only list the dates of an event when the exact date has been confirmed. No one is denying that the con has been extended. What they're objecting to is that you've taken it upon yourself to make up convention dates before the con itself has actually set them. Since we have no exact dates, there's no reason to add 2017-2019 to the table. This is turning into a revert war and if you do not stop you run a risk of being blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that you've been warned about this back in June. If you revert back to your edits I will very likely block you for a short period of time. You've already been given one warning so you're already well aware that edit warring is not acceptable. The press release does not give official dates for all of the years and should not be considered a guarantee that the cons for 2017 - 2019 will be held at these dates. In general you should not be adding any exact details unless you have a source that explicitly states that they will be attending. In this situation it would preferably be an official source like the con's website or a press release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure enough, the 2018 dates recently announced do not match the dates he put. 🙄
Alyssa3467 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I need to note that we should probably edit some of the phrasing in the article since the convention is typically held over the first weekend in July, which usually coincides with the 4th of July. This clarification would probably be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ SPJA Members Requesting Vote of No Confidence Against CEO and Board of Directors
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anime Expo. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anime Expo. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convention Start Dates

[edit]

Should the table in the History section be using the "Day 0" date as the start of the convention? The schedule this year was *very* sparse, and the admission media said "Pre-Show" for Day 0 and "Four Day" for the rest of the convention.

Alyssa3467 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego Comic-Con doesn't count Preview Night, so I don't think this article should either.
Alyssa3467 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime_Expo&oldid=1198757213"