Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

I am requesting that the following articles:

• List of evil Power Rangers

Be merged into:

• List of Power Rangers

This is because List of evil Power Rangers is also a list of Power Rangers and that the page does not have enough expansion potential to be an article. Does anyone object?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of the evil characters who happened to be Power Rangers, the characters of which should not be on List of Power Rangers if they are exclusively evil.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying I did a good thing by creating List of evil Power Rangers, and not just making it a section for List of Power Rangers?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The normal list is plenty long on its own. Having the villains separate is fine and always has been fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "yes". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is up, with the first tibids of info. If you wish to add any info I failed to get, or keep it up, be my guest. Fractyl (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to potentially canvas, but please go to Talk:Kamen_Rider:_Dragon_Knight#Xaviax_vs_General_Xaviax --Numyht (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago, I reformatted Template:Power Rangers to have subgroups in the "Media" group. Sure, it makes the code cluttered, but regardless, I think it improves the template for the readers as it makes things clearer as to what is and what is not media. Do any of you approve of this?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Power Chamber for deletion. The nomination is here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Sky Tate and Bridge Carson for deletion. The nomination is here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop putting shit up for AFD?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not until I find that it is no longer needed. AfD is the best way to see as to whether or not deletion would be justified. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But deletion is not a step in deciding whether or not an article needs work. It's the final stage of whether or not the article is going to be kept or not kept. You know that Sky and Bridge are major characters and these articles are fine as being separate articles. All you see is that "Oh, there are no sources here. I can't find anything that says that these characters are notable, except for the fact that they were in a notable work of fiction. I'll send it to AFD."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How about instead you make a list of articles that need sources and put them on this talk page? That way this project can work together to try and make them better instead of making us work together to save them from your AFDs?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that deletion is a step in deciding as to whether or not an article needs work. Also, stop stopping me from complying to policies. I have also left you an honest message on your talk page. And that message is serious. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am only stopping you from making more unnecessary AFDs. I agree with you on various articles you have put up for AFD. However, getting to these major characters/fictional aspects such as your two AFDs on Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies, the whole lot of the color articles, the Power Chamber, and now these two major characters have been the final straws to break the camel's back. You honestly have found nothing to improve these articles such that they comply with policy? I'm sure you could find something if you changed your standards for third party sources on fictional subjects. Instead of going directly to AFD, I think it would be much better if you just went through the articles and listed them on this talk page first, that way the whole of us who are active can improve them instead of acting in a way that made me say that I'd seek a block if you continued your behavior. All you have done since contributing to this subject area is wanting to make sure that everything fit into policy exactly. You wanted us to archive Jungle Fury's talk page on three separate occasions for no reason I could think so. You have barely contributed to the discussion on section titles in episode lists except to shoot it down simply because this is the only group that uses such formatting. On Talk:Power Rangers, I still have no idea why you think that my version of the table is more cluttered, or Bettia's, or JPG-GR's. This behavior is simply disruptive to this WikiProject. There are more pressing matters than deleting a (fairly) well-written article on a fictional character that has poor, very little, or no sources in it. The biographies of living persons project deals with something much more important. As I believe I've said before, if I wasn't so intensely involved with dealing with you, I'd have blocked you a while ago. But as it stands, I cannot do any sort of administrative actions against you. I've even gone to other administrators to discuss things with you, but they find the same things that I do about your personality and actions on this site. I do not know what to do with you anymore, and I don't think I ever will.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that I disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point and/or gamed the system at some point based on the second AfD I did about Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies? WP:AFD is the place to discuss controversial or likely to be controversial deletions. I know that my nominations are controversial and disagreeable. I use WP:AFD to look for a consensus as to whether or not I'm right about deletion, and you think that my rational is a blockable offense. Based on the deletion policy, I can use that very rational. But then again, I have just re-read sections of the deletion policy to see if I'm right or if I'm missing some things about your point. In the "Discussion" subsection of "Alternatives to deletion", it tells that content disputes are not dealt with by deletion, and in the "Editing" section, it suggests that editing is the procedure rather than deletion if the page can be improved and it even links to various tags that we can use to point out the issue to others. Having just re-read those sections, are you saying that I'm abusing the deletion process?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that you're just disrupting Wikipedia. Before you make any other AFD nominations, list the pages here and then as a group this WikiProject can improve the articles before you send them to the community at large who do not know as much about the subject area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm doing things too soon? Are you also saying I need to take a break from the deletion process?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer if you began merge discussions on such articles in the future. In the case of these two articles, they could easily be merged into S.P.D. Power Rangers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the following articles

• Conner McKnight
• Kira Ford
• Ethan James
• Trent Fernandez

Be merged into

• Dino Thunder Power Rangers

As Dino Thunder Power Rangers is small compared to the above articles. This merge proposal is about size, and nothing to do with notability, although notability can be a supporting reason. I also recommend that we trim some of the unnecessary details. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And also, I think we should get rid of any unverifiable information. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have went ahead and merged the pages. But I have not yet removed the unnecessary information, as in non-notable information. I want someone else to decide what information to get rid of. However, if I find that no reliable sources to verify information mentioned, that information will be removed without prior discussion, but if others find reliable sources, then go ahead and re-add. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that a merge means you take the useful material from articles you are merging from and put it into the article you are merging to. Not a direct copy-paste.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you agree with the merge but don't necessarily agree with the way I did it?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally copy everything from one page to the other.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess maybe you'll fix the page later as the sections are written in article style in terms of the sections introductions. I just hope the others approve of the merge or at least don't care. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the following articles:

• Nick Russell
• Xander Bly (without the "quotes" section)

Be merged into:

• Mystic Force Power Rangers

For precisely the exact same reasons as the Dino Thunder Power Rangers merger. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Xander yes, Nick maybe. Red Rangers, simply because they are the team leader, tend to have some notability of their own (I would think).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is in no way, shape or form a reason for this proposed merger. Nick's article is not big enough for its own independence, period. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Mythodon on this. Besides, the only charcters which we could make a good article out of is Tommy Oliver and Adam Park --Numyht (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, to keep consistency, articles such as T.J. Johnson and Jason Lee Scott need to be articles. Also, my username is Mythdon, not Mythodon. Read better, okay?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick's article is indeed long enough to exist on its own.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No it ain't. That article may be pretty large, but it is not large enough to warrant it's own article. I'm not saying that every article on a Power Ranger should be merged into the respective team page. In fact, as mentioned in my reply to Numyht, articles such as Jason Lee Scott need to be articles in order to keep consistency. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's plenty long enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. Its no different from Xander's article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The absolutely central character of this series does not deserve his own Wikipedia article? Have you watched Mystic Force to make this judgement?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have watched Mystic Force. I watched every episode. Just because he is the central character does not in any way mean he deserves his own article, especially in this case. I know, many central characters have their own articles, but there is no way that Nick deserves his own. Why aren't you saying the same about other Red Rangers?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because some already have separate articles (or did), but everyone really sees Nick as the central character of all of Mystic Force. And because he is the central character means that he should have his own article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How so?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He was the son of two other major characters, he was the Light, and he was the Red Ranger. Every single major character in Doctor Who gets their own page. Every single major character in Star Trek gets their own page. Just because Power Rangers does not get as much critical response as those two other series does not mean that the major characters within its fictional continuity should not get their own pages. As it stands, the way you've merged a bunch of these articles already makes the pages you merge them to way too long. Before you do anything else, list this discussion at WP:MERGE (if they still do that) or request a third opinion. I've said all I can on this topic, and I am starting to lose my patience with you once more.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick does not deserve his own article. After, Wikipedia is not a mere collection of plot summary, which is what most of the Power Rangers articles have been. There is hardly any real-world information written in these articles, and that there are very few (if any) reliable sources for the character articles. If the third opinion says merge the page, then that page will be merged. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Third party response:

First about the other shows who's characters have their own page. Both Star Trek and Dr Who are long running multi-media franchises whit the same charters being revisited for over a decade. Mystic Force Power Rangers dose not compare to them in this fashion. Also it is a fallacy to assume that all of the characters in Star Trek deserve a page just because they have one. In other words just because some other articles aren't flowing the guidelines doesn't mean we shouldn't either.

After reading through this section and the articles in question I think that they should be merged. While this dose push the length of Mystic Force Power Rangers to the upper limit for an article, I believe this is okay because many people viewing the article would be interested in a particular character in which case the the article length doesn't matter (in this case separate articles are not justified all the charters by anyone's opinion) or all of the characters in which case it is easier to have them all the characters together on one page. The Nick Russell article has a lot of plot summery in it and that probably should be trimmed or reorganized to make it more readable. (this will help with the length issue) Though you should keep the images. If you look at the article for superman you find their is very little that describes the adventures of Superman instead it focuses on the creation of the character, personality, his influence on culture, and literary criticism. This would be the model of character article.Lotu (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Morphers in Power Rangers for failing to comply with WP:V and WP:RS. The nomination is here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that episodes such as Green with Evil and Day of the Dumpster should be merged there is little evidence they are more signifcant than any episodes and lack third person material to support this.

Dwanyewest (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometime in the future, I will look for sources for these episodes, and if I do not find any reliable sources, they will by all means be nominated for deletion. Nobody will be able to stop me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There are probably zero sources because Power Rangers is not in the same level of any critical coverage as shows such as Doctor Who, Torchwood, Heroes, etc. If you put these episodes up for deletion without any sort of external input from other users by discussing it someplace other than AFD, I will seek that you get blocked for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily if you do anything to the article on Day of the Dumpster, which being the first episode, certainly is notable, even though there are likely very little reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no disruption about it. WP:RS specifically states that with the absence of reliable sources on the internet, no article can cover the topic in question. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and verified and Wikipedia is not mere collection of plot summaries. So therefore, I am perfectly entitled to nominate these articles for deletion. "If you put these episodes up for deletion without any sort of external input from other users by discussing it someplace other than AFD, I will seek that you get blocked for disruption" - Uh, WP:AFD is about external input. I do not have to discuss these articles anywhere else before nominating them for deletion. The only ways that I could actually request deletion without external input is if I propose deletion or request speedy deletion. Both of which are not justified in this case. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mythdon the article cites no sources. Powergate92Talk 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nobody will be able to stop me."? You forgot the evil laugh at the end. *rolls eyes* JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This ain't a movie, JPG-GR. This is a discussion concerning some pretty serious issues. When I said that, I said that to emphasize my intent to do so. I'll try to find sources some time in the future, but I may still start a deletion nomination even if I do find reliable sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"MWUHAHAHAHA *thunder clasp*" JPG-GR (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is not necessary. Merging could be used for these. And I recently found List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes that these could be merged to if reliable sources cannot be found.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The status of "necessary" or "unnecessary" is decided by consensus, not your own word. Even if reliable sources can be found, I may still nominate the articles for deletion, due to WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOT#PLOT at the least. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be merged with List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes. Powergate92Talk 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you do something other than repeat what someone else has said? And deletion should only be the final decision. And if these articles get unnecessarily deleted instead of merged to where the content can at least be used sometime in the future, I will undelete the history and leave the redirect in place. Notability of fiction has been an issue on Wikipedia, and you are only exacerbating it Mythdon. And consensus can be decided here instead of throwing it to AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, we need outside and impartial consensus. Saying "And if these articles get unnecessarily deleted instead of merged to where the content can at least be used sometime in the future, I will undelete the history and leave the redirect in place. " - If you do that, that would be a violation of WP:WHEEL. Do you want to risk losing your administrative privileges? It would also violate the deletion nomination. If you do that, you'll put your admin privileges at risk. The pages need to be deleted. That's all there is to it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, which is it? "We need outside and impartial consensus," or "The pages need to be deleted. That's all there is to it." JPG-GR (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"We need outside and impartial consensus," is that we need that kind of consensus to decide what actions to take following the discussion and "The pages need to be deleted. That's all there is to it." is my opinion on this matter. Understood?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand perfectly. I think the issue is that you may not. JPG-GR (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what I said. It's just that others may find it hard to understand. Are you telling me that I contradicted myself?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) What I'm saying is you need to make sure that you recognize the difference between your opinion on the matter and the community's consensus, whether they are identical, polar opposites, or somewhere in the middle. JPG-GR (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the episodes I mentioned should be merged to the list of Mighty morphing episodes list.

Dwanyewest (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the episodes should be merged, merge them, but if you do not find a reliable source for the episodes, then nominate them for deletion instead. I plan to look for sources. It is just that I haven't felt like doing so yet. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge is a much better solution than deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For some things, merge is the option. For many other things, deletion is the option. The articles need to be deleted, and I haven't even began my search yet. WP:NOTABLE and WP:PLOT deny the existence of these articles. Deletion is needed in order to stop readers from reading old revisions of the pages. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is only the option when the information has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Episode articles can easily be merged into list articles without deleting it and just putting a redirect in its place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong. Powergate92Talk 04:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Deletion is needed in order to stop readers from reading old revisions of the pages." WP:NOTCENSORED. JPG-GR (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles should not be allowed to exist if there are no reliable sources providing coverage of the information in question. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is lacking, as usual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. I am thinking the correct way, and if you don't see that, deal with it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you don't have consensus to make those changes, and going to AFD to get consensus is somewhat disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And exactly when did I say I was going to make changes to those articles? I said that if I don't find reliable sources covering the information, that I would nominate the pages for deletion. I am perfectly allowed to nominate the pages for deletion, especially so if they do WP:RS or WP:V. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't find reliable sources supporting the notability of the episodes, you discuss merging the content as it could be useful where the content is notable for inclusion as in a list of episodes. You don't chose deletion as your first step.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is the only way to truly solve this situation and will stop readers from accessing the information indefinitely. You cannot say that merge is the solution to this problem, even if they do follow WP:V or WP:RS. I already have WP:PLOT and WP:NOTABLE lined up as to consider a deletion nomination. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. JPG-GR (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That policy section does not apply to what I want to do at all, by any means. WP:NOTCENSORED is not about stopping editors from having articles deleted in order to protect Wikipedia from harm. It is about stopping editors from removing informative information that may not be considered suitable for children. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the way I see it - you are trying to, essentially, scrub away the history of articles that you don't feel deserve to be articles. A merge of said articles allows the useful content to remain. I don't believe you are objecting to merging articles, I believe you are objecting to the history remaining, as if it hurts someone/something. JPG-GR (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The content is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Not objections to to it. I object to any merge of these pages, and the history remaining at the same time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

These episodes I feel are lacking in evidence and need merging or deletion The Fate of Lightspeed,Countdown to Destruction,Green No More,Hogday Afternoon,Once a Ranger,Operation Lightspeed

Dwanyewest (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you do not find sources for those articles, nominate them for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Green with Evil for deletion. See here. —Mythdon (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Green with Evil was originally aired as a 5 part miniseries and not a 5 part episode. So Green with Evil is not a episode article it is a miniseries article. Powergate92Talk 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Members of this project should not only focus on tokusatsu works, but also on persons engaging in tokusatsu, such as Shinichirō Shirakura (白倉伸一郎) and Toshiki Inoue (井上敏樹), so that the project can achieve its true goal and English Wikipedia can be more complete. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. We haven't really focused on improving the articles of the production teams yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I came across one of these articles as I was going through the unrated articles in the project and noticed that there is a whole slew of them that do not seem notable at all. From the looks of it, it seems as though many only appear in one or two episodes. These could easily be compiled into lists with all of the individual articles merged on the grounds of WP:notability. Many of these lists already exist, as seen in the top portion of the template. Thoughts? I have also started this discussion at WikiProject Japan. --Torsodog^Talk 14:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some are notable because they keep showing up, like Gomora, Zetton, Baltan. I usually go off what the Japanese Wikipedia has articles for when considering notablity. Some can be merged into a greater list, definitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed two claims from Gekisou Sentai Carranger as the claims were unsourced. One claim said that Super Sentai was saved by Carranger and that Ohranger had failed badly, while another said that it is a Sentai series that is portrayed as a parody of the Sentai genre. Any opinions on this removal?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter is correct, which can be taken from the series itself. I cannot speak for the commercial aspects, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying my removal was perfectly fine?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why must you continually ask after I reply?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

