Talk:Power Rangers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-Class, Low-importance)
TV-icon-2.svg
Television portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Peer review Power Rangers received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived.  It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Tokusatsu
Wiki-head2.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tokusatsu on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
  1. Creation — September 2006
  2. September 2006 — December 2007
  3. January 2008 — October 2008
  4. October 2008 — present

Contents

[edit] Series Ending?

Rumors have been flying for the past few months that RPM will be the final Power Rangers series, and lately more and more "Reliable Soruces" have been reporting that it is. Now this article has popped up: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10560372, Should it been written that the series could be ending, or should we wait for official word from Disney? Henshin86 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear if the production manager is referring to their own company no longer being used or the show is being dropped by Disney completely. Something from BVS or Ranger Productions would be a better source, if one ever shows up, but this content can be incorporated somewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok ryulong, oh, and this New York Post Article popped up too: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03102009/tv/lights_out_for_power_rangers_158807.htm, looks like it really is the end..........Henshin86 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
They refer to the NZ Herald article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't they move production back to the US or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not over people: http://henshinjustice.com/2009/03/20/breaking-news-power-rangers-lives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.155 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That refers to an unverified letter received by a fan/blogger. Neither Bandai nor Disney has released any official statement one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.192.50 (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] iTunes Availability?

I know on the main page it says that episodes are available on the iTunes store. However, I can no longer find them or a reason as to why they have been removed. The only listings for Power Rangers is the songs, movies, & movie soundtracks, no season episodes. --stanmarsh2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanmarsh2003 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disney not airing any past seasons of power ranger?

will there be and mention on the page that disney has stopped airing the old seasons of power ranger on there varoius disney channels and that the only season that is airing RPM on ABC Kids? Inferno17 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there something official we can use to say that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

well if you search for any listings for episodes airing for those seasons none can be found .I checked the tv schedule of those seasons on imbd.com and Rpm is the only one that show a list of the episodes that will air over the next weeks . i check the disney website and it doesn't have any videos for of powers on there. i'm still looking into it but i haven't found anything offical but it look like at least for now they have stopped airing the those episodes. besides rpm on ABC kids the only other place to watch the episodes of the older seasons are on youtube and other video sites cause they are not on airing tv. (Inferno17 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] HULU.COM posts Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie

Oh and is it alright to post that Hulu.com has Mighty Morphin power Rangers the movie has been posted on there.link to page below:

http://www.hulu.com/mighty-morphin-power-rangers (Inferno17 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Unimportant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think its alright as it was officially posted by 20th Century Fox and this article list the official iTunes and Disney Xtreme Digital releases so i don't see way it should not list the official Hulu release. Powergate92Talk 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong you say its unimportant but i fell the same way as powergate92 it was posted by 20th Century Fox and this article goes made mention official iTunes and Disney Xtreme Digital releases of Power rangers movies ,episodes etc... what harm could be done by adding the info above .(Inferno17 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Power Morphicon coming summer 2010

oh and can you add that the 2nd Power morphicon will be held next year? It will be held somewhere in Los Angeles, California. This convention will be coinciding with the 15th Anniversary of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers full details have not been confirmed but if you got to this page you can read all the info out on it . http://linearranger.com/RPMNews/NewsPMorphicon.htm (Inferno17 (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)).

Linearranger's website cannot be used as a source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[Official website.] Arrowned (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Fansites are sometimes false, so we can't trust them. Sorry. At least with the "official website" linked by Arrowned, you can rely on it in terms of trust, but neither are reliable for justifying notability. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Who gives a shit about notability? It gives us knowledge that it's going to happen.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:Notability is an official Wikipedia guideline! Powergate92Talk 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not the issue at hand here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Because we're not writing about it in its own article. We're writing about it happening in this article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you guys to attack the suggestion of mentioning Power Morphicon 2010 and for what its worth i did say that you could got to linear ranger's page to read more detail just forgot to put the link to the offical Power Mor. page but the link was on that page.The person who runs the page makes sure to list any links to the info they post and it been a pretty reliable source for pr related stuff sso far for me . I hope no one gets mad at me for writing this.(Inferno17 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Write what? The information on the articles, or your post? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

my post.(Inferno17 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Reference issues.

