User talk:TheFarix/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

To Heart 2

Hi, TheFarix. I noticed you reverted my recent edit on To Heart 2's article regarding the game's genre with the basis that the genres are redundant. I think that while the romantic comedy genre may probably overlap with the harem genre, I kind of disagree with this rationale when it comes to the drama genre. The reason I decided to add the drama genre back to the list is because each individual route within the visual novel contains dramatic elements specific to that character (instead of the School Days type of drama). I am wondering about your opinions on this matter, and if we can figure out the genres that are best representative of the visual novel and its adaptations together. Also, you kind of reverted a lot of my edits there. :P

I've also asked Juhachi for his opinions regarding the game's genre(s).-- クラウド６６８ 03:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The harem genre is a subgenre of romance, so listing them both is just redundant. Also, there isn't a harem that doesn't have comedic and dramatic moments, but that doesn't mean we list "comedy" and "drama" separately. On top of that, dramas and comedy are polar opposites. While a drama may have the occasional comedic moments and vice versa, a work of fiction cannot be of both genres. —Farix (t | c) 13:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you think it'll be appropriate for me to open up a discussion at WT:ANIME on this matter. I looked at several of the project's FAs and GAs, and found that among them, Love Hina's article lists the story as both harem and romance, while School Rumble's article lists the story as both drama and romantic comedy. As well, I cannot find any content in the Romance (genre) and Harem (genre) articles that suggest harem is a subgenre of romance, despite their somewhat overlapping scope. This issue on genres is not specific to the To Heart 2 article, which is why I would like to open up a discussion there to bring in other opinions. -- クラウド６６８ 15:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because people add erroneous or duplicate genres in other articles doesn't make it "right". That harem is a subgenre of romance is very obvious, so both should not be listed. Also drama and comedy are polar opposites. Dramas are suppose to be serious through its entirety with occasional (if any) moments of humor. Comedies are the exact opposite in that they are filled with humorist jokes and situations with the occasional (if any) serious moment. I don't see how you can call a work both a drama and a comedy. And if you attempt to do so, I will insist on a source —Farix (t | c) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Converting WikiProject Sailor Moon into a task force of WP:ANIME

Hi, it is possible that WikiProject Sailor Moon should be converted into to a task force of WP:ANIME? Please see any comments here. Thank you for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosick episode table

Hi TheFarix,

You recently undid my edit on the table for the episodes for Gosick recently, because it doesn't work on screens with wide resolutions.

I'm using a 1024 x 768 monitor, and the current settings on the table make the titles section scrunch up like this: http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u284/suzuyae/Misc%20images/gosick.jpg

The solution I tried, setting the width allotments with percentages worked for other pages (specifically the Avatar: The Last Airbender episode pages). Can we discuss on the Gosick discussion page?

EikaKou (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Vgrationale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Vgrationale. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Vgrationale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Digimon dub edit notes

I know most of these seem painfully trivial, but if you notice I've edited out the worst offenders and have only left in things that can be fairly confirmed by episode alone (and not interpretation). The dub edits to these series were very significant, and I know these sections can even be expanded some day and have some very excellent content even about the actual production choices themselves. Jeff Nimoy, the head writer for the English versions, has done numerous interviews and details a lot of these changes and why they happen. Unlike some of the more typical "they said hamburger instead of riceball!" edits that people note about dubs, there's actually some very interesting and real world production information to be found here. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If they don't have references to reliable third-party sources, then they must be removed. Use of primary sources in this way is a synthesis as you are contrasting two versions. It is also extremely trivial and would only in interested in by a small population of enthusiastic fans and not the general readership. —Farix (t | c) 13:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They do not require references to third-party sources. I disagree that this constitutes as original research. Just because you personally believe it's trivial does not make it so. And to add to this you removing all of the production staff listings is completely unacceptable. On one of them you removed them with the note that it wasn't important. Do you even know what goes into producing a TV show or an animated show? Even just the production of a dub is a major ordeal. If you are unwilling to merge the data to other sections then leave it for someone else. It's relevant real world information (something these articles are severely lacking) and violates a few policies and guidelines to just blindly wipe out sections of an article than to deal with them.

