User talk:TheFarix/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

You missed some of our "usual" editors

User:Quasirandom
User:Malkinann
User:Dinoguy1000 (sort of retired in Nov 2010)

--KrebMarkt (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

They haven't declared their participation in WP:ANIME, which is why I missed them. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Source

is this a good source http://twitter.com/marchimark/status/15800130997325824 I mean she is a co-worker so if anyone should know its them the poor guy is a self employed voice actor so he isn't going to get any real coverage especially not a month later. Deragon10 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that will meet the standards needed for WP:BLP. In fact, it directly states to avoid self-published sources, such as Twitter, unless it is by the subject itself. Any further questions should be directed to WP:BLP/N —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Revoltech

Your input on the Revoltech article was very much appreciated, and it would be great if you could give your opinion on the current status of the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallhead3004 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you! I consider it one of the highlights of my day. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks too!! That was cool :) Happy New Year! Cattus ^talk 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Farix. It's very nice of you to give us those barnstars. :D OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 08:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Final Fantasy character

If the VG character templates are all like that one, then I suppose it should be brought up. Those templates have been removed largely from other sources and even the main character template has had serious reductions in the number of in-uniserse fields.陣内 _Jinnai 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Vanilla Series

Why did you revert all of my work on this page? None of the links go strictly against WP:REDNOT and although many of the articles don't have pages right now, there's no reason to believe they never will. If I had more time to look up sources for the articles I'd probably do so myself, but I figured since it would take me a long time to get around to it, better to leave them as redlinks than make a whole bunch of subpar stubs as per WP:REDDEAL. Thanks. 69.121.39.234 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And you didn't even give a reason for removing that prodd in Bondage Mansion; although User:Calathan gave a good one for Wicked Lessons which stands for that page as well, it's still unsettling to see something undone without so much as a reason given, even a bad one. 69.121.39.234 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) We don't create lists that are full of redlinks, especially when none of the links have any potential because they fail to pass WP:NOTE. I had already cleaned up that list months ago, only to have you undo that cleanup with no explanation. So take your own advice there. (2) Redirects are not subject to prod deletion. That much is self evident and doesn't even need an explanation. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographic broken

It seems your last edit to the "Infobox animanga/Print" template has disabled the "demographic" field. Could you please look into that? Thanks in advance. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a simple mistake, though tedious to renumber all of the data fields. —Farix (t | c) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Inactive participant, eh?

How... passive aggressive :P. True though, I should probably update my page. Ment0r (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you've made only one article space edit in the past year, and that wasn't even an anime or manga article. In fact, the last anime and manga edit you edited was over three years ago. That's inactive no matter how you look at it. But if you plan to actively edit anime and manga articles, then you can undo the change. It's just a way to separate active editors from those who are inactive so that we can better target project messages in the future. —Farix (t | c) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Saeko Matsuda for deletion

The article Saeko Matsuda is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saeko Matsuda until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pburka (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the award on my disscussion page. ^_^

See you soon! :)

Hajiru (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Hajiru

More Unsourced/OR Issues

If you would be willing to review Talk:S-Video#Citation tags at head of article and provide feedback I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Leozack

Not everything in the transformers list is relevant to the anime project, much like not everything in the Japan list or the fictional elements list is relevant to the anime project. I listed Leozack and the other AFD because they are relevant to the project. If it is valid for the items in the Japan list or the fictional elements list to also be listed on the anime page, why not a transformers anime character? --Malkinann (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't list Transformers AfDs on the anime and manga delsort page for the same reason we don't list anime and manga AfDs on the Japan delsort page or the comics and animation delsort page. As a decedent project of WP:ANIME, almost all of the Transformer articles WILL fall in WP:ANIME's scope. Transformers already has their own delsort page, which was created in part to keep the anime and manga delsort page from being deluged with the dozens of Transformers AfDs. —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found that in the AFDs, relatively few of the Transformers articles could be said to fall into WP:ANIME's scope, due to there being American series, American comics, toys, etc. I feel a clearer motivation for the Transformers delsort page is to keep the wide array of the Transformers media franchise(s) together, rather than to keep the anime and manga delsort page from being deluged. It was unfortunate that during the last wave, so many were AFDed at once, but that was due to sockpuppeting and spurious AFDs which could have been dealt with WP:BEFORE they happened. WP:ANIME is one of many parental projects for the Transformers articles. I feel that when a Transformers anime character, character list, or series, is AFDed, they should be listed on the anime deletion sorting page, as they are relevant to the anime project. --Malkinann (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I know exactly why the Transformers delsort page was created as I created it for exactly the purpose I stated. —Farix (t | c) 01:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ANN's encyclopedia

I had no idea that ANN was user generated! I thought that ANN was the best source for the list of episodes. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Shingo Kobayashi

You recently commented to keep the article Shingo Kobayashi, a BLP tagged as unreferenced since January 2009. Unreferenced BLPs are a serious concern facing Wikipedia. Since you believe this article should be kept, any assistance you can provide to add substantive citations to the article would be appreciated. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Spoilers

Ok, thanks for the heads up, I've read through the spoilers rules link and I'll alter it in accordance with them, as the page didn't comply with them anyway before i edited it due to no heading called "plot". the previous "summary" suggested that no spoilers were there (like the blurb on a book or DVD) Aquatix (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. Let's assume that the reader has enough common sense to know that an episode summary on Wikipedia has so-called spoiler. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Inquiries about "Candy Candy" episode table

Salutations, Farix. I hope that everything is going well for you as of late. As the title of this section suggests, I wish to inquire you a few things about this article. First, I would like the utility of the FORCETOC applied on 30 @ November 2010 explained to me. What were you hoping that it would do for you?

I also saw that there was a tag applied in November 2010 about how the article may be too long to read comfortably. I do acknowledge that the article is a bit unwieldy because of »Candy Candy« being 115 episodes in lengthy; that is why I divided the episode synopsis table into seven arcs as is the case [[1]] which is when I added the Episode 115 synopsis back in August 2010.

