User talk:TheFarix/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Kami Tenchi

I have to agree it's just them making assumptions/speculations of him being omnipotent no real actual facts have been posted by anyone in the talk page. Beyonder (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Social Network? Updating is hardly that.

Farix, I need you to see what I wrote in the article and you wrote on my talk page again. Could you have expressed yourself in a different way?

First, I appreciate you said hi and you welcomed me even if was a link that you probably always use on User's pages, (unless they are adept users or experts) though I've been on Wikipedia editing starting in 2006. Yet that also doesn't mean 'we' in large are always editing or have a in-depth knowledge of Wiki's in & outs either. I did read it, and it said this:

How you can contribute: Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold!

It also says Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect, and I think you enjoy deleting others comments too much. I've also donated to Wikipedia as I enjoy contributing & reading it.

Second, not to be rude - as I appreciate the good points you made. I agree it's not a discussion forum either. So if you are referring to the talk page about this 2007 article, I was adding to criticism of the anime nominated & lack of ones I think should be included when I saw it - so therefore it was not off-topic. It was why I feel it could have been more successful if the Anime Awards Show, was given more time for the nominations put to a vote amongst fans, and more properly representing more anime & not a landslide win for just one or two. Because I love the idea of the Awards Show, because I was heavy into AMV and other things like Hellsing as well.

And what's the point of a article anyway if people can't discuss the pros & cons in a informative way? I believe I did that - and it was also the only section within the page, so your definitely not creating ANY sort of conversation or creative discussions there by deleting it. If it got off-hand, you should message the users that are disruptive or state your own opinions. But deleting things is a rather negative & empty power given to us all. We can't improve anything by being silenced - and that could also make us all want to donate less time & money to a project as well. What would you do if 1,000 users reverted your deletions tomorrow or someone deleted what you wrote without more than a few words or no words at all? Sorry, I just don't think your reasoning was justified. While I've fought reverts before I also accepted them when my writing was deleted before in good taste & explanation. So far, I believe you just disagree with what I had to write. Why not use this link instead to ask me?

Third, I'm confused why you linked me to Wikipedia not being a social website. While I might or might not be as adept, have the same knowledge, contributions, awards displayed as you do - after visiting the link - I haven't done any of those 4 things on a talk page either. Your right - the goal of the website is to build a encyclopedia, however it is a never-ending goal & if talk pages are limited to what someone can contribute when it's blank, then it will fail in that goal some days too. It is also free - so your free to delete, but every add & delete comes at a sacrifice too - to someone's time and you might be deleting their freedom to express themselves. I can edit what I write too, so why not just say what you had an issue with so I can make it better?

Last, and most important - you should REALLY read this!

Jeydo (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletions at the village pump

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can comment on your role in deleting my comment and what you wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.36.235 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling correction

I took the liberty of correcting the spelling error in your post to Template_talk:Nihongo; as a BrE speaker I was baffled at first, because "do" and "due" don't even sound the same. Please check this is correct. Thanks. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

about the link you recently removed on the anime oage and called linkspam.

It is not link spam. What I was trying to do was just add a link to a unofficial anime show fan page. It does contribute to the article, by showing how people discuss and talk about anime. You might have mistaken it for link spam, probably because I any have improperly placed the link and the purpose of it in the wrong way. I do not intend to spam the anime page. I was just trying to help contribute. I hope you respond to this soon. Sincerely, Doorknob747 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Just want to add to my comments. According to Wikipedia rules, anything can be placed on the external links only if it accords to the rules that, it has to somehow relate to the topic of the page, and can not be promoting pornography, or anything illegal.). The link I placed has followed the guidelines and relates to the idea of anime. Doorknob747 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"go like the page and followit"[1] You were promoting a Facebook page by encouraging people to like/follow it. That is the very definition of link spam. On top of that, unofficial fan page links are prohibited by WP:EL. —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the follow and like part and also look here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELMAYBE. Over here look at #4 and maybe the others, I think the page fits into one of them, I read somewhere that there are acceptions to unofficial pages, and those four are the only acceptions. I think one of them fits in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.241.249 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It actually fails WP:ELNO #11. The link also has nothing to do with the subject of anime and it is only about one specific series, so WP:ELMAYBE #4 does not apply in this case. And given that you've added this link to other articles via your IP, it is clear you are only trying to promote it. —Farix (t | c) 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Technically now it shows what was the intended pupose, at frst I thought it would be a goodplace to put a link of anime fandom on external links but I think middle of the articlle is better. Doorknob747 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It still does not belong in the article, but I have asked for a third opinion from WP:ANIME. Also, these particular edits from your IP account is very troublesome.[2][3][4] This sort of made up crap has no place on Wikipedia and would be viewed by most editors as vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 01:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been meaning to say this, while Id like to WP:AGF I get the feeling that we are dealing with a younger editor here even more so after some of the edits im seeing. As such it wouldn't hurt to mention WP:GFYE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hiro Mashima - Source Needed

Sorry, I didn't know abut MAL being restricted for use as a reference. The requested source is for what? The title? The plot? The collaboration itself? This is my personal research, since I read it and added it to both wiki and MAL. Do we actually need a source here? Thanks for your attention on this.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Everything in a biography—especially one about a living person—must be attributed to a high quality, reliable, published source per the biographies of living persons policy. You claim to have read it somewhere. Exactly where did you read it? The fact that you added the statement to both MyAnimeList and Wikipedia demonstrates why MAL cannot be used as a source. The same goes for other websites that allows user generated content, such as Anime News Network's encyclopedia section. —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
When I edited the article and added the source, it wasn't for Miki Yoshikawa being Mashima's assistant, nor for their collaboration on the title, but for the description of the plot. So, I ask again, what do you need a source for? 1. For her being his assistant? There are plenty of interviews were this is mentioned. Will this suffice? 2. For their collaboration on the title? We only need to look at the title page where both names are listed. 3. For the summary of the plot? I read the oneshot, hence I know what was about. The descriptions I found were all in Japanese. Do I need to delete the plot content in order comply with WP guidelines? I understand why MAL is restricted. That wasn't my question. Thanks again.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the MAL was being used to cite needs a new source. Since this was a BLP and I was removing an unreliable source, I replaced it with a {{cn}} tag showing that it needs a new source. I could have removed everything in the paragraph after the NYCC reference per the WP:BLP since it was not cited, but I was being courteous. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Referencing the Genre of the Unbreakable Machine-Doll series