I've removed more crufty bullshit from Digimon articles, and articles themselves, than any editor ever has. I've defended policies to limit excessive details and summaries time and time again. Do you seriously think you are telling me anything new when you give me links to policy and guideline pages? I saw a few "baby thrown out with the bath water" details in some of your edits that I carefully examined, but you in return do a blind revert to each article I edited.

I welcome the vast majority of your edits to these articles as they are a huge improvement, but you do not get so solely pass judgement on them alone when someone challenges a few of your edits. I would much rather be civil and rational with you than have to start taking this to some sort of forma dispute resolution. -- Ned Scott 10:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Any comparison between two versions is original research. Just because you think they are important doesn't make them so. That is why third-party sources are required. As for c. English credits are never important, except for the VAs which should be listed with the characters, and we don't list them in any other anime or manga articles. But they should never be listed in a separate "Staff/Cast" section. —Farix (t | c) 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Importance", as in what we include or don't include is not something that gets sourced in itself. We do not have sources that say "a short plot summary about this episode is important". We do not have sources that say "original air dates are important because...". Importance/inclusion is an editorial decision. If we say an episode of a show wasn't shown in Canada in an episode list that is no different than this situation. We know the episode is missing because we looked, compared if you want, at another list of episodes that were aired somewhere else. We are not drawing conclusions or making judgements based on that comparison; we are only stating fact.

"English credits are never important, except for the VAs". Are you kidding me? The staff has a far greater impact on a show than the VAs ever do. Why is one VA hired over another, or why are they speaking a certain way? Because people like voice directors, episode writers, and directors tell them to. This is just as relevant in the dub as in the original because the show's primary exposure to English speaking readers IS the dub (at least for the case of Digimon. There are a number of other anime where people are far more exposed to subs or even a second dub, etc)

Forgetting the English credits, you can't tell me that the original Japanese staff credits are trivial information. If you honestly believe that then I would love to introduce you to some people who could far better explain what goes on in the industry to make an animated show.

You might think what I want to include is irrelevant, but in my eyes that's no better than fan pandering. VAs are more important than staff? Why, because that's all fans care about? The technical details about the people who's blood sweat and tears actually made the show too boring? I hope that is not what you actually think, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it isn't

As for the formatting, I couldn't agree more. It's an eyesore to have them in a separate section like that, but we do not remove something and trash it just because someone didn't format the information correctly. Until it's properly worked into the article it should still be there in some form. Does it look ugly as sin? Yes, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and information, not presentation, is our first priority. If presentation was a higher priority than information then we would never be able to start articles.

About the numbers above the paragraphs for the plot summary. How is that OR? Is it because we're calling it an arch? I have no problem with removing that, but I do like the notation of "this paragraph covers episodes x to x". I don't like the formatting the way it is, and I believe I noted that in my edit summary, but connecting free flowing plot back to real information is a good way to present something from a real world perspective. I don't feel strongly about those, and I probably should have let it go and not reverted you, my apologies, but it was as if you refused to consider anything I said or did on those articles at all. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Making comparisons between the English dub and the original without backup form reliable third-party sources is the very definition or original research. Without third-party sources, these comparisons are just personal analyze and evaluations of the primary sources. As far as credits go, except for the director, script writing and sometimes the music composer, and VAs the rest or unimportant. It doesn't mater how hard they rest of the staff worked, adding them in IS fan pandering. We are not the IMDb after all. Also, take a look at our featured articles. Tokyo Mew Mew does not mention the English language staff except for one theme song performer. Of the Japanese staff, it only mentioned the director, music composers, and theme song performers. School Rumble does not even mention the Japanese staff except in the infobox. Yet you insist that "Color Designer" and "Director Of Photography" are just as important. They are not and never will be anything more than trivia. And Madlax only mentions David Williams in that he was using the series to test new ways to distribute anime. The simple reality is that in rare instances the dub staff isn't important. The reason the VA cast are more important than the rest of the staff is because they are portraying the characters to the audiences through their voice work. —Farix (t | c) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying that having Stephen Foster as the ADR director makes no difference to the overall dub? And that a wiki page can't say "this apple is different to this orange" without a reliable source as reference? See WP:NOTOR#Works of fiction: "For example, if there are multiple versions of a particular story, and one version does not have a particular character, or has extra characters, that is clear simply by reading or watching the work." Also, just because people don't usually bother entering staff details doesn't mean they aren't notable. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that non-Japanese dubs are generally not important beyond the fact that they exist. I've already said my piece on comparisons without third-party sources being a form of original research and will not repeat myself as I've already made my positions abundantly clear. —Farix (t | c) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon - a kodomo series

