Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu

Power Rangers/Super Sentai

Current makeup of the articles

• Zords
• Character list
• List of all grunt monsters (main villains have their own article)
• List of episodes
• Arsenel
• Uniqueness of the series/Trivia

It's been my view that most of it is extremely crufty.

• Episode lists should be cast off into their own article or not mentioned at all. I don't have any context for what "The Fate of Lightspeed" line means, for instnace, other than it is the last epsiode. This might be daunting for Super Sentai, with 30 seaons, but i think that List of Power Rangers episodes holds up pretty well.
• Arsenel is meaningless and has no context. There are no pictures, for one thing. I don't even know the names of some of the individual zords, so why are we listing them all?
• Characters. The post-Zordon Rangers aren't bad, most of them rolled up into one page, but pre-Zordon dives into the obscure. Billy Cranston dressed up as Sherlock Homles? So what? Super Sentai is just horrific - full of peacock terms like "xxxx is kind and caring." Please: Just the facts.
• Monsters. Power Rangers fares better, sa only major villains are featured, but Super Snetai is horrific: why do we need to know the names of each monster that has been killed off or frozen, episode by episode?
• Uniqueness of the series: Once you're forced to make it into cohesive paragraphs, most of the cruftiness disappears. Names/Puns in the Super Sentai articles have been problems though, as they're all WP:NOR.

I think the philiosphy of removing or converting bulleted lists would do the trick on most of these problems. For the zords, I Think we would need to have at least some lists - in which case, a sentence of context (what the zord does, when it was introduced, etc.) would be good. Hbdragon88 06:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a primary objective to de-listify a good portion of all of the content of the articles. When I asked how much it would take to get Super Sentai to featured article status, it was told to me that I should put it up for featured list status. I have done some of these changes to the articles already (making more sentences and whatnot) for at least the Zord sections. Other things I will comment on at a later time, as I am currently busy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I really have no problem with keeping the episode lists the way they are now. However, I would like to ultimately see the episode lists done in the fashion of List of Kamen Rider Kabuto episodes (that is, one episode list page per series, with synopses--but we shouldn't split the episode lists off until someone actually writes the synopses). jgp ^T_C 07:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by "delisting" I mean turning a lot of bulleted lists into actual prose, like the arsenal section for Mystic Force or the character section of Abaranger.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with that--I was just replying to User:Hbdragon88's above comment about episode lists. jgp ^T_C 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a few days ago I found a site that had links for fansubs for the series Bakuryuu Sentai Abaranger at [link removed, please do not add links to copyright infringement].

I also would like to point out that while trying to fill out expand the Abaranger page that the biggest issue I had to deal with was inaccurate details that I found had to do with Episode 40 of Abaranger and the battle against Lijewloid Two-Worlds' KillerGhost. Here is the old description

KillerGhost (Kirāghotsu) (30-31) / Lijewloid Two-Worlds' KillerGhost (40): A monster-clone created by Mikoto, modeled after AbareKiller in AbareMode. KillerGhost was so powerful it managed to capture 5 of the Blastasaurus. It took Abared to become AbareMax to kill it. KillerGhost was later revived by Lijewel, who upgraded him with free-will and more power than before as Lijewloid Two-Worlds' KillerGhost. AbareBlack was able to destroy the upgrade jewel, and Abaren'oh with a DinoGUTS power-boost was able to kill him forever.

In the Power Ranger version his american counterpart White Terrorsaurus II had stripped the Rangers of their powers and after Tommy had come out of his coma he defeated him and restored the other rangers powers and Conner, Ethan, and Kira destroyed Terrorsaurus for good by combining the power of their Super Dino Mode forms with the Thundersaurus Megazord. While in the Abaranger version the difference is that the giant battle occurs first and while that battle is occuring Jeanne and AbareKiller were fighting against Asuka who was still possessed by the cursed armor. It was shortly afterwards that KillerGhost was still alive and Asuka had been freed from the curse that he personally fought and destroyed KillerGhost by himself. So after analyzing the footage carefully I revised a new, more accurate profile.

KillerGhost (Kirāghotsu) (30-31) / Lijewloid Two-Worlds' KillerGhost (40): A monster-clone created by Mikoto, modeled after AbareKiller in AbareMode. KillerGhost was so powerful it managed to capture 5 of the Blastasaurus. It took Abared to become AbareMax to kill it. KillerGhost was later revived by Lijewel, who upgraded him with free-will and more power than before as Lijewloid Two-Worlds' KillerGhost. Abaren'oh with a DinoGUTS power-boost was able to defeat him, but he had survived, and AbareBlack was eventually able to him kill him forever.

If anyone needs to make a minor adjustment to this then go ahead and I would like to point out that information like this should be checked if posssible for any inaccurate details since PR might have a minor change that would be hard to notice. Also in terms of the quality of the subtitles their translation of certain character names as well as special techniques are not as good compared to TV-Nihon. -Adv193 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Whoa. The scope is huge. Masked Rider/Beetleborgs can stay under the main header as they lasted for 1-2 seasons. But Super Sentai/Power Rangers should be put under a more specific work group, or something like that - 45 seasons is by no menas a small feat. Hbdragon88 06:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Our project covers everything tokusatsu. We work with Godzilla, Chouseishin Gransazers, Saban's Masked Rider, etc. We don't do it all at once, but we work on what we can.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true of several of the subareas; kaiju films, for instance, have a huge catalog — "tokusatsu" is a very large area to work within. As this project grows, sure, it'd be great to split up into smaller projects, but I think we should work on establishing a common place to improve these articles and having a centralised discussion area before worrying about that.--SB | T 08:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I need some help here in pruning articles of huge galleries of fair use images. For instance, Virtual Dungeon has images on every monster, which is wholly unnecessary and a massive copyright violation. It breaks WP:FUC #8 and #8: unfree images should be used as little as possible. The only characters that need to be illustrated are the major villains. I've only checked out the Metal Heroes-related pages (mostly because of an increased interest in VR Troopers), which have the most gratitious problems.

On a less severe note, Power Rangers/Super Sentai are also slightly problematic. For instnace, List of Gaoranger characters has six images. Group shots appear to be the de facto standard, reducing the images from 5-5 to just 1-2. I was wondering if some kind of standard should be adopted for all pages. Hbdragon88 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, finding a group image is the difficult thing. So long as fair use pictures are kept at a minimum and have fair use rationales for their use in the article are given, then I do not know any sort of problem. Surely, all the images at that damn page can be nuked, as can their compliments at the Shaider, Kikaider, Sharivan, etc pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, to be specific, I agree with the VR Troopers pages, but disagree with the Gaoranger (or other sentai articles) unless a decent group image is found (like that at Ozu Family)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Metal Heroes pages need to be trimmed of most, if not all, kaijin images--not just for WP:FUC concerns, but also for readability reasons: a while back I split the villain info in Jikuu Senshi Spielban and Choujinki Metalder off into new pages, because the main pages had become utterly unreadable due to the sheer flood of images. Maybe we should have a new standard: villains only get images if they're significant (that is, they're not monster-of-the-week kaijin). jgp ^T_C 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have GrnRngr working on the Power Ranger monsters, so you needn't worry about that, but I agree that the images at Metal Heroes need to be culled.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Super Hero Time

There is a Japanese article on it, maybe we could create one for this version of Wikipedia? That way we might be able to add the "Super Hero Time(insert year/shows)" box at the end of each Sentai and Kamen Rider page, maybe some others as well since I notice stuff going back as far as 1960. Yaguruma 10:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, i brought that up on Ryulongs talk page, and i think its a practical idea for shows that have aired during the 3rd Generation of Kamen Rider to have a combined transition box with the current Sentai. Floria L 14:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This does sound like a fairly good idea, but from what I see in the Japanese pages that it's a relationship solely based on air-time. If there are other shows that are aired, then we could probably connect other such shows.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are bumpers and shorts that are aired during the block as well, some of them being crossover between the two shows. If you add succession boxes, which is fine, be sure to mention the programming block in the intro (or a seperate section for broadcasting if there's enough material) as well.--SB | T 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page on it. I'm working on translations of the Japanese page and trying to get others to help my with translations sop we can hopefully expand it it. I guess right now we should just add the succession boxes to the pages. Yaguruma 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of this is wrong. KR always came after SS beginning in 2000. Also why don't they commercial bumpers, ED credits for it?74.195.3.199 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another image concern

Recently, 83.23.219.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted a ton of links to images on Kamen Rider Blade (also with a ton of edits--just look at that history). Normally, I'd remove them as being WP:FUC violations, but I noticed one thing: these images are all external links. I'm fairly sure this isn't allowed, but I figured I'd bring it here before reverting it all. jgp ^T_C 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it; external links should be either references or informative in such a way that encyclopedia articles cannot be or should not be, preferrably the former. Since, as you say, were these images to be uploaded and hosted on Wikipedia, they would be copyright violations, and because they provide no new content nor verification (at least, none that isn't gained by citing the episodes and the series itself, which we are doing implictly) they shouldn't be linked to, and certainly not on such a grand scale.--SB | T 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Parent projects

It seems to me that, to help with organization, this Project should probably be listed as a descendent of a few others, such as WP:JAPAN and WP:TV. What do you who are actually involved in it think? Since there's already a "Related Projects" spot, I'll add WP:ANIME there, since the two fields do associate quite a bit and occasionally overlap. --Masamage 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one here is really involved with either of the other two projects, but we could use the assistance from higher up projects (occasionally, I end up bugging Japanese Wikipedians to help me translate something, when WP:ANIME or WP:JAPAN might be of better help). However, there's a film WikiProject, too, isn't there? They've "laid claim" on the Godzilla articles until we can get a template (with cool icon) up and running.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you have to be involved, per se. Far as I can tell, the "parent" term is just used for organizational purposes. That way, you can also downlink from those projects, and attract help from those who might be involved with this if they only knew about it. :) Also, what kind of icon were you thinking for the template? Would a crop of the cosplayer on your front page work? If so, I could whip one up for you. (Ulterior motive: then I could slap it up on PGSM's talk page. ^^) --Masamage 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I had a moment, I did indeed whip one up. Feel free to edit mercilessly, delete the image in favor of another, or whatever your heart desires. ^_^ (It currently uses categories that don't exist; standard WikiProject procedure is to make those, but again, you can change that all around if you like.) --Masamage 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have been working on something, but I need the permission of an artist to utilize the template that I modified first :/ It's essentially a Super Sentai helmet with a W for the visor.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. --Masamage 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fan names

I'm uncertain of the status of Kamen Rider (Skyrider). If Skyrider is just a fan-made name, we should not be using it; we should be using official names. If this should be moved, I was thinking that we ought to move this to Kamen Rider (1979 TV show) or something like that, but I want some input. Hbdragon88 05:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Skyrider was the name of the Kamen Rider within that series. It's a decent disambiguation for the series. Signifying that it is not the original Kamen Rider or the franchise.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fan-made name — it's simply the name of the character (Eventually. He's called just "Kamen Rider" before episode 20) . The series is also sometimes called (mostly recently) New Kamen Rider, but the current title is more accurate. Perhaps we need a Kamen Rider (disambiguation) to clear up some confusion...--SB | T 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Dragon Knight

Surely this falls under American adaptions of tokusatsu works, does it not? The article needs serious cleaning up and expanding, along with more sources. The information itself however, seems to be credible. | Floria L 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There be a thread that I alienated myself in at Rangerboard, and I gave a reference at Kamen Rider Ryuki relating to the series.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A little assistance

What is the correct romanization for Kamen Rider Den-O? Kamen Raidā Den-ō or Kamen Raidā Den'ō. | Floria L 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The logo for Kamen Rider Den-O implies that its name in English is "Masked Rider Den-O." The kanji are written in Hepburn romaji as "Kamen Raidā Den'ō" because the n is not part of the same syllable as the long ō. It would be written as "Kamen Rider Den'ou" per the other names, but as I said, it is implied that Electro-King (電王, Den'ō) is to be written as "Den-O." The same could be said for Kamen Rider 555 because it is implied that the 555 is to be read as "Φ's" (Phi's/Faizu).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Kamen Rider Kabuto

Congrats to Yaguruma for finally making a template that groups the countless pages of Kabuto together. However, compared to the Kamen Rider template, its kinda oversized. I'm not sure how boxes work, so does anyone know how to make it a bit more organized and smaller? Floria L 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll play around with it right now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm done :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there's now a Ryuki template based on this one. jgp ^T_C 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Why is there an article for every Rider in one Kamen Rider series? Can't these all be merged into one main "List of Riders in Kamen Rider Kabuto"? Hbdragon88 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Not everything needs to be merged. There is a List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters but these pages are information about the riders, which are unique from one another.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading them? If you tried to merge these pages, you'd end up with the mess you have a JA wikipedia. Enough said. Floria L 10:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I profess an ignorance of Kamen Rider. The only experience I have is watching the Saban adaptation of BLACK RX, where the Kamen Rider there is the lone man fighting the bad guy. But it appears to me that these Kamen Riders resemble Power Rangers-like characters, in which case I think it would be better to merge them together. The only reason why they're so damn long is because they are written from a pure in-universe perspective with much detail lavished on each separate relationship, episode, and characteristics. Too-detailed plot summiares can be considered a copyright violation, which is why I'm concerned. Hbdragon88 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Although copyright might be issue as you suggest, I highly doubt it as Naruto summaries are MUCH longer than what is written on these pages, and I don't think they've actually been sued before. However, merging still seems extremely unpractical due to the extensiveness of each Rider. They aren't a team or a squadron that works together, despite what you may think of them resembling Power Rangers. They each have an independent stories, and only interact for the sole basis of that. They may step over the line sometimes, but not to the extent to become Power Ranger-like characters. After the series ends next week, I'll go back and cut down on the massive amount of cruft in there. Merge on the other hand, would only create an extremely hard to read page that would be unorganized and overly large, with possible 50 or more headers. Power Rangers have much less extensive information that actually shows any character development, therefore having the short articles and capable of being merged together. Kamen Riders on the other hand each a unique set of statistics along with personally developed characters that don't actually receive many episodes in which they are there just to be wasted, like what often happens with PR. Floria L 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, awesome, thanks for clarifying the differences in roles that Kamen Riders play in comparison. Not going to push for a merger now and I was only wondering about it. Hbdragon88 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation/Romanicization

Due to the whole thing with Juuken Sentai Gekiranger, and what should and should not be translated, we need to come up with a decent standard.

I personally think that (barring article titles, for now), Kanji/Hiragana should be translated into English and Katakana should be transliterated into English. If we know the translation, we should utilize it, until we get something official(ish) via DVD covers (tv asahi/Toei/Bandai uses "GoGo" and "Mahou" on DVD covers), official releases, or fansubbing (or aesthetics in the case where the fansubbed titles can be improved upon).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A footnote to this is that in recent years, Kamen Rider series have used translated titles written in English, Kamen Rider 555 is "Masked Rider Φ's," Kamen Rider Ryuki is "Masked Rider Ryuki," Kamen Rider Agito is "Masked Rider AgitΩ," Kamen Rider Blade is "Masked Rider ♠" (read as "Blade"), and from Kamen Rider Den-O we see "Masked Rider Den-O". We really should use English or anglicized titles when they are provided.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kamen is something thats obviously used in the community, and it would be quite disruptive if we translated that word. Obviously there's always been a tag at the end of the opening to denote a translation, but I don't really think a complete translation is necessary for words like Kamen. Floria L 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's the thing. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and the Japanese sources use "Masked Rider" and whatnot, in English. Searching around tv asahi's Kabuto page shows that they call the transformed form of Souji Tendou "Masked Rider Kabuto."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, an argument can be made for either case. A lot of the Japanese writing has "Kamen" in Kanji and "Rider" in Katakana, so, technically, "Kamen Rider" would be the correct usage. On the other hand, the English on nearly every piece of merchandise calls them "MASKED RIDERS". BUT, that's in reference to the riders themselves. Maybe we should make a compromise and keep the titles as they are, but change the individual rider articles? I.e. Kamen Rider Kabuto, the page, stays the same, but the character page becomes Masked Rider Kabuto? Yaguruma 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That would work. However, on other matters, I still feel that we should discuss the romanicization and translation factors. Gekiranger is full of half-translations and no-translations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think changing them to say Masked Rider would be kind of confusing. They've been refered to as Kamen Riders as well as Masked Riders. Not really and issue here. Same reason Sentai isn't translated. Floria L 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my reservations about the Geki article is that we seem to be using "Juuken" and "Narakudō" and others all over, when it can be translated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Floria about the Kamen Rider problem. Regarding Gekiranger, I think "Juuken" and the other martial arts names can be translated with no problem. However, words like "Narakudō" are more ambiguous. The "Naraku" is, in lack of better words, the buddist "hell", which is certainly different to the christian, more known hell. It's the same problem that Infershia's (Magiranger) "mei" (冥), it can be translated as Hades, hell or underword. Filadelfo 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Naraku" being the Buddhist hell, then maybe it should not be translated. I would prefer that "Geki Juuken" and the like are translated. We need Fractyl to comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Naraku being the Zen-Buddhist term for Hell works, so does "Underworld" in relation to the undead warriors Lio has under his command. But "Geki Juuken" and other terms should not be translated all the time. Example: Gekijuuken Beast Arts (激獣拳ビーストアーツ, Gekijūken Bīsuto Ātsu?|Fierce Beast-Fist Beast Arts), —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fractyl (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Very interesting but so much to read.74.195.3.199 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Wiki

Hello. First I'd like to say that I think it's great that there's a Tokusatsu project now. I hope that a Tokusatsu page will make it to a featured article sometime soon. Anyway, I stumbled upon this page last night and noticed the request for a Kamen Rider equivalent of the Wikiranger. If no one is currently working on that I'd be happy to sketch something up for consideration. (Guyinblack25 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

An actual drawing of one would be a hell of a lot better than the premade templates that I used for the Wikiranger. If you could do the Kamen Rider equivalent, that'd be wonderful. However, if you drew both, I would be grateful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I assume you want the same design for the Wikiranger as the one that's already there. I'll sketch something out and get back to you. (Guyinblack25 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Have you never heard of the midseries power up? :P Feel free to improve on the design. Just remember the GFDL (for the copyrighting of the finished work) and some other Wikipedia mascotty things. :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a quick sketch I did of a basic character design. It's just a pencil drawing, so it didn't scan too well. I didn't have time to ink it or touch it up before I could scan it (I don't have a scanner at home). Just thought I'd show it to everyone to at least get some feedback. Am I going in the right direction, wrong direction, anything missing, anything to add on, is it going terribly wrong and you regret asking? You know, what ever thoughts/feedback you may have. Also what is it going to be called, "Wikirider" or "Kamen Rider Wiki"? (Guyinblack25 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

I'd prefer "Kamen Rider Wiki," and I'll find others to comment on it. It looks good so far.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that...it goes better with KR than "Wikirider". jgpTC 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, actually, I'd think that he'd be a bit more identifiable if he contained some aspects of some of the newer Riders, such as those from the third gen, Ryuki, Blade, Agito, Kuuga, Kabuto, Den-O (not Hibiki, though)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Hibiki hate. :( Looks nice. Floria L 16:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hibiki did not look like a classical Kamen Rider; no bug eyes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's an updated version, I tried mixing and matching various different 3rd gen Riders. Personally, I'm a bit split on it. Part of me likes it and part of thinks a giant pencil monster ate a bunch of Riders and vomited them all up into one. I'm leaning towards using a light blue for the eyes and a dark blue, like Wikipe-tan, for armour. Still not sure whether to use grey, black or white for the suit. I'm also still trying to figure out how to design the legs. So feedback, comments, likes, dislikes, it would all be appreciated? (Guyinblack25 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Here's a small color test of the second sketch. I only used the base colors and have not added any shading, highlights, or texture. I wanted to see if this is acceptable for everybody and get feedback before I go ahead with the current design. So any feedback, negative or positive, is appreciated so that this drawing is representative of the Kamen Riders. (Guyinblack25 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I've been busy for a while.

Anway, I think it looks nice. And as an after thought, I think that a scarf would look good (to tie in with the older riders). I was just looking for a mix of both past and present. :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's the third sketch, I went back to the separate bug eyes, and added the scarf back. A few minor changes here and there too. I changed how the henshin belt looks and am still a bit undecided about the legs. I'm trying to incorporate a bit of Wikipedia's theme too, so let me know what you think? And as always, please be honest and any ideas you got I'd like to hear them. (Guyinblack25 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

I like the puzzle piece belt. :) It really fits in with the Wikipedia theme. I'm not sure about the omega, though. But we do need to find another symmetrical letter used as part of the Wikipedia logo. Also, Omega is taken by another Kamen Rider :/—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the "Й"? Also which puzzle piece belt, the one with a single line of pieces on the rider, or the one with two lines of pieces on the close up of the belt? Also what do you think about removing the shoulder guards and adding knee guards. Any other feedback or ideas? Also what does everyone think about the Wikiranger below? Also, it appears I use "also" too much. (Guyinblack25 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

That letter looks cool. And I like the close up line of the double lines, it looks more like a jigsaw puzzle. The shoulder guards are rare among any of the Kamen Riders, and with the higher levels of Metal Heroes references making the armor more mechanical and what not, meaning knee...joint things would make it more like the actual ones.

The Wikiranger is good, as there's usually a lot less detail in suits for the necessity that they're a team, and the costumes be easy to have very few alterations on. I trust your artistic skills (and license) on both of these :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've been a bit busy with some new projects at work. Here's the fourth version. I finally came up with some boots I could live with. There are mainly just a few tweaks here and there, removed the shoulder guards, and some small knee guards. Changed the scarf to something more akin to the original KR. Changed the letter on the belt. As always, any comments, good or bad, are welcome. Please let me know what everyone thinks and/or would like to see. Once the design is set I'll start working on adding color and shading.
Also, something I realize I've been doing is moving the image down along with the discussion, would others like it better if re-uploaded the original images and inserted them at the appropriate places in the discussion 1)Simply to keep accurate records 2)Also so others can compare the different version? (Guyinblack25 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

That's okay. He looks really cool now :) I'll try to get others to see if they have any comments on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Discussing this with others, maybe we should go with the W for the belt :/ The N isn't really representative of Wiki.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any other changes? If that's the only change, I can do that in photoshop. If everyone is happy with the design I'll do some color tests. (Guyinblack25 04:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

I think that's about it. The other person I've shown this to is going to wait for the color test to see what he thinks about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

First color test of Fourth version of Kamen Rider Wiki

Okay, here's the first color test. No shading or texture or anything fancy, just basic paint by numbers coloring. The grey will more than likely be switched out with a more metalic looking color and the eyes will have more texture added to give the bug-eye appearance. What would everyone think about a maybe lighter color for the suit, instead of a near black, maybe something closer to white or a blue? Anyway, let me know what everyone thinks, good or bad, criticism is always appreciated. (Guyinblack25 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

I think the colors all right. There's not much one can work with in the Wikipedia color pallette. I'll try to get others for some input, as usual.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

People like him. But I just thought of something along Hibiki lines (to connect him to that). I've been looking for a decent kanji that would read ui (うい, ui) to go with oni (鬼, ki). Wiktionary gives me "beginning, initial, primary" (初, ui), "sad, grieving, melancholy" (憂, ui), "fennel, aniseed" (茴, ui), "have, own, possess; exist" (有, u) and "do, make, handle, govern, act; be" (為, i). There's also a lot of other stuff listed at wikt:う and wikt:い.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, "capable" (有為, ui).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And there are also "stomach" (胃, wi, obsolete), "well, mine shaft, pit" (井, wi, obsolete), and "Boar" (亥, wi, obsolete).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, I like "初鬼". I think linguistically it's a nicer/cooler name that gives a sense of importance. Plus most of the other Hibiki Riders had a two character name and I think it would better to have only two characters instead of three. That's my two cents. Also any other comments or suggestions on the color scheme, if not I'll work on adding texture/shading and get a finished image to you as soon as I can. (Guyinblack25 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Looks good, however, the first thing that came to my mind when reading the kanji was "Shoki", but after a moment you realize it is "Uiki". I think a lighter shade of blue would be better, it looks a little um... "thick" in lack of a better word.Filadelfo 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiranger

Second inked sketch of Wikiranger redesign

OK, here's a sketch of Wikiranger. Personally, I don't like the helmet, it didn't turn out how I was imagining it. I'm definitely planning on redoing that, but feedback/suggestions on what everyone else would like to see are welcome. Like if there are specific ranger costumes or parts of those costume that you like. I'm working on a second, much more polished sketch of Kamen Rider Wiki, and will follow up with the Wikiranger. Just to clarify, I assume the color schemes for both the Rider and Ranger will be Grey/Silver & White. I was think of possibly making it Grey/Silver & Black for the Rider. Anyway, any feedback and/or comments are appreciated. (Guyinblack25 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, for colors, we only have one individual to compare against, Wikipe-tan. There's black, silver, grey, white, and blue (for some unknown reason). However, there's not much we can also pick out of the different skins (Wikipedia sure is blandly designed :/). And again, use your artistic skills to base the design on.

I wasn't that good in PaintShopPro when I did this.

And the base is just a template that I had to go through the GFDL red tape to get :/ And my design is a bit crappy/not smooth.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've been a bit busy, here's another idea for the Wikiranger redesign. Feedback is appreciated as I want this to be a reflection of what everyone envisions the Wikiranger should look like. Also since I didn't get any feedback on the 2nd Kamen Rider Wiki design I started working on it some in Photoshop. I'll try to upload some versions with different color schemes to see what people think. (Guyinblack25 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Quick question, does anybody care if there's a "henshin" device for the Wikiranger? If so, I can try to work that into the design too. Any thoughts/ideas? (Guyinblack25 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Well, maybe a EditerBrace which henshin er, edits him into the WikiRanger. I even read a Munoh Sentai WikiRanger article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipe-tan can even be a part of it! --Beast Fist Saint GekiBlack 11:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger

I think Geki & Rinki should be as they are, maybe the Gekijuuken Beast Arts and the Rinjuuken Akugata as well, with the same translation explainations as Gekitohja.—Fractyl (Fractyl)

But it's Kanji that we know the English meaning of. "GekiTohja" is written in katakana and has meaning from kanji. There is no reason to leave kanji as romaji when there is a translation that we know of. Things like "激獣拳" have known translations. Whereas something like "ゲキワザ" is left as it is. If it was written as "激気技" then it'd be translated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I get that it should translated, but like in "name/puns", like we did with the likes of Daizyujin, which was written in kanji, & many of the mecha seen in shows like Abarenger. the energy the Gekirangers draw from, Geki, is really a double pun as it is translated as "Fierce Spirit", but it also pun on 'Fierce' alone, "Geki". And Ki is the japanese term for "Chi", the energy harnessed in martial arts. And for "Rinki" to match up with Geki. —Fractyl (Fractyl)

Well, I made it so "Geki" is "Fierce Spirit." There are times when it's good to translate and those when it's not. And why is it that your posts aren't time stamped?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess, but I still prefer using terms like Gekijuuken. As for the time stamp, no idea.—Fractyl (Fractyl)

Kamen Rider (franchise)

Would it not be better for the Kamen Rider (franchise) page to have the article name of Kamen Rider instead? --Aaru Bui ^DII 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No... Because there's already the page, Kamen Rider, for the first series. That series came before the franchise was actually created, so it is the one that doesn't need an disabmiguation. Kamen Rider (skyrider) and Kamen Rider (franchise) share the same name, but they essentially came after. KR isn't like SS, being that it has no logo. :( Floria L 19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Japanese Wikipedia has the page as "Kamen Rider Series," but we can't really move it to Kamen Rider as that was the first series, which was later followed by another series called "Kamen Rider" that is more commonly called "Skyrider" because of the main character, while there has not been a single program called "Super Sentai" or "Metal Hero" (the Ultra Series is another issue).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Which came first was never the way to determine which article gets a name. It has always been the most common usage of the term. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be Kamen Rider in 1971. Followed by the the franchise when V3 and X came out, and then Skyrider in 1979.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance over Plot Hole matters at KRK

Seems user Teram10 is determined to add in a section about plotholes, even though that is neither encyclopedic or attributable. I tried explaining, but it doesn't seem to be working. :S Any advice? He seems to interpret WP:TRIVIA, in that, all information he deems silly is trivia. Especially the part about the Rider Kick. Having Rider Kick is trivia? Floria L 18:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I will discuss it with him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Geki Wazas

Just got your message, but you should consider keep GekiWazas mostly untranslated around the "word-word" area. It seems to go in hand with Jan's manner of speaking. Fractyl 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But we know that Hō is Cannon :/—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but it's "Hō-Hō" and the attack really has nothing do with a "cannon", just a standard "aura projection" attack. Ten-Ten Dan (Intent on finding a batter english term for "Dan") sorta counts as GekiJaguar does spin in this move. As for "Kyaku", it seemed more of romanized "kick". As for Gekitohja's Big Gan-Gan Fist, it's not really a "punch attack" from my perspective. Fractyl Fractyl

Now I want to change the Gekiwazas! Can someone BESIDES the helpful Ryulong actually reply to this and make it happen?

• Geki-Geki Cannon (激激砲, Geki Geki Hō)
• Twice-Twice Clone Fist (倍倍分身拳, Bai Bai Bunshin Ken)
• Come-Come Beast (来来獣, Rai Rai Jū)

Tiger-Fist Styles

• Gun-Gun Bullet (砲砲弾, Hō Hō Dan)

Whirl-Whirl Fist (グルグル拳, Guru Guru Ken)

Cheetah-Fist Styles

• Flicker-Flicker Bullet (瞬瞬弾, Shun Shun Dan)
• Strike-Strike Bullet (打打弾, Da Da Dan)
• Wave-Wave Bullet (振振弾, Shin Shin Dan)
• Mama-Mama Strike (母母打, Haha Haha Da)

Jaguar-Fist Styles

• Spin-Spin Bullet (転転弾, Ten Ten Dan)
• Dance-Dance Strike (舞舞打, Mai Mai Da)
• Dance-Dance Dash (舞舞走, Mai Mai Sō)
• Bloom-Bloom Bullet (花花弾, Hana Hana Dan)

Leopard-Fist Styles

• Pierce-Pierce Palm (貫貫掌, Kan Kan Shō)

Elephant-Fist Styles

• Shot-Shot Ball (弾弾丸, Dan Dan Gan)—A Gekiwaza that uses the GekiHammer to hit the enemy hard from a long distance.

Bat-Fist Styles

• Rise-Rise Bullet (昇昇弾, Shō Shō Dan)—A Gekiwaza that uses the GekiFan.
• Rise-Rise Dance (昇昇舞, Shō Shō Mai)—Uses the Double GekiFan to perform a graceful movement in midair.
• Air-Air Slash (宙宙斬, Chū Chū Zan)—Charges the Double GekiFan with Geki in midair to slash the opponents.

GekiTohja Gekiwazas

• Big Firm-Firm Fist (大頑頑拳, Dai Gan Gan Ken)
• Big Firm-Firm Kick (大頑頑脚, Dai Gan Gan Kyaku)
• Big Degree-Degree Kick (大分分脚, Dai Bun Bun Kyaku)

GekiElephanTohja Gekiwazas

• Great Firm-Firm Ball (大頑頑丸, Dai Gan Gan Gan)

GekiBatTohja Gekiwazas

• Great Degree-Degree Fan (大分分扇, Dai Bun Bun Sen)

Fractyl 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kan is "pierce"? Hmm.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if I'm no good with a mass of kanji, I can at least manage to get one to few translated.Fractyl 02:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Kamen Riders

Given that the number of Kamen Rider characters has grown, and will only continue to grow in the future as long as the franchise is on TV, I thought I'd try to make a template for the Kamen Rider characters. I haven't applied it to any pages yet, because I thought I'd run it by others to hopefully work out any kinks in it. I tried to include the basic information. I also tried to make the information relevant to any character, hero or villian (except for rider finisher and rider weapon). So anybody that has any ideas or input, please help out. (Guyinblack25 00:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

That works, however all of the more recent riders have multiple forms, and they all have different images, motifs, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What if several templates were made like the Template:Infobox animanga ones. A main header and footer and then an additional one for extra forms or other information. The only other option I can think of right now is to have the number of forms listed and any other images appropriately placed in the article as a normal image. Just a thought. (Guyinblack25 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Well, right now I think you can impliment it on some of the older riders. The newer ones will be a small problem for now (the Den-O riders come to mind here).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think this will work out. KR Riders are simply too random to be confirmed to a static template. This works with Sentai, not KR. Floria L 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the only recent Rider that would fit your description Floria is TheBee. Now, perhaps we could set up something for the physical specs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, I tweaked the template format. I created three separate templates similar to the anime and manga ones. The templates are : Template:Infobox Kamen Riders/Header, Template:Infobox Kamen Riders/Extra form, and Template:Infobox Kamen Riders/Footer. There is an example on the Template:Infobox Kamen Riders page. I've got a few ideas to tweak it also, like the use of color and maybe including some more details. There are still a few finer points to work out, but what do y'all think? A step in the right direction, or still no dice? (Guyinblack25 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

The separation of Robo and Sokko

As of now, the Giant Robo live-action series, also known as Johnny Sokko and his Flying Robot is a separate article from the Giant Robo.

As I understand it, Giant Robo (tokusatsu) is one of the Toei Superheroes so it falls under the jurisdiction of WP:TOKU and Giant Robo (OVA) under WP:ANIME. Just letting the respective projects know.--Nohansen 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Giant Robo should be set up as a disambiguation page, or the tokusatsu article should exist instead of the redirect. As far as I know, the OVA should have an article in its own right. However, now the history of the articles are all messed up :(—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The tokusatsu article began as Johnny Sokko And His Flying Robot. It was then merged to Giant Robo, which began as an article on the OVA. I took Giant Robo's article history when I turned it into an article on the OVA, but forgot about Johnny Sokko And His Flying Robot's article. The Giant Robo (tokusatsu) could be edited into the Johnny Sokko And His Flying Robot redirect and turned the Giant Robo (tokusatsu) into a redirect to Johnny Sokko And His Flying Robot. (Does that make sense?) But that's up to you all.--Nohansen 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and fix that history, then.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up/recreate Super Sentai Spirits article

the article Super Sentai Spirits 2 needs to be recreated to a article on the concert series to an article for general info. or can it be deleeted and the proposed article added to Super Sentai Spirits

Please help? Mandrke 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see those articles as passing notability requirements or salvagable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger, Schools

I think Gekijuuken Beast Arts & Rinjuuken Akugata should be reworked like this...

• Gekijuuken Beast Arts (激獣拳ビーストアーツ, Gekijūken Bīsuto Ātsu, Firece Beast-Fist)
• Rinjuuken Akugata (臨獣拳アクガタ, Rinjūken Akugata, Confrontation Beast-Fist)

Fractyl 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No sir. Kanji = translate unless its something like henshin, which is almost americanized. Floria L 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You sorta misunderstand it, both "Geki" and "Rin" are associated with both sides, plus "Juuken" is part of the title. Furthremore, if we do did this, we're not going to use the same translations used by TV-Nihon. Fractyl 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Title = untranslate. Rest of Kanji = translate. Doesn't matter where it happens, or what it associates with. I could care less about tvnihon, Kanji = translate. Until you can give a legitimate reason of why Kanji shouldn't be translate beyond your own opinion, then no. Floria L 22:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see...

• 1. The team is named "Gekiranger"
• 2. Many of their arsenal, and a few attacks, have "Geki" in the name. Plus the Ranger's Chi, "Geki", is a pun on Geki.

Are those legitimate reasons for you, because I see them beyond being a opinion. Plus, if you noticed, the translated term is still present in the "nihongo" for understandment reasons. Fractyl 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that "激獣拳" and "臨獣拳" are completely translatable and that's what we did. It was not done from the inception because we did not have a proper transcription of the title and of "獣拳." It was because it was the right thing to do (translate from Japanese to English). The reading of the kanji gives enough information (Fierce Beast-Fist (激獣拳, Gekijūken)). We do not need to throw the translation of "geki" as "fierce" just to link Gekirangers with Gekijūken.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But I also mention that there are some cases that have no need to be translated, like "Daizyujin", "Dairenoh", or fighting-styles from "Fist of the North Star". Plus, many of the show's fan perfer the terms. Plus the "translate from Japanese to English" is still intended here, just only the need of theOffical (Kanji, Romanji, Translation) on contrast to the Translation (Kanji, Romanji). Fractyl 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is because there is only one group that does subtitles for the series and they have their own methods of transcribing things. It may be reverse synthesis, but at one point there was a post on Yuka Hirata's blog that used "Confrontation Beast-Fist" in complete English on something that she found. It is pointless not to translate when the items are translatable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Nihhon's a example, though not one I would go for. I can argee that it's not pointless to "translate the translatable", but "what should be translated and what shouldn't", especially to go with a theme, is the matter. But I intend to gather more back up to settle this eventually. To those a bit miffed, I have no intend to infuriate. Fractyl 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kensei

I found out that we should leave the Kensei alone as there is a pun behind the name: "Sensei" in the sense of a "ancient sage" or "Confucius", and in English terms, Sensei is a title for one who teaches martial arts. For the moments, I have used "Kensei" at the Gekijuuken page, with explaining of the term. It has been aproved for future references. Fractyl 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this. Do not unilaterally change anything else. It's the Fist Saints vs the Fist Demons. Sensei and Kensei do not even use the same kanji. "Fierce" and "Confrontation" may be switched to "Geki" and "Rin" but I'm not sure about that right now (激 and 臨 may have improper translations on our end). Please leave things as they are for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't object when I provided the Kensei info, saying "whatever" to give me the OK. Plus, I never said the Kanji were the same, only a pun on "拳聖". 先聖 translates into Sensei in the terms of "Ancient Sage" or Confucius (Juuken did start in China, as well as the word Sensei itself). Furthermore, "Sensei" is a term used for a martial arts teacher worldwide. Fractyl 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The two are written differently (sensei and kensei) in Japanese. See Sensei.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Sensei can be translated in Kanji as 先生(Teacher) or 先聖 (Ancient Sage), furthering the pun's intend as the Kensei are both Teachers and Sages.

Kanji Search, Sensei Fractyl 01:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Geki/Rin

With my recent translating (google, wiktionary, etc.) it's becoming more evident that Geki (激) and Rin (臨) aren't "Fierce" and "Confrontation." "Geki" is "intense" or "exciting" and "Rin" is "approach" or "descend." "Geki" only means "fierce" when it's part of "fierce fighting" (激闘, gekitō) and "Rin" has only been used as meaning "Confrontation" is at Yuka Hirata's blog and I'm not even sure that's official merchandise. The only other websites that use Wikipedia's translations are ones that plagiarize our entries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a new reason to start using "Gekijuuken Beast Arts" and "Rinjuuken Akugata", less confusing and allows the start of the "names and puns" section to deal with numerous meanings. Fractyl 15:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that may be less confusing for fan fanatics that constantly watch the show, but for someone that is simply trying to get into the show, all the untranslated terms that you expect people to know will ultimately make the article fail at informing people, even if you provide an explanation section later, it defeats the purpose. Floria L 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that, but in a show like Gekiranger (or Fist of the North Star or Street Fight), untranslated terms are somewhat expected to go with the martial-arts theme. Fractyl 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet "Fist of the North Star" is translated for its North American release from "Hokuto no Ken." We're not a fansite. We're an encyclopedia. And I just need a proper translation for the kanji that are read as "Geki" and "Rin" unless our translations are decent. It's bothersome to me with the massive amount of romaji in these articles for Kanji names (we get flack for translating "Bakuryuu" into "Blastasaur" and not "Blast Dragon")—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but I acceptabled "Blastasaur" as I got the pun. But I still believe Geki & Rin should be left alone, and be explained in a "note/puns" section on the main page. Besides, I'll think of a proper translation, I have seen enough of the show to devise the fitting English word. Fractyl 04:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Power Rangers Wiki

Hi, I want to introduce the Power Rangers Universe Wiki(a) to you. Maybe some of you have seen this wiki years ago, when it was nothing more than a copy of existing wikipedia articles to that wiki. That's because the founder of that wikia wiki, just creates it and the leave forever. Since that time some users found the wiki and work a little at it to make the basics. Since June i've adopted that wiki and worked a lot on the structure of the wiki, imported images and writing small articles. Currently there are only a few users active and I'm as the admin native German. There's a lot to do on the wiki and currently most users are working on the sentai series. To copy wikipedia is not the goal on the wiki, instead writing nearly everything about the power rangers and super sentai series, to make it to an great resource as http://rovang.org currently is. So if you asking why a power rangers wiki, wikipedia is also a place for power rangers articles, YES: but in the power rangers wiki should be everything from the pr universe and only those articles. It has much more space for episode guides and fast finding articles to single pr object. So if anyone or the Tokusatsu project is interested in creating a big power rangers resource: your are invited to join. By the way there is also an German, French (and a Polish) PRWiki which work together. -- Serpen 22:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not what I meant. I wanted you to at least register an account here and discuss the links to your page here. Right now, this isn't any better than any other spamming you've done here, Serpen.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not spamming, I'm asking if someon has interest, this is no demand for anyone to join. I won't create an account because I won't work on the englisch wiki. The few links i added to the existing link list and this article would be the only to thing I would ever do on the English Wikipedia. I won't discuss if the link i added were necassary, if you mean they were against the policy: it's okay. I just want to ask if some user may be interested -- Serpen 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Early Power Rangers ESA VAs

There's been quite a bit of editing to pages such as List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers monsters (Season One) involving voice actors for the monsters. At this point, none of these can be supported by any reliable, non-OR source (while I respect SirSTACK's ear for VAs, everyone else's opinions kinda make his obsolete by association). Unless someone objects, I'm gonna start stripping all non-credits credited VAs in the next couple days. JPG-GR 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

I need some help on this project. I have been contributing significantly to various articles, including Seijuu Sentai Gingaman. Any comments or helpful information should be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

GA drive

I am considering a go for a GA drive on the Super Sentai articles. By all means, join me! Anyone who wants to join this drive sign here. Greg Jones II 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

This page has been now semi-protected. This vandalism on Super Sentai articles is pointless. I find the lack of assuming good faith disturbing. Greg Jones II 23:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What now? The page is semiprotected because some idiot in Canada wants to get rid of all mentions of Power Rangers on Wikipedia, including this talk page. Check the history, and you'll see the issue at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment above. I did not quite understand. That user doing this to get rid of all mentions of Power Rangers on Wikipedia is clearly not acceptable, so that is why the page was protected. Greg Jones II 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance

I am trying to cite reliable sources for some sentai articles that don't have sources. If there are some reliable sources, let me know here. Greg Jones II 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

With Floria taking a break, I need the aid in talking out certain matters that must be met Fractyl 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about Justiriser Pictures

Something happened to the Justiriser logo. It appears to be deleted!

Also, I'm very unfamiliar as to how an image is qualified for Wikipedia. Could I take some screenshots of the show at low resolution of each character or a group shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exo Kopaka (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Need Help!

I found a copy on veoh.com of the RAW version of the final episode of Seijuu Sentai Gingaman but I need some help understanding the final battle footage since I found a few inacurate things in Zahab's profile I need help with. -24.20.219.52 08:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

Whenever I cruise Kamen Rider series articles, I always wince at the long, long lists of episodes. I know it was discussed previously, so I won't ask if the simple lists can be moved without episode synopsises{esesesss'z?), but rather if maybe they could be placed into tables within the article? A double-column deal, just to make it not such a massive block to scroll past. Admittedly, 50-ish lines isn't too awful, but it's still a pain in the ass. And if the Kabuto episode list is the standard, then I can start generating content for Hibiki, since that's what I'm starting to watch now. Or is the Hibiki hatred so intense that I've now doomed my wiki-reputation? Howa0082 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, since the Kamen Rider shows are television series, they should follow some of the writing guidelines of the Television Project. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs#Episode listing, "a short list of episodes is sometimes appropriate in the main article. The list should be a table with the episode title, airdate, and a one- or two-sentence summary." Given that, if they are in the main show article, then they should be in table form. But since they are normally 49+ episodes per show, they probably shouldn't be there at all. Since most of the articles have a plot section, a see also or further inormation link to the episode list could be added there and the episode list removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Recent Sentai-related AFDs

Recently, there have been multiple AFDs for articles relating to Super Sentai series:

• Power Animal (Gaoranger)
• Underground Hades Empire Infershia
• Infershia Pantheon
• Monsters in Mahou Sentai Magiranger
• List of Magiranger spells
• AkaRed
• Ogre Tribe Org
• Choudenshi Bioman

This is getting tiring, particularly when the subjects of the articles are notable, but are just filled with way too much plot summary rather than character biography or series information. Out of these, I only really expect for the monster and spell lists to be deleted (they're also not entirely necessary), but the more primary character lists such as that of the Orgs and Infershia are notable, but due to the language constraints the notability is difficult to convey.

However, the plot summary aspects do need to be dealt with. For various characters' articles or lists of characters, we should definitely cut down on the excessive plot summary, and also on the more recent episode lists (they are huge on my large screen resolution). For the fictional character biographies, basically remove anything that could be construed as "spoilers" which effectively summarize the characters' activity throughout the whole program. For the List of Den-O episodes and List of Gekiranger episodes, I think they should be cut down to around six sentences such that the main points are put forward but not overly descriptive (think the preview and the resolution of what happened in the preview).

Any other suggestions?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the plot summaries need to be dealt with. We also need to cite sources per WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Some of the articles may contain original research and need to be removed as per WP:NOR. Greg Jones II 01:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Does this Project have an assessment scheme, like other projects do? If not, should we not set this up? I'd like to be able to say "Yes, this is an important article. But it's not well-written. Get on that, you!" or "This is really well written. But it's about Godzilla's fifth lumbar frill. WTF." Howa0082 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing set up currently to that effect. We're a baby WikiProject at the moment, working its way through Pre-K.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest at least an importance scale? Quality can come later, I suppose, but it'd be good to have importance on articles, to help folk know what's core to this wikiproject. Howa0082 (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Power Rangers articles may be to tense

I see that some Power Rangers character articles, expecially character articles about Power Rangers Mystic Force and Power Rangers Operation Overdrive characters are a bit tense for encyclopedia articles. There are even templates on some of their characters articles stating the tense is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

I see in Episode Name this, in Episode Name bla bla bla, in Episode Name that, in Episode Name this revealed, bla bla this that this; in Episode Name bla bla bla bla bla.

I think the tense on articles on PRMF and PROO Power Rangers characters and the lists of their characters should be removed as it does not look encyclopedic, and is too specific and time based. Mythdon (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how tense those articles are!. Mythdon (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean. There is obviously a language barrier issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What i mean is grammatical tense, you know how sometimes you might talk about stuff in the form of when it happened. Mythdon (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That is an issue. The articles need to be written in the present tense, and the episodes need to be used as references.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I also have a suggestion that the Power Rangers: Jungle Fury characters not be written in the style that Mystic Force and Operation Overdrive were, because the in Episode Name bla bla bla is extremely unencyclopedic, because it can lead to adding random garbage to the Articles/Sections about the characters. Mythdon (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The episode titles serve as a reference as to what happened that is important for the particular character. Most of them relate to the actual biography of the fictional character and allow for fact checking. Extraneous details should be avoided, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that the episode titles are to be used as references in order to verify that episode contained that piece of information?. Mythdon (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox power rangers style

I would like to change the style of Template:Infobox Power Rangers to have the color "lightblue", just like on the Template:power rangers. Mythdon (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an esoteric template. I'm not sure it would change that much.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by esoteric template?. Mythdon (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Information check

While on RC Patrol, I noticed a new editor added a succession box (which I fixed) to Ninja Storm Power Rangers#Hunter_Bradley. I have very minimal knowledge about Power Rangers so I can't tell if the information is correct or not. Reading the relevant articles just confused me since I don't know the series context. Can somebody please look it over? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a good move. A "Second In Command" succession box is testy business since not all seasons made it clear who was 2IC; it's better a box like that be left out. Arrowned (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that succession box; as well as cleaned up the mess that was stuff that happened at the end of S.P.D. with all of the promotions and demotions. That is easier described in text rather than five succession boxes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think a succession box for "Second in Command" is good either as it only wastes space and is easier to describe in text like you said. Mythdon (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox tokusatsu

I believe there should be an infobox called Infobox tokusatsu as it would be a great addition. How about it. Mythdon (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Tokusatsu either fall under {{Infobox Television}} or {{Infobox Film}}. There is no need to create a template that is specific to a set of television series.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand now. Mythdon (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Power Rangers team

I strongly believe there should be an infobox power rangers team because it would show details about the Ranger team in an infobox.

Here is examples of info that would be included.

• Number of Rangers they have
• Age group of the Rangers
• Leader of the team
• Power source
• Color scheme
• Number of appearances they made
• The episode they first appeared in
• The episode they last appeared in
• Species of the Rangers
• Ranger-Like Ally (optional)
• The side they are on, good or evil
• The series they are from
• The Sentai team they are based on
• Group armor they have (optional)
• Status of the Rangers, active, or retired
• The mentor to the Rangers
• The place the Rangers hang out at (optional)

And there is the infobox i request. Mythdon (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any more infoboxes, as most of this stuff is either mentioned in the series' article or is original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it original research?. Mythdon (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Age is never mentioned. Species is rarely mentioned. Their hangout is not important to the story. We do not need infoboxes. The infoboxes we do have are rarely used.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But i still truly believe that this infobox would be useful, not to mention their are alot of stuff i believe should be on the infobox that would be useful. Mythdon (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not necessary for every subject. This is one of them, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could at least try it out first, and if it turns out to be too clumsy and retarded, then get rid of it. But at least give it a shot, Dragondragon. Howa0082 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this infobox would be a great try as it does seem to give infoboxed information. I think Ryulong is wrong about how it is unneccisary. Mythdon (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not need infoboxes for everything. The content already described I think would make it overly large and clumsy. A singular character infobox suffices, and even the one that has been written is clunky as is. If anything, before we make new infoboxes, we should fix up the one that we have.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But will this infobox ever get into existance some time in the future?. Mythdon (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now I don't really think it is necessary (I really don't think we need the infoboxes we have), but maybe it could be worked on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could that also mean Template:Infobox Power Rangers is unnecessary too?. Mythdon (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs work. It also isn't used very much. We need to work on what we have as templates before we make new ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurricaneger

I have set up a page for the Space-Ninja Group Jakanja, as I have two episodes left to cover. Anyone care to help me out? Fractyl (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Striked out names

What does it mean when a user name is striked out in the "Participants" section?. Here is the style for what i mean: Strike out example. Mythdon (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They are no longer affiliated with the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Power Rangers should be moved to Infobox Power Rangers character

I think Template:Infobox Power Rangers should be moved to Template:Infobox Power Rangers character as it may seem confusing for some people. Can it be moved?. Mythdon (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be moved? It is an infobox for Power Rangers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Because, other show specific infoboxes have the word "character" in it. We do not wan't infobox designers to get confused with the name do we?. Mythdon (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any other specific infoboxes. Infobox television is used for the series, and even the infobox you suggest isn't used on every article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not saying we need any other specific infoboxes. Im saying we need to rename Template:Infobox Power Rangers to Template:Infobox Power Rangers character. Mythdon (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, and the box does not need to be any more specific. It's rarely used as it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be, then. Is every other article than the ones using it just using a generic infobox? If we have an infobox template specifically for characters from Power Rangers, why aren't articles to which it is applicable using it? Howa0082 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

We do not need to produce any more infoboxes than we already have. Doing so just increases maintenance work and upkeep of the various pages and templates. What we have right now is more than enough, because they are not in use or are deprecated. The infoboxes we do have could very well be deleted. The most that we need are the navigational boxes. Infoboxes can be worked on later.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it that episodes are not allowed to have there own articles?. I have seen many articles on television episodes. Mythdon (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT, really. Most of the episode articles I see for random TV shows probably shouldn't exist either; few go into any detail on real world context/reception. Arrowned (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles on episodes are also in a bit of a shift as to whether or not they are notable for coverage in non-trivial media (outside of a TV Guide or a fansite). Also, the guideline on episodes is disputed and there was a recent arbitration case dealing with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me the arbitration case. Mythdon (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Singular episodes are just not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. No one is sure what to do with articles on episodes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to say it is that if Episode X was controversial or received some kind of media attention beyond just "the premier episode" or "finale episode", it can be put on Wikipedia. But generally speaking, run of the mill episodes are not notable, like in The Simpsons. How many episodes have there been about Homer catastrophically bollocksing up his entire life but fixing it by Removing Negative Character Trait Y? Too many for any one of them to really deserve it's own article. Now, Simpsons is not a good example, though, because far too many episodes have their own articles, but that's also because there's far more intense Simpsons fans than there are tokusatsu fans on Wiki. To boil all that down? Normal episodes are not notable enough for their own article, unless you have a tremendous amount of fanbase backing you up that they are. Concensus, yanno? Howa0082 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Power Rangers video games

I wish to create Template:Power Rangers video games as it would have great navigation to click links to articles on Power Rangers video games, and i believe this template should be created. Mythdon (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No more template requests, please. They just create more and more work that needs to be done. A list or category is a better option than a navigational template in this situation.06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I already made a list. The list is called List of Power Rangers video games just so you know. Mythdon (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've incorporated the list into {{Power Rangers}}—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the list article exactly necessary or is it superfluous. Mythdon (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is useful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tables to lists on Power Rangers

Why is it that the "Seasons" section on Power Rangers uses a table and not a bulleted list?. I truly believe that tables is not encyclopedic on Power Rangers when it comes to listing seasons. Mythdon (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this, and this needs to be at Talk:Power Rangers. Not this page. This is for the group, not the particular article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I believe that now is the time to archive this talk page as it seems big, and has many discussions that are no longer of concern to us. Mythdon (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We will get to that when it is necessary. The project is slow enough that we could still use some of the older conversations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And that will not come until like March at least right?. Mythdon (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When the archive is needed, it will be done. I would prefer that you wait and read some other policies before applying them yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Apply what?. Mythdon (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Zaido and Metal Heroes

A user here keeps erasing links between Zaido and other Metal Heroes articles, I keep undoing them since it seems this user is only doing it out of pure hate for Zaido even though Zaido has clear relations to Metal Heroes. But is what this user doing right or is it just pure vandalism? User:Hai_Tien 16:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment, part deux

Here's my thing, guys. This WikiProject desperately needs an importance scale. Quality seems to be rated pretty decently by the other projects these things fall under, so all I'm concerned about is importance. Here's the importance scale from the TV WikiProject, which several Toku articles fall under as well.

Status	Template	Meaning of Status
Top	{{Top-Class}}	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High	{{High-Class}}	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid	{{Mid-Class}}	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low	{{Low-Class}}	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None	None	This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Seems fairly obvious to myself that articles would clearly fall into a hierarchy, like a pyramid almost. Top-Importance would be Tokusatsu itself, obviously. Maybe one or two other things can go in there, but we'll see, right? High would be all the major franchises. Godzilla, Super Sentai, Kamen Rider, Power Rangers, that kind of thing. As well, certain characters are this important, too, like Godzilla himself, or perhaps Zordon. From there, we go down to Mid, which would be individual shows or movies. Low importance would be filled with lists, and pages of characters or various stuff. The actors who portray characters can wind up here, as well.

Obviously, there would be some exceptions to these broad guidelines. The original Godzilla movie I feel would be of High Importance. After all, that movie was the first real exposure to Tokusatsu cinema for most of the world, so it's pretty damn important. Same with Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, or the original Kamen Rider series. This is just a proposal, however, so any suggestions for improvement of where things would go would be well-taken. I feel very strongly that we need this rubric to measure ourselves by. Too much effort, in general, is put towards unimportant articles when much more important ones need work, purely because the negligable articles are easier to write. This should help alleviate some of this, I hope. We should also pressure the TV and Movies WikiProjects for content assessment, so we can make these articles better. My god, our flagship article, the one this project is named for, is only START CLASS, as rated by TWO different WikiProjects. That is unacceptable. It makes us look foolish. Let's start focusing our efforts, please. Howa0082 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Participants subpage

When the time comes, i think there should be a subpage called Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Participants, so we can list the participants when the list on this page gets too big. Do you think a subpage like that would be qualify?. Mythdon (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Den-O Wiki Quote

If you like to keep it, request it to stay and be built up.

Den-O WikiQuote

Fractyl (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary at all, really. Why quote something that's been translated by people who try to fight copyright infringement?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is that those quote translations come from groups like TV-Nihon? Howa0082 (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the quotes were provided by wikipedia. Fractyl (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Does changes to this WikiProject page have to be discussed every time?. Mythdon (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaiketsu Zubat AFD

It seems like Kaiketsu Zubat will soon be at WP:AFD. -Malkinann (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How to Kill an Orphenoch?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphenoch

Just the heading seems a bit silly. Is this really necissary?Exo_Kopaka (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008

Parent Project and MoS

There seems to be some issues with various Tokusatsu series pages. It needs to be clear that the series pages, character pages, etc are also under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, and that those pages should follow the applicable Television MoS, not just make up their own styles. I've attempted to fix one such page Kamen Rider Blade, however there has been resistance from a single editor who does not want to acknowledge that the article should follow the existing MoS, not his own created style. Some project discussion and encouragement to address this issue would be a good idea, and perhaps updating the project page to better clarify this to avoid continuing conflicts as the Television project goes through trying to clean up articles. This will be particularly important if the project truly wants to meet its stated goal of getting the various series articles to FA status. They will be opposed if they do not follow the Television MoS.Collectonian (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment at Talk:Kamen Rider Blade#Constant reformattings that mostly covered my response, but for the tl;dr crowd, WP:TOKU is not a child project of anything else. Tokusatsu is not just TV series; it encompasses professional theatrical films, DVD series that aren't broadcast on television, indie films, professional music releases, video games, etc. It is just that they are all connected by people in rubberized suits beating the shit out of each other.

There is no "official" MoS for any of these pages, but there is a general style that was put in place during the airing of 2007's TV series and that has been adopted by the 2008 series' pages. If anything, I think that the formatting of Kamen Rider Den-O is perfectly fine and archetypal of toku TV series pages (which is what I had been doing to Blade's page). The only issue you seem to have with this formatting is that it is not inline with the formatting you are mostly used to, that of WP:TV. How is it cluttered and horribly formatted as you had stated somewhere else? It has all of the information in clearly readable sections.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Forthcoming MoS

Are we going to have any input into this whole thing? I wouldn't mind a reasonable discussion on the format for Toku articles, since we're apparently going to have our own MoS now. Howa0082 (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, now that the school year is over (at least for college), there will be plenty of input for such things. Right now, I would hope that Kamen Rider Den-O is treated as the archetypal article, with maybe changes made to its structure to make sense of everything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bioman

Hopefully, someone knows of a site of episode summaries for Chodenshi Bioman, so we can split the episode list off to its own article. Howa0082 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need episode summaries for every series? Can't the numbered list stay as it is?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I mainly want to split it off because that's the easiest thing to do with it. As it is, it's an extremely long list of 51 things. I've mentioned before possibly tabling things into a two-column format once they get too long. As well, episode summaries would help with too much plot detail sitting in the main article by having the episode list mention the major plot points of each episode on a page just for that. I'm willing to accept some kind of format change for those huge lists on older programs, however, just because I know it'd probably be damn near impossible to find episode summaries or copies of the episodes to synopsize ourselves. Howa0082 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can make two-columns and numbered lists, then by all means go for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article on an Ultraman creator

I just came across an article that might be of use to editors at this project:

• Kawaguchi, Judit (2008-05-13). "Ultraman creator Kazuho Mitsuta". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2008-05-14.

Hope it helps... suuuWATCH!!! Dekkappai (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 321 articles are assigned to this project, of which 93, or 29.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Power Rangers pictures

Hello I'm Nedim. I don't work on english wikipedia because i don't speak english very well. I want to ask user Ryulong does he can upload all pictures from article Mighty Morphin Power Rangers on Commons because I had the problem with that. I work on bosnian wikipedia and i need that pictures, because i don't have adquate promisse and i can upload that pictures on my wikipedia. Please i need that pictures for good of bosnian wikipedia.

P.S. Upload pictures with same names on en wiki. NH08 (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons only allows uploading of pictures that are freely licensed or in the public domain. Screencaps from episodes or promotional material from a TV show are neither, and so it would be against Commons copyright laws to upload those images there. Sorry. Arrowned (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Vectorizations of Image:Wiki-head2.png and Image:Wikiranger.png

I feel that WikiProject Tokusatsu's project images Image:Wiki-head2.png and Image:Wikiranger.png should be converted into .svg's as they would look clearer and they could also use some enlarging. Mythdon (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

These images are pixel art to begin with and would be difficult to turn into vector art.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If anybody wants to take the time converting them to .svg's, would you as a user agree with it?. I got to ask, do you agree with my suggestion to turn them into vector graphics?. Mythdon (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It would not work if they were turned into vector graphics because there is nothing in the image itself to turn them into a large scale vector graphic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If a new logo for the project was made, would it be a vector image in your view?. Mythdon (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What is that even supposed to mean?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, do you think the next logo (if the current one does get replaced) would be a .svg? That is what i mean. Mythdon (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't be worth asking. By the way, if the logo gets changed, i suggest it be of vector graphics and not raster graphics. Would that be good?. Mythdon (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why is it vital the format be .svg? A well-made .jpg will look just as clear, and you won't need to resize the logo that much I'm guessing... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

a .svg looks good in terms of WikiProject logos. Vector graphics do not decrease in quality by enlarging like raster graphics does. .svg also has transparent like .png (the file format currently used for this WikiProjects logo) and .gif do. Also, a .jpg would not look as clear as a .svg in terms of WikiProject logos due to the decreased quality of .jpegs when they are used. Mythdon (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would look fine if it wasn't stretched, and I don't see why you'd be making your logo different sizes all the time. It would be useful, just difficult to do. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a vector graphics editor, so i can't make any .svg images. Mythdon (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythdon, this again falls under the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category of dealing with things. Don't make things over complicated for no reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Also, I'm not trying to fix something that is not broken, but rather improve it. You can improve something that is fixed. Mythdon (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true; however, your goals should be set reasonably. Personally, I don't think this Wikiproject is large enough to warrant so much attention to its logo alone. I'm not saying it's not important or useful, but why expend the effort of making a scalable graphic when it will barely see usage? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This WikiProject will become big eventually. I feel users should just make a vector image and get it over with. That is a better option then wating. Mythdon (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Mythdon, don't bother. There's no need for any SVG image here. This WikiProject does fine without it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the project does fine without it. This discussion is about the logo, not the project itself. Mythdon (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a new logo or an SVG one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if somebody makes a new logo (such as a totally new one or svg version of the current png one) and posts it on this talk page, i have no doubt you will be in the discussion. Mythdon (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- If someone comes up with something that could be used as a logo and it just happens to be a vector image, I will be part of the discussion, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Power Rangers color pages

To continue the discussion. I'm going to finally bring it up on this talk page. I feel is best we do not include Rangers not referred to by their colors on the following articles:

• Red Ranger
• Blue Ranger
• Yellow Ranger
• Green Ranger
• Black Ranger
• Pink Ranger
• White Ranger

Please note that I'm not including the Quantum Ranger as an exclusion since he was treated as a Red Ranger in Wild Force episode "Forever Red".