All the more I am asking is if you are saying whether or not you were fine with the removal. Do you have a problem with that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking if he has a problem with that? JPG-GR (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am asking if he has a problem with the question. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because you always want more than one answer. One question should get one answer. And that answer should not get another question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed three links to the Jetix website on Power Rangers articles as the website is no longer available and directs you to the Disney XD site. I strongly discourage any re-insertion of these links. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, are you sure that there isn't a section at Disney XD?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not checked yet. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked the website, and there is no section of Power Rangers on it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about this on Mythdon, Ryulong and my talk page and at WikiProject Television but Ryulong said i should also start a discussion here. So how should the number of episodes of a ongoing tv show be listed in the infobox? Me and Mythdon think it should be listed by the number of episodes that aired and then the date of that episode. But Ryulong thinks in the Power Rangers article the episode numbers should be updated seasonally instead of weekly and Ryulong thinks in the Power Rangers: RPM article it should be listed as ongoing or not listed at all. What do you think? Powergate92Talk 02:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IMPO, if a group of editors wish to update a number every week, and the community (in this case the Tokusatsu community) does not have a problem with it, then that's the way it should be. There is no rule for it one way or the other. It's editor preference. As far as a date goes, I wouldn't bother with listing a date (except maybe in hidden text so that anyone updating it will know when it was updated last). As long as there is consistency, then there isn't a problem. That's consistency across articles, as well as within the one article (i.e. don't list "Seasons = 5" when the show is in the middle of its 5th season, and then only list the number of episodes that aired up to the end of season 4).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole. Powergate92Talk 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. However, there is simply no number on articles on TV shows that have not yet finished their broadcast run, and I edited the main Power Rangers infobox to have the number of episodes up through Jungle Fury, which is exactly what Bignole has suggested.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No that is not what Bignole suggested as he said "if a group of editors wish to update a number every week, and the community (in this case the Tokusatsu community) does not have a problem with it, then that's the way it should be. There is no rule for it one way or the other. It's editor preference." Powergate92Talk 03:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and you are not "a group of editors".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying me and Mythdon are a group of editors. I am saying Bignole did not suggest what you are saying he suggested. Powergate92Talk 04:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was suggested by anyone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you just said above that someone did suggest something. —Mythdon (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Bignole did not say anything that said anything you two or myself believe should be done with this extremely unimportant number in an extremely unimportant box on these articles. He just stated the general practice, which more or less goes with what has been done since I made the number non-existant at Power Rangers: RPM and the number as of that of the Jungle Fury finale at Power Rangers. This is, from what I can tell, general practice and you are not going to find that codified in any policy or guideline.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What I want to have done in this situation is fully my opinion. If you don't want to update weekly, then simply don't do it. Me and Powergate92 want to update weekly. Fair enough?. —Mythdon (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely unnecessary to update these things weekly in two separate places in the article. Monthly would be okay for the ongoing series, seasonally would be okay for the franchise (there shouldn't really be an infobox on that article anyway). Weekly, when it is clear that there is a new episode every week (for a period of time), is unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But your opinion shouldn't stop others from updating every week. —Mythdon (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to update every week?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To keep things up to date. —Mythdon (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But they are with the "Episodes" section of the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But the number needs to stay updated. —Mythdon (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But it is, just not in the infobox.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be up to date in the infobox to keep readers firmly updated. —Mythdon (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's up to date in the article itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But it should also be up to date in the infobox. —Mythdon (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So the bottom line can be stated. —Mythdon (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What bottom line?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Episode number. —Mythdon (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's at Power Rangers: RPM#Episodes, too. If you can find me another article on a television show which has not finished its broadcast run for the season and it has the number of episodes to this current date, I will concede. Otherwise, we still do not have a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons has not finished its broadcast run for the season and it has the number of episodes to this current date. Powergate92Talk 00:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is iCarly good?. —Mythdon (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

However, I still do not think that number needs to be updated on a weekly basis. I would prefer if it were updated monthly or seasonally (as in every three months), as the section for the episodes themselves is updated weekly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:JPG-GR

Please do not re-add that section to the article. Such lists fail WP:NOTABLE and are not compliant to WP:IINFO. Please don't add that list, again. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. If you don't like it, start a discussion on the talk page or at WT:TOKU. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IINFO directly covers this area of dispute, so I cannot allow such lists to continue to stay. Also, articles that covered such characters got deleted, so I suggest you stop re-inserting the information. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of WP:IINFO says "no monster lists", because none of the examples match. More importantly, just because something is judged not notable enough for its own article doesn't mean it doesn't get to be included anywhere. You're vision of policy is extremely narrow (and inaccurate). JPG-GR (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as quoted from WP:IINFO

Plot summaries. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.

Which is what I am trying to say is being violated. Now, can you stop re-adding the sections?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitur. A list of monsters has nothing to do with a series' plot summary. JPG-GR (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The lists are clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Another user indeed has reverted such lists. Since discussing here is too private, I might as well move the discussion to WT:TOKU. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You say they are "clearly inappropriate" and I disagree. I told you to discuss at WT:TOKU in the first place and you declined, deciding to discuss here. Now, you say "here is too private" but what I hear is "I have no reasoning to back up my position." JPG-GR (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mythdon monsters are not notable. As Arrowned said "Monsters are generally not notable enough since they all die within an episode. Even when they are, only the most important (ex: the major villains) are ever listed." Powergate92Talk 03:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A list of monsters appearing in a series can be useful, just so long as it is a list with only some useful statements.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I'm not supporting the inclusion of Eye Guy, but see no reason for him to not be mentioned somewhere. JPG-GR (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That link links to a list in the Ben 10 subject area, and has nothing to do with Power Rangers, if you wasn't aware of that. Check your links next time, please. —Mythdon (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I expected a redlink.