Hi. I noticed that you unreasonably reverted my contribution to the Pokémon article. The thing is that 'Kodomo' of course IS a genre, just look what the Internet says: "However, in the field of manga and anime is used to refer to a genre aimed at children." - Hubpages/"Kodomo is the genre for younger children from ages 6 to 10" - Helium.com. I hope it's clear to you now. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Children's or kodomo is a demographic group. In other words, they are the target audience for the work. However a demographic is not the same as a genre, regardless of how often people get the two confused. —Farix (t | c) 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unfortunately", these references seem to be valid and reliable. It's just your argument which is fine but should I remind you that Wikipedia is based on third-party references and not on claims made by random Wikipedians? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a demographic group, and we do not include demographic groups in the genre fields. —Farix (t | c) 02:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove blood types?

Just curious, why do you think that blood types don't belong in a character's (fictional or otherwise) article? Relevance, in this case, can only be determined by the author, I believe. Just because something may not seem relevant does not mean that it isn't.

Authors deliberately mention things in a subtle manner so the reader doesn't think too much about it, and only realizes later on, something like, "Oh! So that little blue piece of paper was actually the door to another dimension!"

Say we have two characters, Bill and Emma, whose blood types are both mentioned. Bill's blood become important in a transfusion, but Emma's blood seemingly doesn't come into play. You don't think Emma's article should mention her blood type just because of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RufioUniverse (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's because a character's blood type is almost always trivia and generally has no part in the plot. Just because a creator may mention their blood type it as part of a bio excerpt of the character or other promotional material doesn't make it any more important then their astrological sign. —Farix (t | c) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA , as long as it's presented in an acceptable manner, as in, part of the main text, there's no reason to exclude "trivia." Even if presented as a point in a list, it's not something that interferes with the integrity of the article at all. There doesn't seem to be a logical reason to remove this kind of information from any article in which it is present. RufioUniverse (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"there's no reason to exclude 'trivia.'" Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and all details, especially relating to fictional characters, must be relevant. If a character's blood type doesn't play a significant part in the plot, then it isn't relevant. —Farix (t | c) 10:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, there shouldn't be any information about a character that's not directly mentioned in the fiction. So if a character is of a certain color, and it's only mentioned once and never brought up again, it shouldn't be in that character's article? Or if they like to sing, but we are never told of any specific instance in which that character sings? Or if one's an alien, but that fact is not important to the plot, you're going to omit that enormous fact just because you don't think it's "relevant?"--RufioUniverse (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your diverging here as we are specifically talking about blood types. But your purpose also also appears to be trolling/harassing me, so I will no longer reply. —Farix (t | c) 10:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if it seems that I am harassing you. I just wanted to know why someone would think that something is not important as it seems to be. I suppose we all have different ideas on relevancy.RufioUniverse (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Film cover fur/doc listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Film cover fur/doc. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Film cover fur/doc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Vgrationale/doc listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Vgrationale/doc. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Vgrationale/doc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written?

Per WP:COOL and WP:AGF, I am going, to the best of my ability, dispute something with you as civil as possible.

