User talk:TheFarix

Category:WikiProject Anime and manga

oops! I didn't know that the category of the page would also be transcended into the talk pages of the users who have received it.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Auto archiving notice

Could you explain why you are removing {{Auto archiving notice}} from Talk:Original English-language manga? Doing so will not stop the page from being automatically archived. --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I read your edit summary, and the documentation for {{Auto archiving notice}} does not say "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page." It says "It should be used on pages that are automatically archived." --Bsherr (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you are unnecessarily adding {{Talk header}} and removing {{archive box}} from the talk page. There is no justification for that type of edit. As for {{Auto archiving notice}}, it's just clutter and is redundent to {{archive box}} if you set the correct parameters. —Farix (t | c) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But you're not adding it to the archive box, which would be a fine solution. Instead, you're completely removing it. Why? --Bsherr (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not needed and is just clutter. —Farix (t | c) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The documentation says "It should be used on pages that are automatically archived." So are we following documentation or not? --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently something new then as it was never required before. I wonder if there was actually a consensus behind that. But why not incorporate it into the archive box? But since the talk page doesn't get any a lot of activity any more, it's probably better to remove the auto archive altogether. —Farix (t | c) 04:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Either's fine. --Bsherr (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Japanese authors and notability

What kind of bar do you set for Japanese authors/mangaka/etc in terms of reliable third party sources? If you look at, say, the entry for Kiyohiko Azuma, who's far from unknown, you'll find very little in the way of sources. I'd say that this is probably due to the facts that a) there's simply not very much in English about mangaka, and b) very little that _is_ about the authors is online, save for things like publisher's information or sellers of said material. Also, what about interwiki links? --moof (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The bar is set by WP:BIO, which is either significant coverage by reliable third-party sources or pass one of the other criteria listed at WP:CREATIVE. —Farix (t | c) 18:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking to ja.wiki articles

Hi I noticed that in this edit you removed a link to a Japanese article on a related topic. I had earlier linked this due to the fact that it is closely related and due to my belief that an english article on that topic was unlikely to be forthcoming any time soon. I don't necessarily dispute your edit, but I was wondering what your rationale was behind it. Is there policy or a guideline or something that precludes editors from making links like this? I may have done it in other articles I've edited and I'd like to know if this was improper. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the link doesn't add anything of value to an English reader. The links looks like any other wikilink and there is nothing to suggest to the reader that the link is to a foreign language page. Also the majority of users who follow such links will not speak the language of the page to which they have been sent. It also conceal the fact that there is no article on the subject on the English Wikipedia, something that should generally be avoided. —Farix (t | c) 15:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd disagree that it adds nothing of value considering that many internet users are savvy enough to know how to use online translation tools properly. The link also does appear different from other English-language links depending on which browser you're using. But you do have a point that it might disguise the fact that there is no article on the subject at en.wikipedia. I'll leave it out for now but what would you think of including it in a "See also" section? -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't appear any different from other wikilinks. As for whether it adds anything, if it is not to an English article, it doesn't. Most internet users actually don't know how to use translation tools unless you had the link to them nor do most translation tools handle Japanese to English translation very well either. —Farix (t | c) 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect that it adds nothing simply because it is in another language. Why do you think interlanguage links are allowed at Wikipedia? A quick review of WP:ILL reveals that "If a red link is not appropriate locally for whatever reason, such as because the subject does not appear to be notable, then linking to the other language page may be useful." I am a native English speaker and I found the information listed at the Japanese page to be helpful to an understanding of the topic. It is true that I had to translate the Japanese article to understand it but after translating it I found that it added a great deal to my understanding of the original topic. Linking to a page of another language certainly doesn't detract from the article. I have seen your edits to anime-related articles numerous times and I think that they are on the whole extremely helpful to Wikipedia. If you are making it a personal policy to remove inline interlanguage links simply because you don't find them personally useful, however, then I think you are harming the project in this respect. According to WP:ILL you should be replacing inline interlanguage links with redlinks to encourage article creation if you think that an English article on the topic is a good target for a future article. Otherwise you should not be removing them unless there is a secondary reason such as non-relatedness or erroneous association or something.
I can understand your argument that the link conceals the fact that no English language version exists despite the fact that the link mysteriously does appear differently from other links on my screen. So I think an appropriate solution would be to redlink the term inline and to shift the interlanguage link to a "See also" section until such time as the English language article is written. Do you think that this is a workable solution? -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: I've take your silence as consent and I've implemented the solution that was twice suggested previously (i.e. redlinking and employing a "See also" section). I've also solved the mystery I spoke of last time. I was just reading idly through WP:ILL again when the following caught my eye: "Links to pages on another wiki (including other Wikimedia Foundation sites) are coloured differently from links within the English Wikipedia." So if they appear identical to you then I think it must just be a browser issue on your end. Anyway, thanks for all the hard work you continue to put into Wikipedia and happy editing! -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I quite because the discussion was going nowhere. I don't agree to the "see also" link at all. But I've looked at interwiki links on several different computers using different browsers and they still look the same as normal Wikilinks. If they look different, then it must be your settings browser as mine are on default settings. —Farix (t | c) 14:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, look: I'm seeking to work collaboratively with you on this issue and your silence in response to my suggestions leads us nowhere. If you are opposed to my suggested compromise then I suggest that we either go to a third party opinion or request an uninvolved comment. Since our two viewpoints seem to be directly opposite on the issue of the usefulness of inline interlanguage links, and as you seem to be unwilling to proceed further with our discussion, I think this is the best course of action. Please let me know your opinion on this because I would like to work together with you to solve this disagreement. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

