User talk:TheFarix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Psycho-Pass[edit]

The anime has Fantasy as a genre listed which i removed as it is a clear cyberpunk show but it came back. I know that the linked Madman lists Sci-Fi & Fantasy together but that still doesn´t make it a fantasy show and only sci-fi.


Thanks for your all your efforts here! I watched No. 6 and I'm sure that it belongs -among others- to the Shonen-ai genre. However, I recognize now that a more reliable source than the ANN encyclopedia has to be provided. Anime fan & Wikipedia noob: Xclub (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

JoJo: Stardust Crusaders[edit]

Since Ryulong is 再起不能 due to other matters and clearly not budging, could you please weigh in on Talk:Stardust_Crusaders again?

My points: -It's the manga page. There is a page for the anime, and Crunchyroll-related material can go there. -The anime is an adapted work containing "filler" and other artistic details obviously not in the original manga. -Crunchyroll is subbing the anime (in a contract capacity, their subs aren't used in home releases). -CR translated those titles awkwardly to make a rhyming pun. -Similarly, Viz's titles are condensed due to adaptation reasons. -Neither fit on the page next to JP characters that read differently. IE: cognitive dissonance. -There's no need for a fourth set of "official" titles, as the page is crowded enough. -I believe the way it's been the past few years was fine. If Viz's titles were more thorough, I'd have put them up years ago. -Ryulong is biased (see: "awkward as fuck phrasing" in the page's History when reverting me) and seems to edit for his own sake besides.

Explain[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)