I wish for those articles to have those exclusions. Mythdon (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the articles are fine as they are.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not me. The color table does not state non-color named Rangers in the color categories but instead lists them as "Other", and since that is the case, it is relevant and encyclopedic to exclude those Rangers in the Ranger color articles as well seeing that the color table can be read as a brief of the Ranger color articles. Mythdon (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's a table and not a listing on a page to direct people to the proper page for the information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What about at the introduction of the articles, we state the Rangers who wear the colors but are not named those colors in the form of prose and have a link to Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies for more information and not include them in the list sections. Mythdon (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is set up in chronological order, and having them where they would be if they were named after the color makes sense for placement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order does not convince me in any way. my previous state above about the inclusion in the introduction of the articles would fit very well. Mythdon (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Magazine Info for Kamen Rider BLACK & BLACK RX (in Japanese)

• Page 1
• Page 2
• Page 3
• Page 4

I currently improving The Kamen Rider BLACK & BLACK RX character but I Research on a magazine in japanese I cannot understand, we need your cooperation for improving articles . thnk U

NEED HELP: For Japanese Speakers around wikipedia , pls. read the following information on BLACK & BLACK RX Magazine to improve the following articles.

Punk 911 (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A new WikiProject

I know this may sound silly and crazy, but if we had a WikiProject Power Rangers, how would that sound?. Mythdon (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The topic of Power Rangers is under the aegis of this WikiProject. There does not need to be a separate WikiProject just for the sake of having one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Mythdon (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we were to have the WikiProject in question, would this WikiProject be the parent WikiProject?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There does not need to be a new WikiProject at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that. But if there were, would this be the parent WikiProject?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In case someone founded the WikiProject. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

I have nominated two Power Rangers foot soldier articles for deletion. The deletion nomination is here. Mythdon (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Power Rangers monsters and its associated articles for deletion. For more, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have recently nominated the associated template as well. See here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kamen Rider G4 has been nomiated for deletion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider G4 Fractyl (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated List of minor Power Rangers characters, Ninjor and Alpha 6 for deletion as coverage in reliable sources is not present. The AfD is here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythdon, just because there are no sources does not mean that the subject is not notable and does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are no sources, then how can anything defend the existence of the article?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is just because there are no sources on the page does not mean the subject is not notable. If you saw the television show, you know that the subject exists. That's what the first person at that AFD has said. Deletion is not the first option when there is bad or no sourcing on the article. It is the last option. Instead, you could have said on this page, "Hey, these articles need some work." But no. To you, you just list it all at AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I searched for sources earlier today and I could not find any reliable sources. No reliable sources, no article. That is the bottom line. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You looked up "Ninjor" in Google and found nothing that passes WP:RS? I find that hard to believe.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at least as far as i could tell. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Participant template

I have noticed that this page does not have any links to the template that signifies a participants membership of the project. Can somebody provide a link to the template on this page? Other WikiProjects have links to the participant templates. Mythdon (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Userbox—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can i add that link to the WikiProject page?. Mythdon (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whataver? What do you mean by that?. Mythdon (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that you could go ahead and do it because I didn't care. Seriously, Mythdon, you seem to care a bit too much about certain things. This is only a website. I understand you mean well, but your comments lately have gotten a bit bothersome.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just added it to this WikiProjects page. I bet there are many ways you can improve the "userbox" section. Mythdon (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for it because I added a link in the "Participants" section.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. Your way seems more professional and convenient anyway. Mythdon (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel the colors on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Userbox should be changed to less saturated and bold colors as the colors currently being used on it are unprofessional as they are "red" and "yellow", two examples of unprofessional colors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes were never professional.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it is. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You don't get it. Userboxes were never meant to be professional in any way, shape, or form. They're just there to look pretty. That is why most are hosted in the User or project space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I change it's colors?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there's no need to do it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there's no pressing need to change anything. No one has had a problem with it and no one really uses it. Just leave it be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, you said "no one really uses it". Have you checked what links to the userbox lately?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a small list of power rangers episodes that should be deleted

This is a list of episodes I feel should be deleted or merged as these episodes see to have no reliable third person evidence to support their notability.

Green with Evil

Fighting Spirit (Power Rangers)

Back in Black (Power Rangers)

Legacy of Power

The Fate of Lightspeed

Operation Lightspeed

Day of the Dumpster

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Day of the Dumpster" is the first episode; that's the only one I'd argue should remain regardless of a lack of sources at this time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to nominate those for deletion, do so at WP:AFD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's mentioning this here because there may be sources that can be added to the article until someone lists them for AFD. AFD is the last course of action.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But what about green with evil or legacy of power there are no reliable sources to justify these episodes or proof from articles or by interviews from staff that green with evil was the point that power rangers became a cultural phenom.

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

While I am at many of these so called special episodes seem to consist of original research and no verifiable evidence to support their notability. Here are some more I believe need to be merged or deleted.

Countdown to Destruction

Crystal of Nightmares

Movie Madness

Mighty Morphin' Mutants

The Green Candle

Lost and Found in Translation

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessively using images

On many Power Rangers pages, I have removed many images from those articles as using them was excessively using images. I am bringing this into discussion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The method by which you performed these removals was inproper. As I've constantly been telling you, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in everything you do to improve this subject area. I would suggest you change your tactics, as they are getting to be really bothersome.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessively using images is too much. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Lets just say you have your own Wikipedia article, and I ask you to upload 7 photos of you to me, then I upload 7 of those images to Wikipedia just to identify the subject. Wouldn't you say that is too much?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You called one image "excessively using images." And articles can have images and often do have more than one. You removed everything instead of selectively removing things that are unnecessary in identifying the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because only one image is being used on a page doesn't mean it is not excessively using images. Just because images are allowed on Wikipedia doesn't mean that I am going to allow Power Rangers articles to become an overload on images. If there is an excessive use of images on Wikipedia, no matter how many images, if it is excessive use, it is too much. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#REPOSITORY has nothing to do with this situation whatsoever; rules about image galleries are not related to rules about image placement in normal articles. What you probably meant to link is WP:IMAGES or WP:IUP. Speaking of IUP, the section on image queuing specifically talks about what to do in a situation where an article has too many images, and not only is what you did not it, but "too many" is an opinion that requires consensus anyways. So basically, you shouldn't have just started removing images willy-nilly, and you should've brought it up with us first. Arrowned (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant to link WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and only WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Can those articles take any more images? Too much is too much, and I strongly dispute the inclusion of those images in them articles. Why don't you get that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious what you're disputing. The issue is that your dispute is not an ironclad judgment of policy and requires consensus, which you did not bother to get. You also seem to be trying to wean WP:NOT#REPOSITORY into a situation it's not designed (or even supposed) to cover, when there are other, more pertinent policies to handle that. Arrowned (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much is too much, and I keep saying it. I'm going to say it to no end. Lets just say Wikipedia has an article on you, and it has an image on it (a photograph of you). Lets say I email and ask you to upload me 3 more images of you so I can upload them to Wikipedia and add them to the article. Wouldn't you say that is too much?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You do things too excessively yourself. You put articles up for deletion when discussion will suffice. You've removed every image when removing one or two or none was necessary. You are misinterpreting policy, and you have been doing this excessively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion has more needs than you realize. Sometimes, you just got to go with the deletion process, even if the article (or any other namespace page) can serve a purpose. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No. That is completely wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that wrong?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article can serve a purpose, you fix it by editing not deleting. There have been so many articles where you could fix it by editing, but you put the page up for AFD. You have continually done this since becoming part of Wikipedia. It is unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, earlier you said "the method by which you performed these removals was inproper". When you said that earlier, was you also saying that I should have nominated them for deletion rather than remove them from their respective articles?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You should have left enough pictures to identify the subject. The way that Arrowned and Black Kite edited the articles to include some of the pictures was better than you removing every picture, especially when there was only one picture. One picture is not "excessive use." It may not be "minimal use" either, but it is certainly not "excessive." This is what I'm talking about. You think deletion is the next step. Deletion is the ultimate (final) step.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When to use the deletion process actually varies as to when it is a step. It is not always the "ultimate (final) step". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It should only be the final step in any problem with a page on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me what page on Wikipedia says that, if there is a page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere at WP:DELETION.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just read the policy today, the first time I read it, and nowhere did it say "deletion is the last option", though it does say "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Same thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty blatant, man. There's really no other way of interpreting that statement than the clear "do not delete if it's possible to improve". Arrowned (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And by the way. I have been saying many times that "too much is too much". I think in this case, it is hard not to excessively use images on articles dedicated to fiction, and Power Rangers and its related articles, are one of them. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One or two images is not excessive. You could have removed all but the first image and it would have been fine, but you removed every image which was not fine. If you don't understand what we are trying to say to you, then I don't know what to say to you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are very few images that I think should stay on Power Rangers articles. The logo and Ranger color images (the neccessary ones) are the few that I believe should stay. It does not matter how many images are on an article, if it is excessive, it is too much. That is what I think. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ONE image is not excessive. You removed singular images from articles where they were the only image on the page. And a screenshot of the actual character in and out of costume (if possible) is also necessary for the character articles. That is why they were replaced. In the future, do not remove images as you did without getting consensus beforehand. That is the last thing I have to say in this conversation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, your desperation to convince me into your opinions is getting stronger and stronger. You are now not only using bolds and italics to emphasize your opinions, but you are now CAPITALIZING. How much stronger will your emphasis get?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you can see the words.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Super Sentai template colors

I have noticed that the following templates use non-beneficial colors:

• Template:Zyuranger
• Template:Gaoranger
• Template:Abaranger
• Template:Dekaranger
• Template:Magiranger
• Template:Boukenger
• Template:Gekiranger
• Template:Go-onger

I think they should just use the default template color or use a more beneficial color. There is no benefit having the above templates use such colors as they use bright, saturated and bold colors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop reading into policy so much. I chose these colors because they can be read and they are different from the light blue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion has nothing to do with policy whatsoever. This suggestion is only my opinion. Also, you said "Stop reading into policy so much". I need to familiarize myself with Wikipedia policies in order to avoid violating them. Do you expect me to ignore reading them?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You should know them, but there are many situations where you can go without certain aspects of the policies, as they change often. You should only focus on the core aspects and whatever improves Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to do whatever improves Wikipedia and I'm trying do that very thing now. These templates are not professional in style and that is the very reason I made this suggestion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do they have to be professional in style at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Because with templates, the style needs to be professional due to the fact that templates shouldn't be looking ugly and messy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are these ugly looking and messy? Or are they just different from the norm?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugly looking and messy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These things should be left as they are.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be changed. The colors are too bold. Our readers shouldn't have to look at colors that are too bold. Colors such as "red" and "yellow" are an example. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The colors are fine as they are. I chose colors that contrasted enough that they could be read easily. The only one that might be a problem is {{Gaoranger}} because it's red on green. All the other ones are completely legible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"The colors are fine as they are" - No, they are the worst colors anyone could chose. Its like putting red on blue. We just can't have colors on a template if it is unprofessional. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Now the colors have been made more contrasting so they can easily be read. A dark colored text on a light colored background.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is good enough, though there is room for improvement. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And now colors are more or less uniform throughout the template.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Color tables

Is "Violet" even suppose to be on the color table for Super Sentai?. Because it does look like something that would be forbidden by participants of this WikiProject. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added it there. The character was "GekiViolet" and not something that did not have a color in the name. Also this belongs on Talk:Super Sentai where I believe there was a discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Power Ranger lists

I believe we should reformat the List of Power Rangers article in these steps:

1. Split the "Power Rangers by team" section into its own article titled List of Power Rangers by team
2. Move List of Power Rangers to List of Power Rangers by color

After that is done, I believe we should create a list titled List of Power Rangers by name. Is this a good procedure?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. One list is sufficient for all three.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So your saying just make an alphabetical section for the list?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Power Rangers characters

