Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo

I have just nominated the following article for deletion:

At:

Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fictional character biographies

Until half an hour ago, every Kamen Rider character article had sections titled "Fictional character biography". This was effectively a duplication of content found in the lists of episodes.

I've removed this section from any Rider that appeared in Den-O, Kiva, or Decade. Riders that appear in Double should not get such a section. Instead, this summarization will take place in the episode lists, as they were intended. I am prepared to repeat this throughout the other Riders who have articles, directing users to create an episode list with the information or to the proper location for the fictional subject matter.

Opinions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are NOT extact duplication of content. Also, the episode summaries DON'T count as one's story per say. Plus, the individual stories are essential to those pages.Fractyl (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
They are the same essential content, the episode summaries cover everything necessary, and the individual stories are not essential to the Rider pages. The summarization that has the name as part of the header is plenty of information that is not found in the episode list.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
same essential content, only more detailed. And they are because they reflect the character, not the episode. But if you feel it's identical, re-arrange and condense it. Futhermore, Den-O's summary was fine the way it was.Fractyl (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The detail is the issue. It is simply the summarization of what the particular character did in any episode (or in the Den-O and Kiva characters' cases, what they did in the completed series). The episode summaries are there for this reason. To avoid having the article entirely a summary of the show as is the case with the Kuuga, Agito, Ryuki, Faiz, Blade, Hibiki, and Kabuto pages. The only difference is that their episode lists are not as fleshed out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That I disagree, the characters' actions are more detailed in the personal summarization than in the episode summarization.Fractyl (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for personalized summarization when we have summarization for every character in the episode summaries. Fictional character biographies should be about characterization. Not summarization of the TV series.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
But it doesn't work just like that, characterization builds up the character while the biography is a more detailed summary that reflects the major events involving character while make a bit of reference to the minor stuff.Fractyl (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't need a more detailed summary when everything important is mentioned in the episode list.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong, are you saying that the character articles should contain the basics, while the episode lists contain the little details? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I am saying that the character biographies have been too extensively detailed and are mirrors of content otherwise found in the episode lists, just catered to a single character. There is no need for having the information in five different places when the episode lists suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
So, in other words, you don't to allow duplication, correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asking people knowledgable in the subject matter (and those not knowledgable) to help me in cutting down the content when a friend of mine mentioned that the content is already in the episode lists. It is not duplication of content but that there is too much content in the fictional character biography sections and it also already happens to be in the episode lists. The change to the episode list format was initiated by me because I saw how incredibly long and detailed the Kabuto character biographies were. I felt that beginning the episode lists to have all of this detail, the fictional character biographies would not be as bad. I was wrong, so the only possible solution would be to eliminate the sections entirely and allow any and all plot summarization to exist solely in the episode lists and have the character pages be limited to just characterization and powers. I would make an analogy with the comic book character articles, but several of them have been around for over 30 years. These fictional characters have a year of plot development at most.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, but, okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur: this is probably the best and easiest way to cut down on pure plot articles. By limiting it to the episodes, it keeps the focus on the episode, rather than the character itself, and I've seen character articles devolve into making connections and going on and on in such detail that we shouldn't be making. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Factions in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive move proposal

I am proposing that the following page be moved from:

To:

I originally moved it to its current title on February 28, 2008, and I brought it up on Talk:Power Rangers here. However, I now feel that the original title is more relevant than the current title, as "villains" implies a villain list, where "factions" implies a faction list. I think I did the wrong thing when I performed this move last year. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it a pressing matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The current name is irrelevant. The original name was relevant, but since I thought it would be a good idea a year ago to move the page, I did it. I think a page re-move would fix a problem. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did you bother moving it in the first place?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I did it because the Operation Overdrive villains are in the form of factions. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to Villains in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. Powergate92Talk 04:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the other Power Rangers shows have the title "Villains in" for there villains pages. Powergate92Talk 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not why I want it moved back. See my first and second comments in this section for my reason for this move. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That's HIS reason for the move. It doesn't have to be the same as your reason, as long as he's making a good point. Arrowned (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I know that. I was just repeating my position. What's your opinion, if you have one? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The move seems logical to me, for the reasons already mentioned. I say go for it. Arrowned (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Then I'll move it, and correct a major flaw I made in February 2008. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Now it's been moved. Now all we need to do is correct the links to the previous title and change them to the current title. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's all done, with the exception of a few Talk/Project pages in which link changing is never a major concern. Arrowned (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Good. I peeked at your contributions, and saw that. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible, we should use the name of the villain group as the article title. If there is no name, then we stick with "Villains in...".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple villain groups in Operation Overdrive. The groups, however don't have names, as far as the show goes, as it does not mention a name. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if there is only one in other shows, the article should not be Villains in Power Rangers... but whatever the name is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
But, weren't Zeo and S.P.D. the only ones with names? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And why is Mystic Force titled as having a name? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what they were called.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a bit more of an interpretation than the other two? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Udonna called them that several times over the course of the series. Even if it's not an outright empirical name like the other two, it's still a definitive moniker given and used on a regular basis, which seems like the most important consideration to me. Arrowned (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Participants" list change of July 19, 2009

On July 19, 2009, the "(series name)" thing was removed from the participants list because the removing editor didn't find much of a use. I think they should be put back as they give others knowledge of where each participant contributes. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Who gives a shit other than you?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. It would be a shame not to have such information about each participant listed. It's relevant, useful, needed, etc. Please, can we have it? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
How is it possibly relevant, useful, OR needed? JPG-GR (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
To give others knowledge of where each editor contributes. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Half the list is of inactive users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, as long as some are active. Why not remove the inactive users from the list? Is that a good try? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mythdon it is useful and i think Ryulong should have discussed it before removing it. Powergate92Talk 02:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. And, while a bit off-topic, Ryulong is the one who made that formatting for the "participants" list, but yes, he should not have removed it without prior discussion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:BRD. JPG-GR (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"Bold, revert, discuss" doesn't apply here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless "here" is no longer "Wikipedia"... yeah... it does. JPG-GR (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What I mean by "here" is this situation—Ryulong's removal of the "(series name)", and this discussion thread. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is of no use. There are inactive users (who I did not remove), there are banned users (who I did remove), and there are the regular users. It does not really matter what one person has a greater interest or knowledge in anything, especially when users tack things on to their list when they just started editing the pages with AWB. The list is not representative of anything and it does not matter who does what.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But what if other editors want knowledge of where each participant contributes? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Check the user's contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
But it's easier to just do a list. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No it is not. Because then as I pointed out there is no real use to the list when people just add things that they have absolutely no knowledge about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
But if they edit in those areas, why does it matter? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Because no one has a problem with the content being gone besides you and your yes man Powergate92. Does it matter to you who has knowledge in Ultraman or the Chouseishin series? You only care about meta stuff or strict sourcing. You don't care about the content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter to me who has knowledge in those areas, but if somebody has knowledge and that they're contributing to those areas. And please do not call Powergate92 a "yes man", as that is a personal attack. I still think the content is useful. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have not seen Powergate92 ever add anything useful to these conversations other than blindly agreeing with you, but that is neither here nor there.
The list is of no use. Checking the contributions is just as useful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Powergate92 does not always agree with me. For example, see discussions: #Color table notes and #Episode articles. Checking an editors contributions will be much more complicated and hard than just mentioning where they contribute. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The list is gone and it's staying gone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Not if a consensus says "keep it", and it looks like its going that direction already. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What consensus? The four users here are the only active users and it's split down the middle, or no one else cares.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There are 5 active users in this WikiProject not 4, you forgot Arrowned. Powergate92Talk 04:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrowned has not said anything concerning this issue yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget about Fractyl or Myzou. They're active too, although they generally keep quiet too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, as for the consensus thing, me and Powergate92 agree that the removal was not proper, where you're the one who wants the information to stay gone. Since this is a two (me and Powergate92) against one (you) agreement right now, it looks like the consensus is going one way so far. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
JPG-GR and I seem to be agreeing with each other that the removal was fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
JPG-GR is only questioning at the moment. Where do we go from here? My opinion has not changed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
JPG-GR is questioning why you think it is important just as I am. It's not terribly important to have those there. The active editors on the pages should be enough of information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It is important because it is useful to users looking at the list. What if they wonder where they contribute and just want to look at a list to solve the question? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You're the only person who thinks so. No one pays attention to the list except for you, it seems, other than when they add their name to the list.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Powergate92 thinks it's useful too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also other WikiProject's like WP:WikiProject Television Stations and WP:WikiProject Arizona have it. Powergate92Talk 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Television Stations only has it for some participants, but yes, you're right. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not necessary here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is, for reasons I've already explained above. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So should I keep this discussion going, or drop it as though cats have just been sold off to another home? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell kind of idiom is that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What idiom? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ryulong should have removed the inactive users but i think he should have added them to a inactive users list like what was done at WikiProject American Animation and WikiProject Stargate as the inactive users could start editing again at anytime. Powergate92Talk 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about a list like that earlier today. I think it'd be a great idea. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was using AutoEd not AWB and i added Samurai Sentai Shinkenger after i started watching the show and added it to my watchlist. Powergate92Talk 04:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot

I think we should start using a archive bot to archive discussions that are 31 days old or older as most other WikiProject's use a archive bot. Powergate92Talk 19:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for an archive bot. First of all, talk pages in articles of this WikiProject aren't active enough to warrant an archive bot, and secondly, the level of activity varies, and thus, humans should archive. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not talking about adding a archive bot to talk pages in articles of this WikiProject, i am talking about adding a archive bot to this page. Powergate92Talk 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about article talk pages, but the same thing still applies. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a archive bot is better, if humans are better then this page would not be 40 sections. Powergate92Talk 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To draw it to everyone's attention, Powergate92 has just added an archive bot for Talk:Power Rangers. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Power Rangers talk page is active enough for a archive bot. Powergate92Talk 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No, those 51 discussions that were there before the archiving took over a year to form that big of a talk page. There is no need for an archive bot. Archive bots are for talk pages that are very active, to the extent that the page is hard to control without them. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for the talk page to be that big that's why the page has a archive for. I seen talk pages that are not that active that have a archive bot e.g. Talk:Disney XD and WT:WikiProject American Animation. Powergate92Talk 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving is not just used because of how many sections there are, but whether or not the sections serve a purpose anymore. Ask yourself this: "Is this section still active? Does this section still serve a purpose?" - Archiving is not just about how big a page is, but whether the sections are still active. Archiving is only necessary if the talk page is huge, and if the sections are inactive for a reasonable period of time. And as for those talk pages you link, I don't see any need for an archive bot for them. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No archive bots on any of these talk pages. It's unnecessary to waste time on pages that have very low traffic. Archive bots are only necessary on high traffic talk pages. This one and Talk:Power Rangers are not high traffic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing the archive bot. I'm glad that somebody agrees with me that these pages shouldn't be archived in that manner. While this talk page and Talk:Power Rangers are not very active, there are many that are indeed lower. But still, good job. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Most other WikiProject's that use a archive bot don't have high traffic as WT:WikiProject Television Stations, WT:WikiProject Arizona, WT:WikiProject Animation and WT:WikiProject American Animation don't have high traffic and use a archive bot. Powergate92Talk 00:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we're doing it here. That's their decision. Our decision is that no archive bots be in use for these talk pages. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Search soon to begin

I am going to make everyone in this WikiProject aware of this.

I said back in February that I will, if I don't find reliable sources, nominate the episode articles for deletion. Back in March, I did this with Green with Evil, which was deleted. I will, depending on when I'd like, look for sources for the rest, and if I do not find reliable sources for them, I will, as the user who is the reason for many deletions in this subject area, nominate the pages for deletion, depending on the sources found. Please note that mergers and redirect proposals with not convince me out of this decision. I will start searching by the end of September (though I do hope August). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is only one article that should feasibly exist and that is the pilot episode Day of the Dumpster. Episodes like Once a Ranger are also notable and have references. I don't know how many other episodes there are, but do not blindly merge everything or request deletion without a clear consensus here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Requesting deletion at AfD is gaining consensus. Day of the Dumpster and Once a Ranger, while I do have to admit are more likely to be kept at AfD than deleted, will still be nominated for deletion without hesitation should I not find reliable sources. There's only a few articles in this subject area that I'd hesitate to put up for deletion, sources or not, and a good example of those would be Power Rangers. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You are not trusted to find any sort of reliable sources at all. With King Mondo, you ignored whatever you felt were not right. Do not list any episode articles for deletion without a full discussion here with the regular members of the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Many articles have been deleted because of my nominations, and I'm proud that the community supported the deletions. Green with Evil, which I will mention again, got deleted. It is my prediction that I, will again, be nominating a page for deletion as finding no sources reliable. I trust myself that I am making the right decisions around here in terms of deletion nominations. Given my unsuccessful attempts to find sources every time I look, I'm pretty sure that the next search will end with the exact same conclusions; no reliable sources found. I am not required to have a full discussion here about the pages beforehand. That would be extremely moot. AfD is the only step when you can't find sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If you attempt to do as you are threatening using your past-documented misinterpretations of policy, I will seek that you are topic banned from all matters Tokusatsu-related. If you are not willing to edit within Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you do not need to edit Wikipedia. JPG-GR (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Let the AfD's decide whether the pages are kept, but don't seek me topic-banned. That will be a total mistake. I am willing to edit Wikipedia perfectly within policy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That remains to be seen. JPG-GR (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
However, your threat is not persuasive. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to persuade you. If you want to edit and follow policy, you will. If you don't, you won't. I'll let your actions, both in general and in relation to your edit restrictions, speak for themselves. JPG-GR (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to believe that this AfD thing has anything to do with my probation of editing here. AfD is more of a content issue than a conduct issue. But, if I feel the need, I'll ask ArbCom to clarify whether the AfD stuff applies to this probation. That will speak. At this point, nothing is spoken. Now, end of topic. No replies expected, and will not reply to you starting now. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This time do a Google News search before you put a article up for AfD. Powergate92Talk 04:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should I when I can just use Google? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Google is a search engine. It is not a method by which you look for published content like news articles or reputable journals.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So, in other words, you're saying I should search Google News, right? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You should do more than a freaking Google search to look for particular sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
But are you saying I should use Google News? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying you should use more than a search on a search engine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Aren't search engines relevant ways to find sources? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you should do a Google News search because when you put King Mondo up for AfD you did a Google search and did not find reliable sources then Frank did a Google News search and found reliable sources. Powergate92Talk 07:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
But those sources weren't relevant to the information needed on the article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You are not the one to decide that on your own.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My decision is firm, and will remain the same. I will nominate these pages for deletion if no reliable or relevant source can be found, period. No questions asked. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And then we will have no recourse but to ban you from editing anything relating to Power Rangers or tokusatsu, as JPG-GR has stated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But how does the probation apply here? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It does not. We will choose to ban you from editing any pages relating to tokusatsu.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
However, I don't see that passing. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
If you attempt it, JPG-GR and myself will initiate a discussion showing how you are a drain on this particular WikiProject's resources. If you list anything at AFD as you are planning, you will find that you will be banned from editing these articles indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you really think so, why not initiate the discussion now? Either stop threatening, or start the discussion that you say you and JPG-GR will initiate. I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. Don't think I wont be there, because I will be there. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It will happen in due time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And as for your threats, given that you've been warned against threatening to seek me blocked for these AfD's, I'll probably take this matter to ANI, where you'll have your full blown chance to propose the topic. I'm not stopping you from starting the discussion. Why would I stop you? It's clearly you and JPG-GR in the wrong here, not me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Topic banning you is entirely different from having you blocked from the project. Stop taunting, because it only hurts your case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But still just as uncalled for, and I'm still thinking about having this referred to ANI where the community will review your conduct in this discussion, and I'll see to it that you can't threaten anymore. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And now I've made the decision to refer this to ANI by the end of tonight. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Very well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And now I've referred the matter to ANI. See your talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for King Mondo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of King Mondo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exxolon (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gorgom

Give your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgom. Fractyl (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move at Kamen Rider Decade

There is currently a request at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade#Requested move to move Kamen Rider Decade to Masked Rider Decade, where the nominator is attempting to set a precedent in the naming of all Kamen Rider articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move at Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger

There is currently a request at Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger#Requested move to move Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger to Ninpuu Sentai Hurricanger, with Drag-5 attempting to follow suit with his inability to move Kamen Rider Decade to Masked Rider Decade by requesting that the official spelling of "Hurricaneger" be eliminated in favor of the more common fan spelling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This post does not seem neutral to me. whatever the reasons you claim, the fact is, I have made a clear and unbiased case for page moves and i have provided justification and evidence for said moves.Drag-5 (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I am just describing it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PROPER Catergory Use

I believe we should have multiple, YET SENSIBLE, catergories within certain character articles. For example...

  • Kamen Rider Amazon
    • Categories: Kamen Rider characters| Feral children | Jungle superheroes
  • Fangire
    • Categories: Kamen Rider characters| Fictional vampire types (NOT Fictional vampires)

After some early debate, me and Ryulong covered most of the Showa Riders and the TV shows(via Ja.Wiki). Please give your thoughts if we should do this for the others(certain hensei Riders, villian groups, ETC.) or not.Fractyl (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am only listing the categories that are also over on the Japanese Wikipedia. Anything else is conjecture. For the characters, they are just Kamen Rider characters. Not fictional armies, fictional Nazis, fictional vampire types, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
For example, Kamen Rider Dark Kiva is not a fictional vampire.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but "Fictional vampire types" is effective in this case. Same with Saga. Fractyl (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No it is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It is. "Fictional vampire types" relate to a "Vampire-based creature" or a "fictional subclass of vampire". Fangires and such go there due to the former meaning of the category. In Kiva's case, the only category available for use is "Fictional half-vampires".Fractyl (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not an effective category for Kamen Rider Kiva (character).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The category defines itself as "This is a list of fictional half-vampires (i.e. dhampirs, vampire hybrids, etc.)"Fractyl (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You two need to choose a page to continue this on. This is also going on at User talk:Ryulong#Kamen Rider Double. When engaging in a dispute, please be sure to keep it on one page instead of two. Two or more pages makes it very confusing for others. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry the rest will be solved here now. But I'm hoping it will not just be me and Ryulong, as that would defeat the purpose of posting it here.Fractyl (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
WOuld you stop obsessing over the location?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon is probably quitting

I am probably going to quit this WikiProject due to too much arbitration drama going on lately to continue. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't do that.Fractyl (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've decided not to quit. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just go and stop being a drama queen about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you calling me a "drama queen"? That's a personal attack. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zords in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zords in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zords in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --John Nagle (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For those who are concerned, I'm not planning mass AfDs. This article, though, is a spinout of a spinout of a fiction article. We're beyond the outer limits of notability here. There are no references to reliable sources. Also, there's basic coverage of the relevant "zords" in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. When you pass the edge of third-party notability, Wikipedia stops. (Wikia, though, does not, and Wikipedia permits links to Wikia. So details can be continued there.) --John Nagle (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation that the article in question "is a spinout of a spinout of a fiction article." It is perhaps a spinout of a fiction articles, yes, but not three levels out. JPG-GR (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is another example of Nagle's false assumptions about the state of the Power Rangers articles. However, I think that we should perhaps merge whatever Zord articles we have into the Ranger list pages where we have them (I think Lost Galaxy onwards).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this clear

Hi guys!

As many of the participants here are aware of the recent Arbitration case related to this WikiProject and all the clarifications that followed it I may urge again all people to work collaboratively in establishing a guideline for all articles within this project.

I share Mythdon's main concern. There are many unsourced and unverified articles. We are all aware that this is a serious project and articles need to reach a good level of quality. I know for a fact that it is very hard to find good sources to give the needed weight to the article but I am also sure that it is not an impossible mission. A specific guideline is urgently needed.

I don't share at all Mythdon's stance nor I accept his behavior. Mass Afd'ing articles or pursuing a campaign with a fixed stance disregarding collaboration and patience is not allowed.

I see John Nagle notifying an AfD below. John, please read the ArbCom case and this section before going any further. We've had enough troubles and saving us troubles is more important than Afd'ing articles in manners which lack prior discussions. Please help establish a guideline instead. You're such an experienced editor and I trust you can help a lot to bring a balance in this area.

If you need any help, please ring our phones. Good luck to everyone!

-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion amending Ryulong Arbitration case regarding Mythdon (crosspost)

The Arbitration Committee has amended Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong to include the following terms:

Pursuant to the latest developments related to the recent Arbitration case involving Mythdon and Ryulong and discussions on the Arbitration Committee mailing list, the Arbitration Committee has noted that there has been no changes in the behavior of Mythdon since the closure of the Arbitration case:

a) the user has made no effort whatsoever to find a mentor;
b) the user has made no effort whatsoever to engage himself in serious discussions to produce a guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject as directed by this remedy;
c) the user has targetted another Wikipedia area to impose his stance on verifiability disregarding the ArbCom's view concerning his stance on the matter;
d) He recently threatened to mass AfD articles which do not satisfy his standards in terms of reliable sources and verifiability;

Therefore, the Committee has decided to extend the restrictions imposed in order to facilitate more collaboration in the field of conflict and to ensure the smooth running of the project in general and protect other areas in particular. The terms are as follows:

a) Mythdon is prohibited from partcipating at any Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion which involves verifiability and reliable sources. That includes —and is not limited to— the WikiProject Tokusatsu. The restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon —as well as everyone else— should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;
b) Mythdon is reminded of the importance of participating in a good faith effort to help produce a genuine guideline for the cited WikiProject, including but not limited to verifiability. He is again urged to start working on this guideline;
b) Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;
d) all other restrictions imposed during the arbitration case involving him remain in place;
e) in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject, the ArbCom notes that any similar behavior which had led to this situation would be dealt with similarly. Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;
e) should Mythdon violate the above restrictions, any administrator may block him for a period up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Any discussion about possible violations should be held at requests for arbitration enforcement;
f) any further request on this matter should go through requests for arbitration enforcement beforehand. Administrators there are able to help answer any question.

These terms have been appended to the Ryulong case page at "New remedies and enforcement added by motion".

This announcement has been crossposted to this WikiProject talk page as it is directly mentioned in the motion.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RFD that may be of some importance

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 3#Kamen Ryuki.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

New templates

I have just created some new templates for the Super Sentai articles:

While they could use some work, for example, color and name, I think they make useful additions to the already existing templates. What do you think? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not named the same as the other templates and it's pointless to have it for when there are only two articles to go between. Gingaman's is the only one that could possibly be of some use.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've moved {{Seijuu Sentai Gingaman}} to {{Gingaman}} and redirected the other two templates to {{Super Sentai}}. There is no need for a navbox for two pages. However, the Gorma and Psyma sections should probably be split off into other articles at some point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Good job with the redirecting! I didn't think those two would serve much of a use anyway, but I did think they'd be useful. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If there are more character lists, then the templates serve a purpose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but I didn't find any. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Insert Songs

Ryulong removed the Insert Songs for the Sentai pages, so I sadly finished it off. Give your thoughts about it if like it back up or not. Fractyl (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion taking place at User talk:Ryulong#Songs. Mythdon talk • contribs 01:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't, Ryulong would only erase it. He seems to accept the Shinkenger/Go-onger entries.Fractyl (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would he erase it? Mythdon talk • contribs 01:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Because I don't think he would want this public seeping in to a private and semi-related topic.Fractyl (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The Go-onger and Shinkenger material has been cut down to solely include prose about the opening and ending, as well as some music releases.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Template colors

Please see User talk:Mythdon#Templates (permanent link), and voice your opinions here. --Mythdon talk • contribs 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The colors are fine, Mythdon. Stop obsessing over this and find something else to edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I am asking for outside input. Do you have a problem with that? --Mythdon talk • contribs 02:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I had outside input already and they thought things were fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
However, I don't have proof of that, and this WikiProject needs to give outside input. --Mythdon talk • contribs 02:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked Versageek who thought it was fine. She also helped me pick out better colors for the other templates.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ryulong the colors are fine. Powergate92Talk 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

<-I looked at the template colors on three different monitors of assorted ages/resolution/quality - and they all seemed readable to me. --Versageek 03:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they're readable, but I don't think they're readable enough, because the colors were too dark at the time of the discussion. --Mythdon talk • contribs 03:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should link episode titles in Power Rangers episode list to the episode articles on Power Rangers Universe Wikia. What do you think? Powergate92Talk 22:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A link to a list of episodes is plenty, not the individual episodes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Not only do we not want to overlink with unnecessary items, but linking to a Wikia except on the main franchise page as a single external link is an iffy idea anyways. Please see WP:NOT#LINKS and WP:ELNO. Arrowned (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I was asking if we should link episode titles to the episode articles on Power Rangers Universe Wikia because the List of Reaper episodes article links the episode titles to the episode articles on Reaper Wiki so I was thinking we should do that. Powergate92Talk 05:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What happens on one article does not dictate what happens on other articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ultra Monsters

Jesus Christ that's a lot of fucking articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

There was previously a discussion here. However, this was comparing other articles with the tokusatsu articles which already have a number of current episodes in their "Episodes" section. There is no need to have two separate listings of the same number on one page, particularly from an editor (Powergate92) who in no way is a regular editor of the article.Referring users to look at the Episodes section of the article in the infobox serves the same purpose as constantly updating the episode number, be it on a monthly basis or a weekly basis (which is what is done with the addition of the new episode title).

Powergate92 for some reason has only done automated edits to these pages or added the number of episodes parameter. It's not a necessary aspect of the article to continually edit war over, or refer to a six month old consensus in which two sticklers to rules and guidelines fought to get their way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made only minor edits to the article because by the time the English sub is on the internet, all other edits that need to be made have been made. Also I think we should remove the list of episodes from the "Episodes" sections as that is what we have list of episodes articles are for. Powergate92Talk 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That is not going to happen. The list has been there and will likely remain on all articles, particularly when some series do not have list articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If a show doe's not have an episodes list article then yes the show article should have list of episodes in the "Episodes" section, but if a show has an episodes list article then there is no need for a list of episodes in the "Episodes" sections as that is what the episodes list article is for. Powergate92Talk 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The episode list article serves as a source of information for the airdates and synopses. The list on the main article discusses trends amongst the episode titles and other items that would otherwise clutter up the separate list article. And before you continue to argue with me, let other members of this project discuss the issue at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
On the numbers: I think displaying an incomplete number of episodes in the infobox can be misleading; it might make people think that the show has a short run (e.g. that "5" in Kamen Rider Double might lead someone not familiar with the show to think Double is a 5-episode series)--better to wait until the final episode has been confirmed by some reliable source before putting the number in the infobox. For shows without such confirmation, a simple "Series ongoing" statement is most appropriate. jgpTC 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Most TV show articles like Stargate Universe have the number of episodes that have aired to current date in the infobox (as Stargate Universe just says 2). Powergate92Talk 05:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
On the titles: it's standard practice that an abbreviated section be used on the main article with details on the sub-article. The current format follows that practice: only the titles are on the main article, while summaries, airdates, writers, etc. are on the sub-article. Leaving the section on the main article blank with just an indented link to the sub-article looks funny to me. jgpTC 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I know it's rather lame to just leave it at "I agree with this" without any real explanation, but Jgp put my feelings on the subject into words better than I could've managed anyways. Arrowned (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Most TV show articles do not have a list of episodes in the "Episodes" section when there is a episodes list article and some TV show articles like Stargate Universe do not have a "Episodes" section (Stargate Universe has the link for the episodes list article in the "Premise and themes" and "Production" sections). Powergate92Talk 05:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
How things work for one article will not work for all articles. The fact that there are two episode lists, with one much more indepth including air dates, writer, etc. does not mean one in the section should be removed in favor of the article or allow you to update a number every week for programs you don't follow.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "programs you don't follow" I watch English sub episodes of Kamen Rider Double when they are added to YouTube by rgreg02 or MajinBror, if you look at my YouTube channel you will see rgreg02 and MajinBror in my subscriptions. Powergate92Talk 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. You don't edit the pages. Your only interest is that the episode number be updated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I said this before and I will say it again "I have made only minor edits to the article because by the time the English sub is on the internet, all other edits that need to be made have been made." Powergate92Talk 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers "remastered"