Hello Farix,

I understand your point; however, genres cannot always be referenced. If there are sources, these sources were made usually out from original research as well; usually people's point of views, which are most of the times false. (Note: The Japanese creators do not officially announce their story's full genre. News networks release only inaccurate original researched information.) The only reference I could give is that I have already read the light novel and manga and watched the anime. I then have used this article to choose the proper and most accurate genres for the series.

This is then the explanation for the genres I have chosen:

Also, the original genre presented do not have references as well which makes it as well an original research content. I would also like to make the point of that the Romance genre listed as one of the series' genres is false as the series never showed any romantic scene(s) between the characters involved.

Most if not all articles of the anime, manga, and or light novel have genres without references [e.g. Strike the Blood, Seirei Tsukai no Blade Dance, Mahou Sensou, Naruto, Bleach, One Piece, Fairy Tail]. Also, there are a lot of articles of the anime, manga, and or light novel that have false genres or false contents which are all based on original research.

I hope you will review again the contribution I have made and judge it fairly.

Note: Regarding the current contribution you just made:

  1. Genres are not necessarily referenced. If they should be, then the other information listed as well in the infobox should all be referenced as well. (This means that the other anime, manga, and light novel articles should all have the same system as well.)
  2. Anime News Network is not a reliable source of information. It is a news network which only releases poorly searched inaccurate information about a topic (I am not trying to insult news networks, but I am only stating facts. The manner they release information is the same as how a fast-food chain produces food; fast and unhealthy (unreliable)). The list below shows some of the examples (and proofs) which make the site unreliable.
    • The name of the light novel series' illustrator, Ruroo (ろろお), was used (translated incorrectly) as "LLO". Names are not translated (regardless of the country of its origin). Translating a name of a person is rude to the person who owns it.
    • The title, Wiseman, was used (or translated) by the site as "Maō", the word's romanji form of the kanji character, 魔王, meaning "devil", and not as "Wiseman", its English form from its katakana, ワイズマン (Waizuman), the correct form that is officially used by the light novel, manga, and anime. Note: You may watch the English-dub to confirm this. See also: Wiseman (Wikia)
    • The story. The site states that the main character, Raishin's, goal is to become a "Wiseman". However, this is incorrect. When he mentioned this to Kimberly, it was meant as a lie to conceal his true purpose of coming to the Academy as a spy for the Japanese Army which he mainly took in order to be able to fulfill his true and main aim of killing his brother, Tenzen, whom he assumes of being Magnus who is in the Academy. His true goal is to exact revenge and not to become a "Wiseman". Note: A lot of different other sources (or sites) also present the story incorrectly in the same manner which makes them unreliable as well. Once you read the story you will be able to understand my points. For more information on the series' true story, you may visit the Unbreakable Machine-Doll Wikia. However, the Wikia is currently incomplete as I have only just begun with only I its sole editor.

Thank you for your time.

赤羽 雷真 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You entirely miss the point of WP:NOR. The policy applies to editors adding materials for which no reliable, published sources exist. This policy does not apply to reliable sources, such as Anime News Network, Otaku USA, and etc. If the material cannot be verified by a reliable, published source, it should not be on Wikipedia. Also, just because other articles have genres that aren't sourced doesn't justify the inclusion of unsourced materials elsewhere (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). As for ANN not being a reliable source, it has been through review numerous times and its news and review sections have been established as reliable. —Farix (t | c) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


If the genre is required to be referenced from a published source, then the image used as well as other information presented (see the list of examples below) should be referenced as well to prove that the information presented as well is verifiable.

Written by Reiji Kaitō
Illustrated by Ruroo
Published by Media Factory
Demographic Male
Imprint MF Bunko J
Original run November 21, 2009 – ongoing

Anime News Network, etc... do not release the full set of genres of a series. Also, the genres that they mention are original researched as well; they do not have verifiable sources because the people behind the news networks only research the information they present, with the information researched coming from unofficial sources, combined with their own personal opinions which create the false unreliable information they present. I have already cited the examples of them being an unreliable site for information (e.g. "Wiseman" became "Mao", 'Ruroo' became 'LLO', wrong plot) above. This examples already prove that the site is not completely a reliable source of information. If you still truly believe that Anime News Network is reliable then change all the 'Ruroo' to 'LLO', because in the Anime News Network, the book's illustrator's name is 'LLO' (If you can read Japanese, you will read from the cover of the light novel (See: the series' cover image; on the right side of the novel below the name of the author (海冬レイジ)) is the illustrator's name which is actually read as 'Ruroo' (るろお)-- note that this is directly from the book itself. So, who will you believe; the book itself or Anime News Network?). Note: You did not answer this argument that I have had presented to you.

I did not mean this way. What I meant was that I have seen a lot of articles for a long time that have been left with unreferenced infoboxes, so I find it odd that when I edited the Unbreakable Machine-Doll article you suddenly appear (you have never edited this article and I presume that you do not have knowledge of the series as you did not notice the incorrect information the news network released), declare that what I did was incorrect, and then make an edit replacing the contribution I had made (with an unreliable one) but would not edit the other articles that I have cited that are unreferenced as well.

Articles created all come from original research and the original research should only come from the true official published sources (the book, show, etc... itself) and not from news networks. If there should be any reference then it should directly come from the true official published sources itself or from its official site and not from other indirect sources or sites. Persons managing the verification of the validity of the information contributed should only use the official direct sources as references and not other indirect sources.

I will also note again that Japanese creators do not officially announce the full genres of their creations that is why anime, manga, and light novel articles do not have references for genres (some articles that do have had references that would come from American news networks). The only possible reference for the series' genres are the light novel (and or manga and or anime) themselves and or the series' official site or its official publisher's site (if only they announced it which never happens).

赤羽 雷真 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:ANALYSIS, the secondary source can add their own interpretation on the primary source (they most often do in reporting the situation). The WP:NOR is supposed to cover interpretation and research by the Wikipedia editors themselves. Also regarding the spelling of the illustrators, staff, and character names, I suggest looking through MOS:ANIME#Characters and MOS:ANIME#People. Since the series has an anime adaptation from Funimation, they will probably have dibs as to the English naming of the "Wisemen" term. They can call that Frank for all we know. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing genres

Thanks for the revert, I'm quite new to categorizing and the MOS for A&M didn't mention anything about genres needing sources, but it's quite apparent now. For future purposes how does one even source a genre? In a comment? Opencooper (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been a a fundamental policy for years that all information, including categories, must be verifiable by a reliable, published sources. Genres were never an exception to this policy. The problem is that most genres are added to articles on the bases of the editor's personal opinion and interpretation of the work and the genre and the verifiability policy was never strictly enforced by most editors. —Farix (t | c) 19:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. It was just a temporary lapse of judgement and I appreciated that you corrected me so fast; I even went and reverted another genre categorization I made.
My thought process at the time was: "Anyone who's read the manga knows it's tragedy", but perception is subjective so one person's tragedy might be anther's comedy. Citing the work itself doesn't work either; ie: "there was a car crash in scene x", because art is open to interpretation and tone depends on context. You're right that genres are especially prone to Original Research and that the standards of Wikipedia have risen over the years.
However, I'd be careful saying "all information": you only need to cite "material challenged or likely to be challenged" and in another case editors might agree that something unambiguously belongs in a genre. For example: I could easily label something as hentai by virtue of the magazine it's serialized in or by the content, and anything by Junji Ito is likely horror. However, some genres are more contentious and subjective than others, and tragedy is certainly one of them. Thanks for the reply. Opencooper (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Read this

Mr. who doesnt read
Dude if you are worried about red lines, google those and see if they are wrong. If people want to know something, let them see what exists about that thing. Its not because there isnt a stand alone article that the information doesnt exist. Mestrinho420 (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This list is a navigation list of Wikipedia articles that have a common genre. It is not a complete list of all things in that genre. That much has been made clear in the edit notice at the top when you edit the page, which states "any new entry must have an adequately sourced Wikipedia article. Before adding an entry to this list, write the article first if the entry passes the inclusion critiera for a stand-alone article. Any entry which does not have articles will be removed." —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series)

Hi! Copying within Wikipedia is indeed permitted, provided attribution is given, as it was not in this case. The creator of that page was asked to do that when splitting articles, and chose to ignore the request; so the second time he/she did the same, I blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP. You've removed the template without fixing the problem; would you kindly either restore the template until the issue is fixed, or provide the necessary attribution? I'd be grateful. By the way, that template carries a message in large letters reading "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". Actually, there's a third thing you could do there: redirect the page back to the source; I'll go and support your merge proposal now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact is, you should never tag an aritlce as a copyright violation IF the content was copied from an other article. That tag should ONLY be used for problems where the material is taken from another website that does not have a copyleft license. If there is a problem with attribution, then fix it yourself. Instead, applying that template is disruptive and wastes more time than it does to actually fix whatever attribution problem there is. —Farix (t | c) 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not the fact, that is your opinion; in this particular case, it happens to be wrong – see for example the discussion here. An editor who doesn't provide attribution because he/she doesn't know to do so should be shown how. An editor who ignores requests to provide attribution is behaving disruptively; listing at WP:CP is one acceptable way of bringing that disruption to the attention of admins and others with extensive experience of copyright issues. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
In all the years I've been working on Wikipedia, I have never seen a {{copyvio}} template placed on an article simply because text was copied from another part of Wikipeda. If anything, the appropriate is simply fixed by the other editor. So if you can fix the attribution, appling {{copyvio}} to the article instead of fixing the attribution is disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 17:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

This is not what the See also section if ment for) Is There rules for See Also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.140.203 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Anime

You're 41, right? And you get offended by this and complain to an admin; "The BBC says anime is a cartoon, read the title and it obviously doesn't need a source to see that anime is for oversized children as I am forced to deal with one right now!"... What tf man?

And you obviously disagree that anime is a cartoon, even though it is.

car·toon kärˈto͞on/Submit noun noun: cartoon; plural noun: cartoons

"a motion picture using animation techniques to photograph a sequence of drawings rather than real people or objects."

Animation = anime = cartoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopper1010 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You were given a warning for a personal attack directed at another editor in an edit summary. Such actions are prohibited on Wikipedia. As for the meaning of anime, if you even read the lead, you will see that it already explains that the term references all forms of animation in Japan. It also goes on to explain how the term is used outside of Japan. Your addition didn't add anything other that "many anime fans disagree", however, the source you gave to back up that claim didn't even state anything about whether fans agree or disagree. —Farix (t | c) 22:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

PreCure episode airdate question

Hi, Farix. I just have a quick question. When referencing future airdates to PreCure episodes, I think we should use ABC's official website when referencing future airdates. For all other episodes that aired after the original airdate, we should use Toei's official website to replace the sourced future airdates when it airs. Do you have any thoughts or ideas on the matter? Also, would the preview on TV Tokyo's website be used as a source to confirm future airdates for Fairy Tail? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As sources, they are fine. However, is there really a benefit to include future air dates to start with? As I see it, this will encourage other editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies to add future air dates to articles that cannot be sourced. Also, no unsourced future air date should ever be on an article or list, even if the dates are hidden. These are still in violation of Wikipedia's policies and will only cause more problems down the road. —Farix (t | c) 10:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Door was blocked for socking User talk:Doorknob747#Blocked Your feeling that something was off was right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Characters of the Drakengard series

What was wrong with the very last change I made? Using the term deity in that one instance.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Because "deity-like" is not a term we use in English. Also god is not really gender specific especially when used an adjective or in plural form. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Coppelion

Is there some kind of tool I can use to locate the duplicated argument in the template cell or cells here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and I can't see what is tripping it. Perhaps create a sandbox and then pick the sections apart? —Farix (t | c) 01:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Fix the link instead of removing it.

Hi, TheFarix:

I wholeheartedly disagree. At present, there are 1440 broken ISBNs, not including new dumps for Checkwiki errors 70 and 73 that Bgwhite or Magioladitis will run soon.

My job--to fix ISBN errors as efficiently as possible. You are a member of WikiProject Anime and Manga. **Many** of your project's articles contain dead links to akitashoten. How long have these links been sitting there dead? They all cause ISBN errors that show up on Checkwiki listings. Your project's job--fix the broken links.

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Knife-in-the-drawer:: If you can't take the time to properly fix something, then you shouldn't be "fixing it" in the first place. Deleting URLs in references is not a fix and is actually disruptive to Wikipedia because it prevents another editor from using the old url as a reference to update it. ISBN errors are not so important that it requires deleting dead urls in references. —Farix (t | c) 10:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a way to fix things properly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Magioladitis. I'm not sure why Knife-in-the-drawer believes that broken ISBNs are so important that it is worth disrupting Wikipedia by removing reference urls that he cannot be bothered to properly fix. Such actions would normally get a user blocked in short order if they persist. —Farix (t | c) 11:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix and Knife-in-the-drawer: per WP:DEADLINK "a dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful" and we should find ways to update these links. I am not aware of the extend of the problem in Manga comics and akitashoten. I can help in finding them. I would agree with Knife-in-the-drawer that "The WikiProject Anime and Manga should put a little effort into fixing all urls to akitashoten". I bet the wikiproject are more experts than I or Knife-in-the-drawer is. I'll post at WP:BOTREQ asking for help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis:, but Knife-in-the-drawer didn't ask the project for help. He simply deleted the urls without being bothered to tell anyone nor attempt to fix them himself. Because he didn't bother to fix them or inform the project, I doubt there was anyone else who was aware of the problem until he came charging in like the proverbial bull in the china shop. —Farix (t | c) 20:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@TheFarix:, Knife-in-the-drawer spends lot of time to fix wrong ISBNs. In most cases they left messages in talk pages when they were not able to find the correct ISBN. Anyway, we are here to work together and we 'll find a solution. I'll help as much as I can. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#akitashoten.co.jp_needs_links_need_update. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: you read Manga. I don't. You, most probably, read Japanese. I don't. So any help to spot the correct links would be really appreciated. If we all work together we can fix this really fast. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: @TheFarix:
...and two gratuitous comments
  1. Manga articles also have a wonderful propensity for dropping the "978" prefix from perfectly good ISBNs. My guess: Rather than tweaking their tables to fit the ISBNs, they chose to butcher the ISBNs to fit the tables;
  2. A valid ISBN is important because it "unlocks" all of the links on a "Book sources" page
Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Knife-in-the-drawer: But an ISBN in an url does nothing. So why remove the url in the first place? Keeping the existing, all be it broken, link is still useful because it allows others a point of reference to search the various archiving websites. But by removing the url, you are removing their ability to find those archives and recover the reference. —Farix (t | c) 22:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@TheFarix: 1. The horse is dead. 2. In the future, I will comment out the url in place. I will not leave the url active because it is dead and because it generates an ISBN error. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Commented out links causing ISBN error

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Apology for violating copyrights

About the recent edit on World Break: Aria of Curse for a Holy Swordsman, I was quite shock to find out that I have violate copyrights by placing the content from remarkable webpages such as Anime News Network. Indeed due to that, I am regrettably sorry and wish to apologise for what I done. Please tell me how to prevent this from happening again. Also, I never meant to violate any copyrights, so I am seeking for your apology as this is my first year here. thanks.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hongqilim: There is one simple rule to follow. Always presume that material punished on another website is copyrighted and never copy it directly to Wikipedia. Even when there is no copyright declared, the the fact that it is published is enough to protect it under copyright laws. —Farix (t | c) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

books.shueisha.co.jp

All these pages contains links to books.shueisha.co.jp that most of them are broken. Any help to fix them is appreciated.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Respond to my talk page please

Here ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to get a new consensus, this time from Wikiproject video game members. You are welcome to share your thoughts. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ironfist Chinmi

I've done extensive work on the article. Added heaps on content based on the online manga. You mean to say I cannot link to mangafox in EL's or I cannot use ANY refs pointing to mangafox? I spent a lot of time collecting those references... It would be a pity to delete it all. Please do not revert EVERYTHING just because I'm linking to mangafox. I had no idea mangafox was illegal. If you want me to delete all links pointing to it, say that. Dont revert everything JUST LIKE THAT. I spent days improving the article. -- Wonderfl (reply) 13:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, links to any website that carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright cannot be used as either sources or external links. Since MangaFox does carrying works in violation of the creator's copyright, it cannot be used. I reverted the entire think as the referencing to MangaFox was extensive and I could not sort them out from other conent. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
So you are saying I should just delete all the refs to mangafox? Fine but then the entire plot and characters will be unsourced. I got an idea. What if I turn all the links into offline book cite links? And mention the page no. and stuff. Wonderfl (reply) 13:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Plot details usually don't need a reference unless they are disputed, however any analyst of the details must be referenced to a non-primary source. —Farix (t | c) 13:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I did it. Please check the article again. It should not have a SINGLE mangafox link as of now. I'm not analyzing the plot, or providing commentary. I simply summarize and re-state what is scattered throughout the series. Wonderfl (reply) 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Is the Chinmi article OK? .. if not I'll have a lot of work on my hands. Wonderfl (reply) 13:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hardly. Even though you have fixed the problem with WP:COPYLINK, the entire article is a mess. It does not follow the standards set by other manga/anime articles and there are multiple infoboxes and images. For this type of subject only one infobox and one image (the first volume, if available) to identify the work should be used. There is also an excessive amount of plot detail and almost no real-world information. Please refer to MOS:A&M with out manga/anime articles should be structured. —Farix (t | c) 13:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Moteki

Moteki is a seinen manga which implies an intended male audience. The English word "romantic" implies a female audience and a lack of sex. I also think Japanese virgin (童貞, お色気) comedies would usually be termed sex comedies in English. Moteki strikes me as similar to the American movie Superbad for instance. Dongord (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And your source is? Because if you don't have a source that states the genre, then it is nothing but original research, which by your own statement you are clearly engaging in. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yahoo Japan writes of Moteki the TV show "恋にエロスに翻弄される不器用な主人公の行く末に期待。 "　Dongord (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
"Expect to fate of clumsy hero to be at the mercy of Eros in love ." Sorry, but Google translate can't make any sense of that phrase. And you also didn't provide a link to the article so that it may be evaluated. However, two of the sources already used in the article clearly state that it is a romantic comedy. So romantic comedy is verifiable. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The translation would be something like "look forward to an end where the awkward hero gets teased by love and eros." The web site is: http://movies.yahoo.co.jp/movie/%E3%83%A2%E3%83%86%E3%82%AD/339817/story/
Which does not mean that it is a "sex comedy". The writer of that article didn't call it a sex comedy either. That is purely your interpretation. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently my sister is unusual is described by Kadokawa as "エロカワイすぎる本作" 'this erotic too cute work.' http://www.kadokawa-pictures.jp/official/imocyo/ We can leave the genre label as is, but will you allow me to add them to the Japanese sex comedy category? Recently my sister is unusual the movie clearly belongs there. Dongord (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, unless you have a reliable source that directly calls the manga a sex comedy, it does not belong in that category. Otherwise, it is original research as you are applying your own personal interpretation. —Farix (t | c) 13:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the manga. I'm talking about the Japanese sex comedy film category. I gave you two sources, and there are countless webpages describing the movies as お色気 or エロ. Dongord (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is about the manga. If you don't have a reliable source clearly calling it a sex comedy, the the article doesn't belong in that category. —Farix (t | c) 13:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Myanimelist refers to the 'Recently, My Sister is Unusual' manga as ecchi. The articles do refer to the movies. The 'film' word in the category makes the reference clear. Dongord (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And Myanimelist is not a reliable source because its content is user generated and also promotes the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. Second, ecchi is not a genre recondized by reliable sources. It is pretty clear that you have no understanding of reliable sources or the proper identification of genres, so I advice you avoid editing in this topic area. —Farix (t | c) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Robin Brenner's Understanding Manga and Anime book defines 'ecchi.' Dongord (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Explain

The removal of genres at Mushoku Tensei. It is edited exactly the same as No Game No Life, which I know cause everything on both those articles were done by me. In addition, most GA's don't even have a source besides the genre. Did you find Mushoku Tensei from my contribution history? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Genres must always be supported by reliable sources, just like everything else on the article. Just because some GAs slipped though without having their genres sourced doesn't mean that genres are exempt from the requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. I found the article by keeping track of changes in Category:Manga series and noticed that someone randomly added a genre. However, while looking at the sources that were on the article, I did not see any mention of what genres the work is. —Farix (t | c) 11:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
You should remove No Game No Life's genres too then. I know I did not source those. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Morning Call

Resolved

Deleted ISBN in Good Morning Call. Suspect volume doesn't even exist. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Volume 12 was never release. Doubled checked and confirmed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Cat Paradise

Resolved

Commented out url in Cat Paradise#Manga

学園創世 猫天!第3巻 [Cat Paradise Volume 3] (in Japanese). Akita Shoten.
学園創世 猫天!第4巻 [Cat Paradise Volume 4] (in Japanese). Akita Shoten.
学園創世 猫天!第5巻 [Cat Paradise Volume 5] (in Japanese). Akita Shoten.

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I started replacing with working links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, it's better that we now have third-party sources instead of first-party sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ai Ore!

Resolved

TheFarix: I'm handing over "Ai Ore!" completely to you because it's rather a mess...

  • Unlike other manga articles where the "Original ISBN" points to a Japanese edition and the "English ISBN" points to an English translation, in "Ai Ore!", the "Original ISBN" and the "English ISBN" are essentially the same. The only difference—the "Original ISBN" is ISBN-10 and the "English ISBN" is ISBN-13. The one exception, of course, is the "Original ISBN" for volume 3; it's an invalid ISBN-13 and the reason that I was sent to this article.
  • Moreover, all ISBNs point to an English edition, which confuses me. Were Japanese editions ever produced? If yes, where are the Japanese ISBNs?
  • All links to vizmedia.com are dead (but I did not comment them out)...same problem as Akita Shoten links. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I fixed ISBN number in all other manga articles. I removed these since they refer to the English version and are in fact a duplicate of the LicencedISBN column. I was unable to find Japanese versions of these. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Nodame Cantabile chapters

In "List of Nodame Cantabile chapters", all Kodansha links are dead. I did not comment them out (because they are not causing an ISBN error), nor did I flag them with a "dead link" template (there are too many).

Needless to say, if other manga articles contain links to Kodansha, they're probably dead, too. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked Hasteur if they could help us spot new working links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Rin-ne

First, I didn't add a source for the information because the website for it in Japan hasn't updated the information yet for some reason, despite the fact that the next episode is airing then. Second, you didn't need to remove the whole section because of that, all you actually should have removed was the air date. The title and episode number are official. And Third (this one is more me nit picking, and you don't need to pay attention to it if you don't want to) you didn't have to say that I didn't add a reliable source if I didn't add a source at all, all you needed to say was that I didn't add a source. I will re add the information for it but, I will not add the air date this time until crunchyroll adds when it will be added to their website so that we know for sure that it is airing on that day.Ichigo341578926 (talk) 00:48 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Crossroad (manga)

Resolved

In Crossroad (manga), commented out the following dead urls to Akita Shoten:

"crossroad 第1巻" (in Japanese). Akita Shoten.

"crossroad 第2巻" (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved April 4, 2009.

"crossroad 第3巻" (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved April 4, 2009.

"crossroad 第4巻" (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved April 4, 2009.

"crossroad 第5巻" (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved April 4, 2009.

"crossroad 第6巻" (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved April 4, 2009.

"crossroad 第7巻" (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved April 4, 2009.

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Replaced with working links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

X-Day (manga)

Resolved

Hi, TheFarix:

Sorry to convey so many problems to you lately. CheckWiki has been making some positive changes to its software, and consequently, ISBN errors are clearly revealing themselves.

In X-Day (manga), I commented out the following urls to, yup, Akita Shoten:

彼女達のエクス・デイ 第1巻 (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved January 18, 2010.

彼女達のエクス・デイ 第2巻 (in Japanese). Akita Shoten. Retrieved January 18, 2010.

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop, just stop. You are clearly violating WP:KDL. Dead links should not be removed or commented out, but either fixed or tagged. You are just creating more problems for other editors. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Farix Akita Shoten seems to have no sign of the pages above. I'll try to help in adding new urls. It's good that Knife-in-the-drawer keeps a record of them. We already started fixing some of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The way Knife-in-the-drawer is doing it is not acceptable. He should not be deleting or otherwise disabling links as that is against Wikipedias polices. Bad ISBNs are not a serious enough problem to be going around and deleting/disabeling links. —Farix (t | c)

Here are some points:

  1. No big damage is done since we have a record of all the link that were disabled/removed
  2. Akita Shoten does not have these pages nowhere in their record. I search with every possible way.
  3. The links are only used to reference the release date. While I really like that the release date is referenced, most books in Wikipedia do not reference this.
  4. I will have everything fixed till tomorrow (fingers crossed).

I hope this satisfies both of you :) I send my wikilove to both of you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I fixed all. It was easier than I expected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to fix them. I often barely have enough time to keep track of vandalism/unsourced information in the manga articles. However, next time I see Knife-in-the-drawer deleting or disabling a url in a reference, I will be reporting him to ANI for disruptive editing. ISBNs is not something one should be doing deleting or disabling urls over because it actually harms the integrity of Wikipedia. A broken url can be eventually fixed or replaced. A deleted/disabled one will not because other editors cannot not find it.
As for Akita Shoten not have those pages, that is incorrect. Akita Shoten redesigned their website and changed the structure of their urls. It just takes a bit of searching through their catalog.
And even if Akita Shoten hadn't redesigned their website, of those were the correct urls to begin with, they should not be removed simply because they have a "bad" ISBN number. A bad ISBN number in a url has no consequences for the reader, though a bad or dead link does. —Farix (t | c) 13:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A bot will fix the links Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 11. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tenshinhan

Hi, I started a move discussion at Talk:Tien_Shinhan#Requested_move_14_June_2015 in regards to having the article use Viz Media's spelling. Since it is the same case as Freeza, I thought you might be interested. Xfansd (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


Prétear

I am just wondering about the plot section of Prétear. As I have seen in many, many, many, many other main anime-related pages, the plot would show a brief overview of the series, rather than a big summary of the series. When I created the Episode list table at the bottom of the page.... and written the summaries myself.... I was already summarizing the series by episode. There are many, many, many, many other main anime-related pages I could refer to proving my statement if you believe otherwise. The plot section, which you reverted back to the big summary, mostly duplicates the episode summaries I have written in the Episode list table. So my question to you is why have a big summary in the plot section, when they are already noted in the Episode list table? Shouldn't there be a brief overview of the series instead? Or is there a separate standard for this ONE main anime-related page? AnimeEditor (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles on anime and manga are incomplete. There could be a number of reasons for this from that the series is still ongoing to that an editor hasn't taken the time watch or read the series to write a full plot of it. But just because other articles have incomplete summaries does not mean we take a complete summary and make it incomplete. Ideally, the plot section should be comprehensive while still being concise by not elaborating on unimportant details. If you look at the quality rated articles, you will see that the plot sections attempt this. —Farix (t | c) 10:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but why is the plot section describing the content of the episodes, when the summaries in episode list have already did the describing? I researched many different anime-related pages today, excluding special anime movie pages, that the plot section is just an overview, a brief one that basically sums up the series as a whole. The plot section of Prétear went into detail (just as I have already did in the episode summaries). I am still puzzled as to why the plot section "summary" has to be just like the summaries in the episode list? Aren't those summaries concise enough? I guess I just don't understand the reason why the plot section is just like the summaries in the episode list, both giving out concise material and both saying generally the same thing. From what I have seen, I thought the plot section was an overview of the storyline, not the storyline itself. However, if this is the case, you got a lot of work ahead of you if you are changing overviews to storylines in all of the main anime pages. AnimeEditor (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Japanese citations

If a user places a citation in the article on a reception section for a review, but the site is in Japanese, the review was translated on a forum, and he didn't go through one of the approved translators on Wikipedia, is it still a valid citation? I have no way of verifying what the review actually says.Whitearcher (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Crayon Shin-chan Sources

This anime is not much in the news in countries outside of Japan. While we can easily find citations regarding the happenings in Japan via many news websites, both Japanese and English, finding news content from other countries is near to impossible due to lack of promotion. But the popularity can be clearly seen in websites which host the episodes or comics, or in related forums. So, would adding the links to online episodes,etc be a valid citation? Although it may be indirectly contributing to copyright infringement, but I think that is the only way to "prove" the existence and popularity of the series' content in other countries. Anwesh pati (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability. All content is required be verifiable by citing a reliable, published source. However, websites that contribute to copyright infringement are not be used under any circumstances. —Farix (t | c) 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid such "reliable and published" sources may never be available in this case. It's unfortunate that even if we know the truth and existence of those statements, we are unable to legally verify them. As a result of which the knowledge and information gets reduced. Nothing can be done. It's sad. Anwesh pati (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Note

I'm coming here because something has gone way off course. {u|Narutolovehinata5}} began an argument with:

Being Filipino I can attest that ... is not widespread in Asia and in fact is rare outside of Japan...