Considering the epilogue after that point, it seems that nobody liked my particular attempt to address this problem or has a viable solution. Might I suggest that we abide the story arc designations that I put in place even though it is a »fan invention« since Sweetsunray's attempt at creating sub-articles has failed? Either that or we can divide the 115 episodes into quintiles of 23 episodes each. I hope that you reply me soon with a viable alternative.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

FORCETOC forces the Table of Contents to appear between the lead section and the first section header. This was added because MediaWiki does not display a TOC if there are less than 4 section headings. As for dividing the article. Dividing it based on fan invented arc names is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research and verifiability policies. Without a reliable published source, such as from the network or studio that were involved, these arc names should not be used anywhere in any of the articles. —Farix (t | c) 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My perspective of the problem once again

I am not hostile to acknowledging and complying those policies, Farix; STILL, the »Candy Candy« episode synopsis is far too unwieldy to be read easily. How should that be handled?

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for your work =)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your work at maintaining the article List of anime conventions for a long period of time. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks —Farix (t | c) 00:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

List

Hi! I saw you were involved with a previous nomination for deletion of List of suicides in fiction, and felt you should be informed of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Lolicon

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following its nomination for reassessment. You are being notified as your have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Lolicon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary and Secondary Sources

First, thanks for reverting the change you made on my talk page -- what were you trying to do? And why?

Second, about the Baku (Spirit) article. I'm sorry to say you're wrong (IMO) about the need for secondary references in this case. Primary references are needed for descriptions, and secondary sources are needed for interpretations. The items given are all descriptions -- here'a an example from the article itself.

"Hakase Mizuki's 2007 manga Ba_ku (sic) and Shin Mashiba's 2008 manga Nightmare Inspector: Yumekui Kenbun are also about baku/yumekui who are not tapirs.[references]"

That's all it says and all it needs to say, with the references to the manga themselves.

The name "Ba_ku" tells us all we need for this article: it's about a baku. Likewise, the next title: the word "Yumekui" tells us all we need to know for this article. It is not necessary to cite any other sources. There's nothing more to it. Both manga are about baku who are not tapirs. End of discussion: a fact, nothing more, has been established and referenced. Now, to be sure, neither you nor I might think that it's an important fact, nor even a very interesting one, but a fact it is -- as duly proven by the reference. Your reinstalling of the tag talks about the "significance" of these facts, but nobody has said anything about significance. So we don't need any secondary sources.

Now, these sources can be added -- all wiki-reliable and secondary, but they're not necessary. For example, for "Ba_ku" here's the TokyoPop page: http://www.tokyopop.com/product/1875/BAKU/, under "Synopsis:"

"Takeshi finds out that he is the reincarnation of the "Baku," a spirit that devours people’s nightmares..."

Now, that tells us nothing more than the title is about a Baku. Why do you want such things added to the article? That is, IMO, some seriously wasted nit-picking! And it isn't worth anyone's time to do it. If you feel such things are essential, then do them yourself, and don't ask anyone else.

The WP policy on primary sources tells us that we need to use commonsense in making decisions about these sources. It's obvious, to me at least, that we don't need complex secondary references for the sentence I quoted above about "Ba_ku."

You can respond here; I now have your talk page on my watchlist. I'll wait a day or so, and then I'll remove the tag unless you can explain why the article needs to cite the TokyoPop page and not the manga.

Believe me, this is not worth the time. Leave it be and let's get to more important matters.

Timothy Perper (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You ask if these baku = tapir references mean anything in the context of the baku_(spirit) article. Fair enough. The article is about baku, and it is simply a matter of (wiki-verified) fact that Hokusai among many others portrayed the baku/yumekui one way (as a chimera illustrated in the article itself), and that modern manga and anime artists portray it in another (as a tapir). That change is notable enough in the context of the stories and the history of this aspect of Japanese art. In fact, if the article did not say that the baku has changed, it would be drastically incomplete, because it would give the false impression that the baku is a Chinese-derived chimeric animal in all Japanese art and culture. And it isn't. Baku are portrayed in two ways, one old (Hokusai and documented) and one modern (mnaga and anime, also documented).

This article is a stub, and although I, for one, would love to see it developed into a full length treatment of the subject (which is very complex), I surely have no time to do that, and I doubt if you do either. So, I suggest letting it stay as is, although I may get rid of some of the stuff that has had a {{citation needed}} tag on it for a couple of years. If I can find references for verification, I'll add them, but it won't be a major effort on my part. I'll also change the subsection title from "popular culture" to "modern representations" or something like that. I've been working on this article by fits and starts for several years, and I'm willing to put in a bit more time, but I can't do very much. If you'd like to come by and help, it'd be most welcome. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Left an answer on my talk page. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Akari Saho Article

I assume you're trying to improve my article by deleting what I wrote. The question is, why? I don't think you can leave me a message, because I turned my user page into the Akari article. I tried to figure out how to contact you, but this is the only way I suppose. Do I know you from another website, maybe for Hello! Project? Or are you a member of the Facebook club, "Eggs-cellent Fans Of Akari Saho"? Magical Girl Fan (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Magical Girl Fan

No, I am not a fan. I really don't know who she is and the article does a poor job of explaining why she is notable based on reliable third-party sources. But I will remind you that Wikipeda is not the place for trivial statistics, such as body measurements, likes and dislikes, or hobbies. These are meaningless to the general English-language reader. —Farix (t | c) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

Geni made an interesting point there today.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I so think that IvoryMeerkat may been a sockpuppet of a certain other editor who uses very similar language in associating Wikipe-tan with lolicon and child pornography in both MfDs and the ANI thread. But it's too circumstantial to really make an SPI worth it. —Farix (t | c) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I'm just tired of the smearing. Editors can fight without reducing it to attacking each other's character. I'll be glad when this one is done.

