Talk:Odex

message: About the picture of the comparison used for Fansubs and Odex product is flawed... ODEX did not produced the Show which is Initial D according to what i can see, and ODEX have never release this show... Only Poh Kim or the other producer with a similar packaging have the show in question. And yes i only started editing in January(Not registered) with the licensing list. I only want the article to maintain Neutral. Thats why i didn't bother editing away contents i find viable or is verifiable. And i am not Stephen nor works for Odex. Tueac 09:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the step you should taken to this approach is to post it on the talk page for discussion and not amending the comment such as "Prove of confused Anime fans confusing other competitor's product and blaming Odex". Am I right to say that? Cocoma 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that because some unregistered author is misleading the people with false content. explanation is needed. Tueac 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The image has been nominated for deletion. Whether it is to be removed, should be discussed on the appropriate pages as stated. Not removing it and editing it's description because you think its wrong. That is considered vandalism. Cocoma 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I'm supposed to let flawed information be a stable in Wiki's article... ok I got it. Tueac 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have changed the picture to a fairer comparison, a 2003 ODEX fruit basket VCD release Tueac 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't heed any advices and insist to do what you think is right. Am I correct? Cocoma 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: The subcategory for Pricing should be merged into the Marketing section.   Sources of prices should also be cited otherwise it is just so much hand-waving of numbers.   The current pricing subcategory is also written in "rant" style; this is inappropriate for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article.  While I sympathize with anime downloaders, the lowered prices of $10 for a 13-episode VCD box set and $20 for an anime DVD box set did not seem to have an effect on the anime piracy.   If some sort of reasonable economic Study can be found and cited, then perhsps there can be an entry along the lines of "Regardless of how low the price goes, there are many users who will not buy anime unless it is free".AnimeJanai 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pricing

message: Request to revert to the last version as the list of ODEX licensed anime in Singpore should not be the entire AVPAS list; AVPAS members are made up of ODEX and many Japanese Animation and Broadcasting Studios.
Please note the different that this is the page on ODEX and The last list shows the Anime Known licensed by ODEX and is not the list Authorised by AVPAS. If needed, please create a new entry for AVPAS as ODEX and AVPAS is not the same entity. i will now revert the list back to the last very last edition showing ODEX's Licenses and not those authorised by AVPAS. Tueac 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These lists are incredibly long, isn't it better to just make a separate article for them or convert it to a space saving table format. - Dinkybarrel 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it doesn't work to have this list as is. Recommend separate page for list of titles - too much space is taken up in this article with the list.--Parkwells (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorized Titles by Odex (Updated 25 May 2007)

message: To better reflect the non-partisan discussion surrouding Odex's latest tactic, the criticisms have been placed under the "Criticisms" category. The "Others" section is moved to the bottom. Animeronin 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reminder to those criticizing Odex that you should stick to facts and try to balance them.  This is Wikipedia and NOT a chat forum for venting and sniping.  Some facts may be presented about Odex enforcing its copyrights, but NOT too many.  Imagine for instance an article that contained only facts about Odex filing copyright suits; while completely factual, its net effect is to attack Odex.  In such a case, I or someone else would have to delete most of those facts to bring the article back to content befitting a Wikipedia article.  As for those crying unfair, well, Odex ssemed to have waited quite a long time before finally filing suits.  They first tried the other benign tactics, and even resorted to lowering prices to a very low level where the anime sales don't really contribute but hoping other related license fees would continue to carry the anime.  I wonder why those anime "fans" didn't mention that among the criticism to balance them out; balanced criticism is worthy of being included in Wikipedia.  Unbalanced criticism tends to be in the attack category.AnimeJanai 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is exactly why there is an article solely focused on Odex's actions against file sharing. You must understand, Odex is using "piracy" as an excuse for their low sales, which are in fact due to other factors, such as: 1) Taking a long time (Up to a year after initial release in Japan), 2) Low-quality subtitles (Inaccuracies), 3) Low-quality dubbing. You are also reminded to keep your thoughts such as "I wonder why those anime "fans" didn't mention that among the criticism to balance them out; balanced criticism is worthy of being included in Wikipedia." to yourself. Do that on forums. --121.6.64.153 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too much repetition of criticisms - in Controversy section and then again in Criticisms, and they are not adequately sourced. The Controversy section does not deal adequately with the legal actions the company took against file sharing.--Parkwells (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout shifting

message: Anyone knows how to add in Stephen Sing's bragging about being busy suing people in online forums in a diplomatic way? Details can be found at Tomorrow.sg --121.6.64.153 13:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Sing's Bragging

message: :Image:Xysing 2monthsagolo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Xysing 2monthsagolo.jpg

message: In the forum, Mr Stephen Sing promised users who downloaded a complete series from their VoD service, a hardcopy (DVD or VCD) of the episodes they download to be delivered to them. Considering that there hasn't been any new episodes released for the first two series they provided (Seto no Hanayome notably stopped at episode 21), is there any official statement from them stating if they would be continuing with their plans for the hardcopy delivery, or if they would be releasing any further episodes even? kirua User:121.7.162.79 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Odex VoD

message: Does anybody know whether xxxHoLiC has been licensed to ODEX? I recall seeing ODEX-released xxxHoLiC VCDs... ~ryuryu111 10:27pm, 31 May 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuryu111 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: xxxHoLiC

message: According to Google's Cache, the Nazi Swastika isn't the logo for ODEX.. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly vandalism. Simply revert the edit. --Farix (Talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Um..