PS - As for the differing appearance of interlanguage links from wikilinks, I'm glad you see my point that it is a browser setting issue that makes them look either the same or different and so when "the links looks like any other wikilink," it is only due to the browser's setting and not an innate property of the link itself. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The way things stand currently, my preferred version is in place and you have stated that you don't agree with it "at all." Since this version is disputed, I think we must achieve a degree of consensus before walking away from the issue. Wikipedia is not my own encyclopedia, after all, so why should my "consensus of 1" version stand in the face of a direct good-faith challenge?
So I think 3O sounds like our best bet here since 3O is the least formal of the two suggestions I made on the 6th and really this is just a simple, good-faith deadlock. If you'll agree to abide by the decision of an uninvolved 3O volunteer concerning this matter then I think that's the route I'd prefer to go. Otherwise we can go the RfC route. Generally RfC is reserved for more complex issues than this but I imagine they'd take the case if 3O was off the table.
If you have any preferences or other suggestions you'd like to make, please do so. I'd really like to see this problem solved before the end of the week. Thanks, -Thibbs (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cinderalla

This is the before, and this is the after my two "Non-constructive edits".

If there was something specific in my edits that you disagreed - sections, info box move, remove ugly reds etc then you should have just removed that part instead of restoring the several spelling errors that I fixed. Slightsmile (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

First, the hatnote always goes at the very top, even above any cleanup templates. Read WP:HNP for the relevant style guide.

Second, you moved part of the lead paragraph into the infobox. An infobox is a whole unit that should not be divided up as it creates rendering problems. The rendering created by moving the lead paragraph into the infobox was to make the infobox appear lower in the article than it belonged. Infoboxes in the lead should begin immediately to the right of the lead paragraph and not below.

Third, you sub-sectioned the plot summary. The summary does need to be shortened given that the manga is just one volume long, however, we do not divided the plot summaries into subsections. This puts too much emphases on the plot summary in the table of contents instead of what makes the manga notable and relevent. In fact, I can't find any significant coverage by third-party sources except for release/licensing announcements. —Farix (t | c) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, rendering problems - I never knew that! That would explain why words were merging like this : mangaseries. My thinking was to line the info box with the TOC to fill in white space but I see now that can't happen.

Even though sub-sectioning the plot summary might break rules of layout, I found that the sub-sections I added made the article more reader friendly. Slightsmile (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Okay so obviously you don't read anything I post or you would get what I have been saying on the hollows list. JAPANESE IS NOT TRANSLATED IN BLEACH. The japanese is in kanji. the kanji is then ROMANIZED AND NOT TRANSLATED. I cited my example before. 浮竹 十四郎 when romanized is Ukitake Jushiro. This is not a translation, this is a romanization. The translation of the kanji is fourteenth son. Unless Viz is saying the Captain of the thirteenth division is Captain Fourteenth Son then you can see that this is not translation. There is only one correct way to romanize something. This is because it is an exact process unlike translation, it is merely taking the kanji and giving it roman letters, it can be tough because kanji can mean very different things so giving them the proper roman form becomes difficult, hence why there are screw ups on the page. Therefore when MASKED came out, those names became the official romanizations because they were the correct forms interpreted the way the author wanted them to be. --150.212.72.23 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)