Shigurui

There is too much sex nudity and violence for Shigurui to be shonen. I added a reference for the demographic to be verified as seinen to shigurui's discussion page. I also temporarily added "(adult)" next to your shonen demographic just in case you end up giving some child post traumatic stress from watching something they are not supposed to. Please change the demographic to seinen after confirming the given ref as verifiable. I have not changed it because I don't really care and wikipedia is annoying and lame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.4.244 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't

Please don't mess around with my, or my bot's, user space.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Kinnikuman

Don't attack me for reverting this, I know nothing about the subject, I just thought that such a page should have the section. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack. I removed it citing that it was original research and had no sources. You restored it for no reason whatsoever and without providing a single source or addressing the original concern. —Farix (t | c) 14:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that. I admit that I made a mistake, Just out of interest, how is it research? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Two of the items were based on personal analysis that the series was being referenced. The other three are indirect quotes that are required to be sourced to show their relevance. —Farix (t | c) 14:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheFarix. You have new messages at Nbahn's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nbahn#End_of_year_awards

 <br. />—NBahn (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction

Thank you for correcting me on Talk:Hentai regarding Wikipedia non-free content. Just thought I should drop a line out of gratitude, "I learned something today". -- Dront (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Appleseed XIII article

I realize Wikipedia has very stringent guidelines for article content, and as a new contributor here, I expect my content to get edited while I get a hang of the rules. But, I think there has to be a common ground regarding Appleseed XIII. Instead of just wiping out the article, can we not meet halfway with a rewrite? The latest revision tells us nothing new about the series and forgoes a lot of verifiable information. Lets figure something out. Moonraker-6 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of your content was either speculative, rumor mongering, original research, did not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or was flat out unsourced. The ~5% that was based on reliable sources was poorly written and need to be completely overhauled. I had already started on a draft earlier and was waiting for more coverage of the series so that it can establish notability. At this point, I don't even think it deserves its own article. —Farix (t | c) 20:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

then it could be merged to the main Appleseed article. But the main reason why i came was to ask you to provide a discussion when adding tags proposing a merge.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mangaka Linux

About listing Mangaka Linux on the anime and manga deletion sorting page, I listed it there because the article described it as bascially an operating system created by fansubbers and optimized for fansubbing (i.e. including all the tools a fansubber would need). I think articles related to the fansubbing community clearly belong on the anime and manga deletion sorting page. The title of the article really had nothing to do with why I thought it should be listed there. Calathan (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't agree with that at all. It's an OS variation, nothing more, and isn't within the scope of the anime and manga deletion sorting list. But I won't edit war over it. —Farix (t | c) 21:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still think things related to the anime community (or portions of the anime community such as the fansubbing community) should be listed on the anime and manga deletion sorting page, even if the article isn't actually about an anime or manga. This is a OS variation created by a fansubbing group, who specifically states it is "especially developed for the specific needs of the anime and manga community". If things like fansub are within the scope of the Anime and Manga Wikiproject, then I don't see why something like this which is part of the fansubbing community shouldn't be in the scope of the project. It probably doesn't matter for an article like this that is soon to be deleted, but if similar cases keep coming up in the future, maybe a discussion on the talk page of the anime and manga deletion sorting page would be good clear up what is in scope. On a side note, I've noticed that since the group that created Mangaka Linux is a fansubbing group, their website links to torrents of their fansubs. My understanding is that it is against Wikipedia policy to link to such a site, but I'm not really up on the policy. Is the correct action in such a case to remove all links to the website, even though that would leave the article basically unsourced (as thier website is the only real source)? Calathan (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

CCA plot

I've rewritten it as concisely as possible, been thinking of working over the other Gundam articles so they will not be something that came off Gundam Wiki (many of them are lifted verbatim). LMK what you think. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Content Deletion

Please Do Not Delete Anything On The Beyblade 4D Page As You Did Before. You Made The Page WORSE As You Deleted Everything And Added A Pointless Empty Table! Please Leave It How It Is Now! Thank You! --Beyblade4D (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't restore what is essentially a overly generous plot summary for a lead to List of Metal Fight Beyblade 4D episodes. There are plenty of examples of what an episode list lead should look like and the Metal Fight Beyblade 4D didn't even come close. Is there even any information released to justify a standalone episode list when it's barely mentioned in the main article? And an empty table is exactly what one would expect for a series that has not begun airing. —Farix (t | c) 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Out Of Fairness, That Summary Was On The Official Site And Is Being Used Until This Sunday When We Get Information On Prologues, Intros And The Episode 1 Summary. Then We'll Adjust It So It Matches The Wikipedia Standards And Does Not Give Away Any Spoilers. --Beyblade4D (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted material taken elsewhere without the permission from the copyright holder. So it doesn't match "Wikipedia Standards". Quite the opposite, it violated several policies. Also any plot summary of an unaired episode is by default unverifiable. A preview summary is not a plot summary and doesn't belong on an episode list. —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I've Switched The Summary For A Page Intro. And Don't Say "This Is All Wrong". NO! We've Been Doing This Job On Beyblade Episode Pages For Ages. I'll Cite The Episode Summary In The Morning! Just Please Leave It As Is Now! --Beyblade4D (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You cleanly don't know anything about what an appropriate episode list is suppose to contain. Once again, I will refer you to the numerous examples of featured lists. —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And You Clearly Haven't Seen The Traditional Style For These Pages! Me And Dranzer Have Worked On These For Ages Unlike You How Magically Appears Out Of The Fray. Now Listen, Once The Episode Airs, The Page Can Be PROPERLY SORTED. No Ifs Or Buts. We Have Insufficient Information At The Moment. --Beyblade4D (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Forget It. I'm Not Wasting My Time And Effort Into A Page So You Can Claim It As Your Own. Just Take A Look At This. This Is What We Managed And Will Again. So Stop Removing Work And Find Somewhere Else To Reign! So Please Just Let Us Do This! I'm Literally Begging You Now! --Beyblade4D (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Sorry For The Triple Post And Sorry I'm Being So Angry. Maybe Your Right, Maybe Your Not. Either Way, I Apologise For My Past Remarks. --Beyblade4D (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on numerous anime articles and episode lists for the last 5 years as well as created, redesign, and maintain several anime/manga related templates, such as {{Infobox animanga}}, so I know very well what is expected. You, on the other hand, have only been active for less than a month.[2] Also I've given you an WP:OWNership warning as your last comment is clearly intended to be a deceleration of ownership of the episode list. —Farix (t | c) 00:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the main article is missing a lot of information. What is on there is very bare bones. —Farix (t | c) 01:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

But It Was Enough To Pull Through. And Yes, I Made This Last Month As I Became Tired Of Editing And Not Being Registered. I Still Am Very Sorry For Everything Said And Realise Now That You Were Right. For Now I've Added The Offical Site To The Bottom Of The Page. The Storyline, Characters, Episodes Dates Etc Can be Found Here. Sorry For All My Troubles. --Beyblade4D (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode Summary