The cleanup tag you left in the List of Hoshizora e Kakaru Hashi episodes article is completely opinionated. It seems to me like you make an unduly effort to police and comment on every single edit or contribution that doesn't conform to your ideas or views. I don't personally find this in the least bit productive since tags more or less label the content in question than they do discuss it. I would have appreciated it, from one neighbor to another, if you had at least cited the ShortSummary portion of Template:Japanese episode list than slap on your seal of judgement. Telling me the summaries were "too long" or "too wordy" would have been a lot more constructive than "poorly written".

Also, for the record, formatted has two t's. Valce Talk 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, thanks StephenFerg (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the call on my editing the comments page for the list of apocalyptic fiction.

You're right of course. Editing other peoples' comments is a bad idea. StephenFerg (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We are unable to process your rename request

Unfortunately - although your request would qualify for usurpation - bureaucrats are presently unable to rename accounts with greater than 50,000 edits. I think you could probably file a request in bugzilla: for a developer to carry it out, though - if you have your heart set on it. –xeno^talk 18:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gunparade March

if youre going to edit a page i spent an hour on adding stuff to then write something in the discussion or I will just revert it. [[1]] Mokaiba11 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Gunparade March were a complete mess. I've attempted to clean them up. But I see that you undid the cleanup cleanup completely. Remember that when you submit edits to Wikipeda, you also grant other editors the right to change or remove your edits. I'll attempt to restore the cleanup earlier. Remember that no one owns an article nor can you prevent other editors form copyediting the article in question. —Farix (t | c) 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

actaully you did much more than cleanup, you removed items that have been there for years. maybe you should stay away from this one ;) Mokaiba11 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If I removed anything, it was probably because it was either unsourced original research or excessive plot detail. And no, I won't "stay away" form it so long as you continue to make a mess of it. —Farix (t | c) 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

i am still editing, stop reverting to very old changes. Mokaiba11 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not been reverting. I've been attempting to clean up the article and incorporating your edits as best I can. —Farix (t | c) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

you brpoke the article, do whatever the fk you want with it im done with you. Mokaiba11 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't "brpoke". In fact, it largely matches how other related articles are put together. See the article on Clannad. —Farix (t | c) 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenchi Muyo! GXP

"...[not] capitalized except for the first..."

• I'm not sure where you got that rule of thumb; capitalizing the genres is actually in following with what otherwise seems to be an established practice throughout most other articles (Naruto, Shakugan no Shana, Elfen Lied, One Piece, Chobits, Azumanga Daioh, Death Note to name a few off the top of my head).

"...should reflect the serilization dates per the template's documenation"

• Point made. Citation added; ANN reference removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valce (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Valce Talk 05:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are suppose to use standard capitalization grammar rules, which applies to the infobox equally as it does to the rest of the articles. There is no rule that items on a series (or list) are capitalized unless they are proper nouns. Since neither harem or science fiction are proper nouns, they should not be capitalized unless they are at the beginning of a sentence or part of a title. See MOS:CAPS for further details. Just because other articles have this grammar mistake doesn't make it any less of a the mistake. —Farix (t | c) 10:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There have been a few articles you were the last to edit and their genres are capitalized. You are contradicting your own statements and I'm beginning to feel like you are targeting me and my edits for some reason. I don't know why you become all of a sudden concerned about the format of articles that have been a half-abandoned mess for a drawn out time, but its prying and unjust. Regardless, per WP:COMMON, WP:BOLD and to an extent, WP:IGNORE, I am capitalizing them in accordance with a majority of other articles that have adopted the style. Valce Talk 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Invited