. Noticing the implied authority from nationality I countered by stating:

Are you seriously stating that your nationality makes you an authority on the matter?

Somehow you think this is "racism" - I don't care about where you come from, but do not tell me that my company and hundreds of thousands of guests are "wrong" for having post-midnight dates on our materials. By stating its "dishonest" or not valid is showing you do not understand the culture because you are dismissing a well-known and established format of telling times. For someone who isn't even fluent you certainly have a chip on your shoulder and your actions are very insulting. The difference in dates may be for recording purposes, but in real life - such a thing results in people missing important events. So do not tell me that the Chinese and Japanese notations for these post-midnight dates are "wrong" - your conversion (and dropping of the time) without explanation has created the problem and its your behavior which exacerbates it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential edit warring in When Marnie Was There

Hello, you're invited and express your views on Talk:When Marnie Was There#Edits reverted without adding summary. Jotamide (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion characters

You can add as much userbox and links about anime as you can, it will not make you understand all the anime fandoms to make a decisions on the move. Also, if you want ugly contents organisation on that page, keep it. But but I offered a solution on a tak-page, same way that question was solved in others wiki-projects. And nobody cares. Just make separate page for separated REMAKED anime. No normal reasons to ignore it. And if it's because I`m russian, so I will not imposed in yours little racist wiki-progect anymore ZimaPasocom (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Crystal Update

Just so you know the Death Busters arc will be adapted into the new series and this time it is not a hoax. Here is the ANN article [5]. 73.190.124.47 (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

G-Reco

66.188.180.235 is causing chaos again in that page... I already reverted his edit for that.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Free! (anime)

You're being very unprofessional here: I made the edit before that discussion started. Never mind that the content clearly contradicts what the MOS has to say. It's stuff like this that make us a playground for fans and their trivia. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who is behaving unprofessional here by insisting on edit warring to a version you prefer. —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Farix here, normally if an edit is contested the article remains at status quo until a consensus can be reached. @Drmies: I haven't normally seen a situation where the editor reverts to his/her preferred version and then the discussion happens. There are some cases however that involve multiple editors reverting each other and a version is stuck the way it is due to the page being fully locked, this isn't one of those though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie

Please help in the discussion here. FilmandTVFan28 is incredibly stubborn and won't back up his claims. He keeps on dismissing my arguments and editing how he wants. I think (not sure) he's even threatening me in my talk page here. I have even showed him the official theatrical English trailer that has TriStar on it but he once again dismisses it. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The only one I see is stubborn is you and you alone, Wrath X. Did you ever paid attention the movie poster for the North American release? No. I did made my point. The trailer you saw was a Home Video trailer, not a theatrical trailer. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
FilmandTVFan28 you're the stubborn one. You have ignored and dismissed the sources Farix and I have provided, even dismissing the website as unreliable.-- Wrath X (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Could use your help

Hi Farix, any way you could help out here? There is a Canadian IP editor who is adding tons of unsourced air dates at a number of anime articles. They're on my radar for unsourced edits made at VeggieTales articles in April, and I've spotted this flareup. They've received 2 notices, but continue to submit unsourced content here. If you think you can substantiate any of these dates, I'll loosen up, but otherwise I think we're heading down the wrong path. Much obliged, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You could check the dates against the Media Arts Database. But if the editor continues to persist, report it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI if you believe it is more complicated than simple disruptive editing. —Farix (t | c) 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing things.

Okay. So, I was bored and added the english air dates for Durarara x2, i dont know why you are interested in it but you were and decided you were gonna waste my time and remove it saying i needed a source. So i put a source. and once again you removed it. and then decided to respond with an automated message. Dude seriously? stop wasting my damn time. I'm tired of reposting it. YOU WANT THE FACTS? I PUT A FREAKING SOURCE? WHATS THE ISSUE WITH AN ENGLISH AIR DATE? NOT LIKE ANYONE CARES ABOUT THE JAPANESE ONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by デスサイズプライド (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The source you provide only establish when the dub was available via a video on demand streaming service. The "English air date" parameter are for dates of when the series "airs" on a television broadcast, cable network, or satellite network. It does not include video on demand streaming services, such as Hulu, Funimation, Crunchyroll, etc. If it did, it would be the exact same date as the Japanese air date because the subs were available on the same day in English as the Japanese release. —Farix (t | c) 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I was implying the date initially released in english. it might never be on tv. Does all anime actually stream on tv? i dont think theres enough channels to support every show being made. but anyway. by cable tv, you mean like Toonami? Like if the english dub isnt released online but initially on a channel like Toonami. or if on funimations actual tv channel and not website?
It has to be an actual TV broadcast, not video on demand availability dates. This applies to Toonami and Funimation Channel as well. If the episode was not on the TV channel, it is not a broadcast. The field was never meant to be a "initially released in English" field. —Farix (t | c) 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(stalking) I'm assuming you're talking about List of Durarara!!×2 episodes? Until it broadcasts on Adult Swim / Toonami, it doesn't need an English air date. However, it can be elaborated in the Home media section of either the episode list or on the main article. Same issue with what they call "simulcast" nowadays. If it's just uploaded online as dubbed on Crunchyroll, Hulu, Neon Alley, Netflix, it technically isn't a broadcast. If the series is a web series / Original Net Animation (ONA) to begin with, then you can consider such uploading dates. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about parameter used in Template:Episode list