If The Episode Summary Cannot Be A Copied One Can It Be Written In The User's Own Words And Be Sourced Using The Correct Pages? That Is Of Course Without Giving The Plot Of The Episode Away --Beyblade4D (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It has to be a complete summary giving all significant plot points from the episode. Also, only episodes that have already been aired can have summaries. A summary of an unaired episode will not be verifiable and will be removed. If there are any other such summaries elsewhere that were copied from other websites, they need to be removed immediately. —Farix (t | c) 21:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So I Can Write A Summary For The First Beyblade 4D Episode As Long As Everything Is Contained. Ok Then. Should There Be A Spoiler Box Then (Show/Hide Button) As There Will Be A Lot Of Text? --Beyblade4D (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, there should be no spoiler warnings of any kind. As for length, typically 100 to 200 words is considered reasonable for most episodes, depending on the plot's complexity. —Farix (t | c) 23:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Steins;Gate (anime)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Steins;Gate (anime), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 生け花 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ANN Lexicon

You said "ANN's Encyclopedia is not a relable source per WP:ANIME/RS". What WP:ANIME/RS actually says is "because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards". As I stated in my edit which you reverted, the Lexicon (which is what is what was referenced here) is not user-edited; I'm an Encyclopedia Editor and even I can't directly edit the lexicon entries and while users can submit words to be added the descriptions are created or at least vetted and edited by staff so are no less reliable than news articles, which are also often based on information submitted by users. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The news section almost always cites another source and the reviews section simply gives the reviewer's opinion and are included do to the editorial control of the website. However, the rest of the website has no sources or contains user-generated content. The lexicon is no different from the rest of the encyclopedia as far as reliability goes. —Farix (t | c) 22:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Metal Fight Beyblade arc names

Fan derived arc names? Sorry pal, but I have proof these are legit arc names by TV Tokyo, Takafumi Adachi. I don't put made up arc names. バトルブレーダーズ編 = Battle Bladers arc. The second DVD compilation of season 1 DVDs have バトルブレーダーズ編 in the title. And also these arc titles are on the first page of every Metal Fight Beyblade manga in CoroCoro Comics.

Manga reference: http://i43.tinypic.com/tainpd.jpg Anime DVD reference: http://www.amazon.co.jp/s/qid=1297895635/ref=sr_st?__mk_ja_JP=%83J%83%5E%83J%83i&keywords=%83%81%83%5E%83%8B%83t%83%40%83C%83g+%83x%83C%83u%83%8C%81%5B%83h&page=1&rh=n%3A561958%2Cn%3A%21562002%2Ck%3A%83%81%83%5E%83%8B%83t%83%40%83C%83g+%83x%83C%83u%83%8C%81%5B%83h&sort=-releasedate

The first six volumes of season 1 has no arc name. The second compilation is 7 DVDs. All of the second season rental DVDs has no arc title, but it covers all of Big Bang Bladers. Also, I've been watching the anime since it first started on TV Tokyo. I own all of the first season Japanese R2J DVDs. I'm a die hard Beyblade fan, so you can't tell me that what I have up is wrong if I have reliable references. I also keep up with the manga as well. Trust me, I'm not stupid enough to add fan derived arc names as I'm not that way. I have sources for my info. You can go ahead ans search up that arc title on google (in Japanese) if you don't believe me. The 4D series manga starts off with the Ultimate Bladers arc, but... it hasn't shown it in the anime just yet, and i'm waiting for Takafumi Adachi's email to see if the arc name is the same for the anime. As for the old series Bakuten Shoot Beyblade by Takao Aoki...that series had no actual arc names at all, mainly just fan derived ones. People have added fan arc names to my old Beyblade wikia, which are not even confirmed by TV Tokyo, and were just fan made since they really had no arc names to begin with. DranzerX13 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

Ginga Hagane

Hi Farix,

I noticed your prod on Ginga Hagane. He appears to be the main character of Beyblade: Metal Fusion, so a redirect to either that article or List of Beyblade: Metal Fusion characters would probably be appropriate. Also, I want to complain about your prod rational. The Ginga Hagane article had a wikilink to the Beyblade article in the second sentence, and used the term "beyblade" 20 times, making it very clear what franchise the character is from. It looks like you concluded that there was insufficent context to identify the character after reading only the first sentence of the article. Please actually read at least the majority of an article before proposing it for deletion. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If the subject is not identified in the first couple of sentences, then there is insufficient context to identify subject. In fact, the article does not have a lead that identifies what the article is about. A wikilink to Beyblade does not provided any context about which Beyblade series the character is from. That's like having a wikilink to Gundam without stating which specific Gundam series. The character isn't even mentioned on Bayblade and there is no List of Bayblade characters to compare to. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The franchise is identified in the first couple sentences by way of a wikilink, and the character is mentioned in the linked article (under the section "Metal Fusion"). His name is romanized two different ways even just within that section (Ginga vs. Gingka), which might be why you couldn't find it. There also is a List of Beyblade characters (you misspelled "beyblade"), though the current list seems to have been vandalized and the Metal Fusion characters seem to have been split off anyway, so that probably wouldn't have helped in this case. Regardless, the claim that not having the subject identified in the first couple sentences makes an article not have enough context to identify the subject is simply ridiculous. Are you really suggesting that you think not having a lead section is grounds for deleting an article? If the article makes it clear at some point what it is about, then there is enough context to identify the subject. It is true that a well written article should have a lead section, and should identify the subject of the article in the very first sentence, but being poorly written and lacking context to identify the subject are completely different problems. Calathan (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All the article was was a plot summary, but it did not identify the series the summary was from. Therefor it did not provide enough context to identify its subject. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is a difference between being poorly written and not having enough context to identify the subject. I think you are confusing "context" with a direct statement of the subject. This article didn't directly state what it was about, but in the context of the article it was clear that it was about a Beyblade character. The whole meaning of the word context is to consider something in terms of the surrounding text or circumstances, and by definition doesn't refer to a direct statement. When the criteria for speedy deletion (which you referred to in your prod rational) uses the word "context", it doesn't mean that articles should be deleted because they lack a direct statement of the subject, but that articles should be deleted if it is impossible to determine the subject even after considering context. Calathan (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