As for checking my links, how about you continue to do so instead? You seem to enjoy it. JPG-GR (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Has been creating Kamen Rider Blade Articles, someone give him a message since I have to go to a lecture --Numyht (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that these notes on the color tables of Power Rangers and Super Sentai do not belong in the articles as content like that does not seem to belong in an encyclopedia. I do not see how these notes make the tables better, and even if useful, does not belong here, in my opinion. —Mythdon t/c 20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I disagree because the footnotes explicitly explain why several columns are marked as such and describe what exactly we mean by "Other" on both pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this kind of stuff belongs on fansites. In my opinion, the information is unencyclopedic and possibly unprofessional. This website is about articles on history, species, food, science, mathematics, and other similar things. Not a list of all possible and random things. —Mythdon t/c 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This website also features an entire selection of material on television series, films, actors, books, video games, computer games, comics, websites, and fictional characters. The content you removed is not a list of random things. It is very clear as to what it is about and it is certainly not randomly chosen.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While I am now convinced that the notes are indeed useful, I still do not see how they belong here. How do these notes belong here, besides usefulness?. —Mythdon t/c 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) vaguely wonders why another reason for the notes has to be asserted when it's just been established and agreed on that the notes are useful and relevant to the article...? 23:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question is confusing. —Mythdon t/c 23:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the notes on the color tables. Powergate92Talk 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why?. —Mythdon t/c 04:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because i think the notes are useful! Powergate92Talk 04:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the notes are useful?. —Mythdon t/c 04:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the notes says what rangers are not from Super Sentai and what color the rangers that are marked as other are! Powergate92Talk 04:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are useful, they still don't belong here, but belong on fansites, in my opinion. —Mythdon t/c 04:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet articles such as Super Smash Bros. (series), classified as an everyday life good article, have similar notes with no issue. Arrowned (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Those notes are practically different from the notes I am talking about. These notes are inappropriate despite being useful as it lists random facts that should be mentioned somewhere else. —Mythdon t/c 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The notes are the same in idea. They explain the reasoning behind placement of table cells. The only difference here is that the Smash Bros. table explains why multiple characters are listed under one name, while the Super Sentai table explains why multiple characters are listed under one color. Arrowned (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Usefulness doesn't automatically mean inclusion here. If you read this, you may very well learn that usefulness does not cut it. —Mythdon t/c 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a page describing common and improper reasons for articles to be deleted. Not concerning whether or not certain content should be included or removed. Stop using non sequiturs and logical fallacies, please. Now that 4 users do not agree with your reading of policies and guidelines, you do not have consensus for your edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How have I used logical fallacies? I have voiced my opinion many times, but you disagree with most of them. I am not using any interpretation of policies or guidelines in this dispute. I have yet to find at least one person who gets my point. —Mythdon t/c 05:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you pick things that have nothing to do with anything else, and no one gets your point because it is very difficult to understand what you say at times. People disagree with what they can understand from what you are saying, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I also agree that the footnotes should remain. Moreover, I'm yet to see any reason, supported by logic and/or policy, presented for their removal. JPG-GR (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as to whether or not WP:IINFO covers this issue. —Mythdon (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not. Plain and simple.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that the notes belong in an encyclopedia. Anything that can only be presented as a list format does not belong on Wikipedia, provided they list notes of random things, in my opinion. —Mythdon (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just you. No one else here has a problem with it. Again, you're taking policy and guidelines way too strictly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Policies and in most cases guidelines need to be followed on a well understanding basis. It's not like we can persistently make insertions of non-WP:BLP compliant additions and get away with it. We are expected to follow them unless we actually know that it is better not to. "Ignore all rules" does not apply to every policy, and it most likely never will, in my opinion. —Mythdon (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making nonsensical parallels. The policies on biographies of living persons are no where near the level of this discussion. And you are the sole editor who has had any issue with the footnotes themselves. You do not have consensus and you are not swaying me with your arguments.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong. Powergate92Talk 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's probably somebody else who may have an issue with the notes. —Mythdon (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Statistically, you are correct. But, likewise, for everybody who may have issue with the notes, there is statistically many more who do not. JPG-GR (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox on Power Rangers to use the "lightblue" color as seen on Template:Power Rangers as it seem as though that color is color scheme we use for templates of Power Rangers. I also did the equivalent thing Template:Power Rangers characters. —Mythdon (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And I will do this for any Power Rangers template that does that use the color yet, later. —Mythdon (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not convert the color that does exist to the one that exists for general navigation boxes?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Because we've been using "lightblue" as the color for this topic area since before me, you, and many of the other users who edit this topic area ever signed up. It's been in use since 2004, and I think it should stay as it looks like it matches the topic. —Mythdon (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am making a proposal to add a sandbox subpage for this Wikiproject.

The reasons for this would be:

• 1: To test style formatting prior to making such style changes to articles
• 2: To test proposed templates prior to their creation, by testing code used in templates
• 3: To test which grammar to use in articles

—Mythdon t/c 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SANDBOX and personal sandboxes such as the one I have here should be overly sufficient, as should any word processor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I in fact have my own sandbox too. —Mythdon t/c 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to inform this WikiProject that I have created a new template for future Power Rangers series articles. Since the other Tokusatsu articles use a similar format, we could rename the template to "TOKU-Article". Use of this template requires substitution (subst:) before usage. I understand that this template may be unnecessary, but I hope that this template can serve a purpose. Can I add it to the template list of the WikiProject page? —Mythdon t/c 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an entirely wrong idea to templatize the article space. This was done with the Pokemon articles until they were all merged. And seeing as there are not as many Power Rangers series articles, this is an entirely unnecessary template and will not see any use as far as I can see.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What about use for Super Sentai and Kamen Rider related articles? —Mythdon t/c 05:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither have standardized formatting anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that I shouldn't have created this template? I think it would be useful for similar pages. —Mythdon t/c 05:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to make templates for articles to make the articles themselves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying I tried to fix what wasn't broken in the first place? —Mythdon t/c 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying it was a bad idea.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So should I keep the template intact and list it on the WikiProject page, mark it as historical, or nominate it for deletion? —Mythdon t/c 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the first two options are acceptable. Not saying the third is the only option, though... JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just tag it with {{db-author}} or something.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I also make a subpage concerning the style we use for tokusatsu articles? —Mythdon t/c 18:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The style is not uniform, so why bother?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What about we make a new style guideline subpage? —Mythdon t/c 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer someone who writes the articles to actually work on some sort of style guideline, and particularly someone who knows what guidelines are used for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Like a very experienced member of this WikiProject? —Mythdon t/c 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Like someone who writes articles in this WikiProject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To pick names, would that be users such as Arrowned? —Mythdon t/c 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you ask such a user to write such a page? —Mythdon t/c 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please properly format the above article? It seems like it needs cleaning up with it's formatting. Since I don't feel like doing it, can somebody else do it? Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 05:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has been listed at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes. The main concern with the article at the moment is sourcing so if anyone is more knowledgeable than myself at this I suggest they have at it within the next few days. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong, have proposed the following remedy relating to participants of the WikiProject Tokusatsu:

All participants at are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help.

Voting will take place on or about May 11th. The remedy is located at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/ArbCom-PD#Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu. Please feel free to comment in the "comments by others" section.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of evil Power Rangers is up for deletion. Deletion nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of evil Power Rangers (2nd nomination). Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should make a template indicating how long each participant has been part of this WikiProject. That way, editors can keep track of when they joined. I'll be making a subpage in my userspace, but will only transclude it to the "participants" section and move the subpage to the template namespace once there is approval. Do any of you approve of this? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's really unnecessary in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What about a subpage in my userspace? Would that be useless too? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it's unnecessary. There is no advantage to tenure here. JPG-GR (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you both explain why it is unnecessary? It's not that I'll argue though, because I'm not very urgent on having it anyway. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain to us why it would be necessary?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So editors can keep track of how long each participant has been a member of the WikiProject. I think it may be best to note you as the founder of this WikiProject as you did create the page, or did someone else found it and you just created the page? Was this WikiProject proposed or did you be bold and create it? This a question in case the timeline does get created. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What does an editor's tenure as a member of this wikiproject have to do with anything? Why would that possibly be important? JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not that it's actually important nor does the tenure have to do with anything. What I am wanting is for us to keep track of how long each participant has been part of this WikiProject. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's not "actually important", than everybody's on-wiki time would be better spent building an encyclopedia. JPG-GR (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input on this. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. Mythdon (talk · contribs) is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. Mythdon is also admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. All participants of WikiProject Tokusatsu are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help. Other remedies also apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They feel a bit fansite-ish to me; describing their likes, dislikes, how they react to other team members, as well as their ages and all. Feels a bit like something you'd read on a fan site rather than on an encyclopedia. Is this the prevailing way to write these bios? I don't want to start changing one if this is not within the guidelines. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about some of the older ones. Since Boukenger (or perhaps even Gaoranger), I had thought these were changed. I know all of the older ones need a lot of work. I know that if there can be a change made to reflect how the newer articles are written, it should be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the article titles The Zyurangers, The Dairangers, The Gingamen, The Gaorangers, The Abarangers, The Go-ongers, and The Shinkengers are all not in line with this little policy here. These seven articles all need new titles. If there is an in-series name, those have to be implimented. If not, some new form of disambiguation from the redirect of the series itself (Zyuranger, Dairanger, Gingamen, Gaoranger, Abaranger, Go-onger, Shinkenger) has to implimented.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I say redirect them and the anatongists articles to a List of ((INSERT SENTAI SERIES NAME)) characters --Numyht (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That would make extremely long lists and it does not solve this problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at Search Guard Successor Foundation, and noticed that in every screen-grab image, there's a clock in the upper-left corner. I've seen this elsewhere as well, and I'm sure there's a good explanation for it, but it seems odd, but as these are fair use images, we can't remove the marks. What's the story here? SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Asahi quite simply puts the time in that corner every morning during whatever's airing on their channel, presumably to help expediate people that don't have a clock nearby to check when they're watching TV and need to get to work on time or something. Any show videotaped/encoded directly from the TV will, thus, include the clock as well. Arrowned (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The person in Japan who recorded the episode of the show (or any show for that matter) and then uploaded it to a Japanese file sharing service, and whenever it made its way over to the Internet audience, has a timer set when he/she records the shows. Some people include the timer, other's do not. The clock is JST of exactly when the image appeared on the show. Lately, we've been utilizing images that lack the timer thingie.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review this image File:Ultraman bandai eurodata.png, is it free or not? Vinhtantran (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed up the article S.P.D. Power Rangers in many aspects such as:

• Copyediting
• Fixes
• Removing triva
• Removing interpretive and speculative claims
• Removing a claim cited to an unreliable source
• And fixing statements to reflect a more neutral point of view, although that part may still need plenty of work, but it is a bit better.

Here are some diffs of these edits I've just made consecutively:

• [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Here is a comparision of before I made the changes and after I made the changes:

• [13]

What do you think? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to notify us of this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Do you think the edits were helpful or not? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that these have been on Wikipedia long before we've formed this project, but now I believe that they have to go. It is not encyclopedic to say how much power Skyrider's punch has or how fast the DenBird can travel. This would require modifying (nearly) every page in Category:Kamen Rider characters as well as a few of the films' pages for characters unique to the films. I believe the removal of these numbers will also save us time from reverting number change vandalism. Besides, many of these are directly found on the websites.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are trivial. I mean, take Kiva vs Proto IXA. Proto IXA nearly killed Kiva. That's proof that they are just trivial. --Numyht (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

These have all been removed by now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Same could be said about listing every weapon attack that a Super Sentai warrior has. Is that really necessary? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Weapons and attacks generally show up in the TV show. How much destructive force one of BLACK RX's kicks has never does.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With the August issue of Telebikun, W/Double has been confirmed to appear in the Decade movie. Now, how should the title and character's name be parsed on Wikipedia? I've currently set it up similarly to how the 555 pages are set up: the series is "W" and the Rider is "Double".

How does this sound?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It actually appears that recent scans from magazines have the English title of the show as "Kamen Rider Double".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As part of an ArbCom remedy, in May 2009, I asked for opinions on verifiability at the village pump. See here for the archived discussion. Note that I do not make any reference to the case. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles on Wikipedia in this subject area never make any sort of interpretations. The official website and/or TV show itself is used to source information about things such as episode summaries, character biographies, or arsenal...whatevers, which are on the official website to begin with. MuZemike makes points that we already follow in this project. Fansites are only ever used to display factual information that exists nowhere else online (such as the existance of certain toys) or exists in other primary sources. If you would state what particular articles you feel require this investigation, as you clearly ignored at the village pump.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon you should also see this ongoing discussion about using TV shows as sources for there own plot summary and characters section. Powergate92Talk 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In Super Sentai, transform called henshin, what about role call?--Lê (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no name. It's just their roll call.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)