Been invited to be part of the discussion to share your opinion whether List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction should be deleted or not. this discussion is here here.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

how does WP:LISTPURP affect WP:NOTDIRECTORY? An editor uses it far too casually, and doesn't give proper explanation on how it affects it. i'm not so sure how LISTPURP is relevant at all.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WP:LISTPURP trumps WP:NOT. If it is an "information list", then it needs to show how it's encyclopedic and does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:IINFO. One just cannot call a list informative as a "get out of jail free" argument. An "information list" needs to be more than just random trivia. Examples would be like character and episode lists or annotated lists like List of social networking websites. Notice that all of the entries in the latter have sources and the list serves as a navigation list as well. If it is a "navigation list" similar to List of anime conventions, then only notable entries with stand-alone articles should be on the list. After all, the purpose of a navigational list is to navigate between related Wikipedia articles. "Development lists" doesn't seem applicable in this situation and shouldn't be in article space to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK...maybe you could look at the AFD one more time, because there are things that are coming into play that make no sense.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it will do any good. The political correct nature of the topic is going to override whatever Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may say. And I rather not wade through endless arguments which will not result in anything except me be labeled as a bigot or homophobic. In fact, I'm rather surprised that someone didn't claim that all of the delete comments were homophobic. In fact, I think that was the reason why most editors who would normally supported your deletion nomination stated out of the discussion. —Farix (t | c) 11:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

it's not about homophobic....but is there anyway we can say soemthing firmly without getting bias over the topic?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Beyblade: Metal Fury

I have a image I had sccanned on my blog on the Beyblade Wiki. Will that picture do for citation for the fact? The picture is German but the titles are Universal. --Manaphy12342 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything posted on the Beyblade Wikia will not be considered a reliable source. The fact that this may be the title in Germany doesn't mean that it is the official English title. —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure sure, The titles were the same for Metal Masters and Metal Fusion but suit yourself :) Have a good day! Happy editing! --Manaphy12342 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Waita Uziga

This article, to which you have contributed, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waita Uziga. Robofish (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

character review

i'm not so good at looking up information on characters, and was wondering if there were any specific sources you knew that did character reviews. I am unsatisfied with how Motoko Kusanagi is holding up and if i can't find much it might be challenged for removal.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for this as well. Character articles is one of those things that I tend to not work on unless its obvious that the character isn't notable and should be merged into a list. —Farix (t | c) 00:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

oh ok. thanks anyways.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Seinen

Have you ever seen akikan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wung97 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Only a couple of the anime episodes, but most people haven't even heard of the series. Which is why it is a poor example for Seinen manga, since the examples should be well known to most English-language readers. Of course, I also view that there are already too many examples being used in the article and they should be paired down to the three or four most well known titles. —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Fastily#Unprotect_KOjikan_wiki_page

Hi TheFarix. Judging by the ANI thread you imitated, it looks like you have been mentioned here. Perhaps you might like to comment? Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had my fill with dealing with someone who stubbornly refuses to accept that websites with user generated content—such as MyAnimeList, Anime News Network's encyclopedia, and the Japanese Wikipedia—are not reliable sources. Then dismisses one of the longest running weekly Q&A columns from a major anime and manga retailer that has been in the business for over 16 years and written by a noted expert John Oppliger a "random blog". —Farix (t | c) 02:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Thanks for the explanation, I'll see what I can do. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mangaka

If the article is at mangaka, why should we pipe it as manga artist?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Because WP:MOS#Foreign terms state "Foreign words should be used sparingly." Since "mangaka" is not in common use in English and there is a simple English equivalent, I'm changing most instances to "manga artist". But also, Mangaka should also be moved to an English title in keeping with WP:USEENGLISH. —Farix (t | c) 00:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're going with an extremely strict reading of the guidelines instead of just ignoring them and letting them be?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there really an issue with changing them to an English equivalent? —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to take the word "mangaka" and translate it only half way?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean by using [[Mangaka|manga artist]] instead of [[manga artist]]? Only to avoid a redirect. —Farix (t | c) 00:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean why translate "ka" as "artist" at all. Also, you should probably add something other than "changing seiyu and mangaka" when AWB automatically fixes all of the full width characters as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well according to the article, "ka" literally means "artist". As for the full width character replacement, that is inconsequential and not worth adding to the edit summary.

