Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo

I have just nominated the following article for deletion:

• King Mondo

At:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo

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

Fictional character biographies

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

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

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

They are NOT extact duplication of content. Also, the episode summaries DON'T count as one's story per say. Plus, the individual stories are essential to those pages.Fractyl (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are the same essential content, the episode summaries cover everything necessary, and the individual stories are not essential to the Rider pages. The summarization that has the name as part of the header is plenty of information that is not found in the episode list.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

same essential content, only more detailed. And they are because they reflect the character, not the episode. But if you feel it's identical, re-arrange and condense it. Futhermore, Den-O's summary was fine the way it was.Fractyl (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The detail is the issue. It is simply the summarization of what the particular character did in any episode (or in the Den-O and Kiva characters' cases, what they did in the completed series). The episode summaries are there for this reason. To avoid having the article entirely a summary of the show as is the case with the Kuuga, Agito, Ryuki, Faiz, Blade, Hibiki, and Kabuto pages. The only difference is that their episode lists are not as fleshed out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That I disagree, the characters' actions are more detailed in the personal summarization than in the episode summarization.Fractyl (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for personalized summarization when we have summarization for every character in the episode summaries. Fictional character biographies should be about characterization. Not summarization of the TV series.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't work just like that, characterization builds up the character while the biography is a more detailed summary that reflects the major events involving character while make a bit of reference to the minor stuff.Fractyl (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a more detailed summary when everything important is mentioned in the episode list.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, are you saying that the character articles should contain the basics, while the episode lists contain the little details? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that the character biographies have been too extensively detailed and are mirrors of content otherwise found in the episode lists, just catered to a single character. There is no need for having the information in five different places when the episode lists suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, you don't to allow duplication, correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Factions in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive move proposal

I am proposing that the following page be moved from:

• Factions in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive

To:

• Villains in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive

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

Is it a pressing matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The current name is irrelevant. The original name was relevant, but since I thought it would be a good idea a year ago to move the page, I did it. I think a page re-move would fix a problem. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you bother moving it in the first place?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I did it because the Operation Overdrive villains are in the form of factions. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to Villains in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. Powergate92Talk 04:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the other Power Rangers shows have the title "Villains in" for there villains pages. Powergate92Talk 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not why I want it moved back. See my first and second comments in this section for my reason for this move. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's HIS reason for the move. It doesn't have to be the same as your reason, as long as he's making a good point. Arrowned (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I was just repeating my position. What's your opinion, if you have one? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The move seems logical to me, for the reasons already mentioned. I say go for it. Arrowned (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll move it, and correct a major flaw I made in February 2008. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Now it's been moved. Now all we need to do is correct the links to the previous title and change them to the current title. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all done, with the exception of a few Talk/Project pages in which link changing is never a major concern. Arrowned (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. I peeked at your contributions, and saw that. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

There are multiple villain groups in Operation Overdrive. The groups, however don't have names, as far as the show goes, as it does not mention a name. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there is only one in other shows, the article should not be Villains in Power Rangers... but whatever the name is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But, weren't Zeo and S.P.D. the only ones with names? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And why is Mystic Force titled as having a name? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what they were called.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a bit more of an interpretation than the other two? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Udonna called them that several times over the course of the series. Even if it's not an outright empirical name like the other two, it's still a definitive moniker given and used on a regular basis, which seems like the most important consideration to me. Arrowned (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Participants" list change of July 19, 2009

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

Who gives a shit other than you?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It would be a shame not to have such information about each participant listed. It's relevant, useful, needed, etc. Please, can we have it? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it possibly relevant, useful, OR needed? JPG-GR (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To give others knowledge of where each editor contributes. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Half the list is of inactive users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as long as some are active. Why not remove the inactive users from the list? Is that a good try? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mythdon it is useful and i think Ryulong should have discussed it before removing it. Powergate92Talk 02:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. And, while a bit off-topic, Ryulong is the one who made that formatting for the "participants" list, but yes, he should not have removed it without prior discussion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD. JPG-GR (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Bold, revert, discuss" doesn't apply here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless "here" is no longer "Wikipedia"... yeah... it does. JPG-GR (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by "here" is this situation—Ryulong's removal of the "(series name)", and this discussion thread. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

But what if other editors want knowledge of where each participant contributes? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Check the user's contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's easier to just do a list. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. Because then as I pointed out there is no real use to the list when people just add things that they have absolutely no knowledge about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But if they edit in those areas, why does it matter? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Because no one has a problem with the content being gone besides you and your yes man Powergate92. Does it matter to you who has knowledge in Ultraman or the Chouseishin series? You only care about meta stuff or strict sourcing. You don't care about the content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter to me who has knowledge in those areas, but if somebody has knowledge and that they're contributing to those areas. And please do not call Powergate92 a "yes man", as that is a personal attack. I still think the content is useful. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen Powergate92 ever add anything useful to these conversations other than blindly agreeing with you, but that is neither here nor there.

