Talk:XOXO (festival)

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Andymcmillan (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (disclosure "Hi! I'm the organizer of XOXO.")
Waxpancake (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Waxpancake&oldid=806758585)

Future plans

Are there any available sources to support saying "A 2013 event is reported as being in the early stages of planning"? In November, the official Twitter account said "Thanks for the interest, but 2013 hasn’t been announced yet". I checked the existing references, and the only hint was that this NYT post from September said "the organizers...suggested that the conference, a one-off experiment, would return in some form next year." For now, I'll change it to reflect that reference. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added one photo; this photo could be added as well after article expansion. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Most editors believe that the parenthetical disambiguation used in the current title is preferable to the natural disambiguation in the proposed title (with "Festival" in title case). (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 05:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XOXO (festival) → XOXO Festival – Natural disambiguation is preferred per WP:NCDAB; several sources used in the article refer to the event by this name. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 00:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Not many sources call it that, and of those that do, half do not cap "festival", since that's not its proper name. I could go with XOXO festival, but pretending that's a proper name is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The festival itself uses XOXO Festival for its YouTube channel, which I think suggests that that's its proper name. Oppose per Andymcmillan's comment below. Chumash11 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only see that in titles there; no use in sentences means no support for interpreting it as a proper name. In fact they refer it as "sixth XOXO...—an experimental festival...". No suggestion that the name is XOXO Festival. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Hi! I'm the organizer of XOXO. I can tell you categorically: it is a festival called XOXO, not a festival called "XOXO Festival". We refer to it as XOXO as consistently as we can. Thank you! Andymcmillan (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though consensus may seem clear as presented above, one of the participants has a declared conflict of interest; with that being said, it cannot hurt to have a few more days to see if consensus swings the other way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It makes sense to me to keep this as "XOXO (festival)". For creative works where the authors are around to have some input on what the official name of something is, it's reasonable to treat that input as a strong source, unless there's some unusual reason not to. I interpret Andymcmillan's comment as an affiliated and properly-disclosed comment that basically provides primary source material, not a conflict of interest in a way that reduces the authority or validity of the comment. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conflict of Interest Issue, April 2021

Hello! I’m Andy Baio, and I co-organize XOXO with Andy McMillan. We were recently notified that edits we’ve made to this article are potentially a violation of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy, and wanted to address that publicly.

While we weren’t involved in creating this article, we’ve tried to improve it periodically with factual NPOV well-sourced information about the festival, along with clear disclosure of our affiliation with the festival, which is also discussed in the article text itself. Typically, these edits were limited to a brief summary of the previous year’s events, such as the dates/location, a list of speakers and performers, and any notable changes to programming.

We thought that this disclosure of our involvement was sufficient, but looking deeper into it, it appears to be a violation of Wikipedia’s COI policy. Our intention was to try to improve the Wikipedia entry, but it’s clear that the right path would have been to propose changes in the Talk page and allow unaffiliated editors decide for themselves if those edits are appropriate. We’re sorry for the misunderstanding.

With that in mind, neither of us will be editing this article in the future, except the rare instances of uncontroversial edits like fixing typos or broken links, pursuant to that policy. Thanks for raising this to our attention, and we hope this resolves this issue. If not, please let us know if there’s anything more we can do. --Waxpancake (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]