Talk:Anime Expo

message: 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)
thread_title: Updates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AX Logo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AnimeCon 91 

message: I just made a userbox for AX for anyone who is a fan of the con:   十八 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Side note: Userbox

message: 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)
replies: text: Please start the SPJA article.--Outis 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorialized History, Error in Organizational Structure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attendance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mike Tatsugawa and Anime Con 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Man-Faye?! 

message: :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.
*Oppose Every time I've seen the term "Anime Expo" used—note the caps, it is always in reference to the convention. I have not seen the term used in a different manner. And even if it was by a small minority, an appropriate hatnote would take care of the confusion. But moving this article to Anime Expo (event) will just add more confusion. --Farix (Talk) 01:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: I removed it too. Kopf1988 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And  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)
thread_title:  Cosplayer image 

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What same size? 206.170.104.63 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: Cosplay is an important element of the conventions. Thousands participated. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cosplay Photo

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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." When AnmaFinotera asked on what bases you were making your COI claim, you state, "You both have at the least attended the con," 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: *I also need to say that if you are the account that I blocked, posting and editing under an IP address will be considered block evasion. There are ways to check for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion to avert Edit War 

message: * Thanks to Kisuka for posting the new picture, much better than the previous one. You have the good sense to change it. One man may say "not your call to make", but I disagree. Bband11th (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Photo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: * 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)
thread_title: Spelling

message: * 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Attendance

message: * What is going on? He said it was best Expo ever! Ucla90024 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Lattanzio 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: additional citations for verification

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anime Conji 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added  tag to http://www.spja.org/career/chief-executive-officer-ceo-for-the-society-for-the-promotion-of-japanese-animation-spja/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728045413/http://www.spja.org/news/?p=29 to http://spja.org/news/?p=29
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) 09:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204121933/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/anime_news/AJ201211030031 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/anime_news/AJ201211030031
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) 05:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified