Talk:Strain: Strategic Armored Infantry

Character mix-up?

After correcting the names, it suddenly seems highly unlikely that the pink haired girl is Ermengarde, and the boy next to her is named Martha. Martha is undoubtly a female name, not sure about Ermengarde since I'm not much of a engilsh name expert (I'm not english either, for that matter). Could there be a mix-up? Kurigiri 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. just watched the continuation of the episode. My mistake. Kurigiri 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to Soukou No Strain?

Okay, for those of you that just came here, there used to be a note that said that the fansubs refer to the series as Soukou no Strain. I'm still angry that this was removed as "fancruft" (and I think the "anti-fancruft rule" should be taken down...), but whatever. My question is, who actually calls it Sōkō no Strain? I believe there's a rule here that states that the most popular name should be used (see Chibiusa). Vote on this? Sana Jisushi 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, Sana. Fancruft is not allowed, period, because fancruft may contain any kind of nonsense the fan might think of. About the move.. no. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) article: 2. Article titles should use macrons except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries (e.g., Tokyo, Osaka, Sumo and Shinto, instead of Tōkyō, Ōsaka, Sumō and Shintō). The macrons should stay. Kurigiri 13:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of trivia relating to episode 7

Let's see, first, WP:CRUFT:

As with most of the issues of notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all valid reasons for deletion.

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind.

WP:NOT#OR:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc.

WP:OR:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

WP:RS:

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions.

This is plenty of reason why that trivia is removed. If you need any other reasons based on Wikipedia policy, feel free to reply here or drop me a line on my talk page. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'll have to rebut all these, won't I?

• As with most of the issues of notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all valid reasons for deletion.

It's true that I don't agree with the idea of WP:CRUFT in the first place, but I think that this bit of trivia works with it. I got plenty of references, and I didn't out and say "it sucked". I gave reasons for why people hated it.

• Propaganda or advocacy of any kind.

How is it propaganda? Did I tell you to hate episode 7?

• Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc.

This again... I didn't come up with everyone hating episode 7.

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

Okay, what? I suppose you could say that my saying people hated that episode "purports to refute or support" the idea that that episode was awful, but that's quite a stretch.

• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Explain to me why this applies to the episode 7 bit?

• Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions.

I can't refute that one, I suppose, but still. I did search through all those boards and blogs and found plenty of evidence that people hated episode 7, so there's got to be evidence in "reliable" sources too. Sana Jisushi 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode 13

Would it not be better to translate it to "The Last Waltz"? Reference: http://www.wowow.co.jp/anime/s-strain/epi7/index.html 86.138.75.68 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Go and change it, then. ^^ Sana Jisushi 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright! It's my first edit, so I was pretty unsure. Charles McGinnes

Congratulations, and welcome to Wikipedia. Remember, Be bold, but not reckless! --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Melchisedec and Carmichael

I feel that the statement "...but may be older due to sub-lightspeed travel." should be removed unless evidence can be provided. The series does attempt to represent special relativity and time dialation so it is unlikely that the characters will be biologically older than they appear because of sub-light speed travel, unless it is an oversight by the character designers. Human step 14:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Manga

I read somewhere that the manga focuses on Lottie than Sara, though I've never seen it for myself. Can anyone confirm this? Wererat42 02:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to Strain: Strategic Armored Infantry

Strain: Stratigic Armored Infantry → Strain: Strategic Armored Infantry —I had moved this page to the English title for the anime.However, I had mispelled strategic and I tried to move it again. But it said I couldn't. Hugosworld92 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've moved this into the "uncontroversial requests" section, since it's just a correction of a misspelling. Jafeluv (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Still not very informative.

This article really needs to be completed. I mean, the anime itself is easy to understand for people who watch it, but this article...uh, not so much. -017Bluefield (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)