message: While it is titled in lowercase, references in this article call it ODEX instead of Odex, should we possibly move it there? Is this just something in their logos, or also in official documentation? It isn't short for something maybe? Couldn't find any extended name on their site. Tyciol (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitals

message: should the Odex article include this as odex is working with animax to license/dub/sub animes and using Takashimaya's name to sell thier so called licensed products.
also, the lack of odex logo on advertisement on AFA/anime events AND have their logos appearing all over the event venue suggests that they r doing stealth marketing.
i think it will be reasonable if the article has Stealth marketing section as for 2 straight years, i dont see Odex logos on any AFA advertisement, including the AFA homepage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.245 (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Odex and Animax and Takashimaya(and AFA advertisement)

message: I have deleted a few chunks of blatantly NPOV sections. "Odex's little farce" and "it is laughable" do not belong in any shape or form in a wiki article. Overmage (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unencyclopaedic portions 

message: First of all, there's the issue of NPOV, and its written like an advertisement of sorts. There are also no citations available; there's no proof as to whether everything written in the article is true or not. 116.15.107.60 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove "Growth and Market Expansion"?

message: Just learnt about this Odex (or Xedo) controvesy thingy from my friend last year. This page has been tagged neutrality is disputed since the 2007 court case and I think this can be a good project for a new Wikipedian like me. Did some research using Newspaper SG for articles, I'll tried to put more citations to this article. Would hope that this page can be like Odex's actions against file sharing, with enough citations and maintain its neutrality, it's even listed as a good article.
So, 1st things 1st, I'll removed statements that are without citations and please let me know if you think the point I removed is important, I'll try and find citation for it. Hope this can make the page better.
Feel free to send me a talk if there's any problem since I'm new here.
P/S: What are those anime titles list under the external links? Should I removed it? --Vaktug (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a work in progress article for you, I will suggest you search for citations first before removing. If citations cannot be found, then remove the statements. While you are searching for citations, other editors may come along and put in the citations. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Xaiver0510, thanks for your advice and contributions. For citations, will blog and forums be a good and reliable citations? Or should I just stick to newspaper articles? After shortnening the "legal actions" part, it seems like this article really don't have much references... --Vaktug (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome :) blog and forums, generally no. You can read up here, WP:NEWSBLOG or the whole article WP:V. For SG related resources, try here. It's not about whether an article has a lot or little references, what matters more is a statement stated here is referenced and verifiable, especially controversial statements. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and Citations

message: I consider myself to be a neutral observer on this subject, since I've never heard of 'Odex', and have never watched Anime (sorry).  Anyway, this article does seem more like an attack piece than an "encyclopedic" article. 
Here are some observations:
* The sections linked to a See also: page should only be a very brief description without details.  For example the lawsuit-thing should only describe the action taken and the result.
* The citations with umpteen citations look silly.  Iit looks as if you're saying "Oh look! There have been MANY reports on this!" The quality of sources is important; the quantity is not. Simply cite the most authoritative source, and only include additional sources that add information not contained in the previous source.  For example, I'll bet the article on the Apollo 11 moon landing doesn't include every single newspaper and magazine that reported the fact that this was the first time man walked on the moon -- that would be in the 100s of thousands of citations.
* The 'History' section is one giant blob -- breaking it down into paragraphs would make it seem more inviting to read.  Perhaps break it down into a chronological timeline?
* Terms like "claimed to have attempted" should either be cited or removed.
* Forums and blogs are not up to WP standards for reliability or verifiability.
* There is much redundancy, for example few (handful) -- and repetition (how many times is 'The Lawsuit' mentioned?).
* terms such as fans of anime are irrelevant, if you are referring to customers then say so; presumably there are fans of anime who aren't customers and could care less about the quality of the fonts.
Good luck, and have fun!  ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Eric F! Thank you so much for your suggestion and advice! I'm still lost in how to make the article more neutral, your advice really helps a lot! So for the citation I just need to use newspaper articles? And for the events, can I include them if I don't have any citations? --Vaktug (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral observer's opinion 

message: The history was trimmed off here .
Do note that Odex was originally a trading firm dabbling in various businesses. Games Mart was once a retail arm which was closed. Source here . It was part of its history and certainly deserve a mention, especially it contrasted that they used to sell illegal game accessories and how they defended copyrights, despite not being fully authorised. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Odex. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.odex.com.sg/ to http://www.odex.com.sg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.odex.com.sg/ to http://www.odex.com.sg/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avpas.com.sg/AuthorizedTitles.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Odex. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325041914/http://www.avpas.com.sg/AVPAS_Member.html to http://avpas.com.sg/AVPAS_Member.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120909164240/http://www.rajahtann.com/RajahtannCMS/mediarelations.aspx?mid=19&type=1 to http://www.rajahtann.com/RajahtannCMS/mediarelations.aspx?mid=19&type=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221162427/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=76054 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=76054
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.odex.com.sg/?p=faq
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified