Talk:Expo (exhibition)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Talk of 2004 and older

Who wrote "I like eggs?"

I've heard that, starting in Expo 98, Lisbon, the distintion between Universal and International was abolished. That is the reason Expo 98 was called World Exhibition and lasted for 4 months (between the 3 months of international expos and 6 of universal). That's the reason Expo '98 and Expo 2000 had the same status. Someone can add something on this subject? User:Marco Neves



Marco Neves: Since the creation of the Convention relating to International Exhibitions in 1928 (in force January 17, 1931), there have been three different frameworks for categories of International Exhibitions.

1) The original text of the Convention established three categories: a) General exhibition of first category, b) General exhibition of second category, and c) Specialized exhibition. This categorization remained in force until the ammendment of November 30, 1972.

2) The 1972 ammendment (in force June 9, 1980) revoked the previous categories and established a new framework: a) Universal exhibition, and b) Specialized exhibition.

3) In May 31, 1988, a new ammendment (in force July 19, 1996) abrogated the 1972 categorization, and brought about two new categories: a) Registered exhibition, and b) Recognized exhibition.

Some people believe that the Registered and Recognized categories started from Expo’98 Lisbon; however, the candidacies for Expo’98 Lisbon and Expo 2000 Hannover were framed and voted before the 1988 ammendment came into force (July 19, 1996). Expo 2005 Aichi, although voted in June 1997, had its candidacy framed under the 1972 ammendment.

Therefore, Expo’98 Lisbon and Expo 2005 Aichi were Specialized Exhibitions, while Expo 2000 Hannover was a Universal Exhibition. Expo 2008 Zaragoza will be the first recognized exhibition, and Expo 2010 Shanghai the first registered exhibition.

Regarding the four-month duration of Expo’98 Lisbon, the Convention, as ammended in 1972, established a duration between three weeks and six months for International Exhibitions (that includes both Universal and Specialized). The limitation of three months for recognized expositions was included until the ammendment of 1988. Therefore, under the regulation in force at the time of its cancidacy, Expo’98 Lisbon was free to choose any duration between three weeks and six months. In fact, Expo 2000 Hannover chose to have a five-month duration.

For more on regulation: “Les Expositions Internationales relevant du Bureau International des Expositions”, at http://ensmp.net/pdf/2001/expositions.pdf (text in French)

For categories of each International Exhibition: Exhibitions information, at http://www.bie-paris.org/main/index.php?m=-1 (on the left frame, click on Exhibitions information)

I hope you find this information useful. --César Corona 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


There was an edit today changing Expo '92 to Expo '29 in this paragraph - not sure which is the right one, as both years had an Expo in Sevilla?

'Some outstanding exceptions are the remainders from Expo '29 in Seville, Spain where the 'Plaza de España' forms part of a large park and forecourt, and many of the pavilions have become offices for Consulate-Generals. The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is housed in the last remaining building of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition.'

Idril 02:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Other sites seem to suggest '29 is correct. dml 03:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone make this page clearer?

This page has a clarity problem: the distinction between Universal and International is unclear. It mentions Brisbane as a universal Expo in the section on universal expos, and as an international one in the international section. Clarity here is not aided by the fact that International Expos have themes, and Universal ones usually have them (but apparently not always), so the presence or absence of a theme does not mark the boundary between Universal and International. The section on International expos seems to imply that this feature does differentiate the two types of expo, even though it clearly states otherwise in the section on Universal expos. 203.24.100.133 18:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article feels disorganized to me. I think it would help if there was a chronological list or table of all the fairs or something. --65.40.53.88 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, true, completely true, and how does the zaragoza 2008 classify? The water and development theme sounds universal, but it is unsynchronized with the 5-year gap following hanover and aichi.YoungSpinoza 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seine-Saint-Denis

The German version says there was an exposition planned there for 2004 but it was cancelled? Why? ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Expos

It seems like it would make more sense for the list of expos to link to their respective expo article in wikipedia rather than just the hosting city's article. If a user really wants to visit the city article, it is easy to navigate to it. Having the expo links in the paragraph above makes the article a little cluttered and hard to use, IMHO. Ekimd 15:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In the list of expos, Zaragoza, Spain is listed in "Registered Exibitions" but other parts of the article state that this fair is an "International Exibition" and that there are five year gaps between World Fairs. Just an anomaly I noticed.

[edit] Dates

Because these events have been occuring for over 100 years, the years of fairs should be four digit rather than two. Despite the fact that one could probably look at the list and compare cities and dates to know when exactly a fair occured, it would be easiest for all the dates on this page to be converted to four digit dates. User:200.116.157.78 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • What's stopping you from fixing it? Wahkeenah 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can we get the World's Fair back in the United States?

i posted a question on yahoo answers, and was refered to this site for the information that was provided. It was stated here that the World's Fair was stopped in 1984 due to Congress not paying money to have it here again after that. Does anyone know how we can get then to pay it again so we can take our children to such a great event without leaving the country? I went to the World's Fair in 1982 and i was only 6, but i remember it and it was AWSOME! I would love to take my grand-daughter and kids to one! It would be well worth saving up for! Please email me back at (email address removed)

First: I've removed your email address so it won't get spam harvested.
Second: Wikipedia is an attempt to write an encyclopedia, not for political advocacy. SchmuckyTheCat 07:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Expo

... is the official title, should the article be under that heading? Hakluyt bean 14:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved. --Nyp 05:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The page name is now "Expo (exhibition)". Why? I think this is inferior to either "World Fair" (the title it apparently had until February) or "World Expo". I prefer "World Fair" since the majority of fairs covered in this article carried that name. Can it be moved back? — Sebastian 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The external links section was getting a bit unwieldy so I took an axe to it. We have individual articles on most Fairs and I think links about specific fairs should go on those daughter articles rather than here. It doesn't seem to me that links to bid sites are appropriate here at all. I left in three links that cover World Fairs in general, but I'm not sure they should all stay. They are:

1) Donald G. Larson Collection on International Expositions and Fairs, 1851-1940

I think this one should stay. It looks good with lots of information that we don't necessarily have. It's from what looks to me like a reputable publisher.

2) ExpoMuseum, an online world's fair museum

Not much detail on the individual fairs that we don't already cover and nothing really about the subject as a whole, but some of them have significant photo galleries. I would prefer to see links to open licensed photos, but in their absence this might be good. Publisher seems to be an enthusiast rather than a person or institution with academic or professional resources for fact checking etc. but it also seems to be well written and popular (if the website figures are to be taken at face value). I'm on the fence with this one myself.

3) "A lot of World's Fairs presented by a lot of photographs"

I think this one ought to go. It only covers a few of the fairs, there are no details that Wikipedia doesn't already cover, it's not written that well (seems like the writer's first language isn't English, though their attempt is far better than my German would be). Seems to be published by an individual who is a web consultant. I also don't see the "lot of photographs" that the description claims.

If I don't get any objections I'll remove number 3 tomorrow. Comments on these or any of the links I removed are welcome and encouraged. -- SiobhanHansa 15:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction (or OR?)

The article states "Since 1995, the interval between two registered expositions has been at least five years".

On the following paragraph, naming "registered expositions", Lisbon 98 and Hannover 2000 are mentioned.

Since there is only a two-year interval between Lisbon 98 and Hannover 2000, the two statements contradict each other.

Is the 5-year rule OR? If not, it might be useful to explain why the first two post-1995 Expos don't follow the rule. Mip | Talk 12:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expo in Seattle in 1960??

The article shows an Expo in Seattle in 1960 as well as one in 1962. I do not think this is correct, and the 1960 one should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tclose (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)