On Template:Power Rangers characters, I feel the color should be changed to "lightblue", the same color as Template:Power Rangers, as "gold" and "lightgray" do not look good together on templates. I also feel using "lightblue" on Template:Power Rangers characters is good as it would reflect the color seen on Template:Power Rangers characters. Other Power Rangers templates besides Template:Power Rangers use "lightblue". so why not put it on the Template:Power Rangers characters?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force

I have nominated Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force as it is an indiscriminate collection of information. The nomination is here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lack of citations and reliable sources cited for Power Rangers articles

I see that Power Rangers articles cite barely (if any) sources. I think that those articles need to cite sources to allow readers to check facts. Every time I have searched for sources for Power Rangers articles that I nominated for deletion, I found no reliable sources to verify the claims, and the only sources I found were fansites which are considered unreliable according to interpretations by editors of the Power Rangers topic. However, this is not to say a future search will not find reliable sources, which I did not do for any Power Rangers article that I did not nominate for deletion. I believe that if there are no citations for what is said in a Power Rangers article (or any other type of article), the claim should be removed aggressively, boldly, immediately, and without prior discussion. It seems that editors are relying only on the show and its website as a source if they even bother to cite a source. We should be relying on reliable secondary sources and not sources from the show or its website. The show and the website are primary sources, and therefore not reliable as evidence (particularly notability), even though they are the most truthful sources. Wikipedia aims to not include information because it is true, but because it is verifiable in reliable sources. After all, WP:V says "verifiability, not truth". WP:NOTABLE excludes sources affiliated with the subject, so therefore we are violating that guideline. Articles need to have important adherence to policies and guidelines, and at this point we have no reason not to have that adherence, as doing so will not be a reasonable neglect of policies. Reliable sources and citations for Power Rangers articles are being ignored. That is the bottom line. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We are all very aware that the articles are not up to par with sourcing. In the case of these things, all that really exists out there are fan websites. There may be a few sources in books regarding critical analysis of the core series, but that is pretty much it. You are not going to find critical commentary on Forever Red or Lost and Found in Translation or Once a Ranger or Day of the Dumpster in anything other fansites. And that is just what we are going to have to deal with. The information is verifiable (it's very clear that these things exist). There are no claims being made that would require such sourcing, unless there is criticism of the shows or any sort of thing that is not essentially plot discussion (which I've been working on cutting down in the primary articles). To be frank, you, Mythdon, have been the only person who has voiced his concerns over this. The last time something like this happened, someone put Choudenshi Bioman up for deletion, and that person was indefinitely blocked (by a third party) for disruption by putting an article on something that was verifiable that it exists up for deletion. I have personally gotten tired of your constant nitpicking at things that are not pressing issues with these articles, such as the deletions of episode articles (which I really don't have a problem with), the deletions of character articles, and the excessive tagging of pages, where the tags you add are not exactly necessary or useful at the time.

In short, yes the articles need work. That's why this project was put together. However, your strict adherence to various policies is detracting from this project's usefulness. I have a few people helping out. Maybe instead of being the only person judging whether or not a website can be used as a reliable source or not, you should list a few here that you think might be good, and I'll get an impartial third party to take a look at them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that I am looking too much at the negative things and not looking at the positive things?. Policies can be ignored on circumstances. I do understand that, but this is the time when ignoring rules is not an option. We have WP:V and WP:NOR as policies to keep Wikipedia firmly trustworthy and keep Wikipedia a publisher of what has already been published. We have WP:RS to assist us in following WP:V. I know the show is a trustworthy source, but it is overall not reliable as it is not sufficient evidence of notability as it is directly related to the subject. I know, the show is only being used as a source to verify its own claims. We aim to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, by citing reliable sources for claims. Sourcing is especially important for claims that are likely to be challenged. I know, the claims on Power Rangers articles are not likely to be controversial, but that does not suggest that we can have a firm disregard for sourcing. All information needs to adhere to evidence. Twice, I have removed blatantly false claims from Power Rangers articles, which tells me that because of the disregard for sourcing is opening the door for false information. Click here and here to see the removals. This WikiProject can be a whole lot better simply for having a regard to sourcing Power Rangers article claims, which is not being done for the time being. The regard this WikiProject does have for sourcing Power Rangers articles are articles such as Power Rangers: R.P.M. . I agree, claims about future events should be sourced or else, but we should also have a regard to sourcing claims about the past. This WikiProject needs to fix this issue that you claim you and the other members are aware of. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

But Power Rangers articles are only an aspect of this project. And what you did remove from those articles I agree was good. There are usually very little claims being made, and those that are are usually unnecessary (as you yourself state). But yes, you are looking too much at the negative aspects of these things. While the sourcing is poor, that is minor compared to trying to build a complete encyclopedia. The only thing we can really use sources for are things that have not occurred yet in the course of the program. That is why RPM and Jungle Fury were the best sourced articles; because there was third party information regarding them prior to airing. The older something is, the less likely we are to find reliable sources for it. This is true for any subject matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All information stated in an article must be verifiable, regardless of how true it is. Because of this disregard, whoever is adding the blatantly false information is feeling free to do so. If this WikiProject's editors do not start having a strict regard for sourcing, false information is going to start soaking into articles. This is one of the reasons sourcing is so important. WP:RS says "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". That guideline says that so information can be trustworthy. Wikipedia aims to be a trustworthy encyclopedia. Like I keep saying, all information needs to cite sources A or removal B will be the response. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We already catch false information going into articles. Not everything is caught. Whatever is verifiable is in there and has not been changed. By all means remove which you know is wrong. But by saying that because very few of the articles are referenced, you cannot be sure that there is anything in the article that is true is nonsense. If you've seen the shows (which I understand is not something WP:RS says you should base things off of) then you know what did and did not happen. It is your strict adherence to these policies, your intensive need to have everything be exactly so, that is highly unnecessary and not constructive to building the encyclopedia. Neither you, or anyone else in this project is going to find a textual source that supports every nitpicky detail in any article this project covers. We have to do with what we have now. I cannot see anything wrong with the articles and sourcing as a whole, other than sourcing could be improved. You can't cite every statement made, and there are frankly no claims being made in these articles as they are in things such as biographies of living people or documentations of actual events.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that we can't cite every statement made. If at some point I find sufficient reliable sources, I will cite those sources in the articles and remove whatever can't be supported by reliable sources. All information must adhere to WP:V, and all sources must adhere to WP:RS. I must have an adherence to these policies in order to avoid being a disruptive editor, which I aim not to be. Despite the fact that I say all information must adhere to WP:V, that is not to say verifiability automatically opens the door for a subject to have an article as some things just don't belong in Wikipedia. Deletion nominations I have made such as this and this have helped Wikipedia. If I were an administrator, I would strictly enforce the WP:V and WP:NOR policies. This is an issue that is easy to fix. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR are not things administrators enforce. Those are items that editors like yourself "enforce." I'm well aware of the policies that do exist. However, you've been attempting to strictly adhere to these policies when it's not always necessary. Wikipedia won't explode if some things aren't sourced.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia won't explode if some things aren't sourced doesn't mean have a disregard. We need to source everything in order to be trustworthy, reliable, and in order to prove our claims. And I do understand that editors like me enforce WP:V and WP:NOR. It is important that we cite what we claim in articles, but avoid sources affiliated with the subject in order to prove the subject is notable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything as far as I know that should be in those articles is verifiable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do these Google searches show reliable sources?: 1, 2, 3. All information must be verifiable or it will be removed. That is a fact. This WikiProject needs to function better when it comes to sourcing claims. I am proud to be part of this WikiProject, but I also think it needs to start acting more about sourcing. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles on television shows are the worst when it comes to sourcing statements. Particularly older TV shows like the Saban Power Rangers series. What we have is fine. And I've said all I can. However, if you start removing information that is verifiable but simply does not have a reference supporting it, I will see that you get blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How can an editor get blocked simply for removing information that is verifiable?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DE.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet again referring to this?:

Engages in "hostile cite-tagging"; uses a "scattershot" method of adding {{fact}} tags to an article and announces an intention to delete large portions of the article if other editors do not immediately find citations to support the material thus tagged. In egregious examples, proper citations already appear at the end of a paragraph and the cite-tagger inserts the tag at the end of each sentence within the paragraph.

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just the first line.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the user saying lack of citations seem to feel up power ranger episodes here are some I have tried to highlightI feel should be deleted or merged as these episodes see to have no reliable third person evidence to support their notability.

Green with Evil

Fighting Spirit (Power Rangers)

Back in Black (Power Rangers)

Legacy of Power

The Fate of Lightspeed

Operation Lightspeed

Day of the Dumpster

Dwanyewest (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also suprised that the official website is not used more often in relation to the older power ranger shows [1]

Dwanyewest (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel those articles should be deleted, nominate them for deletion. That's my suggestion, and your reason is very reasonable to put up for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I did try to delete these articles but they got reverted

Dwanyewest (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Headers on episode lists

Moved from User talk:TheFarix

I've undone your changes to the Gekiranger, Go-onger, Kiva, and Den-O episode lists in which you removed the section headings that had the episode titles in them. This did not produce "clutter" as you claimed and it is a stylistic choice that we have put in place for these episode lists (as such should we need to link to individual episodes). I have not found anything in any sort of manual of style that says we cannot have the pages as they were before your edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And just who is "we"? I haven't seen any discussions supporting the extra heading on the lists' talk pages or the related WikiProject. I personally thing the extra section headers are ugly and interferes with the flow of the list. You can link to the episode entry via 'ep#' where # is the episode number. Also {{List of Anime Ep TV}} is being slowly phased out by WP:ANIME and has been tagged for deprecation. It would be advisable to switch to {{Japanese episode list}} sooner rather then later. --Farix (Talk) 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter that the switch be made? These pages have been using this formatting for some time, and you (if I recall) have been the only person who has had an issue with the use of the section headers. You even made these same changes last year. I constantly tell other editors that if there is nothing inherently wrong with the page, that there doesn't need to be a massive change such as the one you have suggested. The section headers allow for at least navigation of the page itself with the table of contents, and I haven't seen anything added to any of these other templates where such a formatting is even possible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No other episode list use section headers for episode titles unless it is one that hasn't been converted into a table format. So why should these four episode lists be an exception? The TOC is extraordinarily long and a reader has to scroll down quite a ways before they actually get to the body of the list. So yes, I do consider the use of section headings like that to be inherently wrong, or at least wrong headed. There is just no benefit to it. --Farix (Talk) 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the TOC can easily be removed with __NOTOC__ or something of the like. And the section headings are there for ease of editing the different entries, and to show which entry was actually edited. Once this is incoprorated into some sort of template. I attempted to add this the last time you did this to these pages, but it only added more formatting. If you can suggest something that can be done about these, I'm all ears.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is that important to be able to individually edit each episode entry. It's never been an issue on any other episode list. --Farix (Talk) 01:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