{{Episode list/sublist}} includes a parameter called |MainList= that seems to have come from {{Japanese episode list}}. Documentation is scant, consisting only of {{{MainList}}} or {{{1}}} – Title of the main Episode list article. I checked to find the history of this parameter and came up with this post, made by you in 2009. It's not a widely used parameter in {{Episode list/sublist}}. I've only seen it used in Bones season articles, where the following: 

{{Episode list/sublist|Bones
 |MainList=List of Bones episodes

is used in place of the more common {{Episode list/sublist|List of Bones episodes, which seems to work, so I was wondering if you could explain the parameter for me. If the parameter is somehow useful, I'd like to properly document it. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: It comes from the idea that you should generally avoid mixing named and unnamed parameters in a template deceleration. Unnamed parameters are order dependent while unnamed parameters are not. So instead of leaving parameter for the main episode list unnamed, and thus order dependent while all of the other parameters were not order dependent, I gave it a named to make it order independent as well. —Farix (t | c) 11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I completely understand. My main issue is that it seems unnecessary in practice as, like I said, it's mostly unused in the 10,000+ transclusions of Module:Episode list. Should we be using it as it is used in the Bones articles, or doesn't it matter? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I do think there should be a preference for |MainList= because templates should not be mixing named and unnamed parameters. However, it is not something to go through articles to "fix" because both work. The preference is simply a matter of good coding/markup practice. —Farix (t | c) 12:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I've got it now. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Hentai Animes

I just added more things to the page, nothing abussive there Otaku G (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Durarara!! genres

Yeah, first of all sorry If my english is bad here, I'm from Argentina so english is not my native language, but I'll do my best;

I'm a big Durarara!! fan, and this article used to have more solid information about its genres, it's well known that this show relies mostly on mysteries (with some neo-noir feel), comedy-drama (mostyl drama) and supernatural elements combined with that special slice of life aspects, and of course, CRIME as a genre itself. According it progressed, some subplots came out as straight crime fiction (Awakusu Group, Yodogiri Shinning Corporation, Heaven Slave, Amphisbaena and anything planned by Izaya)

And when I see the header of the page, (wich always had some kind of strong visual impact for its summary information for begginers of any show), and the genre section sorting DRRR!! only as an "action suspense" story, makes me a little upset, because that's incomplete and kinda wrong. Did you forget about ALL the fantasy elements that DRRR!! has? A dullahan, a demon, mosnters, superhuman strenght... And the crime fiction elements? Gangs, mafia, yakuza, etc...

I know Narita said in a early interview before the anime comes out that DRRR is an "action suspense" story, but you know thats something he said roughly only for promotional appeal.

I guess that's an reliable source, but you know DRRR!! is NOT an action story, it has action scenes, but that's it, It relies much more in dialogues and suspense than action. It's more a mystery fiction, urban fantasy, thriller and comedy-drama.

And you got a reliable source for that!

According to IMDB; Genres: Animation | Action | Drama | Thriller

According to Anime News Network: Genres: action, comedy, drama, mystery, supernatural, thriller

According to MyAnimeList: Genres: Action, Mystery, Supernatural

I KNOW that those are the pages for the anime and not for the novels, but applies anyway!

And for the record, according to GoodReads, the light novel genres are: Fantasy, Romance, Urban Fantasy, Fantasy-Paranormal...

Just saying this because that header has incomplete information about the well know whole spectrum of genres that DRRR!! includes, and this can help to improve the article.

Greetings from Argentina

PD: What about the reception section? It has been empty for so long... PD 2: Do you know about any awards that the novels/show/manga have earned? I'm curious about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.61.162.153 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, genres may be challenge, and in the the case of Durarara! has been challenged. That is because genres are the biggest point of original research on Wikipedia. IMDb and MyAnimeList are both not reliable sources as they are based on user generated content, and by the looks of it, so are GoodReads' genres as they are based on how users "shelved" the books in their personal library. As for ANN, it depends on the section. Reviews and news are considered reliable source. However, the encyclopedia section is based on user generated content and is not reliable. On top of that, Narita's "high-tension suspense action" quote takes precedence regardless whether you agree with the quote or not. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Myanimelist As a Source

Hi with regard to you earlier message on my edit on Shirou Emiya are you very sure cause I've noticed that that some other Manga and Anime pages have been using Myanimelist as a source, also this one seems to state why the author changed the original plot of the Manga to make it to follow the Fate route instead of the Unlimited Blade Works Route. 175.143.153.211 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey that is a good Question is Myanimelist a credible Source?S. John Warrynn (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I also got it from www.mangaupdates.com, is that at least a Valid source?175.143.153.211 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Any resource that are based on user generated content is not a reliable source. MyAnimeList is entirely based on user generated content, so is Manga Updates and ANN's encyclopedia section. On top of that MAL and MU both encourage and link to websites that distribute copyrighted material without the copyright owners permission, so cannot be linked to under WP:COPYLINK. —Farix (t | c) 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
And now I know this is complete bullocks as there is no volume 11 of the anime series and Mania never reviewed the manga. —Farix (t | c) 13:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DRRR accolades?

How about any awards or accolades "DRRR!!" have earned? I don't find any info about that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.61.162.153 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't know of any awards, but I do know that ANN has reviewed it before. Other sources you can check are listed at WP:A&M/ORS. —Farix (t | c) 13:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

I was reassessing so many articles that it slipped through because the past few were lists. TF { Contribs } 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Titusfox: No problem, however, being a work-group of of WP:ANIME and the parent project assesses lists under the same scale as articles, I don't think it was appropriate to "reassess" them as List-Class. In fact, checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yu-Gi-Oh!/Assessment#Assessment guidelines, I see that they are doing the exact same thing. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#RfC:_Anime_films_and_production_companies

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#RfC:_Anime_films_and_production_companies. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFarix/Archive_15&oldid=1140560137"