In the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers article some people have been adding "remastered" to the info about the 2010 rebroadcast, there edit were reverted as there was no source and a note was added to the article saying "There is nothing to state that MMPR will be remastered in its 2010 rebroadcast. Unless you have a reliable source (see WP:RS) that comes from an official press release or news report, additions of the word "remastered" will be reverted." Now that I found a news article from a reliable source (yes TVShowsOnDVD is a reliable source) I added it to the article and User:Ryulong reverted my edit saying "Where did they get their information?" and "We do not have to say anything other than it being a rerun" and he said on my talk page "I don't think we should make a statement about remastering until it gets closer to the actual broadcast time." and "Before you revert me again, bring it up on the talk page and wait for someone else to say something." So as the the talk page of that article is not active, I decided to bring it up here. Powergate92Talk 15:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that TVShowsOnDVD.com, while relatively reliable, quoted somebody else for the bit about being remastered. They quoted Bandai's official press release, which did not actually use that word. Therefore, TVSODVD either had other inside sources they didn't see fit to mention, or they made an assumption. Because of the second possibility, it's best we not trust their usage of that word. Note that the original claim of "remastering" came from a fan's discussion with Tony Oliver at a convention in July, reported through that fan's Twitter. Everybody jumped on that word, and Tony is certainly a reputable source himself as one of PR's original staff, but a fan's Twitter account is not. Arrowned (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As you can see it says "..." before it says "remastered and with a new logo" that shows that they are not citing Bandai's press release as the source for "remastered and with a new logo" as if they were then it say "return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series, remastered and with a new logo". I don't think a big DVD news website owned by TV Guide would get their info from a fan's discussion. They could of got that info from the DVD the news article is about as that news article says "a Sneak Peek of January's return to ABC Saturday Mornings of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...which has been described as a return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series...remastered and with a new logo". Powergate92Talk 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
All we know is that it's being rerun. We can't say anything else. And this should have been posted on Talk:Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "All we know is that it's being rerun" we now have a reliable source about a DVD that has a Sneak Peek for it that says it's "remastered". As I said before that talk page is not active enough. Powergate92Talk 19:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that is what you are assuming from the TVSODVD report. He didn't say "there's a sneak peek at it being remastered". He is the only person who has stated that the show is to be remastered, and unless we have something from a more reliable source rather than just a website that discusses TV shows being released on DVD, then we have nothing for the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the news article says "There are some other bonus features on board, including "Rangers Moves", "Rangers Lessons" and a Sneak Peek of January's return to ABC Saturday Mornings of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...which has been described as a return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series...remastered and with a new logo". You don't need more then 1 reliable source and it's not "just a website that discusses TV shows being released on DVD" it's big DVD news website owned by TV Guide. Powergate92Talk 19:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You are reading too much into it. He is going off of the fact that someone else in the Power Rangers community watched a promo DVD given out at a Disney Store and saw that MMPR was going to be rerun. He did not watch the promo DVD himself. The only way we can be sure is if the promo DVD is uploaded and clearly states "MMPR is going to be remastered".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you know "He did not watch the promo DVD himself"? He did not say that in the news article, he said "We got the word courtesy of one of our readers, "Khalil", who sent us the heads-up and the scans you'll find at the bottom." and "Khalil says it mainly covers the toy line for next year, but it also has the Power Rangers R.P.M‎. episode "In or Out"". Powergate92Talk 19:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Because "Khalil" sent in the information. We're not going to mention it's been remastered until we have something from multiple reliable sources that says it's been remastered. This one sentence on this news release from TVSODVD is not going to cut it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The info he says "Khalil" sent him is "the scans" and "it mainly covers the toy line for next year, but it also has the Power Rangers R.P.M‎. episode "In or Out"" He did not say Khalil sent him the other info. We don't need more then 1 reliable source. Powergate92Talk 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Then we don't know where that info came from and we can't say shit about remastering.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Again the info is most likely from the DVD as the news article says "a Sneak Peek of January's return to ABC Saturday Mornings of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...which has been described as a return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series...remastered and with a new logo". Powergate92Talk 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The guy who wrote the article did not watch the promotional DVD in question. So we do not have a reliable source for "remastered" anywhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I started a discussion about this at WikiProject Television. Powergate92Talk 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And another user says you are wrong to assume this of the source provided. So, considering consensus is clearly against you, we are not using that TVShowsOnDVD.com news article as a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