An article should state what it is about. If it doesn't, then it does not providing any context to what it is about. —Farix (t | c) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

An article certainly should state what it is about, but if it doesn't it still might provide enough context to tell what it is about. I was able to figure out that the article was about a Beyblade character by reading it, which would have been impossible if it provided no context. I'm sure you know what the word "context" means, and don't understand why you seem to think that in this case it refers to a direct statement as opposed to the normal definition of "context". If you are not convinced, we could start a disussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion asking for clarification about what is meant by "no context". Calathan (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But I stand by my prod rational. —Farix (t | c) 01:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Gravitation Characters

Don't you think you've gone overboard? Deleting all the infobox stuff for the characters was bad enough, but now you've deleted every single one of the characters pages? Do you even know how long it must have taken for someone to make and post them? And you just went and unneccessarily deleted them. That's not cool.Yomiel (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Release date

If you don't like this one [3] would you prefer that we cite amazon.com instead? ;P In a case such as this, and for something as easily verified as a release date, an ANN citation seems perfectly suitable. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision

You undid my revision without explaining why. Can you tell me what your reason was for undoing my edit? 97.104.94.108 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you apparently slapped on the category completely at random and without sources. In addition, there seems to be several categories that just don't fit either. —Farix (t | c) 11:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled

This is getting ridiculous and we shouldn't continue it on a template talk page. This is what happened from my POV, in temporal order:

You: "All of these fields are extremely trivial and have little to no relevance in a biography." I read this as a serious statement, not as sarcasm. Please correct me if I was wrong.
Me: "And yes, height, weight, eye colour and hair colour in infoboxes are equally ridiculous and should also be removed." This was meant seriously.
You: "These two fields [shoe size and blood type] are the most trivial of trivial information." I also read this as a serious statement.
Me: "The key role that shoe sizes play in British culture is obvious from the fact that [obvious nonsense]." This was obviously a joke in support of your previous statement.

One of us must have misunderstood something. Hans Adler 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[obvious nonsense]? It wasn't obvious at all. Especially since I've seen other editors repeat the the rest of your statement countless times before with the utmost seriousness. And your links were further proof that you were mocking me. your attempts to hide your mockery behind claims of "humor" and that I should have my "sense of humour examined" is further insult to injury. —Farix (t | c) 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response confirms my assessment that your sense of humour is way below average. It's not a big problem, obviously, but as we have seen it can lead to misunderstandings. Please just keep this in mind in the future, as such escalations are completely unnecessary. As a rule of thumb, when someone says something totally outrageous after seriously agreeing with you, the odds are that the person is joking and trying to be nice to you. Hans Adler 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your repeated attempts to pass off your mockery of my comments as a "joke" and continuing to insult me by saying that I have no sense of humor is not going to cut it. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no mockery and I am absolutely serious when I say you that I have come to the conclusion that you don't have much of a sense of humour. If you choose not to believe me then obviously there is nothing I can do. I am unwatching this page now. Hans Adler 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet?

Check this. It looks familiar, doesn't it? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only familiar, but the exact same IP. —Farix (t | c) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Erie Anime Experience

I want to know why you deleted erie anime experience page, if you don't allow anime convention pages then delete them all not just the ones you dislike. Now I know why the trade school I went to said not to trust anything on this site. You say to keep it neutral, the page was wrote with facts, that can be found on the EAE site as well as animecons.com and many more. I should tell everyone that Wiki is to bias and only allows content that the Admins want/like and heck with everyone else. (Kenshinkyo (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).

I had no hand in deleting the article. In fact, I didn't even comment on it at its deletion discussion. All I did was rewrite the article to conform with other anime convention articles, this giving it a better base from which to create an encyclopedic article from. Second, Wikipedia does have an inclusion criteria to determine which subjects may have an stand-alone article. It was up to you to provided evidence that EAE has received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, which was clearly your intent when you first wrote the article. —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did include links to other sources. And in that case thank you for trying, I am sorry. (Kenshinkyo (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

X-Men Anime dates

Here you go: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=12366&page=25

Not that I see why it should be needed. It's pretty obvious if an episode is out or not! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio192 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's needed because the airdates you are adding conflict with those released by Newtype. Also, ANN's encyclopedia is not a reliable source because its content is user generated without any verification. —Farix (t | c) 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Newtype never got around to updating their official schedule after Animax pushed episode 5 forward a week due to a Ring ni Kakero marathon. I'm not aware of any other source, so I'll just let this slide then. Doubt anyone will notice this little error, so no big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio192 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to inquire you something on »Katri -- Girl of the Meadows«

Salutations, Farix!!! I see that you have taken an interest in this episode synopsis page I recently released into the main encyclopedia space and I am in seventh heaven that my brainchild has been acknowledged; still, there are some elements of your handiwork that has me scratching my head in puzzlement that I wish to inquire you about.

First of all, what is your objection to single-digit episode sequence numbers? I fail to see what constructive utility that change has and am of the perspective that could have been left the way they were.

Second, I am at a loss for the rationale behind your removal of the @ in the dates; I am at a loss for how anyone cannot tell what date it is simply because of the @. I can read 14 @ May 2011 just fine and know what it means. Mind you, this is not a complaint or criticism; I am just interested in your perspective on that matter.