Is there some sort of rule against using the full width characters? Because I have never seen it written down anywhere before, yet you continue to do it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any rules against switching to normal characters, especially when replacing full width characters with normal characters will help with search results? —Farix (t | c) 02:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should it matter when it's only used within Japanese text identifying tags?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your point here. Why are you really complaining about replacing fullwidth characters with regular variable-width ASCII characters? —Farix (t | c) 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: "Your comments are requested"

Oh good grief.. as it happens I did come across that discussion the last time I was on Wikipedia and your quote from Chris made it seem pretty clear cut so didn't think there was anything worth adding. I can't believe the thread has since grown to 3x the size, I'm not even sure where to jump in... like you have said, the Encyclopedia is not a reliable reference to use at Wikipedia. The sources, where provided (and dependant on being reliable in themselves - a lot of Japanese credits are strip mined from Japanese wikis), are. The exception, as I have mentioned before, is the lexicon since, while users can submit new topics, they can only be added and modified by the chief encyclopedist; in my view this makes them no less "reliable" than news articles which can similarly be submitted by anyone. I'll see if there's any point in the thread that I can jump in at and usefully contribute. 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and PS, since this was kicked off by a theme citation, it's worth mentioning the theme and genres are (peer) audited (although I must confess I have never understood the mechanisms of this). Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

{{sidebar}}

Hi,

Any chance of explaining these whitespace changes? Is there anything else in there? And why no edit summary? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Only whitespace changes in that edit. I did it to make the template's code a little more easier to read. But the whole template should be recode to use divs instead and most of the CSS should be moved into commons.css. —Farix (t | c) 10:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind, then, if I undo them? They've made the code far harder for me personally to read, and seeing as I'm in the thick of sorting out sidebar templates at the moment it'd probably be best if I were able to read them. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand why you would find the formatting harder to read. —Farix (t | c) 09:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No two people have ever agreed on whitespace. :) Simply put, the separation of the opening brackets from their parser functions irks me, and whitespace in template code is more trouble than it's worth. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now undone these changes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Animelo Summer Live

I'd like clarification on what would be needed to address the notability and clean-up issues of Animelo Summer Live. I was recently able to add a reference to the page (and I have a copy of the reference, although I do not read Japanese) and note that the corresponding ja.wikipedia.org page is not marked as having notability issues. The event is even listed on the poster at [2] I'm not a heavy editor of Wikipedia and respect the fact that many choose to update pages without logging in.

Splouge (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What is needed to establish notability is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the basic standard for the presumption of notability on Wikipedia. If a subject does not have significant coverage by independent sources, then it is subject to deletion. Program guides and posters advertising the event are not independent sources. Also, what policies and standards on the Japanese Wikipedia has not barring on the English Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 19:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added some external news sources to address notability of at least this year's concerts. What are the clean-up issues?

Splouge (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Should all song titles originally in Japanese use tags like Zankoku na Tenshi no These (残酷な天使のテーゼ) ?

Splouge (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Chihayafuru

Please be careful when editing - you removed a lot of cited information from Chihayafuru when you redid the anime section, which I've restored. I can't find anywhere that discourages using {{ill}}, and H:ILL recommends its use, so I've restored it as well. --Malkinann (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because the art director, director of photography, color supervisor and CG director, and sound director are all trivial staff members. I also completely disagree with the use of {{ill}} because inserts interwikilinks to non-English versions of Wikipedia into the text of an article is entirely inappropriate. —Farix (t | c) 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That level of cited detail about the staff can be seen in the most recent featured episode list, List of Buso Renkin episodes, and so I feel it should stay. (Or at the very least, it should be WP:PRESERVEd on the talk page if there is any danger of a controversy.) If you feel strongly about the use of {{ill}}, I would suggest that you start a discussion somewhere, because its use seems to be recommended. --Malkinann (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

By my reckoning, we are now in the discuss portion of WP:BRD - please don't do this. --Malkinann (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The "bold action" was you adding them in. Now that they have been removed there is already a standing unanimous consensus against the use if interwikilinks at WT:ANIME, you should not be adding them back in. —Farix (t | c) 22:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Guideline or policy for inline interwiki links in articles?