When searching "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" on Google News today I found a news article from the newspaper The Kentucky Kernel that says "In January 2010, the company will begin re-airing the first three seasons of “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” in re-mastered form on ABC Kids." So now we have newspaper that says Mighty Morphin Power Rangers will be re-mastered. Powergate92Talk 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Kentucky Kernel is the University of Kentucky student newspaper. It's not a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I started a discussion about this at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source?. Powergate92Talk 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
For fucks sake NO, a student newspaper is not a reliable source for information on a television program that has not been released.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I was just looking at the discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source? and it's been agreed that the TVShowsOnDVD.com source is reliable and The Kentucky Kernel source maybe reliable. Powergate92Talk 04:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The regular editors of the article do not agree with that conclusion. Unless something in a publication THAT IS NOT an opinion column in a university newspaper or a trivial reference on a website appears and states that "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers will be remastered for broadcast in 2010" then we cannot say anything similar to that statement on the English Wikipedia. Stop going "Oh this has to be said and because Ryulong disagrees with me I'm going to go to an outside group and add the information when some people thing that it could be used".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
What "regular editors of the article do not agree" the only user who disagrees is you. The users at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard agree that the TVShowsOnDVD.com article is a reliable source and The Kentucky Kernel maybe a reliable source. The discussion needed to go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard as this discussion is just you and me disagreeing and 1 note from Arrowned. Powergate92Talk 06:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus on either page to sway the outcome to how you want it to be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
At the Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion, 2 users say the TVShowsOnDVD.com article is a reliable source, no users say it's not a reliable source. 2 users say the The Kentucky Kernel article is a reliable source, 4 users say it's not a reliable source. Also User:Squidfryerchef says the The Kentucky Kernel article is "a good secondary-source validation of something that's been all over the blogs". Powergate92Talk 16:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There are also the people from the initial thread who said it was not a reliable source. Neither source, the opinion piece or the DVD mention, clearly state that it will be remastered. They are just going off of what has been said in the fan communities which still has no basis in concrete fact. It will not be added until something more concrete and something that explicitly focuses on MMPR being remastered, rather than discussions of what's on promo DVDs (toys and other DVD releases) and rather than a discussion of a college freshman's opinion that tangentially mentions the remastering.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
User:jgp said on my talk page that it was not a reliable source because "tvshowsondvd.com did not assert it was a remastering, but inaccurately claimed that Bandai's press release asserted it was a remastering." then I said "As you can see it says "..." before it says "remastered and with a new logo" that shows that they are not citing Bandai's press release as the source for "remastered and with a new logo" as if they were then it say "return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series, remastered and with a new logo"" So as he said it's not a reliable source because it's citing Bandai's press release as the source when it's not citing Bandai's press release as the source, there is still 2 users who say the TVShowsOnDVD.com article is a reliable source, no users, who know what they are talking about, who say it's not a reliable source. The "opinion piece" clearly states "In January 2010, the company will begin re-airing the first three seasons of “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” in re-mastered form on ABC Kids" and the "DVD mention" clearly states "remastered and with a new logo", the "DVD mention" doe's not say "will" because it's saying what's on the DVD as it says "some other bonus features on board, including "Rangers Moves", "Rangers Lessons" and a Sneak Peek of January's return to ABC Saturday Mornings of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...which has been described as a return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series...remastered and with a new logo." You don't have consensus to say "It will not be added until something more concrete and something that explicitly focuses on MMPR being remastered", I have 2 users who agree that the TVShowsOnDVD.com article is a reliable source and can be used. Powergate92Talk 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not being added until we have something that doesn't mention the word "Remastered" in passing. Because A COLLEGE FRESHMAN'S FEELINGS ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. You don't have consensus and you won't have consensus to use these two sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "You don't have consensus and you won't have consensus to use these two sources"? There are 2 users who say the TVShowsOnDVD.com article is a reliable source and no users, who know what they are talking about, who say it's not a reliable source, so it looks more like I will have a consensus to use the TVShowsOnDVD.com article. Powergate92Talk 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
What about the discussion you initiated here? And my opposition? Merely because I am pointing out a fallacy in your choice of these sources, which in the past have been reliable, but a handful of users have said that it is possible that it is not reliable, I do not know what I am talking about? If you use either reference I will revert it immediately.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Andrewcrawford said at that discussion "Tvshowsondvd.com is realible source, howeve ri decided to look at the news article and since it only provided by a forum emmber although the back of the dvd sets does meantion it at the momnent the dvds are not offical there only where apromotinal for a futture release so i say in this case no it cant be used" so he saying it's not a official Promo DVD when it is a official Promo DVD. So there is still 2 users (other then me) who say the TVShowsOnDVD.com article is a reliable source, no users (other then you), who know what they are talking about, who say it's not a reliable source. Powergate92Talk 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, he is saying that this particular article on Tvshowsondvd.com should not be used as a reliable source in this case. The website as a whole can be a reliable source. But this particular article on the Power Rangers Promo DVD should not be used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, he is saying it's should not be used because "since it only provided by a forum emmber although the back of the dvd sets does meantion it at the momnent the dvds are not offical there only where apromotinal for a futture release" when he doe's not know if the info was from a form member and it's a official Promo DVD, that shows that he doe's not know what he is talking about. Powergate92Talk 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That's because the article states that the writer got the information from someone named "Khalil" about the promo DVD. You do not know what you are talking about. I will tell you this clearly now: Just because a source has been reliable in the past does not mean it is reliable now. The website writes about DVD releases. Not about upcoming television shows. If you add the references to any Power Rangers article I will revert it immediately..—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
He did not say he got that info from Khalil, the only info he said he got from Khalil "the heads-up and the scans you'll find at the bottom." and "it mainly covers the toy line for next year, but it also has the Power Rangers R.P.M‎. episode "In or Out."" he also said "We got the word courtesy of one of our readers, "Khalil"". Also I think should only be discussing this on 1 discussion page, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source?, there is no need to discuss this here or on my talk page when there is a discussion for it at a noticeboard for finding out if a source is reliable. Powergate92Talk 03:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: No. Two users say TVShowsOnDVD.com is a reliable source. Not the specific article on TVShowsOnDVD.com is a reliable source. The Kentucky Kernel opinion piece should not be used as a reliable source because it is an opinion piece written by a first year student. Neither website reports that MMPR is going to be remastered. They merely say it's been called remastered. Unless a major news source or another type of reliable source comes out and states "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers returns remastered to television in January 2010 on ABC" then we cannot report on it on Wikipedia. Until you bring something forward that is not "January's return to ABC Saturday Mornings of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers...which has been described as a return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series...remastered and with a new logo" or "In January 2010, the company will begin re-airing the first three seasons of “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” in re-mastered form on ABC Kids." in which these are the only instances that the word "remastered" appears at all, don't bother continuing any discussion on the subject. Neither of these two specific instances of news articles on third party websites can be used as a reliable source for this particular instance of needing reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As an editor at WP:VG who has to deal with source issues like this all the time, this seems straightforward to me, and I'm not sure why we're still discussing it. That WikiProject proves dozens of times over on a daily basis that the reliability of a source at large isn't a blanket statement concerning individual reports. In this case, we have two reports whose original sources track back to a student writing an opinion column and a fan who sent an e-mail in, neither of which truly work for WP:V, even if the paper and website themselves do. Arrowned (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:Verifiability says "To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." I did that and 2 users there say the TVShowsOnDVD.com article is a reliable source, no users there say it's not a reliable source. Powergate92Talk 03:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If they were not talking about the specific article on TVShowsOnDVD.com then they would have said "but that article is not reliable source" or they would not have said anything at all as that discussion is about The Kentucky Kernel not TVShowsOnDVD.com. Powergate92Talk 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic or if spoilers should be removed by removing all plot summaries from all articles, except for any sentences that can be sourced to secondary sources only. Note this message was originally posted at other WikiProjects by User:Collectonian. Powergate92Talk 04:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Power Rangers: RPM‎ the "final" season of Power Rangers