The list is of no use. Checking the contributions is just as useful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Powergate92 does not always agree with me. For example, see discussions: #Color table notes and #Episode articles. Checking an editors contributions will be much more complicated and hard than just mentioning where they contribute. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is gone and it's staying gone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not if a consensus says "keep it", and it looks like its going that direction already. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? The four users here are the only active users and it's split down the middle, or no one else cares.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 active users in this WikiProject not 4, you forgot Arrowned. Powergate92Talk 04:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

And don't forget about Fractyl or Myzou. They're active too, although they generally keep quiet too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, as for the consensus thing, me and Powergate92 agree that the removal was not proper, where you're the one who wants the information to stay gone. Since this is a two (me and Powergate92) against one (you) agreement right now, it looks like the consensus is going one way so far. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

JPG-GR and I seem to be agreeing with each other that the removal was fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

JPG-GR is only questioning at the moment. Where do we go from here? My opinion has not changed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

JPG-GR is questioning why you think it is important just as I am. It's not terribly important to have those there. The active editors on the pages should be enough of information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is important because it is useful to users looking at the list. What if they wonder where they contribute and just want to look at a list to solve the question? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the only person who thinks so. No one pays attention to the list except for you, it seems, other than when they add their name to the list.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 thinks it's useful too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also other WikiProject's like WP:WikiProject Television Stations and WP:WikiProject Arizona have it. Powergate92Talk 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Television Stations only has it for some participants, but yes, you're right. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, for reasons I've already explained above. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

What idiom? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Archive bot

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

I don't think there's a need for an archive bot. First of all, talk pages in articles of this WikiProject aren't active enough to warrant an archive bot, and secondly, the level of activity varies, and thus, humans should archive. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about adding a archive bot to talk pages in articles of this WikiProject, i am talking about adding a archive bot to this page. Powergate92Talk 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about article talk pages, but the same thing still applies. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a archive bot is better, if humans are better then this page would not be 40 sections. Powergate92Talk 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I think the Power Rangers talk page is active enough for a archive bot. Powergate92Talk 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, those 51 discussions that were there before the archiving took over a year to form that big of a talk page. There is no need for an archive bot. Archive bots are for talk pages that are very active, to the extent that the page is hard to control without them. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for the talk page to be that big that's why the page has a archive for. I seen talk pages that are not that active that have a archive bot e.g. Talk:Disney XD and WT:WikiProject American Animation. Powergate92Talk 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for undoing the archive bot. I'm glad that somebody agrees with me that these pages shouldn't be archived in that manner. While this talk page and Talk:Power Rangers are not very active, there are many that are indeed lower. But still, good job. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Most other WikiProject's that use a archive bot don't have high traffic as WT:WikiProject Television Stations, WT:WikiProject Arizona, WT:WikiProject Animation and WT:WikiProject American Animation don't have high traffic and use a archive bot. Powergate92Talk 00:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we're doing it here. That's their decision. Our decision is that no archive bots be in use for these talk pages. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Search soon to begin

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

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

There is only one article that should feasibly exist and that is the pilot episode Day of the Dumpster. Episodes like Once a Ranger are also notable and have references. I don't know how many other episodes there are, but do not blindly merge everything or request deletion without a clear consensus here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting deletion at AfD is gaining consensus. Day of the Dumpster and Once a Ranger, while I do have to admit are more likely to be kept at AfD than deleted, will still be nominated for deletion without hesitation should I not find reliable sources. There's only a few articles in this subject area that I'd hesitate to put up for deletion, sources or not, and a good example of those would be Power Rangers. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not trusted to find any sort of reliable sources at all. With King Mondo, you ignored whatever you felt were not right. Do not list any episode articles for deletion without a full discussion here with the regular members of the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Many articles have been deleted because of my nominations, and I'm proud that the community supported the deletions. Green with Evil, which I will mention again, got deleted. It is my prediction that I, will again, be nominating a page for deletion as finding no sources reliable. I trust myself that I am making the right decisions around here in terms of deletion nominations. Given my unsuccessful attempts to find sources every time I look, I'm pretty sure that the next search will end with the exact same conclusions; no reliable sources found. I am not required to have a full discussion here about the pages beforehand. That would be extremely moot. AfD is the only step when you can't find sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you attempt to do as you are threatening using your past-documented misinterpretations of policy, I will seek that you are topic banned from all matters Tokusatsu-related. If you are not willing to edit within Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you do not need to edit Wikipedia. JPG-GR (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let the AfD's decide whether the pages are kept, but don't seek me topic-banned. That will be a total mistake. I am willing to edit Wikipedia perfectly within policy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. JPG-GR (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

