User talk:TheFarix/Archive 17

Happy New Year, TheFarix!


Happy New Year! TheFarix, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Occultic;Nine
Hi, you left an message claiming that I didn't provide a reliable source for an edit about the English episode titles. I provided a reference to the official website for the show which uses those English titles (certainly more than just referring to Crunchyroll.) If you're objecting to the claim that the episode titles are rock song titles (from the 60s and 70s), that is also obvious and apparent, though I admit the Ramones song "We Want The Airwaves" came out in 1981. "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is not a random phrase, and nor are the other titles, and there is no chance that they were randomly selected. That is less in need of verification and citation than the user written plot summaries. --John Thacker (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding your personal opinions to articles. The claim that episode titles are based on songs are entirely your own and were not backed up by the website you linked to. It doesn't matter how "obvious" it appears to you, this is nothing more than original research and does not conform to Wikipedia's content polices. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation issue
It is with deep sincerity I apologise to you about the incident earlier, hope I'll take note of it in the future. I mean I'm not really an experienced editor, please do not take any action against me. If I have offended the rules of the wiki, you can talk with me to sort things out. Thanks.--Hongqilim (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Small advice
After working in the S-CRY-ed articles, I've been wondering whether the title should be. Before I've got here the main article was written "s-CRY-ed" rather than "S-CRY-ed". Should I move the articles to change the first capital letter? After the guild copyedits it, I planned to nominate the main article to GA but I find this more important. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article name is already "S-CRY-ed". Do to technical limitation, the first letter will always be capitalized in an article name. It only appears as "s-CRY-ed" do to the use of a DISPLAYTITLE. The real question is whether the use of DISPLAYTITLE is appropriate and conforms to MOS:TMRULES. Looking at the references, the capitalization is all over the place, so I honestly can't say one way or the other. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. Do you think I should remove the displaytitle and instead add a hatnote saying something like "The correct title of this series is "s-CRY-ed" but due to technical limitations it is written as "S-CRY-ed""?Tintor2 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DISPLAYTITLE is more than sufficient to take care of the case rendering. Such notes are reserved for titles, such as [C]. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks but I'm confused. Should I remove the display title?Tintor2 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Leave it for the copy-editor to decide or open a discussion on the talk page. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Micah Solusod's Verified Source
I put this in my edit summary, but I'll post this here on your talk page, too, for further clarification. Mr. Solusod's has an official website, as many VAs do. Here is the link. On the top right corner, you see links to his SNS accounts, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Clicking on the link his Twitter leads viewers to his official Twitter account. In fact, he primarily uses his Twitter to announce various roles he stars in anime and the like (which you can see from even his tweets), hence the fact that many fans know this is a verified account. It is 100% verified.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only accounts that Twitter has verified as belonging to the person it claims to be can be used as reliable sources. These accounts are noted with a verified check mark beside the name. And even when accounts have the chech mark, it is definitely not the preferred source to use. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bleach
Hello TheFarix,

I don't know if you're aware of this, but an editor, whom is now banned, moved all of the Bleach seasons to a new name the same way as I did yesterday. Where those moves discussed? If not, I'd figure that you would take action. -- 1989 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't recall a move being discussed, but it will require a discussion to move them back since it has been a few years. But from past experience, if such a move isn't immediately disputed, there is little chance for a consensus to move them back. That is generally because editors don't like "upsetting the cart" after so much time. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes
Hello TheFarix,

Do you think that I should open a peer review for this list? I planned to so there could be a discussion for how it can improve for FL. -- 1989 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Template on ReLife
There is a mystery afoot in that I didn't make those changes to the template. If I had, it would have been in my edit summary. Do you have any idea how this might have happened? Or what my next steps should be? Thanks Bobdog54 14:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I know what happened. I use WikEd and I used an auto-function to adjust spaces in front of punctuation. I was focused on the ones that were incorrect and never thought to check for changes to punctuation that was correct and didn't need to be changed. You get a big Thank you! because when I was reviewing my editing activities, I thought about you using Twinkle to alert me and make changes. Twinkle is semi-automatic, as is WikEd and there was the answer - so Thank you, I have learned an important lesson.The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!! Bobdog54 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits: Revenge anime and manga
Dear TheFarix,

Now look what you've done to my edits! Didn't you see I'm trying to edit something, because I never do anything wrong! Look, when I was trying to put a category called Revenge anime and manga, do you think that is a foolish joke? Here's this: Attack on Titan is about revenge, when Eren Yeager vows to kill all the titans. Afro Samurai is also about revenge when Afro avenges his father's death against Justice. And finally, Berserk (manga), when Guts seeks his revenge against Griffith.

I think you just made a mistake, is that correct? So, if you do that one more time, I'll get very angry! Christine Lim 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristineLim155 (talk • contribs)


 * I removed the categories as they were clearly interpretative and were not based on reliable sources. Also, the tone of your comments here also leads further credence that my reverts were correctly based on Wikipeida's three core content policies WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. And finally, every edit is subject to review by other editors and can be heavily altered or removed based on Wikipedia's polices. You can get mad all you want when someone changes or reverts your edits. That doesn't mean your edits will always stick. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Crunchyroll is a master licensee
You have been making countless edits to articles removing references to Crunchyroll as a licensee, with the only justification given being half-assed copypastes with the ridiculous claim of "not the true licensee". This is easily verified as clearly wrong.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2017-01-24/crunchyroll-announces-winter-2017-anime-lineup/.111421

Please cease this disruptive behaviour.

240F:74:ABE:1:98E0:6814:6E9F:E28C (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bungo Stray Dogs
I'd very much appreciate it if you were to join the discussion at Talk:Bungo Stray Dogs after having reverted my edit to the article, seeing as I'm the only one who's in the discussion, even after initiating an RfC. – Matthew  - (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You See My Response?
I posted in my talk page regarding my evidence as to who the Animax Squid Girl dubbers are and you haven't responded in a bit. Bear in mind that ANN doesn't let you post anything to their wiki without evidence and the dubs exist in (malware-ridden) files on forums for anime fans in India. Zontas (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Keeping you in the loop
Just to let you know, I undid this edit of yours because, after consultation with the actual beaky on Freenode, it turns out that said user is not, in fact, a magical girl, no matter how much that user might wish he or she were.--Ipatrol (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Drifters Edit
I can't even used a voice actor's official website to confirm a voice role he did for the show? That source was taken directly from Mr. Micah Solusod's official website. Never mind. I don't feel arguing about this. Just forget about it.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Shinya Shokudō
Why did you revert the edit on Shinya Shokudō? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkmorpher (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You included and sourced information from another wiki, which is not a reliable source. You also replaced Infobox animanga/Video with two Infobox television, which is not acceptable as the article is about a muti-media topic. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

All Out team positions
I disagree. Just the characters names thrown out there makes it difficult for newcomers to identify them. Also, for people who like rugby and are the demographic of this manga, they sure are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.39.122.234 (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Anime News Network
"The source is disputed and has several clear errors." Anime News Network is a reliable source. The other licensees are also indicated through the Anime News Network. Where did you find the "errors"? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Large sections of the press release are erroneously worded. Many series that is claimed to be licensed by Crunchyroll are merely series that Crunchyroll has streaming rights, but the series' licenses are actually held by other companies (Viz Media, Aniplex of America, Sentai Filmworks, and Funimation). If you are to include all companies with streaming rights, then you will also need to list Netflix, Hulu, Daisuke, YouTube, and sever EU base companies as well, at which point the licensee field would be too much of a kludge to be useful in an infobox. I also have questions about the press releases validity because it is not posted on Crunchyroll's website either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. You have more experience in articles about anime. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't revert your previous edits, I've gone ahead and took care of most of them. Another editor was also reverting those edits at the same time. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My bad!
This edit looks fine -- didn't see that the two press release sections had different titles. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't trust that press release for various reasons, and looking at its format, doesn't follow those used by Crunchyroll before or since. The "about" line, which is usually rather boilerplate, is also singularly unique for this press release. Then add the the fact that it isn't published on Crunchyroll's website and makes several obviously false claims (i.e. licensed One Piece, Naruto, Case Closed, etc.). If someone want to do a troll job, creating a fake press release, make it appear to come from a Crunchyroll address, and then use it to edit Wikipedia with would be a good one. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TheFarix, the press release has been confirmed by employees at Crunchyroll. Plus, those aren't obviously false claims. One entity can have a master license while others have sub-licenses. Unless another article claims to have the master license, there's no conflict of sources. Lastly, the idea it's a 'fake press release' is pretty silly and there's flat-out no evidence to support that. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Aria (manga)
It appears that this edit to Aria (manga) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aria_(manga)&diff=prev&oldid=407480753) placed Greek Letter Alphas in place of the standard A into the references at line 243 and 273, do you know what happened? For example in line 243, the text "ΑRIΑ The NΑTURΑL" was added but all four letters that look like the letter A are actually a greek Alpha (Α).Naraht (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Only thing I can think of was that the website's title used fullwidth characters instead of standard characters. I use to have a script that converted fullwidth characters, but one editor took exception to it, believing that fullwidth characters should be preserved in Japanese script. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Kirakira PreCure a la Mode
Why do we have to use we have to use "real-life" organization names for each heading under characters? Like I said the other articles with the prior Pretty Cure series wasn't set up like this. Plus, I don't think we need to be reminded of who are the heroes/protagonists or villains/antagonists. I find it unnecessary.--ExplorerX19 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for an answer. --ExplorerX19 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pokémon: The Movie 2000
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pokémon: The Movie 2000. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

More edits regarding Licensee
Hello TheFarix, this is Nstepneski1 I'm here to tell you that CurlyWi and Lord Roem are editing the anime infoboxes from Fall 2016 and Winter 2017 placing Crunchyroll as the licensee using that ANN press release as their source a have gone through the Funimation simuldub shows replacing Funimation with Crunchyroll. I just though you should know since you and I both doubt the validity of the press release. I even tried to point out the press release's inconsistencies but they of course didn't listen. I even tried to contact Funimation regarding the issue via social media, I'm still waiting for a response. I want to undo their edits but I'm afraid they might report me if I do. Nstepneski1 01:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Help on Inuyasha's Characters Article
I want to report an issue that's been going for the List of Inuyasha characters. For the last few days, I've trying to clean the page up since it was in desperate need for a clean-up. A user, however, is being disrupted by adding a speculative sentence based on her own bias and interpretation of a scene regarding Sesshomaru's feelings for Kagura. As a long-time fan of the series, I know a lot of shippers interpret Kagura's death to be romantic, but what is established in the series that Sesshomaru never reciprocated Kagura's romantic feelings for her, but felt compassion for her. That is fully stated in the series, and I can provide evidence of such. I have argued this point to User:211.206.249.42 (see edit history of the article, as well as both of our talk pages), but she persists to listen and revert my edit. I do not wish to get into trouble for edit warring, so I am bringing this issue to a member of the Wikipedia and asking for someone to mediate the situation.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank for for speaking the user. I don't know it will stop the person, but we shall see. Thank you very much.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:211.206.249.42 has refused to listen and is still persisting with her personal, biased interpretation.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:211.206.249.42 is still being unreasonably stubborn and bias. She keeps changing the word "compassion" to "feelings" to implicit romantic feelings, and despite my attempts to reason with her (see talk page), she has outright refused to provide any evidence whatsoever to her argument and persisted in her biased interpretation of the events. Her assumptions are very evident if you see the talk page. She has nothing to back her argument except for assumptions and her own biased interpretation. May I request you speak to User:211.206.249.42? She won't stop, and this will going to result in a full-blown edit war if nothing is done to stop her.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point, take the individual to the dispute resolution. In the mean time, find the source that directly states whether it was Sesshomaru's compassion for Sesshomaru's feelings for Kagura that resulted in Tenseiga's transformation. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing from school here, but I did source on User:211.206.249.42's talk page, though I didn't give the URL links since she is perfectly capable of looking up those sources herself. Chapter 409 of the Inuyasha manga and The Final Act Episode 3. All this time, I've quoted the exact words provided in the series, translated accurately both in the English sub and dub, and even in the online scanlations. I have done nothing but iterally quoted the exact words spoken in the manga from the scene within question. These are the sources: [http://www.viz.com/watch/streaming/inuyasha-the-final-act-episode-3/719/sub English Sub FA Ep. 3 on the Viz Media site] and its English Dub counterpart. I'd link you to the chapter, but scanlations aren't allowed on Wikipedia, right?

Can I request that the characters page for the series be protected?--137.30.208.232 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries, cosmetic bot editing
The above edit summary used on a recent run of your bot-like editing seems to be entirely inaccurate in many cases. I only looked at a relatively small sample of the edits, but did not find a single instance which had anything to do with infobox parameters. Every one I looked at were just general fixes, and I wasn't able to fully convince myself that there's not some policy issues in the form of WP:COSMETICBOT involved. This is pretty much irritating at best, possibly a bot policy issue at worst (although I don't see a specific requirement in the general bot policy that summaries must be accurate, but I believe that bot cosmetic changes are generally prohibited by consensus ). Either way, please use accurate summaries that truly reflect the changes made. Thanks.
 * Remove obsolete parameter Infobox animanga/Game using AWB)

Murph 9000 (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was switch back and forth between "Use more formal language" and the more general "clean up" summaries. Somewhere along the line, I misclicked on the wrong summary. As for whether the edits were "minor", I don't think switching informal or slang language to formal language would constitute "minor". —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the edits being tagged "minor", as I personally don't pay too much attention to that flag in histories (but others might, and I obviously do try to use it appropriately myself). Taking another quick sample through them, tagging them as "minor" seems reasonable enough, in general.  This was really just about the inaccurate summaries which cause confusion and concern.  On reflection, I have struck my WP:COSMETICBOT concerns, as it looks like the truly cosmetic changes were probably always accompanied by a non-cosmetic change.  Thanks.   Murph 9000  (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The changes made to Shuffle
Thank you for pointing out that I might not gave a accurate summary for the changes but the truth is I did gave a brief summary on why I delete that source for a another. I do not know why you said that did not gave a adequate summary but I did gave a detailed summary on the change. It is nothing personal but I strongly feel that D.F Smith from IGN might not be a reliable critic when reviewing certain products. Even if he is being positive or negative, I have stated in my brief summary on why I think he is not reliable because from what I have seen on his profile on Venture Beat he had receive several quarterly lay offs when working for IGN (sorry, but I cannot find that description on his profile that the information from anymore on Venture Beat for some reason, it might still be there or it is deleted from the looks of it) so I got the impression that he might be slacker or he does not act professional I feel he cannot be trusted. I am sorry but I need to revert the change you made but to make up for deleting that source I placed in another source from a professional website called DVD Talk that also does a lot of reviews on anime DVDs and Blu-rays. I understand you have accept harsh criticism but there some critics that cannot be mention because of their past history especially for a guy who as a history for being laid off several times, as I said its not personal or I might as well all the critical reviewers since I am biased. Also if I do leave any Grammar issues I might have left behind or my changes are still not justified then please notify me and I would do anything to improve it. — Preceding Hwest19 comment added by Hwest19 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your personal views on Carlo Santos and David F. Smith, they are both published by reliable sources. Removing their reviews is completely innaporiate. It doesn't matter if David F. Smith later left IGN, it does not invalidate his review. Nor did you give a reason as to why you removed Carlo Santos's review and Anime News Network's news and review section is listed as reliable sources at WP:A&M/ORS. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said this is not personal reasons for why I remove this or not either that he left IGN or that the review is invalidate. Also I was not trying to remove any Carlo Santos or Anime News Network sources, I do not know why you said I did but I only meant to remove only D.F Smith's work. It is only one reliable source I replaced but I am not going to make a big deal of this and neither should you but I still going to at least put in the DVD talk article to expand the section, but if you have any problems with that then tell me on my or your talk page. But please stop removing all the changes I made it is not like I am trying to delete an entire section of a group of reviews but if you feel that even a critic that might or not reliable should remain listed for just this once then do what you want. — Preceding Hwest19 comment added by Hwest19 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with adding the DVD Talk review. However, the excuse you are using to remove Carlo Santos's and David F. Smith's reviews is completely unacceptable. If you want to challenge these reviews as a reliable sources, then you need to take them to WT:ANIME or WP:RSN. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that but to left you known again I did not intend to remove Carlo Santos as a source it must been a accident and also I was not making up excuses for deleting notes from critics I do not like. I do understand that you trying to do the right thing which is why I stop deleting that source after thinking about it, but it not justifiable on excusing me on being selfish even though I thought I was doing the right thing too in my view. I thought there will be no problems I justify my changes and be willing for others to point out mistakes instead on making this change a big deal, but since you gave me the advice I needed there no need for us to get angry. I will follow your advice as long you leave me alone, I really hate to get into an argument over something like this. Also for future cases when I add stuff in I do make sure the sections I expand do not become bloated if you bring that up because I like to add in others sites from the net as a reliable source for anime reviews, not just just IGN and Anime News Network. Anyway there is no need to carry this discussion, your advice now would helpful enough for future cases on wikipedia. Goodbye. — Preceding Hwest19 comment added by Hwest19 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Character Orders
Please follow official websites that show true character orders. It doesn't have to be who appeared first. In Dream Eater Merry, Merry Nightmare appeared first, and Yumeji Fujiwara appeared second. That scene takes place in Episode 1. Nintenchris5963 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There are multiple valid ways to order characters: alphabetical, order of appearance, etc. The main characters in Dream Eater Merry are currently in order of their appearance in the manga. Claiming that there is a "true character order" is complete nonsense and not a valid reason to reorder the characters. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I recommend you to look at the characters list in the official website. Nintenchris5963 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The anime does not superseded the manga. The manga is the original work and the article is primarily about the manga. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, you must respect WP:BRD. You made a build edit. It was reverted. You don't get to restore your version without discussing it. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's the official website's version. Not mine. Besides, title characters always listed first. Please understand that. Nintenchris5963 (talk)

Incest in Mahouka
Good afternoon. For a month there is a theme devoted to this. Besides this, I do not see a problem in this, since Miyuki being his own blood related sister is still his only love interest, and the whole romantic line is devoted to how she refers to her "forbidden" feelings for own brother. Yes, due to genetic manipulation, their connection is safe for their offspring, but the plot and characters do not doubt that with all this they are a full brother and sister. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I need secondary sources for the fact that when a girl confesses her love for her own brother, and her brother says "well, I will try to love you as a woman," is this incest? Or that it is incest, when in the whole series the sister of the main character is his only love interest? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are the secondary sources that establish this? You appear to be basing the category entirely on your own personal opinion and interpretations, which isn't permitted under WP:NOR. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very interested in how this dialogue can be interpreted differently, and what should be written in secondary sources to this - "Even now, that feeling hasn’t changed. Even though I know that Onii- sama is my real brother, I want Onii-sama to treasure me as a woman! I want to be Onii-sama’ s bride! When I said I had given up, suddenly I didn’t want to give up!....But, Onii-sama is normal after all. . . You have a normal sense of moral too. . . You wouldn’t carry a romantic feelings for your own sister right. You must have been disgusted by such an abnormal sister like me. . Onii-sama, is it ok for me to hope? Not for ‘now’ but for ‘sometime’. For Onii-sama to be able to see me as ‘Miyuki’, and not your sister."
 * Not only will you need a secondary source to establish the claim (we can't make such interpretations ourselves), but you will also need secondary sources to establish that it is a defining characteristic of the work. I'll also point out that incest is not simply romantic love towards a family member, but describes a sexual relationship. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You was necessary to begin with this, and not to demand from me secondary sources that love between siblings is incest, lol. So, it is necessary to put this category when their relations "cross the line" and become sexual? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Boruto
Would saiyanisland be an alight reference for the episodes I added. Nuobgu (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it simply isn't a reliable source. But worse still, it is also in violation of WP:COPYLINK. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll just leave it at that. Nuobgu (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Main Protagonist and Character Order
Why would you want to remove the phrase "The main protagonist of the series." as you did in Mikagura School Suite and Good Luck Girl!? If you remove that phrase, people won't know who's the protagonist and end up being confused. Same for the "main antagonist" phrase at Isuca. And it's better off going for the anime order as seen in official websites. And if you say that Shinichirou is the viewpoint character, add the phrase "The main protagonist of the series.", just like it says on the official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.190.18 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For one, calling a character the "main protagonist" can be viewed as an interpretative claim rather than a descriptive claim and would violate WP:NOR. Therefore it is best to avoid such claims altogether. Second, Shinichirou is the character through which the story of Isuca is told. And since the article is about the manga, the manga's description takes precedence. The order the anime website is actually irrelevant. Thus placing him first in the order is something I stand behind 110%. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Your revert.
Here's the source. Here's the talk page in which no one bothered to answer my question. Avengingbandit 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a new season, not a new series. By placing in a new category, you are declaring it a new series when all sources have call it a second season. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What seperates this case from examples like High School DxD, being in four different categories (years) despite always being referred to as successive seasons? Avengingbandit 02:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all in how the series or season is presented by the studio and reliable sources. However, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to include such categories on this particular article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "It's all in how the series or season is presented by the studio and reliable sources."
 * In what way has another series I mentioned as an example (High School DxD) been presented as being successive series, not just successive seasons?
 * "However, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to include such categories on this particular article."
 * I mentioned another series because it seems like an arbitrary double standard to "do for one but not for the other". Both series have more than one season, so they should be treated the same, yet one is allowed to span multiple categories, while another is (apparently) not allowed to. Please elaborate further on your previous response, because I'm not seeing the reasoning behind your logic. Avengingbandit 02:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Silver Spoon revert
Hi. You my edit, and gave your reason as "Huh?". Would it be possible for you to be more specific as to your reasoning for the revert? Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Random Question
Hi uh I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and have only done one edit so far (on the Italian profanity page). Can you give me some tips on how to improve my profile Summary? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Crayon Shin-chan's origin
Hi TheFairix, With great difficulty I had found the original story and inspiration behind Crayon Shin-chan. I would like to know why do video interviews aired on television are considered as "unreliable sources". Sometimes I feel we on Wikipedia are going against our own common sense. I would appreciate if you can also come to the talk page on Crayon Shin-chan. Thank You. Anwesh pati (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One, because the links are a clear violation of WP:COPYLINK, which also means that they are also unreliable sources. Second, YouTube video was clearly upload to your own account, which would serve as a conflict of interest, but also clearly cites Wikipedia as a source. This violates WP:CIRCULAR and therefore cannot be used. Remember that any link to YouTube must comply with these polices as well as WP:SELFPUBLISH. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What I understand now is - 1) Information from Japanese (or any other) Wikipedia can't be linked as references. 2) YouTube videos (the one of a different user) can't be linked as it itself violates copyright (of NHK World in this case). 3) YouTube videos which are uploaded to personal accounts amount to self promotion and can't be linked. So what do you suggest? How can we add this information? I wanted to make things clear about Crayon Shin-chan's origin as there is a fake story which has gone viral online. It goes like this - "Shinchan was a real boy who died in a car accident while trying to save his sister Himawari, but failed. Her mother got depressed and started drawing the memories of her kids using crayons. The author found these works and made into a manga. Shinchan would die in the last episode." This absolutely BS story has got over two million views on YouTube. What's more surprising that a large number of people believe this story. Hence I wanted the actual story (Crayon Shin-chan being a spin off from Darakuya Store Monogatari) to be known to everyone. Is there any legal way to let it be known?

Anwesh pati (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like you don't have a reliable source then. If there is no reliable source to verify the content, the content does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want the content on Wikipedia, you MUST have a reliable source. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WHY?

 * So let me get this straight. You don't want people to have access to when the DVD copies are released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordShozin (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the talk page of the list. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Why I'm changing character orders?
I have 2 reasons why I'm changing character orders, but I'm only gonna tell you 1 of them. I'm seriously sick of boys as main protagonists. I mostly want girls as main protagonists. So I want to change character orders the way I want. I want a girl listed first and I want a boy listed second. Also, if I'm playing an anime game that is both visual novel and multiplayer fighting or both visual novel and RPG, I'll always play as a girl. Just like The Asterisk Wars: Houka Kenran is both visual novel and multiplayer fighting game. The game have both story mode and battle mode. In story mode, the main protagonist is Ayato Amagiri, and the heroines are playable in story mode as well but during team battles only. In battle mode, the player can choose which character he/she wants. For me, I'll always choose girls as my playable characters, and I'll always choose boys as my opponents. And there's Fushigi no Gensokyo 2: Miracle Party, a Touhou game that is both visual novel and RPG game. The protagonist is Sanae Kochiya, but the true protagonist from all of Touhou is Reimu Hakurei. Touhou has a lot of female characters and only a few male characters. The creator of Touhou, ZUN, always wanted to make girls as playable and enemy characters and boys as NPCs. That the first reason why I'm changing character orders. I have a second reason, but I'm not gonna tell you my second reason because I was afraid that you were going to do something that might offend me as well. Nintenchris5963 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems that you have a very strong point of view problem. It doesn't matter if you dislike that males are protagonists in most anime and manga series. We present the facts as they are presented in the media and as they are commented on by reliable sources. We don't make interpretive claims without sources. If you cannot edit Wikipedia without inserting your own POV, then I recommend you find something else to do. Oh, and editing the Touhou Wiki to support your claims is a hilarious act of vandalism. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a question
You had a talk question on the Hetalia Axis Powers List of Characters page and I wanted to ask if you think I could put in human names of if I did it would be considered vandalism? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Human names? Aren't the character personifications of countries? —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ja they are but Hima-Papa (the creator) gave some human names. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The next question is are they even relevant and not just trivia. This will largely be based on frequency of use in the work. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I... don't understand Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are they only used one or two time in the series or are they used frequently? —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

They were never used but I thought since the creator gave them to the characters I could put them in. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people want to know their names so it would be relevant I guess. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If they weren't used in the manga, then they shouldn't be on the article. "Some people want to know" a lot of trivia, but that doesn't mean that trivia has a place in an encyclopedic article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I'll do some research and see if they were used in the webcomic. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Prince of Stride needs Original Research
Why are you removing original researches as you did in Prince of Stride. Nana is officially called the main protagonist in the visual novel, and Riku is officially called the main protagonist in the anime. The word "主人公" means "protagonist", and they need original researches; otherwise, people will be confused. Are you willing to remove original researches in Aokana: Four Rhythm Across the Blue as well?
 * One of Wikipedia's core content policies is that there is no original research. Also, 主人公 does not translate directly to "protagonist", this is an interpretation on your part. It more generally translates to main character, but that should be obvious with a well written plot summary and character descriptions per WP:PROTAGONIST. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 主人公 is translated as either "main character" or "protagonist" (as those two are generally considered synonymous). ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"Copyvios"
Can you please explain to me how the most recent versions of my edits to "BanG Dream!" inflict with copyrights, and/or constitute to the nature of plagiarism of Crunchyroll content. The wording has been made completely different, and there is absolutely no way that comparisons between the descriptions on the page and those on that site would ever/could ever be drawn. Not only is the wording on plot content their descriptions cover completely different, but the edits I made include plot information that their descriptions don't. No harshness intended hereIf I'm in the wrong, which I may very well be, then that's fine. I simply do not understand what the issue actually is. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:3196:2F18:9A35:D543 (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

rv
What default size? Making an image 255px is not "large". Those are the sizes of the images. The images were just fine. Unless I'm violating something, there should be no reason for you to start reverting. -- 1989 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to have the images appear large on the article than the default 220px used by the infobox. The images are used to identify the subject, which it does at that default size. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Unproductive Editing
If correcting grammar and misspells are categorized as unproductive i think a lot of your edits can be reverted the was line which i changed "gets them match started" to "gets the match started" (thats why i marked it as minor edit)use your judgement and please review edits carefully before reverting them and please revert your edit. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by East alan (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

SPOILER?
I have no idea why you're bringing that into your continued disruptive insertion of original research and poor writing in Btooom!. I couldn't care less about plot, and if you had taken the time to read edit summaries you would know that. But since you're an adult and have been here for a while, I'll run down the list of problems with this content again: a. it is unverified (duh--plot doesn't necessarily need verification, but "Upon meeting Ryōta in real life and discovering the truth about him, Himiko is able to overcome her fear of men" does need verification, since "...is able to overcome her fear" is obviously interpretation. So, b. it's original research as well. c. It's terribly poor writing (" Back then, he was competitive, good at everything, whether it be sports or grades, extremely popular with both guys and girls and always cheerful and somewhat insensitive"? " However, injury and despair later changes him"? How about this, which you have now twice taken ownership over: "She has a large forehead and is a cute 19-year-old girl".). d. It is completely excessive: they are not character descriptions but lengthy expositions that combine plot and original research more than anything else. e. Don't you have anything better to do than to reinsert third-grade fan stuff about cartoons? This is an encyclopedia--move your content over to Wikia. Lest I wasn't clear, let me nail it down to just one thing: I have serious problems with your reinsertion of unverified content; please see Template:Uw-unsourced3. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

JuiianPema
Hey Farix, could you talk to JuiianPema and ask him to stop adding airdates to DBZ Kai, Lupin the Third Part IV, Iron Blooded Orphans, and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders without sources. Nuobgu (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuden episode lists
please edit the other season of shippuden in english, save me time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin3dd (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the DVD dates as they are not counted as air date. Given that an IP is persisten in readding them, I'll put the lists on my watchlist. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that one. I noticed that as well recently. The final season probably won't air on TV until 2024 at the earliest at the rate they're going (only up to the Pain Arc currently).Dohvahkiin (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z
Aren't there like 19 movies?

1. Dead Zone

2. The World's Strongest

3. The Tree of Might

4. Lord Slug

5. Cooler's Revenge

6. Return of Cooler

7. Super Android 13!

8. Broly: The Legendary Super Saiyan

9. Bojack Unbound

10. Broly Second Coming

11. Bio-Broly

12. Fusion Reborn

13. Wrath of the Dragon

14. Bardock: The Father of Goku

15. The History of Trunks

16. Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans

17. Resurrection 'F'

18. Battle of the Gods

19. Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!

This page is slightly outdated but is it worth enough to change it? Dinah In Wonderland 17:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, all of the films are listed at List of Dragon Ball films. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean for this specific page Dragon Ball Z it doesn't state all the movies. It says I believe "there are 17 movies" when there are 19 (including all specials.) So I was wondering if it should be changed. Dinah In Wonderland 17:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind I just saw that on the page it says this. I apologize for taking up your time. Dinah In Wonderland 17:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion
I keep on getting problems with users Diogatari, UnknownUsername480 and IP 151.35.129.246 over changing the picture in the infobox. I want it to be updated and the pesky low-res logo removed for good, but those people keep on popping it back like annoying Angels invading Central Dogma! I replaced that with the official JP BluRay Box cover since the small logo won't cut it anymore in Wikipedia. DO something!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Kai: The Final Chapters
Dragon Ball Z Kai: The Final Chapters airs every Saturday night at 11:30 PM on Adult Swim's Toonami block. The next episode will air on August 5, 2017. You are incorrectly reverting a correct edit. View the schedule for that day here: http://adultswim.x10.mx107.77.223.198 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that you must site a reliable source in accordance with WP:V. The link you provided is not reliable as it is a self published fansite. At best, they are guessing at the dates. Failure to cite a reliable source for future air dates will only result in dates being removed —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect still. Toonami is broadcast on national TV, and none of the other episodes are sourced either. The next episode will air on August 5, 2017. I can confirm that because I watch every Saturday. And next weeks schedule has not changed.107.77.223.198 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability via reliable published sources. You yourself are not a "reliable source". Future air dates are subject to change, thus a citation to reliable source is required anytime such dates are published on Wikipedia. If no source is cited, then the date can and will be removed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, none of the other episodes are sourced either. I'm pretty sure this applies in this case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue, just because it airs on national TV, and unless they announce something, the schedule remains the same as it always has.107.77.223.198 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of the sky being blue. These dates do change and they are often targets of vandalism, thus citing a reliable source is required. WP:OTHERSTUFF does not excuses continuing the problem. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They do change, but only if they announce something. If they haven't announced anything, then we can safely assume when the next airing will be. I get what you're trying to do in regards to vandalism, but what that page meant was that you don't need to cite information that's obvious and readily available to the public. Toonami's schedule is readily available online. I hope you're also an avid watcher of Toonami as I am, and if not, I'd recommend checking out their lineup

http://www.adultswim.com/toonami/107.77.223.198 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not make presumptions. If the air date has been publish, it does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:Verifiability is a content policy and is non-negotiable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So would it be better to add the air date after the episode has already aired? Btw, I had no idea that other link was a fan site, because I've never seen it before, but have heard multiple times it has accurately predicted new additions. But back to the matter at hand: Even though the next episode of Kai is 99% guaranteed to air on August 5, is it better to add the airdate of August 5, 2017 after the episode has aired? I honestly had no idea this was an issue until now, because it's quite common to list air dates of the episodes three to four weeks in advance on other articles that I've seen. Also, since One Piece was taken off the air back in March, I've noticed someone went and changed the English air dates to the DVD release dates. I looked on your history and saw that this should not be the case, and they should not have any English air dates after March 18, 2017. Just wanted to give you a heads up on that one.107.77.223.198 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not make presumptions something will happen until after it happens or a reliable source states that it will happen. But generally, it is best to not include the dates until after it happens. As for DVD releases as air date. No, they are not technically air dates and should not be listed as such. DVD releases should have their own section like List of Bleach episodes. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for clarifying. I usually don't edit anime articles unless I notice something off obviously. Since I watch Toonami every Saturday and it's listed on the official schedule, I figured that I might as well change it to the correct airdate. Meant no harm in it. Just trying to make sure it has the correct info. If you'd like to talk to me about anything else, my username is Dohvahkiin. Just send me a message there.107.77.223.198 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

, can you wait until they have officially added the new episode to TV listings like Zap2It? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm finding Zap2It not to be the most reliable of sources, especially with Tokyo Ghoul as its dates are contradictory to other sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there can be multiple listings not just Zap2It that announce the airdate of the new episode. Waiting for those to show up is better than assuming it's the next week. A similar wait can be done for the Japanese television guides to post before adding the airdate on that side. Then after broadcast, the episode count can be bumped. Sometimes the Japanese airings announce delays on airing. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of that too. Even though the Toonami crew usually doesn't just remove airings last minute like that, recently, ratings have been low for them, so anything is possible. But it's highly unlikely they'll not air a scheduled episode of Kai, especially since it's one of their heavy hitters. Only time they won't air an episode is during one of their usual holiday marathons, which they'll let us know about weeks in advance. But yeah, I still think it's best to do it after the episode airs on Saturday's. I'll be sure to keep an eye on that.24.47.204.97 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Television anime/Anime television
I noticed you edited a lot of articles on May 21 to change the order of "television anime" to "anime television". "Television anime" is the correct order, "television" is modifying "anime"; it's to differentiate it from an OVA (original video animation) or net animation or something. So unless there was some discussion elsewhere where it was agreed to swap "television anime" to "anime television", the edits should be undone. Z-ch94 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, anime television series is the correct phrasing, just like animated television series or anime film. Anime is simply the Japanese version of animated. It is also consistent with the main category is Category:Anime television series, its subcats, and Infobox animanga/Video. The changes I made was to make things internally consistent throughout Wikipedia, and anime television series was already the established phrasing. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, Wikipedia is consistently using the incorrect phrase. "Television anime" or "TV anime" is an industry standard term, in both Japanese and English:
 * "Persona 5 Game Gets TV Anime Series... the Persona 5 game is getting a television anime series"


 * "The project inspired the first television anime season in 2013"


 * "TV Anime 'Dagashi Kashi' Receives Second Season"


 * "At the Osaka performance it was announced that a new TV anime, Wake Up, Girls! Shinsho, will be broadcasted on TV Tokyo from October 2017."


 * There are some results for "anime television" on sites like these but far fewer (11,300 vs 80 searching ANN on Google for example). Search "TVアニメ" on Google and you'll find virtually every official anime website. It even has an article on the Japanese Wikipedia: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/テレビアニメ You linked to Infobox animanga/Video which contains the categories "TV anime series" and "TV anime film", so Wikipedia isn't that consistent on it. Also, in the majority of cases, "anime" is more the Japanese version of "animation" than "animated", so "television animation" makes sense. Z-ch94 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is simply your opinion. Anime can be used as either a noun or an adjective in place of animation or animated. In this case, it is used as an adjective to describe a type of television series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not simply my opinion that "television anime/TV anime" is the industry standard. Grammatically speaking both "anime television series" and "television anime series" are acceptable, but "television anime" is the standard term. To make an analogy, an "original video animation" could be called an "animated original video", but only the former is the standard term. Z-ch94 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A Google news search shows 418,000 hits for "anime television" compared to 7,900 hits for "television anime". Also there was a need to establish consistency throughout anime related article and we already have an entire series of categories named Category:Anime television series. It also flows more easily when reading or speaking. So, I'm not sure why you are continuing to argue as this won't suddenly change. As far as I am concerned, this dissuasion is over and nothing is going to be changed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, the same Google news search gives me only about 672 results for "anime television," and about 7,780 results for "television anime". Perhaps you confused the web hits with the news hits. How well it flows is a matter of opinion, I'm more used to the terms "TV anime" and "television anime" so IMO those flow better. I'm continuing to argue just because I'm almost positive that "television anime" is the standard term. Regardless, you're more versed in WP policy than I am, so I'm not sure if either of the following points are relevant:
 * "television anime" is far more prevalent on sources that WP uses than "anime television".
 * There is an article on the Japanese WP that directly corresponds to the term. Z-ch94 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ANN has chosen their style, but this isn't ANN, but the English Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So hypothetically if there were enough sources/notability to make an article for television anime like there is for television series, would you agree that there'd be reason enough to use the more common phrasing? Z-ch94 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Manga sales figures
PLEASE NOTICE AGAIN !! https://www.mangazenkan.com/ranking/books-circulation.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainabalbasri (talk • contribs) 20:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

another site http://entamedata.web.fc2.com/hobby/book_comiall.html sorry but your informations are not correct ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainabalbasri (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The list includes worldwide sales figures as take from a reliable English language sources. The links you provided are only of sales in Japan. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

About ANN

 * Hello! TheFarix. On August 7, 2017 the Anime News Network website gets hacked. So they're using the [AnimeNewsNetwork.cc] domain right now. But hundreds of wikipedia editors use ANN for citation. That's why all the citation that added before 7th August are not working right now. But they wrote that they will soon recover [AnimeNewsNetwork.com] domain. And when that happens all the citation before 7th August starts working again but the citation after 7th August will never works again.
 * What should we do to fix this problem?Phoenix God (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Continue using the .com until we know that they won't be able to recover their URL. It prevents the need to fix it later. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about myself. I mean the citation that the authorized editors and other anonymous editors are making using .CC domain, will become useless once they recover their .COM domain. So how can we stop them from using .CC domain. Because I've seen a lot of citation that are made after 7th August. Phoenix God (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing you can do to "stop them". Just correct the URL and move on. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay. Happy editing. Phoenix God (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Naruto English air dates
Good day i am sorry i did not source my work i never edit wiki before and do not plan to do to much of it after i finish updating all the english aired episodes of Naruto Shippuden here is where i sourced all my info from if you are able to put the source into the work i have done and put it back up that would be great thank you Source: http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Animated_Media#Naruto:_Shipp.C5.ABden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.101.244 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The episode you claimed aired has never been broadcast on an English language television network. Thus including air dates to unaired episodes is providing false information on the table. You claim that your source is the Naruto Wikia, but it is entirely based on user generated content—which cannot be used as a source—and is itself simply wrong. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * They might have not aired but they have been released in english dub on those dates, if i find a better source for you, how am i able to go back to my edits and repost them? so that people looking to see if they have been dub or not, because i just got up to ep 402 in eng dub. i just wanted to post this information so everyone could find it easier.
 * Thank you Tyman108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.101.244 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They did not air on a television network, therefore, they should not be used as English air dates. DVD releases are listed in a separate table. We don't misrepresent DVD releases as television broadcasts. Continuting to misrepresent DVD releases as air dates will only result in your editing privileges being suspended. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The revisions to the numerous mecha anime pages
So I noticed that the various mecha anime have been changed back to their previous states before I edited them.

The reason I made these edits was because I wanted to distinguish real and super robots from the numerous mecha anime series. And, based on the information I got before I edited them, I could not tell for myself if any of them are either real robots or super robots.

So why can't I distinguish real and super robot series from each other if it's to help me figure out which subgenres each of those mecha anime came from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander PonyShep (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the policies on Verifiability and No original research. Genres are not immune from either of these policies and must be sourced to a reliable, published source. Your edits was clearly based on your interpretations on what these specific genres meant. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

MAL uploads
Hi Farix, I noticed you've been reuploading manga covers sourced from MAL. The thing is, it's not really a big deal. It doesn't matter where you get a fair use image from because you're using it for your own purposes with an actual fair use rationale, not engaging in copyvios. Linking to MAL also isn't a big deal because I can guarantee you no one at all clicks on file description pages through to MAL, and all external links on WIkipedia are nofollow, so it doesn't raise MAL's search engine rank either. It just seems petty to me to reupload a brand new image when there's nothing wrong with the old one. If the MAL links bother you so much, just delete the link in the future, though personally I find it's important to be honest about your sources no matter where on WIkipedia and I've even cited a copyvio YouTube video because the alternative was a citation no one would ever bother checking. Don't be overly committed to the rules to the point that you're doing redundant work is my point. Opencooper (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August, 2017
The sources, e. g. book, are set now at List of hentai anime and STAR jewel, look 'round. SBarT (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, if you don't want this page, you can place "Delete" template to this page. I don't care with it. SBarT (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, due the lack of necessary information, I had to synchronize the Japanese version of this article I translated without translation tool, got it? Check it out with your colleagues. SBarT (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: DanielC46 - September, 2017

 * Then maybe, in order to insert the "reliable information" you so urgently insist upon, I suggest that you give me at least ONE of those "reliable" sources you request so urgently. Or better yet, find such a source and list it yourself.DanielC46 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S.: And since I'm already at it: Why is the information concerning the following references - and  - NOT considered "unreliable", given that it stems from Anime News Network as well? - DanielC46 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you appear not to be not in the mood for at least answering my questions and provide solid justifications for your cause as immediatedly as you effect your reversions, I have decided to appeal for a dispute resolution. Let's hope this matter can be settled that way. If the administration gives their veto, I'll accept it. But until then, I consider your reversions without any corrections from your part unacceptable.

Mass reversion of mech articles
Hi, I noticed you reverted the changes to the Super robot and Real robot categories. However, my changes to the category are verifiable, and the article on mecha anime and manga confirms that my additions to both category descriptions are correct based on reliable sources.

