This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anime Expo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Replaced speculative elements of the previous revisions with factoids whose sources aren't so hard to cite. Things that could be added:
-- 67.161.73.117 12:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Edited Table Daroldhiga 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed error on Table Daroldhiga 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)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)
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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
*'''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.I'll be adding a hatnote. ViperSnake151 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Cosplay is an important element of the conventions. Thousands participated. Ucla90024 ( talk) 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Noticed that there is no article or sub-section f or 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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.spja.org/career/chief-executive-officer-ceo-for-the-society-for-the-promotion-of-japanese-animation-spja/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anime Expo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Replaced speculative elements of the previous revisions with factoids whose sources aren't so hard to cite. Things that could be added:
-- 67.161.73.117 12:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Edited Table Daroldhiga 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed error on Table Daroldhiga 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)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)
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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
*'''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.I'll be adding a hatnote. ViperSnake151 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Cosplay is an important element of the conventions. Thousands participated. Ucla90024 ( talk) 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Noticed that there is no article or sub-section f or 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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.spja.org/career/chief-executive-officer-ceo-for-the-society-for-the-promotion-of-japanese-animation-spja/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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)