User talk:TheFarix

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Edit this box

Anime St. Louis... again

Hey. You've been amazing help in the past, and I was wondering if you might meander over to the page for Anime St. Louis and check it out again. We're having another problem with a user who is a member of the splinter group convention vandalizing our article. Luckily now, we have our information on our official website, including a more detailed history and FAQ.

If you'd be willing to do some work on the article, using information from animestl.net... well... you'd be my hero. xD

And thanks again for the help in the past. Fatebringer (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Eyes in the Dark issues

Leaving aside that tagging it this quickly seems a bit premature, since it's manifestly still under construction -- a question about the tags: What, in particular, are you suggesting should be prose instead of list? (The only lists are there by templates designed specifically to present that information in lists.) Also, for publication/release information, what else other than primary sources should be used? Dates are like credits for a movie -- if there's nothing contraversial, at any rate, since all third parties would be using the production info anyway. (Or maybe you wanted additional references? The drama is, so far, significantly underreferenced.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arina Tanemura

For the bibliography, I added the months because, for a serialized work, it seemed really inaccurate to just list one year of publication instead of the actual months-year span for the title. I can see that it can appeared cluttered, so any ideas on a way to customize the general MoS suggestion to better convey that information? Maybe footnotes? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many cases, dates can be too specific. And this is one case where dates being too specific is detrimental to the overall list. Also, most list of works only list the first year the work was released, even when the work is a series, in instead of a range of years or including the months as well. Both ANN and IMDB only lists the first year when the give a list of works and I do not see why Wikipedia should be any more specific then then those. --Farix (Talk) 18:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because...we're supposed to be better? :P Particular for lists like those where most of the works do not have any notability and won't have articles of their own. But can also see what you mean...guess it doesn't matter either way, not like that will ever be above a stub anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akane-chan Overdrive

I don't know why you redirected this without discussion or explanation, I have undone it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because just like Lilim Kiss the manga only ran for a short time nor did it generate any reviews that can be found. So it was redirected to the author's article instead of put it up for deletion. But if you are going to dispute the redirect, I'll consider sending it to AfD. --Farix (Talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find two or more reviews of other the work or other significant coverage, then you can restore the article with the reviews. Otherwise, leave it as a redirect. --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this

{{tl:articleissues|fansite=January 2009|notability=January 2009|plot=January 2009|primarysources=January 2009}}

Seriously, there is very little chance to non that there will be any other reliable sources except for the show itself. This of course holds true for most anime. As such taging it as having insufficient sources and looking like a "fansite" is kind of pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 22:31, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

And this is in reference to? --Farix (Talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Andrei Smirnov article, but while we are at it I don't agree with this one either:

(cur) (prev) 01:59, 5 February 2009 TheFarix (Talk | contribs) (13,914 bytes) (Reverted to revision 268249463 by TheFarix; problems still exists. (TW)) (undo)

(The Trinity Article)

Please be more specific in your comments. It is very hard to fix problems if you don't go into more detail on exactly what you see as a problem.

Sorry, seems my "talk" got all screwed up when I edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs)

First, sign your posts. Second, the tags should explain themselves. That is why the tags link to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But if you still have a question as to why a certain tag was applied, then ask about it. But I've already explain the details behind the tags at Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters#Character Article Improvement. If you disagree with the tag, state exactly why you do not think that tag is relevant to the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking and I don't agree with you or your interpretations. How do I sign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of anime series

Regarding this, please point me to the section which discusses criteria for assigning importance to the series.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. The article is of very limited importance to WP:ANIME as it is not about the anime series, but the book series, of which only one was adapted into an anime. If you would like a third opinion, you can put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Requests for assessment. --Farix (Talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barge in, but I have an opinion on the matter. I removed the WP:ANIME banner because the anime and manga adaptations are not covered in Guardian series; which means the article doesn't really fall within the Project's scope. His Dark Materials, for example, is not tagged as a WP:FILM article just because the first book was adapted into a movie. And neither is Northern Lights, for that matter. See Kiki's Delivery Service (novel) for an example closer to home.

But since the article on Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit does cover the anime and manga adaptations, that is where the banner belongs.--Nohansen (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

00 Anchors

I noticed you added a lot of anchors to some 00 pages, and after reading the article I still don't quite get what they do. I was hoping you could shed some light on i t for me. Tempest115 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are alternative anchor points to which editors can link to that section. Generally, it's a good idea to include all possible variants to the name.

For example, all of the following will go to the same section:

Reasons an editor may chose a different name then the section title could be to keep things simple, the editor doesn't know the complete name and/or model number, or—like me—think that including the model number is pure fancruft and makes things more confusing in the long run. --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]