We now have 2 news article from reliable sources from March that say Power Rangers has been "dropped" one from The New Zealand Herald[1] and one from the New York Post[2], the New York Post article also says "The show will likely still be on the air for some time - in repeats. But no new ones will be made." we have 1 news article from a unreliable source, Action Figure Insider[3] "Disney is producing a Season 18" and they "received this word from our friends over at Bandai" and that source is being used in Power Rangers article where it says "Bandai released a statement" but the blog on Bandai's website[4] shows that they did not released a statement that says "Disney is producing a Season 18" so why is that info still in Power Rangers article when Bandai did not released a statement and the info is being sourced to unreliable source. Also why is there a WP:Editnotice in the Power Rangers: RPM‎ article that says "While it has been confirmed that a new series will not be broadcast in 2010, it is NOT confirmed that RPM is the final series/season. Edits that treat this as fact without proper references will be reverted and the user warned." when we have 2 news article from reliable sources that say the show has been "dropped" and "no new ones will be made." and it says in the Power Rangers: RPM‎ article "A September 1, 2009, revision to Disney A to Z: The Official Encyclopedia by Disney's head archivist Dave Smith states that production of new episodes of Power Rangers ceased in 2009"[5]. WP:Reliable sources says "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." the context here would be Power Rangers: RPM is‎ the final season of Power Rangers as dropped + no new ones will be made + production of new episodes ceased in 2009 = the final season. Powergate92Talk 05:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not have any source that says RPM is the final series of Power Rangers ever. Stating it is final needs explicit and clearly stated statements in reliable sources. Right now all we have is sources that state that the New Zealand production team has been disbanded and that production of new episodes ceased. None of this states that RPM is the final series. All it states is that RPM is currently the last new series. Unless something comes out that says "Disney will never produce another new Power Rangers again" then we cannot state that as fact and say anything is "final".
"While it has been confirmed that a new series will not be broadcast in 2010, it is NOT confirmed that RPM is the final series/season. Edits that treat this as fact without proper references will be reverted and the user warned." clearly explains this. While we have sources that says there's no Shinkenger adaptation, there's nothing to say that after the MMPR run they're going to rebroadcast Zeo and begin the cycle anew. Some other sort of wording can be used, but "final" is very specific in its definition.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The New York Post article says "The show will likely still be on the air for some time - in repeats. But no new ones will be made." most likely by "ones" they mean series/seasons, therefore RPM is the final series/season. Also in the the Power Rangers: RPM‎ article it says in the production section "An article of The New Zealand Herald reported that Power Rangers: RPM is the last season of the Power Rangers run." last means final, so the Power Rangers: RPM‎ article says RPM is the final season of the Power Rangers but is using the word "last". Powergate92Talk 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
For the longest time we did not have any reliable sources to state this. If you really think that these reliably source the statement that RPM is the final series/season/whatever, go ahead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Family Guy and Futurerama were both canned, and they came back, Family Guy stronger than it was before it went off the air. Star Trek, canned after three years, makes four movies, comes back for 20 years, gets canned again, then waits 5 years and then has one of the biggest blockbusters of the year. All i'm saying is don't count your chickens before they hatch. lets wait and see what Disney says. The Post and the Herald are second or third level sources, they make bonehead mistakes all the time. The Post, and the other local papers here in NYC, went about trashing the MTA for the misspelling of a subway station name on small tiles (Broadway as "Brodaway" on the G train.), not bothering to mention that that mistake has been there since the line opened in 1937, thirty years before the MTA was created. When Disney says directly "We wash our hands of this forever. It's getting locked away and never being done again." Then that's a diffrent story all toghter. Adness recently told someone on HJU they aren't doing a second season of American Kamen Rider at the moment. See, that's direct from the horse's mouth.

Remember: Bandi said Disney is making a season 18; they just never said when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metropod (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because some shows get cancel and then come back with new episodes doe's not mean Power Rangers will come back with new episodes. A September 1, 2009, revision to Disney A to Z: The Official Encyclopedia by Disney's head archivist Dave Smith says "Power Rangers - add: Production on new episodes ceased in 2009" [6], so that is what Disney says. Bandai did not say Disney is making a season 18, unreliable fan sites said that, when Bandai says something they say it in the blog on their website, the blog on their website doe's not say Disney is making a season 18[7]. Powergate92Talk 03:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tokusatsu/Archive_4&oldid=1190138707"