However, your threat is not persuasive. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to persuade you. If you want to edit and follow policy, you will. If you don't, you won't. I'll let your actions, both in general and in relation to your edit restrictions, speak for themselves. JPG-GR (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that this AfD thing has anything to do with my probation of editing here. AfD is more of a content issue than a conduct issue. But, if I feel the need, I'll ask ArbCom to clarify whether the AfD stuff applies to this probation. That will speak. At this point, nothing is spoken. Now, end of topic. No replies expected, and will not reply to you starting now. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Why should I when I can just use Google? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Google is a search engine. It is not a method by which you look for published content like news articles or reputable journals.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, you're saying I should search Google News, right? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You should do more than a freaking Google search to look for particular sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But are you saying I should use Google News? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying you should use more than a search on a search engine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't search engines relevant ways to find sources? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should do a Google News search because when you put King Mondo up for AfD you did a Google search and did not find reliable sources then Frank did a Google News search and found reliable sources. Powergate92Talk 07:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But those sources weren't relevant to the information needed on the article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not the one to decide that on your own.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

And then we will have no recourse but to ban you from editing anything relating to Power Rangers or tokusatsu, as JPG-GR has stated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But how does the probation apply here? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not. We will choose to ban you from editing any pages relating to tokusatsu.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

However, I don't see that passing. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you attempt it, JPG-GR and myself will initiate a discussion showing how you are a drain on this particular WikiProject's resources. If you list anything at AFD as you are planning, you will find that you will be banned from editing these articles indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you really think so, why not initiate the discussion now? Either stop threatening, or start the discussion that you say you and JPG-GR will initiate. I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. Don't think I wont be there, because I will be there. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It will happen in due time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And as for your threats, given that you've been warned against threatening to seek me blocked for these AfD's, I'll probably take this matter to ANI, where you'll have your full blown chance to propose the topic. I'm not stopping you from starting the discussion. Why would I stop you? It's clearly you and JPG-GR in the wrong here, not me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic banning you is entirely different from having you blocked from the project. Stop taunting, because it only hurts your case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But still just as uncalled for, and I'm still thinking about having this referred to ANI where the community will review your conduct in this discussion, and I'll see to it that you can't threaten anymore. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I've made the decision to refer this to ANI by the end of tonight. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I've referred the matter to ANI. See your talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for King Mondo

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

Gorgom

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

Requested move at Kamen Rider Decade

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

Requested move at Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger

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

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

I am just describing it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PROPER Catergory Use

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

• Kamen Rider Amazon
  • Categories: Kamen Rider characters| Feral children | Jungle superheroes

• Fangire
  • Categories: Kamen Rider characters| Fictional vampire types (NOT Fictional vampires)

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

I am only listing the categories that are also over on the Japanese Wikipedia. Anything else is conjecture. For the characters, they are just Kamen Rider characters. Not fictional armies, fictional Nazis, fictional vampire types, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For example, Kamen Rider Dark Kiva is not a fictional vampire.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but "Fictional vampire types" is effective in this case. Same with Saga. Fractyl (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No it is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is. "Fictional vampire types" relate to a "Vampire-based creature" or a "fictional subclass of vampire". Fangires and such go there due to the former meaning of the category. In Kiva's case, the only category available for use is "Fictional half-vampires".Fractyl (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an effective category for Kamen Rider Kiva (character).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The category defines itself as "This is a list of fictional half-vampires (i.e. dhampirs, vampire hybrids, etc.)"Fractyl (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Don't worry the rest will be solved here now. But I'm hoping it will not just be me and Ryulong, as that would defeat the purpose of posting it here.Fractyl (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WOuld you stop obsessing over the location?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)