Finally, why did you remove the data about the theme songs? »Finlandia« is used as the background music throughout the sixteen episodes that I have seen; if you look carefully at the closing credits, you will see that song mentioned. I even prowled around cyberspace for evidence about why that song should be included; in fact, five of the six references on the episode synopsis page are to explain about »Finlandia« along with the political climate in Finland that inspired the advent of that song. Go back and look in the edit history if you do not believe me. This is one edit that I think should be given a second look. I will even rewrite it in prose if the table format bothers you; still, I really do think that this edit should not have been.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Beyblade Metal Fusion episode page

Stop changing the damn pages! Metal Fight Beyblade Battle Guide?! That is way off. It's Battle Bladers Darnit, not Battle Guide. Stop erasing the official arc titles, or i will report you to a wiki admin. I know what i'm doing. I'm 28 years old, and have seen Metal Fight Beyblade since it's first aired in Japan, so please STOP! DranzerX13 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

You have not added "official" arc names to the lists. The only episodes that has an alternate name is the second half of Beyblade: Metal Fusion DVD, and that fact is already noted in the lead section. The rest of the names are simply made up by fans. You are showing a great deal of WP:OWNERSHIP over these lists, forking the lists to another name and preventing other editor from fixing them to comply with the standards set by other episode lists. You have been repeatedly been told that your edits do not comply with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, but you have refused to listen. If you think there is an error in the translation of the Kanji, then you could ask Nihonjoe to review and correct it. However continuing to revert back to your preferred version will inevitably result in you losing your editing privileges. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever dude. I don't add fan arc titles. I watch the anime, read the manga, read the CoroCoro comics (which even has the arc names) You're starting to piss me off. I'm seriously going to report you to other wiki admins. Everything was fine till you started this crap. You think that you know EVERYTHING. I bet you haven't even watched it much at all. Also, I know for a fact the second half of Metal Fusion is called Battle Bladers, not Battle Guide. You have no proof that the other arc names were made up by fans, whereas I have proof sbout my statement. DranzerX13 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Re:

Re this, have you looked at the talkpage history and the comments I've deleted over the last months, plus all the comments relating to Sarek...? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tekkoshocon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tekkoshocon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tekkoshocon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Undo on Nichijou

I was curious as to your edit here[4]. As a note, the undo feature built into Wikipedia includes the following message to editors:

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.

Although maybe you were using a plugin or some other means and didn't get this instruction.--Bxj (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You are aware the edit summaries are optional, though they are recommended. I usually don't provide summaries for edits that are rather obvious or are minor. I think it was rather obvious why I removed the link, as there was not context for the link and the target only offered a translation, which is already present in the article. It is also not recommended to link Kanji or Katakana terms. —Farix (t | c) 19:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I asked because your edit wasn't so obvious. Of course not adding a summary is not recommended, but on top of that, keeping the default undo boilerplate message is further not recommended for cases that aren't vandalisms. It is not recommended to use kanji and kana titles for Wikipedia articles, but kanji and kana titles are not a problem on Wiktionary. Therefore linking to Wiktionary is a different story altogether, and it has a rather obvious utility behind it. Wiktionary is frequently linked from WIkipedia, and there are even templates to accomplish this task. --Bxj (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to inquire you something on »Katri -- Girl of the Meadows«

Salutations, Farix!!! I see that you have taken an interest in this episode synopsis page I recently released into the main encyclopedia space and I am in seventh heaven that my brainchild has been acknowledged; still, there are some elements of your handiwork that has me scratching my head in puzzlement that I wish to inquire you about.

First of all, what is your objection to single-digit episode sequence numbers? I fail to see what constructive utility that change has and am of the perspective that they could have been left the way they were.

Second, I am at a loss for the rationale behind your removal of the @ in the dates; I am at a loss for how anyone cannot tell what date it is simply because of the @. I can read 14 @ May 2011 just fine and know what it means. Mind you, this is not a complaint or criticism; I am just interested in your perspective on that matter.

Finally, why did you remove the data about the theme songs? »Finlandia« is used as the background music throughout the sixteen episodes that I have seen; if you look carefully at the closing credits, you will see that song mentioned. I even prowled around cyberspace for evidence about why that song should be included; in fact, five of the six references on the episode synopsis page are to explain about »Finlandia« along with the political climate in Finland that inspired the advent of that song. Go back and look in the edit history if you do not believe me. This is one edit that I think should be given a second look. I will even rewrite it in prose if the table format bothers you; still, I really do think that this edit should not have been.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the leading 0 to be consistent with other episode lists. Also, if the table is sortable, it allows for the episodes to be sorted correctly in numbering order instead of instead of "1, 10, 2". The date and quote formats you used simply doesn't comply with either MOS:QUOTE or MOS:DATE. As for the music table, I couldn't make sense of what you were trying to do. But we simply note the opening and closing themes in the lead in prose format. Insert songs are simply not mentioned. —Farix (t | c) 18:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to make DYOH a policy

I saw the proposal to make DYOH a policy, and formulated my response before reading the other responses. I am happy to see others making some of the same points, specifically, that making it policy implies enforcement, TheFarix and lack of connection to the main goal WhatamIdoing. In retrospect, I should have read the other points first and chimed in with support for each of you.--SPhilbrick T 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Negima! Magister Negi Magi

In the edit summary of your last edit you said 'You would no more italicize "Anime News Network" as you would "Fox News", "MSNBS", and etc.' In fact I would italicize these as they are works and can no more publish anything than can Newtype USA, a defunct magazine. – Allen4names 04:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Anime News Network", "Fox News", and "MSNBS" are not works or periodicals and therefore should not be italicized. (see MOS:ITALICS) —Farix (t | c) 10:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This quoted text is from the last paragraph in the section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) that you referred me to.

Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should also be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)

I think you should consider using work instead of publisher in these cases, but if you insist on continuing on misusing (in my opinion) that citation parameter don't be surprised when you get reverted. – Allen4names 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Chibiusa

The age of Chibiusa of Sailor_Moon in the manga should be mentioned in her article. I found a source that talks about her different ages in manga: Chibiusa goes through several different designs in the manga as she grows up, but she's almost always wearing some school uniform or another. She's also unusually short for her age, a point that you notice when she hangs around with anyone from her class. When Chibiusa first shows up she's in fourth grade at Juuban Elementary. During the Death Buster's arc she's elected class president of the fifth grade, and at the beginning of the Galaxia arc she and Hotaru are both in sixth grade (classes 1 and 3, respectively). Here's the source: http://www.chibimoon.net/mangaforms.html Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That is entirely a self-published fansite and does not meet the critiera for a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Candidate for Goddess cover

I uploaded the Japanese version of the The Candidate for Goddess volume cover for the infobox prior to your reverting Wani Books back to Tokyopop. It took several minutes for my browser to recognize the change. Please check it again to see if its been updated on your own browser. I may need to upload an entirely new file. ~ Hibana (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted the new image as there is no project consensus to replace an English cover with a Japanese cover or vise versa. Whichever cover that was uploaded first is the one that remains on the article unless there is wide consensus to change the image. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 33#Use of English or Japanese covers in infoboxes Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 40#Manga covers - English or Japanese? —Farix (t | c) 15:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger

Would you mind moving the discussion about the deletion of the list elsewhere ? It's not entirely relevant to the current discussion, and it's obstructing it. --Anthem 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because the list is very much relevant to the discussion of what to do with those articles, i.e. merging them to the list. —Farix (t | c) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Gundam SEED sources

Thanks, but sadly I have no access to those magazines. Nevertheless, do you happen to know if they contain information about the characters' creation?Tintor2 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Suite Precue episode titles

I get most of my titles from the fansubbers on the Pretty Cure Live Journal Community and I don't source them because well most people don't trust LJ as a source. I will cite those guys if you want to but since I don't read JP it's the only place I can find things and then they are usually incomplete. When I leave them here for awhile some one nice person comes along and fixes things for me. I'm maintaining the same list on the Pretty Cure Wiki and getting stuff is a pain! Please just help and don't remove things.Darkcat1 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fansubs are never a reliable source and I don't know how they obtain titles before they are publicly announced. So until the episode titles are published by a reliable source, which will occur later this week when Newtype updates their website, they should remain off the list. —Farix (t | c) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

i'm sorry you feel this way but no one is making episode guides from "Accepted sources" this makes Wikiapedia and Lj as my only sources of information. I suggest you quit reverting edits and help me find a better source because things like Anime News Network have been no help this year unlike they were with heartcatch. I'm sorry I yelled earlier but here's how I've been getting thugs: I post what incomplete info I have and someone nice fixes it or gives me more info. If this doesn't happen I really have nothing since I'm not a translator. Again I ask somewhat nicely: STOP REVERTING EDITS! If you can fix the titles for me fine I'll give you a medal but incomplete info is better than no info at all and I can see where that list is gonna be neglected forever if I don't start trying to make it with whatever I can get. PS: 90% of the titles on this list originally came form LJ and then got corrected by some cool random people k? PPS: http://precure.livejournal.com/1452319.html (direct link) PPPS: take it up with me personally on my talk page before you pull this lame stunt of yours again (last thing I won't post summies before things air ok?) Darkcat1 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

oh looks like I was wrong: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=12216&page=25 (anime news network list confirms vaid stuff silly) Darkcat1 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ANN's encyclopedia is not a reliable source. Heck, it uses the fansuber's website as a source (either because it was added by them or by you) Any information that cannot be verified by a reliable source MUST BE REMOVED. As I said, Newtype will be publishing the next for episodes at the end of the week. We can wait until then when a reliable source is available. —Farix (t | c) 02:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

sorry but it is I used it to make two back episode lists already(they didn't exaist...also try getting episode titles fro 2004 from toei I dare you!). It's as valid as coping from another wiki which frequently happens here Darkcat1 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

After looking at a very bad Google translation of http://asahi.co.jp/precure/ I have confirmed the title of #18 to be 100% correct[may need translator for the kanji] and the post was made on the site on 6/4/2011 well before this dispute of ours. If you want to help find a better translator to help with websites like this you can otherwise stay out of my way(I refuse to use Google translate to enter info because it's horribly bad at translating. In this case fansubbers are better even if they are off tiny abit). I was trying to find the Toei animation site(from toei.co.jp) to confirm the title for 19 but my browser keeps crashing when I use the google translation version to understand the links. One thing that you do not understand is that TV shows run on a production schedule and it's very possible to get the episode tile(only the title...but no other info) before it airs. Previews work for just the title of the next episode but no summaries should be made from these since the episode has not aired and no one knows what will really happen.

PS(private to this talk page): I'm still somewhat Angy because my all my info and the titles I've added in the past are pretty much spot on with Toei. Also "verifiable" is an internet joke when it comes to wikipedia as the whole site is full of useless trivia edited by a batch of monkeys(me included). I'm also mad because you totally refused to help me find a secondary source that you would find as acceptable and game me a super vague FAQ I can't understand for the life of me. You kept saying "it's not my job" well if you want things your way it really is. People like you tick me off because you continually yell that things are not your problem instead of- 1. Helping me find a translator, 2. helping me find the correct source. You deserve no awards for your work and should get the same 24hr ban as I did or worse....and now I'm sorry I'm so angry it's not good for me or you either. I will keep apologizing but I'm sorry for yelling and everything. If I ever do it again I will keep saying I'm sorry for my behavior but you need to learn to be helpful and contribute rather than just stupidly deleting stuff. Darkcat1 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Inazuma Eleven episodes

Just double-checked your List of Inazuma Eleven episodes. The translations seem fine. If you go ahead and implement the info into the main article space, other users and I can fill in the blank spots. ~ Hibana (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and fill in the blanks. There are a few things that I need to finish before moving it to main space, such as to beef up the lead and archiving some of the sources to prevent linkrot. —Farix (t | c) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Digimon Xros Wars

Please do not compare me to the The New Angel. Plus, after finding the guy have set up the pages, I've been setting up the pages to match those like Tai Kamiya.Fractyl (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I found a third-party source in V-Jump. But for now, this source allows Taiki, Kiriha, Nene, and Greymon to stay up (Akari, Zenjiro, and Cutemon I'm ok with standing in the main character page). So I have wait to find some for Beelzemon and Bagramon.Fractyl (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You restored several of the same articles as The New Angel, so you are both in it together.[5] Also, V-Jump publishes the Digimon manga, so it is not an independent source and does not contribute to establishing notability. The fact is, the Digimon articles are a completely mess and almost all of the characters and Digimon lack any notability. So pointing to them as a reason to keep these articles won't get you anywhere. Being a "main character" does not make the character notable. Having a major role in the series plot doesn't make them notable either. Notability is only established by coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —Farix (t | c) 11:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If I was in league with him, why would I allow him to set up Human/Digimon pairs that don't even exist? Also, I contacted him to knock it off until this is all settled. Furthermore, you never even talked to me about it nor placed in on your nomination. But I found Amazon and Toysnjoys, which could count as third-party sources.Fractyl (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DRV for Gundam list