These episode lists were pretty much started such that the individual character (or character list) articles would not be overfilled with unnecessary plot information (some older ones are still currently a play-by-play of what happened). Right now, I've fixed up the lists a bit to get rid of the overbearing TOC's. I am interested in switching things over to {{Japanese episode list}} just so long as the section titles can be easily added.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The section titles are wholly inappropriate, and any peer reviewer would tell you to get rid of them immediately. The reasons you've given for having them have never been an issue on any other episode list, as Farix pointed out above, and none of them justify the headers' use. —Dinoguy1000 17:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are they inappropriate or just not normally used? That's the only reason I've heard from anyone here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Both, especially since the episode title is already given in the title field(s). --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both Dinoguy1000 and Farix. They are inappropriate, beyond excessive sectioning, and unnecessary. Their removal was appropriate and should not have been undone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu since it definitely needs wider discussion by a larger group of editors. --Farix (Talk) 22:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TV has bee notified of this discussion as well. --Farix (Talk) 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the section headers are inappropriate. First of all, it gives no benefit to the readers. We can do just as good without the headers. Secondly, I think that allowing a user to edit individual episode entries bears no use as we can already click "edit this page" on the article and edit individually. And third, the section headers are extremely large, thus producing clutter, despite the fact that the table of contents are no longer present. The reader still has to scroll down massively just to get to the desired episode they want to read up on. I've never seen such an episode list on any other episode list. Like Farix and Dinoguy, I say get rid of the section headers immediately. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, all this? It's just a stylistic choice that was made after I figured out that it could be done with {{List of Anime Ep TV}}. There has been effectively no disagreement until TheFarix showed up on the pages in July and again this week. It has its uses and I don't think that they are inappropriate (which is in itself a subjective qualification). And Mythdon, your arguments do not make sense. "Edit this page" does not provide the same information as a section header's "[edit]" link. It is something extremely minor, and I bet if the template used was not one that WP:ANIME had anything to do with, no one would have any problem here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jeez, all this? It's just a stylistic choice..." If it is simply a stylistic choice, why are you so defensive about it? "There has been effectively no disagreement until TheFarix showed up" That's a rather disingenuous argument to make. Perhaps it's because no one else took notice. But the tone of this argument comes off as if you are making me out to be am some "bad guy" for bringing the matter up. That line of argument is much like all of the Narutards or DBZ fanboys complaining when many of the articles for their favorite series were merged after months/years of existing as standalone articles. consensus can change after all, especially when the previous consensus was a consensus of one. Also, there is no evidence that the extra "[edit]" link for each episode encourages new editors to add information to the tables. In fact, many other episode lists have demonstrated that such links are unnecessary. --Farix (Talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is not necessary that readers see the "section edit" button. Sure, they see it whenever a section is on an article, but I think the sections "edit" button should be avoided wherever possible as it makes the page unprofessional. Does any other episode list besides these have the "section edit" button? Any other episode list I have seen does not have the link. Also, if a template is tagged deprecated, it should not be used, but instead use the equivalent active template. Like I mentioned above, the section headers produce clutter, particularly because of how large they are. To be honest, this WikiProject can improve massively, but the other members besides me, including you have failed to acknowledge the room for improvement (in this case the "section header" dispute). The way the episode lists in question are formatted seem to be in extreme error. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, another user prefers the prior formatting before I removed the TOC as suggested by another editor who I contacted. This is all a stylistic choice, and just because one template is being deprecated and that the style used on these four pages does not mean that the style is inherently inappropriate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about the use of section headers for individual episodes, not about the templates used for the table or the table's overall format. In fact, the format of {{List of Anime Ep TV}} can be duplicated by {{Japanese episode list}} via the auxiliary fields. --Farix (Talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How many other episode lists have used a formatting similar to the one that I've put in place here? And I'm not making you out to be a "bad guy." I'm just saying that you have been the only person to suggest these changes. I think this formatting is more useful for multiple reasons. First, it makes editing the individual entries more easy, especially with the length of the summaries (which I have been trying to cut down, but I've been lax in trying to remove excessive information). Second, it makes tracking what was exactly edited more easy, particularly in the history of the article. How else can one be sure what was added without looking directly at diffs? And as was mentioned below, if the table of contents is there, it makes navigation of the page easier. If there was some way that I could incorporate the old formatting that I had put in place with the newer {{Japanese episode list}}, I'd switch to it. The section headers are what I want to keep. This is something that cannot be done easily with the new template. I'd like to use the auxiliary fields on the new template (the ending themes used for Den-O and Kiva would be easier to track with {{Japanese episode list}} than with the numbering system on the main article. Also, Mythdon, you've been constantly annoying in this whole project. You seem to be misinterpreting or overinterpetting anything anyone else says. It's clear with your conversation at Cyde. Could you perhaps try and find something else to edit or work on for a few days? It just seems that you get things even more confused the more you discuss things. I have to repeat myself multiple times in order to get my point across to you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"How many other episode lists have used a formatting similar to the one that I've put in place here?" - Simple answer. None. If you look at other episode lists, you will see that this formatting is not used on any other episode list. Also, you said above "There has been effectively no disagreement until TheFarix showed up on the pages in July and again this week". There's disagreement now. Just because there was no disagreement in the past, doesn't mean there isn't any disagreement now. In fact, there must have been disagreement then, but it must not have been voiced until now as various other users oppose the current formatting. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a more detailed response to you below. These replies between sections is getting bothersome.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Table of Contents is useful, and I'd be inclined to support Ryulong's formatting solely for that reason. I would, however, remove the duplicate cell containing the episode title following each section header, as that information is duplicated. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Massively long TOCs in articles and lists are of little benefit to anyone and interferes with the flow of the article. The only cases where a long TOCs doesn't interfere with the article's flow is when it can be floated to the side as the rest of the article wraps around the TOC and the section titles kept short. But the titles of most episodes are anything but short. Also, it is much better and easier to remove the section headings form the article then to redesign the table's overall format and the template along with it. --Farix (Talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How is a table of contents that lets you snap right into the middle of a list unhelpful? My most common use case for list of episodes articles is when I want to find out information on one particular episode. Clicking on a link in a compact list is faster than browsing through the entire listing, with detailed information on each article. --Cyde Weys 18:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A table of contents has its uses. It seems that you only want the table of contents for the sake of having it. If we just remove the section headers, there would be definitely be no need for the table of contents as the list would be shrunk upon removal. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What? That's not what I said at all. I think the table of contents is useful because it allows you to jump directly to the one listing in the list you're interested in. Where did you get the idea that I "only want the table of contents for the sake of having it"? That's silly. Removing the section headers wouldn't be a solution at all as it would get rid of the table of contents as well, as well as not appreciably shrinking the size of the list. Go look at the list again; most of the vertical height is in the episode summaries and other information, not in the section headers. --Cyde Weys 19:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If we remove the section headers, the titles will be shrunk, thus solving the problem. If we didn't have the headers, then you would once again be able to easily get to the title your interested, thus rendering the table of contents useless. If we had the headers, it would produce massive clutter that is highly undesired meaning your opinion does come off as a "wanting the table of contents for the sake of having it" outcome. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you're intentionally misunderstanding me. Your proposals solve nothing. Removing the section headers destroys the table of contents; how does that solve the problem? How would removing the section headers make it more easy to get to the episode you're interested in, when not only are they the sole element that allows the table of contents, but also they are the most visible indication of episode by title? What exactly are you claiming that removal of the section headers would accomplish, because it seems that it would do the exact opposite of that? Let me put it in really plain words that hopefully you will be able to understand: Removing the section headers will not reduce the vertical size of the page by much. It will make finding a specific episode more difficult, not less. It will also remove the table of contents, which eliminates the ability to jump to a specific part in the list. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A TOC listing of episode titles has little benefit. It creates a huge barrier between the list's lead and the contents of the list. It also add quite a bit of length to the article, both in the TOC and in the section headings themselves. On top of that, there is no way to float the TOC to one side because it then interferes with the table. And if/when these episode lists do go to WP:FLC, the long TOC will be a sticking point. Is it really worth the disrupting the entire list for the sake of a convenience that only a couple of people prefer simply for the sake of having that convenience? --Farix (Talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally, someone talking some sense. I was beginning to lose all hope. Let's say that no ToC is better than a ToC — then why not go with __NOTOC__ while retaining the use of section headers? This will still allow the editing of individual sections, and it will also allow the use of anchor links (in URLs to the page) to zap to a specific episode in the listing. --Cyde Weys 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, there has been no evidence that having the extra [edit] links encourages editors to add or modify the list's contents. And as I said before, it does add extra length to the table while duplicating contents already on the table. The template already creates anchors to the individual episodes in the form of 'ep#' where # is the episode number, so using section headings for that purpose is a duplication and entirely unnecessary. --Farix (Talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you check the editing history of these four pages, you can see that the [edit] links encourage modifications of the lists' contents by section. I've had a few IP editors who assist in copy-editing after another one of our editors who has a minor problem with standard English grammar. This is best done by section, as it encourages the editors to work in small portions of the page. As I've said, if there's a way to incorporate both aspects of the formatting (having the section headers, possibly removing the duplication by not having the EnglishTitle field be in the tables, and add the auxiliary fields) then there can be a change.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

<killing indent> It's true that having the section header adds a little bit to the vertical height of the overall table. But it doesn't have to duplicate contents — the second occurrence of the title name can be excised, and this would actually be beneficial for people on small screens (especially mobile devices), as the current five-cells-wide format is a bit wide.

But I disagree with you on the edit links — they are incredibly helpful and useful. Navigating the edit source of a huge episode listings page, what with all of the formatting templates, is intimidating, especially to novice users. The edit links definitely make it easier for all editors concerned. Let's say I'm reading an episode listing and I notice a typo. I want to fix it. Which is a better use case: I click the edit link next to the section header, and get less than a screenful of wiki source that makes finding and correcting the error easy. Or, do I have to scroll all the way up to the top of the page, hit the Edit button, and then search through the entire wiki source to find that one small fix I wanted to make? The answer there is pretty easy.

Even if section headers ultimately aren't used, if there is some way to provide the same functionality of edit links, it should be done. --Cyde Weys 00:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"But I disagree with you on the edit links — they are incredibly helpful and useful" - Err... No. It is entirely unnecessary. It is one thing to provide an edit link for a section is one thing to provide them for tables. Its entirely excessive and serves no purpose other than ease to editors, thus serving no purpose to the readers. The links should be phased out in the tables. Also, I was thinking to myself recently and because of thinking, I now learned that having the table of contents causes another problem. If you go down to an episode, then if you want to easily select another one, you have to go back up to the list or TOC just to select another thus also producing clutter. If the sections were just phased out, there would be nothing to worry about. I see no benefit having the table of contents. In fact, I think it damages the article simply for producing that unnecessary clutter. In case anyone still thinks table of contents is useful, they should be aware of this before thinking so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mythdon, just forget it. You don't seem to be having any actual ideas of your own here, and you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You never had a problem with any of this until this discussion was brought here. All you want to do is make sure everything follows every single policy or guideline to the letter. The style I put in place has its uses, and you can't see beyond policy. Just because this style is only used on these four pages does not mean it is wrong, inappropriate, cluttering, or anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mythdon, little that you say makes any sense. Notice how I was having a reasonable discussion with TheFarix above, and I adjusted my opinions on this issue because of his sensible arguments? That's what you should be trying for. Instead, we get this, which I will (once again) rebut, even though none of it seems to be sticking.

1. I provided a use case where the edit links makes it much easier to make small edits to a long list of episodes. Without the edit links, there is no alternative but to edit the entire page and painstakingly find the small relevant part of it on its own. You did absolutely nothing to rebut this problem; you only (unsuccessfully) tried to handwave it away. Your claim that Wikipedia should pay no attention whatsoever to editors' convenience is nonsense, because that's how the encyclopedia is written in the first place, and we already have lots of editor conveniences — such as section header edit links. Would you do away with them? You're making all manner of absurd statements in pursuit of this singular argument.
2. Yes, if you select one episode and want to select another one, the easiest way is to go back and use the Table of Contents. Luckily there's an easy way to do this: scrolling to the top of the page, or pressing the "Home" button. Since the ToC is at the top, you always know where it is. Compare this to trying to navigate to somewhere in the middle of the listing to find information on a specific episode, especially if you don't already know the episode's relative location throughout the season. But the real reason this argument fails is because the ToC isn't even available in your alternative, so while navigating to the top of the page to use it to select another episode may be a slight inconvenience, your proposal, the lack of a ToC, is wildly inconvenient, and could easily require browsing through the whole long listing just to find the one episode of interest.

Anyway, please leave the discussion to TheFarix, because you aren't adding to it. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Anyway, please leave the discussion to TheFarix, because you aren't adding to it." - I will not leave the discussion. I discuss just as everyone else discusses. That's only the civil way of telling me "get out of this discussion" or "get away from this dispute". It means the same thing. And finally, you have provided more details to your opinion just before making that response. You also said above "I'm beginning to think you're intentionally misunderstanding me.". That was incorrect as you had insufficient explanation that it would seem like you only wanted TOC's for the sake of having them. Now that you have provided a more detailed explanation to why your opinion is sufficient, you are now out of the stage of "have things for the sake of having things". You have also told me "Your claim that Wikipedia should pay no attention whatsoever to editors' convenience is nonsense, because that's how the encyclopedia is written in the first place". That is not how I feel all the time. I actually feel that lots of convenience should be present. It's just that having an edit link on a table is inappropriate and excessive. You may have seen me like a "no convenience whatsoever" user with that comment, but that is not the case. There are many situations where it is necessary and some situations (such as this) where it is not. Also, Ryulong, you said "Mythdon, just forget it. You don't seem to be having any actual ideas of your own here, and you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.". I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You then said "You never had a problem with any of this until this discussion was brought here". This discussion made me aware of the various errors with the lists. Just because I didn't have a problem then doesn't mean I don't have one now. TheFarix bought attention to issues, and this discussion proves that this WikiProject takes various issues for granted, and even I didn't see issues until I was convinced by this discussion to feel the same way as TheFarix. Like TheFarix mentioned above, consensus can change. You then said "The style I put in place has its uses, and you can't see beyond policy". I can see way beyond policy with this issue. Policies have nothing to do with my issues with the lists. I haven't even read the Manual of Style and I can see how these episode lists are in error. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

List of evil Power Rangers merge request

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)

Tomica Hero Rescue Fire

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)

Xaviax's name

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)

Template:Power Rangers reformatting

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)

Deletion nomination for Power Chamber

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

Sky Tate and Bridge Carson AfD

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)

Dino Thunder Power Rangers merge proposals

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)

Mystic Force Power Rangers merge proposals

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)