As far as the mecha articles go, you are correct in that some of them are unverifiable from the article, so I erred in thinking those could just be added without any references stating that. However, some of them, such as Evangelion and Armored Trooper Votoms, have indeed been described as super or real robot in reliable sources, which are also mentioned in mecha anime and manga, as a series, rather than as individual works of fiction. I'm not sure what the protocol is in this case, because quite frankly having to prove that literally every Evangelion anime is a super robot anime is somewhat ridiculous to ask, when it's already clear that it is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Per Genre
How is it fair that numerous pages on this site can go unsourced when it comes to the genre? You have a strange obsession with The Big O article I feel.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are talking about. Genres are not exempt from WP:V as any other content. And I've always challenged changed or additions to genres for quite some time. Just because other articles have unsourced genres doesn't mean that you can apply more unsourced genres. As a veteran editor, you should already know that. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Anime and manga
Not sure if you got my ping (they're not working for some people: T177825) at Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Basically I've had some people ask about why page assessments aren't showing up in XTools, and this apparently is why. Regards &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What code will need to be inserted into the existing banner to get assessment to show up in XTools? —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, knows how it's set up. There's a parser function somewhere in WPBannerMeta that does the magic, supplying the data to mw:Extension:PageAssessments. I don't want to get wrapped up in the debate as to why the standardized template isn't being used, but it'd be nice if we could somehow get the assessment part working, even if it means manually adding the parser function :) This issue persists for other tools that use page assessment data as well, such as WikiEd and the Popular Pages bot &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  03:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the other discussion, WikiProject Anime and manga is missing out on a lot of features due to opting out of WPBannerMeta. These include WikiProject-related features in XTools, CopyPatrol, Popular Pages Bot, etc. The parser function that is needed in the template is the  function, but setting it up correctly is a bit complicated. You need to pass it the project name, class, and importance, but you have to first filter the class and importance through masking templates so that the output is consistent (i.e. to normalize and validate the strings). You also have to set up separate   entries for the task forces/work groups and pass the main project name as the parent parameter. All of this has been set-up already in the WPBannerMeta template that all the other WikiProjects are using. I know that WPBannerMeta used to be very rigid in its functionality, but you can now override pretty much anything that it does, including the importance display and category scheme (via hooks). In fact, some of these customization features were made specifically to accommodate WikiProject Anime and manga. Is there anything specifically blocking migration to the meta template? If there are still legitimate blockers, I can work on integrating the parser function into WikiProject Anime and manga, but I think that might be more work than just switching to WPBannerMeta. Kaldari (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion about converting to WPBannerMeta, but what code needs to be added to WikiProject Anime and manga to allow for XTools. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Genre
If that's the case, why haven't you provided sources for the other two genres listed on The Big O's page: i.e. Mecha and Neo-Noir. Why are you obsessed with just tech noir when the other two are uncited.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The other two are cited in the article. And please refrain from personal attacks by claiming that I am "obsessed" over something. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't get so sensitive there mate. Bad example to set for the kids.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are going to be that upset and condescending because your little bit of original research was reverted, then kindly buzz off. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to be condescending. But the anime is literally about how technology has caused indescribable problems to society, all while played out under a noir pretext. That is literally how Emily Elisabeth Auger defines tech-noir in her book Tech-Noir film: "it treats technology as a social problem; but, since tech-noir commonly treats the social problem as being complete or near complete disaster." Asking for a source, in this particular case, seems wrong because there have not been extensive write-ups of the genre due to its semi-recent prominence. Calling The Big O a tech-noir is like calling Terminator science fiction- it's common sense.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It still requires a source, otherwise, it is original research. Even Terminator requires a source before its genre of science fiction is listed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright be this way. We'll see how it helps you in the future. $1000 says you haven't even seen the show.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you would have lost that bet as I watched it back when it aired on Toonami. However, that still doesn't preclude the fact that genres must be sourced like all other content. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Naruto
Hey, listen, I'm not a licensed user, only because I don't know how, but I'm a passionate fan of Naruto and these airdates are correct, check the season pages' DVD releases section, these are when the episodes aired. Stop undoing my corrections. If it's due to a lack of source, here it is: http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Animated_Media#Naruto:_Shipp.C5.ABden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCED:E980:6820:A989:5271:8CA6 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding deliberate factual errors onto Wikipedia. Those episodes never aired in English. Also, The Naruto Wikia is not a reliable source do to it being based on user generated content and is full of factual errors as well. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, these episodes are available in ENGLISH!!! I'm trying to keep these pages updated since no one else seems to be updating them, I'm trying to help. THESE EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH!!! I'm only trying to help. Right now, the anime is dubbed up to Episode 416. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCED:E980:6820:A989:5271:8CA6 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Being available in English is not the same as airing in English. The table column is for air dates, meaning that the episodes aired in English. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about airing in English on TV, cause Naruto: Shippuden is currently off the air, except for Toonami, which is far behind right now. If you're waiting for the Toonami airdates, then that's pointless because they won't airing for years and we should update this page with the info we currently have because occasional viewers of these pages should be aware that english versions of these episodes have already been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCED:E980:6820:A989:5271:8CA6 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The field and the column is for air dates only. That they won't air for years from now is not Wikipedia's issue to solve. It is factually incorrect to present any other date other than the air date of those episodes in that field and column. That is why the field is called "FirstEngAirDate" and the column is labeled "English air date". You simply do not have a right to present false information on Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, we can keep going all day and night and still not get anywhere. I'm really considering getting an official account now since this Wiki keeps deleting all of my factually correct corrections. Instead of treating me as an outside threat, we should both want to see this page kept up to date and managed the way it should be. Plus, I don't understand your explanation of "field and column" or "FirstEngAirDate and English air date". It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCED:E980:6820:A989:5271:8CA6 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you, apparently, cannot read. ONLY English air dates should be in those fields. Since those episodes have not aired in English, their is no English air dates for them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then by your logic, that would mean that all of the previous episodes have not aired in English, so technically, according to your logic, that means the anime has only aired up to 140 or something. This is what you are telling me. Also, I'm gonna keep messing with your Big O page until we can reach a reasonable compromise. Enjoy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCED:E980:6820:A989:5271:8CA6 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some episodes aired on Disney XD, the rest aired on Neon Alley up to the middle of season 14. No episodes after that were ever aired in English. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I know they aired on Disney XD, but Neon Alley is a streaming service, which means it has no precise air date for various episodes. The show aired on XD up until Season 4-6. It was cancelled early and has since not aired on TV, so there are no other further airdates for the rest of the episodes. Streaming Services don't count, right? That's what you said, according to your logic, am I wrong? You said that since they have no English air dates, then they don't count, which is why you keep edit-blocking me, right? Why don't we try to find a solution and end this little spat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCED:E980:6820:A989:5271:8CA6 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Neon Alley was a linear broadcast network that was available to many television sets. The only thing that distinguished it from other linear broadcast network was that it broadcasted over the internet. It did not offer video on demand services like Hulu, Netflix, or Crunchyroll. As such, those episodes did technically air. However, if you want to argue that those dates shouldn't be counted, then take it up with WT:ANIME. In the mean time, those dates will remain on the lists. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Reversions/deletions
Hi. I'm afraid but could you please refrain from just reverting/ deleting others' contributions before having a conversation and trying to reach consensus? For example, at Banana Fish. We should avoid an edit war. If you like and respect that manga, could you cooperate with us in them? I suggest you should do a reversion more carefully and have a conversation before an attempt at it and look over policies and guidelines not only the original research part but especially linked pages above. Thanks. --Wickych (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. One does not need a consensus to remove unsourced content from an article (WP:VERIFY), especially content that is often the product of original research. It is up to the editor restoring the content to cite a reliable source. Secondly, there is nothing special in the title being stylized in all capital letters. This happens with many manga, including Bleach and Naruto. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, fistly, I only wrote above about your acts of reversions and that it would be problematic. Are you thinking you can immediately remove the material without a reliable source on any page? Secondly, what about genres without a source in many mangas, anime, movies, and TV-series pages? This happens in bunch of them including Naruto and Bleach Do you think you can and need immodestly remove all of them without any consensus? . Then, are you gonna remove genres in many Mangas including Naruto and Bleach? Thirdly, I understand your opinion about the title but it can't justify your quick and persistant reversions. Finally, as I said at the first message above, I just want you to check the policies, guidelines and rules and understand that reversion has to be carefully conducted.--Wickych (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because there are other unsourced genres on other articles doesn't prevent unsourced genres on this particular article from being removed. Any content that is challenged and isn't sourced are subject to removal. Since genres are often the source of original research, they need to be sourced, either directly or in the article's body. There is no "statue of limitations" that prevents unsourced content from being removed. Bleach and Naruto's genres are actually cited to the publishers website, though a more direct citation is preferable. And lastly, you seem to have the mistaken belief that your edits should not be reverted. This is completely false and if there is a problem with your edit, such as not complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it can and likely will be reverted. Saying, "But officer, other people were speeding too!" isn't going to give you a pass. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi - you reversed my edit on Sailor Moon (not using IMDb as a source). I didn't know that was the case and wanted to say thanks. Not sure if this is how to do it but kittens are cute and I hope you agree! Thanks again for your help.