Just as a thought, have you considered asking for the list to be userified? Then the sources could be incorporated and shown to have third party reception (instead of third party regurgitation), and then it would be an 'easier' return. --Malkinann (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I though about it. But then I presumed that Anthem would continue to nominate the rest of the Gundam SEED mobile suits while we work "fix" the list in userspace. And since there was not likely merge target, those article will likely be deleted and it will be much harder to get those deletions overturned to mergers once the list is fixed. —Farix (t | c) 01:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the same banned sock has, just as you predicted, in fact opened such an AfD. (for List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons) DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Koichi Kimura

I've got no objection to that, if there's anything useful which belongs elsewhere. Are you going to do it? I don't really know anything about the show; I suspect I would be more conservative than some would like. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the character list talk page. The article's a bit of a mess; what it really needs is someone who cares about Digimon, yet understands Wikipedia's guidelines, to give it a very severe cutting back. Ideally, I think, characters would be mostly listed in a table with any real-world information (voice actor, designer, episode first appeared... I'm thinking aloud) with only the major characters getting any more than a few words of description. It's very rare I see a half-decent character list, which is a shame. List of human characters in Sesame Street, List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters are featured lists, but I'd say only the first one works as a good model. The other two strike me as a big in-universe-y. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The target list needs a lot of reworking before any of the mergers can take place, and that's going to take some time. However, since there appears to be an all out war on all fiction related articles, particularly fiction related lists, this is going to impede any cleanup and consolidation efforts of the Digimon articles. —Farix (t | c) 20:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I admit they often get a lot of flack (and yes, I'm guilty of a lot of tagging myself), but that's because they're often so poor. I'd love to see a decent character list article, if for no other reason that it could be pointed at to show that they can be decent articles. FLC (as opposed to FAC) is generally very open to pop culture articles. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking of these (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Unfortunately, the editors initiating and casing deletion !votes are not considering any alternatives, such as a merge or redirection. By taking out the lists, the individual stand-alone articles will no longer have anywhere to go. This has already happened with List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons where the original nominator began sending individual articles on mobile weapons to AfD which would have otherwise resulted in a merge to the list. —Farix (t | c) 21:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

About the current batch of socks

I was wondering about User:Sergeant Cribb, who also joined (rejoined?) 3 months ago and has worked in many article deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You should bring it up with an admin. But being gone for three months isn't something that throws up any flags. I was once gone for 4 to 5 months myself. —Farix (t | c) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sgt. has posted on his user p that he "previously worked as User:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus, but decided to abandon that." DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also brought up here. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at the AfDs listed here? The editor in the user1= slot just lit up my watchlist by visiting nearly every single AfD where I struck Anthem of joy's !votes. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that a checkuser will clear things up. But I doubt Jfgslo is a sock in part because Jfgslo always participated several days after AoJ. Some of the correlation could be that Jfgslo is following along one of the fiction related delsort lists and comments on articles that get listed there. Since most of AoJ's AfD participation was also related to fictional subjects, it should not be surprising that a correlation exists. There would be a similar correlation between me and a few other editors who participate in anime related deletions by monitoring WP:DELSORT/ANIME. —Farix (t | c) 11:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe so. Are all of the AfDs fiction-related? --Tothwolf (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:DELSORT/FICTION? Seems that all of the AfDs in questions were listed there. —Farix (t | c) 11:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Jfgslo's account creation date is much earlier than all of the currently identified Claritas socks. Going forward this subject area will probably need to be watched closely since based on Claritas past behaviour, he will likely return before too long. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Any additional suspects should go to WP:SPI for a checkuser. —Farix (t | c) 12:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
SPI is really only good for already identified sockpuppets (behaviourally). A CU also isn't done unless there is already a reason for it ({{Fishing}}, {{Crystalball}}, etc). In the case of User:Anthem of joy/User:Claritas, I identified him solely from behavioural patterns. Stuff like this and this also didn't help him (but wasn't the main thing which gave him away). --Tothwolf (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

welp

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Would not have even voted delete on Strike Dagger if I had any clue that guy was a sock. I revoted on there as speedy keep. Big ups to you and Mythsearcher for continuing the good fight. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

table width

Hey, I'm the one who removed the table widths from the table of episodes on Toriko ([6]). Maybe the issue is with my browser (which is a tempermental IE8), but the widths absolutely do not look proportional to their content. The "Original airdate" column seems to take up more than two thirds of the table width and the "Title" column is smaller than either of the other two. I can only assume that it looks right on your computer, but it looks completely terrible on mine. If there have to be widths, can I suggest using percentage widths as on such pages as List of Bleach episodes (season 15) and List of One Piece episodes (season 13), which appear just fine for me. --Neumannz (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify, it looks terrible in IE8 unless I'm using Compatibility View. --Neumannz (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tested it in IE9 and Firefox and don't see any problems with the column widths. However, without the widths, the episode number and date columns become grossly disproportional for their content, especially on wider screens. Using percentage widths doesn't solve anything as they become just as disproportional on wider screens. One other fact is that this type of table was used for years in HTML web design without any problems. The fact that you're version of IE choked on this indicates that the problem lies more with your browser than with the table's properties. —Farix (t | c) 00:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Eva revert

Not that it's important, but it's pretty obvious what that anon was saying, even going solely on my knowledge of English - 'Evas are not mechas, but are humanoids; whoever thinks they are mechas has not seen the anime or read the manga'. (Which is clearly described in the Description section, but maybe his English is not up to snuff.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:59 18 June 2011 (GMT)

Edit requests

Hi. I have just attended to your various Digimon requests. Just to note that there is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Edit requests#Edits affecting several pages that, in cases like this, you add the request to one page rather than making lots of separate requests. If you could do this next time, it will probably be easier for both of us. Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for notifying me about this sock thing, I thought years would help because sometimes it seems like people post new topics at the top of the page when I think you are supposed to put them on the bottom so if they saw the year maybe they wouldn't make the mistake. I noticed you reverted one but I ahd also added the name/date of te first post guy made on a Nadja thread so you reverted that and it's unsigned again. DB (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not fulling anyone with this latest sock, Tyciol. You've been banned from editing on Wikipedia for just this type of disruptive editing. And trying to stalk me off Wikipedia isn't going to help your case either. —Farix (t | c) 11:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)