  1. Reference 5: Is "Action Figure Insider" a reliable source on future production plans?
  2. Reference 7: It's considered inappropriate to cite Wikipedia itself in a footnote, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. That's considered a circular reference.
  3. Reference 8: same problem. Also original research.
  4. Reference 9: no source, original research.
  5. Reference 10: original research.

Some improvement in those references would be appropriate. The others seem OK. --John Nagle (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be a more efficient way to add footnotes and references using the same formatting. References 7, 8, 9, and 10 are all footnotes and directly referenced to the series they refer to, not really original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. Reference 2 and 3: Neither of these articles note anything about the use of 2009 senti footage in the rebroadcast of MMPR. My son did say that they are adding new effects like was done for the remastering of Star Trek: The Original Series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.179.234 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting International Broadcasting Table

Thanks User talk:Ryulong for your suggestion to discuss this issue. I believe a table is unnecessary because "Broadcasters" change constantly and are outdated quickly and are unable to be cited from an outside source to verify if the information is correct. Also according to WP:DIRECTORY Wikipedia isn't an electronic program guide and posting such information would be unencyclopedic if it isn't notable enough (like if there was local criticism about broadcasting the show in a certain county, i.e. New Zealand) to be included. Secondly, I had already moved relevant information that used to be in the table into the paragraph under Power Rangers#International airings that pretty much summed up what the relevance table had to begin with, that Many markets carry or have carried Power Rangers on their respective FOX or later Jetix/Disney XD channels or have syndicated the program on regional children's channels or blocks, either dubbed into the local language or broadcast in the original English. Information regarding Japan's reairing of dubbed content and Korea's broadcasting was relevant and moved to the paragraph as well. Another important point is for an article about a television series to be notable, it should follow precedent of the articles other shows; articles of featured TV series and media franchises such as The Simpsons, Star Trek, and LOST to name a few, do not have international broadcasting tables and seem to have no need for them to become notable articles. However, looking at other articles, any need to list the international broadcasters in the future should include any criticisms or rating information from those countries in prose form to meet notability and format guidelines.

Rebel shadow (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, doing that would boost the quality of this article Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that info is unsourced and original research so it should be removed per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible misuse of words?

The article reads:

"Its first entry, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, helped launch the Fox Kids programming block in the 1990s during which it capitulated into popular culture"

Which sounds really odd. Should "capitulated" be "catapulted"?

Vince In Milan (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be "catapulted".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone up for creating a "Power Rangers (characters)" article

...to spin off the "The Power Rangers" and "Ranger colors" sections in order to separate character information from series information?

Rebel shadow (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all necessary. It splits off mostly unreferenced content from this article into its own article which will surely be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be better to just reference the unreferenced content on this article and delete the trivia? This article has a lot of trivial content that can be trimmed or at least needs cross-reference. Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What can be referenced is referenced. Some items are true but there does not exist a third party reference for it. What you deem as "trivial" may be essential to the knowledge of the subject to others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What you deem as "essential to the knowledge of the subject to others" may be inappropriate or unimportant for Wikipedia. Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a lot coming from someone with only six edits. Most of the content that you are deeming "unimportant for Wikipedia" and "unsourced" is descriptive and from the primary sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded standoffish or anything, just doing more reading and understanding guidelines than editing, don't wanna get in any wiki-vets' way. Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a good thing to understand the guidelines. However, it should be noted that some article subjects simply don't have what would be deemed a reliable source to the general Wikipedia crowd. I'd be hardpressed if I wanted to find a critical review of any particular Power Rangers episode, which obviously isn't a problem for television shows geared towards an adult audience (Lost, Battlestar Galactica, etc.).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Some info I think is original research

I think this info: "Rather than making an English dub of the original, the American production team put together a "new" production with English-speaking actors spliced in with the original Japanese footage in varying ratios. Due to the very Japanese nature of many of the Super Sentai Series' stories and design, the American shows vary detail to appeal to a Western audience. However, they typically dub many of the action sequences featuring the characters in costume and the mecha (referred to as "Zords" in Power Rangers)." is original research, so on October 11, I added a citation needed tag to that info, but User:Ryulong removed the citation needed tag saying "obvious enough" and "It is something that one uses their common sense to infer". So I started a discussion at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Is this info original research? but there has only been 1 reply since that discussion was started 3 weeks ago. So I would like some users who edit this article to say what they think about this info, is it original research? Powergate92Talk 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I told you last time, this is not original research. There is even a new reference that was added to the article since you made the accusation that supports the statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That reference says "MIGHTY MORPHIN’ POWER RANGERS was the Americanized version of the 1992 Super Sentai Series KYORYU SENTAI ZYURANGER." the reference doe's not say anything about "Rather than making an English dub of the original, the American production team put together a "new" production with English-speaking actors spliced in with the original Japanese footage in varying ratios. Due to the very Japanese nature of many of the Super Sentai Series' stories and design, the American shows vary detail to appeal to a Western audience." Powergate92Talk 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It states that "POWER RANGERS is the Americanized version of SUPER SENTAI". The fact that there is footage of American actors and footage of suit actors, the rest is common sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:No original research says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." the source you're citing doe's not "directly support the info" and WP:Reliable sources says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." so common sense is not a reliable source. Powergate92Talk 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the only person to ever have an issue with this. Everyone else has taken it for granted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting it doe's not make it not original research as you (a Wikipedian) watched and interpreted primary source material (the show) for yourself, so there is still no reliable source therefore it's still original research per WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Powergate92Talk 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no interpretation of anything here. It is contained in the production credits of the show. You are the only person here who has expressed any problem with the text. Aspects of it previously were WP:OR. Now, it is not. It is based on observations and not interpretations of the primary source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly useful to cite for under a criticism or the production section about early SAG situation: http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4365040-1.html Rebel shadow (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I got an idea for improvement

I was looking at the Stargate page, and it could be cool to model the PR article along the same structure, with Main Article: links after headings to lead readers to the appropriate series/character pages; and most of the 'series overview' content can be blended in with the current 'television series' heading to look like the Stargate#Television section, but maybe with fusing MMPR-Space in one sub-heading. A Reception heading can have a Fandom section if there's reliable information out there about popularity, critism, and more info about Morphicon. And a cohesive Premise section in the 'elements of a PR season' near the beginning would make the info more cohesive; since there isn't much info on production, that can be scaled down, but we shouldn't deemphasize that PR originated from Sentai, which is a really notable fact about PR. Rebel shadow (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel shadow (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rebel shadow, that would make the article look better. Powergate92Talk 20:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What's good for one article is not what is good for all articles. Stargate is going to have a lot more information on it than Power Rangers would because Stargate is not a TV series meant to sell toys to children. We don't have any sources of critical commentary in the article to garner the need for a "reception" heading. Other than that, you're basically saying we should move things around, again, as you did last time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not duplicating the structure of an article exactly, per se; I just think the sections can be tweaked so the article flows better; starting it with a Production section with meticulous details about Saban/Fox Kids/Jetix/ABC and cited statements about recent news concerning the re=airing isn't as much a priority as what to what the show is actually about. So to take a page out of that other article, a concise lead-inb Premise section would be more appropriate. And anyways, changing stuff around from time to time to see what works seems more constructive for us as editors of this page to do than just waiting for opportunities to correct vandalism. Rebel shadow (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could be bold and just do it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok then; and would you think a section analogous to this would work on this page (maybe under a reception section), possibly to mention stuff like this? Rebel shadow (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It'd give undue weight to that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the basic superhero stuff that's mentioned in the Power Rangers#The Power Rangers section can just be referenced to Superhero#Common traits section. Rebel shadow (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


[edit] There is no such Striking Samurai nonsense

I just saw a video on youtube of some fan posting that they edited the page to say some crappy (opinion) fanfiction is an official series and, gasp, they managed to get that into the wiki entry. Anyone can take out this information??? If you do a simple search of the fictional series, you will see theres no official information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danadrianrico (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Power_Rangers"