I can't find any policy or guideline which backs up your position that it is a very bad idea to include inline interwiki links in the mainspace. I have asked you a couple of times on WT:ANIME, but it seems that you have not seen my queries, so I'll repeat it here. Could you please show me a guideline or policy which discourages the idea? --Malkinann (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Honō no Dōkyūji: Dodge Danpei

Hello TheFarix. I just created this page Honō no Dōkyūji: Dodge Danpei (I watched/loved the anime when I was a kid, but I created the page mainly because of the video games). If you can give (me) a hand in correcting/improving (a little) the article, it will be much appreciated! My english sucks. Thanks. --Hydao (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not 100% sure if the title is correct. --Hydao (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot

I started an RFC at WP:VPI#Linkrot - What to do? and encourage you to comment there. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Film cover fur listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Film cover fur. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Film cover fur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ANN's Encyclopedia

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational, "For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga." If you disagree, please take up your concerns there. Random reverts to ANN citations are not helpful. Anoyatu (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The same section also states "In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards." Because that section of the website is unreliable, it must be removed as a source on site. —Farix (t | c) 19:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ANN UK

Is there anything in particular you have against ANN UK links in UK-centric articles? Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that all URLs to the same website should be consistent. This also aids in the use of Special:LinkSearch when identifying links to a website. The ".co.uk" domain is merely an alias for the ".com" domain and is not a different server. Other than the main page feed of one being more UK-centric, there is no difference between the two domains. —Farix (t | c) 20:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just an alias - the UK-only news articles do not show on the US side (they are accessible, but only if you have the URL). Same for AU. Shiroi Hane (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Animelo Summer Live

Hi, I've previously asked early in September 2011 about Animelo Summer Live being flagged by you for clean-up issues and received no response.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide some guidance on what cleaning up is necessary for this article.Splouge (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Saber Marionette J

In your newest episode to once again reinvent the wheel, you orphaned the logo image for the Saber Marionette J article... you took a perfectly functional, branding element and removed it in place of a generic group shot. The only time that is ever really effective is when the article discusses a franchise overall, such as Sailor Moon, Tenchi Muyo!, or even... Saber Marionette? You didn't even attempt to relocate the image somewhere else in the article, as I had the courtesy of doing with the original one. You simply removed it, making it a candidate for deletion. Pay a visit to Shuffle! (which by the way, is a Good article) for reference, and consider opening a discussion next time. Making changes without even bothering to detail the rationale is counterproductive. I am going to revert your edit but replace the Japanese logo with the English. Changing the genres and removing the characters page was acceptable. --Valce Talk 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The logos is not a identification of the media franchise, and thus do not meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. This is because the logo is different from from one language to another. Images of the main characters, video covers, and book covers are always better and are preferred preferred over logos in the animanga infobox. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what iterations of a logo exist, so long as their copyrights are held by the respective company and shareholders. I'll agree that cover art is way more sufficient than a logo however... so instead of uploading the English logo, I'll upload the series new collective DVD cover.--Valce Talk 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it very much does matter how a logo is used on Wikipedia. It needs to fulfill the non-free content criteria. The purpose of a lead image is to identify the subject of the article. However, the logo does not do that and is merely being used for decorative purposes, which is prohibited by WP:NFCC. It doesn't matter if the copyright holders are credited. —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bleach episode articles

Hello, TheFarix. You have new messages at Anikingos's talk page.
Message added 11:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

some help

i'm currently trying to get Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex properly cited and make sure all of the information on the article is cited. I need some help on the OVA section. I really can't find much news on that one. I was hoping you could help me out on that and maybe help reorganize the reception section? I understand if you're too busy.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviews of Dragon Ball and Goku's name

Hi! At Talk:Goku#Requested_move I see:

"It becomes very evident that they use "Goku" instead of "Son Goku", even when reviewing the manga."

I'll see what reviews of Volume 1 (of either) say - Remember with later volumes they can just start with the given or family name (i.e. Yusuke was... or Yugi was...) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately a site search didn't yield a review of Volume 1... WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)