Librarianstevie (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 

Haruhi's sequel
Good Day, Dear User TheFarix !

Today, I'm actually talking to you, because I wanted to know if you really read what was written on the article's talk page ( here : Talk:Haruhi_Suzumiya ) before doing you edit : ... Or not ? If that's not the case, will you, please, mind to read it ? If you read it, will you please mind to answer me : why did you revert my edit in which I placed a "dubious" ? The case is that, according to haruhi's wikia, there were an anouncment of a sequel in a book called The Observation of Haruhi Suzumiya . So, I ask you, please, talk BEFORE doing such things such as removing a "dubious" flag. At least, I ask you to leave a message on the article's talk page, so the other users can understand your edits. Please. By the way, I'm actually not reverting your edit, because before doing some things, I think it is actually needed to talk (to you). Sorry for my poor grammar, I was quite in a hurry and english's not really my native language (but I do love it !). Hoping for an answer from you. Nota Bene : It is possible, if you try to talk to me, that it will take some time for me to answer, I'm quite busy now. Just in case, be prepared to wait. I feel sorry for that. -- Evachan39 (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been no new light novels published since 2011 and you did not present any reliable sources that stated that a 12th volumes will be published (and frankly, Wikia is not a reliable source). Even if a 12th volume was planned, it does not change the fact that it wasn't published and nor have any new volumes been published in the last 6 years. The series is over until there is an announcement that a new volume will be published. Also, when an edit is clearly based on bad information, there is no requirement that the edit be discusses first before it is reverted. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a source. If I didn't revert you, or another editor would have. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Tokoyowaterfront
Hi TheFarix

Could you hold off on the templates on User talk:Tokyowaterfront for now - I'm going to hide them all (not delete!) as I want to see if the user will actually read his talk page, and I don't want to bury the message amidst a pile of CFD templates. I do understand the templates all need to be posted to follow CFD rules, but could you maybe leave it til the 24 hours are up? Would be appreciated. Thanks, fish &amp;karate 12:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User has been indefinitely blocked until they respond. fish &amp;karate 14:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

poster of article attack on titan
what is raison for delet new poster mana volume 23 anwar   call me  22:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by أنور (talk • contribs)
 * Discussion held at User talk:أنور. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Haruhi's sequel (2)
Hello ! Just in case you don't renember here is the previous thread : User_talk:TheFarix/Archive_17 I wanted to add few things... Sorry for the wait, I'm quite busy... Anyway, let's back to the topic :

"There has been no new light novels published since 2011" Yeah, I know.

"you did not present any reliable sources that stated that a 12th volumes will be published" I want to be quite obvious on this point : I do NOT present anything at all. I never said (or if so, or if it's what you've understood, I'm quite sorry about this... I admit I could have been more obvious in the beginning...) that I checked if what was said on Haruhi's wikia was true : I did not read The Observation of Haruhi Suzumiya to check if it was truly written that there will be a sequel... Mainly because I did not. To put it in a nuthsell : the point is that you seem to misunderstand (and I admit that I'm partially guilty of this...) : the source I wanted to be for the "It is unclear if there will be a sequel or not." sentence is The Observation of Haruhi Suzumiya, and absolutely NOT Haruhi's wikia. I wished that someone could just go, read that book and say if it's true... Or not. So we can add it for a source of the sentence.

"(and frankly, Wikia is not a reliable source)" I agree on that with you, since it's not really a reliable source, as you said previously.

"Even if a 12th volume was planned, it does not change the fact that it wasn't published and nor have any new volumes been published in the last 6 years." Well, of course, you're right, if so, we wouldn't have to talk about that.

"The series is over until there is an announcement that a new volume will be published." What I mean, is that if there is something that say that there will be a next book in The Observation of Haruhi Suzumiya, could we not just see it as a source ? Why not ?

"Also, when an edit is clearly based on bad information, there is no requirement that the edit be discusses first before it is reverted." I will be frank : that : "clearly based on bad information" is your point of view. And I don't necessary agree with it...

"The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a source." Well, I think you're right... And to avoid further problems about this, '''I suggest that we leave the things as you've done, and wait for someone checking this damn book (The Observation of Haruhi Suzumiya)... What do you think of that ?'''

"If I didn't revert you, Juhachi or another editor would have." Once again, that is clearly your point of view. And I don't necessary agree with it.

Have a good day, -- Evachan39 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Underused and disregarded genres
Well when it comes to genres like Philosophical fiction and tragedy they are not within the mindset of majority of humans. They don't explicitly get labeled to anything is because the terms have been underused that no one goes out of their way to label works as Tragedies of Philosophical fiction because not many know these genres exist or the correct definition to label something as such. The animes I edited fall almost completely into those genres. Only things that exist are those that imply that they're Philosophical or Tragic, but don't label as such despite the qualities. So, if you're asking for something that explicitly labels them these genres then I won't have anything that will ever satisfy you. So, how do I get the ball rolling on what indicates Philosophical fiction or Tragedy since all I will ever have are implication based. Also Philosophical themes are pervasive throughout Neon Genesis Evangelion and Fate/Zero. While Puella Magi Madoka Magica was created by the staff and Urobuchi himself with tragic themes. As it is one of the main genres Urobuchi regularly writes as he is well known for Tragedy. I believe Tragedy and Philosophical fiction should be given more recognition since shows like Rick and Morty are coming into existence now. Is there a way you can meet me half way? Also many animes are labeled genres on their wiki without references. Why are you specifically targeting Urobuchi's work? If your criteria are references then nearly all animes shouldn't be listed with any genres on their wiki. Urobuchi himself recognises his works as Tragedies because that's what he's going for. IceBrotherhood (User talk:IceBrotherhood) 13:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just like Star Wars having comedic elements, but is not a comedy, just because a work has certain has certain elements doesn't make them belong in a specific genres. Genres must be specifically stated by reliable sources. Anything less will result in editors applying their own interpretations, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Just because you "believe [they] should be given more recognition" doesn't mean they can be added without direct support from reliable sources. In fact, doing so could be view a pushing a point of view that isn't supported by reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Super on CN India
Hi, there isn’t really much coverage online about it, only some YouTube videos and TV schedules of Cartoon Network India mentioning it as CN India aired the show quietly without advertising it at all. So I can’t really give a source for this. But DB Super airing on CN India is true. User 261115 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability is a core policy that all content is required to meet. If you cannot cite a reliable, published source, then it should not be on Wikipedia. Someone calming it to be "true" is simply not enough to include content on Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of FLCL
FLCL, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

One Piece
Why would be completely unnecessary to give number of chapters? -- Maze  waxie  11:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The number of chapters in novels or other works of fiction aren't noted in other works.
 * The number of chapters in other manga aren't noted either.
 * The number of chapters doesn't add anything to the understanding of the work as a whole.
 * All in all, it is just a trivial statistic that is completely irrelevant. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The initial manga, written and illustrated by Toriyama, was serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump from 1984 to 1995, with the 519 individual chapters collected into 42 tankōbon volumes by its publisher Shueisha." This is from the Dragon Ball article on Wikipedia, so I don't understand why would it be irrelevant for One Piece. -- Maze  waxie  15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

SSSS.Gridman
Sorry but why were you renaming it? The trademark clearly states that all of these words are in capital letters. See the Twitter account and Official Website of Tsuburaya productions.

Zero stylinx (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Because MOS:TMRULES and the majority of sources simply use "Gridman" without the stylization. Also, I believe that it is WP:TOOSOON to be creating these articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)