Talk:Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors

Untitled

I just thought I'd add that there were indeed a line of toys created for this show. Though I don't recall ever seeing the cartoon, my brothers and I owned three of the cars. I distinctly recall owning the white car with the golden hand and my brothers had the villain vehicle with the buzz saw and the vehicle with the large drill.

Duplication I've removed a duplication of the character Saw Boss from the Main Character list. thealternativescott 27/01/2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Jayce logo.jpg

Image:Jayce logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added. Neil ╦ 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First and last airdate

Has someone got a definitive source that can proof these when the start and end dates as the 16th September is a Tuesday and 13th December is a Saturday and since it was syndication I would either have thought it would be ever weekday or ever day but it it start on the 15th September then it would be ever weekday meaning the original airdates could be worked out but not sources I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• After more research I have found that the show seems to have varying dates for start and ending if anyone knows the channel's it aired on I will try email the channels to get dates they do keep records well should.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Voice for Oon Character

I believe they changed the voice for Oon in the middle of the series. I have no idea who it originally was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.15.98 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC) It actually changed in the second or third episode to something less annoying. I have no idea who either voice was though. 75.142.246.93 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fan fiction

Someone keeps adding fan fiction to the description of the series and the characters, apparently in an effort to get his/her ideas for the show out there as an "official" synopsis. For the record, aside from Jayce and Audric, NONE of the characters are related. Herc never met any of them until he was tricked by Gillian and he is most definately NOT related to Audric in any way. Flora was created by Gillian & Audric. Due to this she looks to Audric as a parental figure, but he is not her "father" and Jayce is not her brother. None of the characters have last names. None of this "Lightwheel" stuff is actually based on fact. Jayce is just named Jayce. Not Jason, just Jayce. Saw Boss is not a king. Oon is an Eternal Squire, created by Squiresmith Wixland.

All of this is verifiable by actually watching the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.30.33.9 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Multiple IP editors have been claiming that the article has unreliable sources but failing to discuss which sources they take issue with despite multiple requests to do so. As a result I have requested that this page be temporarily protected. Before, or at least while, tagging the page for having unreliable sources please discuss here which sources are being called into question (or link to an appropriate discussion at WP:RSN). Failure to do so may be considered disruptive and treated accordingly. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources 2

Yet again there's (the same) IP editor claiming unreliable sources without apparently checking the actual content at the sources in question and simply claiming unreliable because the site where this content is located happens to be a blog and fansite. The content referenced is an e-mail conversation with the writer of the show. This includes dates, e-mail ids etc. If a written explanation by the show's actual writer isnt a reliable source I have to wonder what would be considered one. (Especially how there now is no official source for anything on this show anymore, the Millcreek site went dark some time ago). Any and all information is now solely available on fansites and wikipedia (that got said content from these fansites)

The other links in question concern scans of actual officially published material. Just because they were posted on a blog doesnt make an official publication questionable. JalGorda (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm not taking any action at this time, blogs and fansites generally are considered to be unreliable per WP:RS, and I would tend to support any editor who requested stronger citations. Wikipedia, of course, doesn't itself constitute a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. DonIago (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy and in part agree on the position that anyone can make a site and claim various things. However, in these cases the blog contains scans of official publications (and are not user generated/ editable) and should be considered reliable based on the actual content, not where the scans where posted. The other site contains the e-mail conversation with one of the shows main writers and has all information included (minus the e-mail address which was removed for privacy reasons). With regard to the latter I do understand the difficulty in verifying the source other than have the writer state this fact again in an official interview. But given the age of the item and lack of (any) available official sources, the point should either be removed or permitted to stay without further questioning the validity. There is no point to keep that part of the discussion going since all sites containing the information about the Jayce movie got it from this e-mail-conversation. The only "official" site that remained was the limited info on the Millcreek website that has since been deleted. But it still contained nothing in relation to the characters or vehicle names, development, etc. All this information came from the 2 fansites linked as reference. Since imdb is also considered unreliable, this wikipage would be empty now. JalGorda (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the theory that we should leave unreliable sources intact because to remove them would "damage" an article, as I think it's far more damaging to an article to contain information from unreliable sources. I think we may need more editors than simply the two of us involved in this particular conversation. It may be worth asking for additional input at WP:RSN. How is Joe Editor to know that the scans are official and have not been altered? You already raised the question regarding the authenticity of the email, so I won't belabor that point. The hard fact is that we may be dealing with a topic where we're just not going to find much in the way of reliable sources...and while, as I said, I'm not inclined to engage in any removal myself at this time, I'm not going to defend the material without a strong consensus in favor of doing so. DonIago (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It was not my intent to suggest leaving unreliable sources intact just to keep an article undamaged, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. If a source is wrong or lacking any kind of credentials it should be removed. But regarding the scans and questioning if they where altered I have to wonder where it would end? In this case it is very easy to see the links where only provided to show examples of the comic in question. Were they included as images in the article itself I think the question would probably never have come up. Regarding the e-mail, as there is now way to prove it other than the picture of the signature or the id's/timestamp, removing the point entirely would probably be best. I agree that this is a topic where finding official sources is going to be difficult. And finally there is also the problem of the IP editor. Looking at the history of the various IPs and the constant tagbombing of the article, I have to question the intent of the editor. One question I have; i have several official publications in my possession that contain some information. However, they are hardcopy. If I were to scan these and upload these as images in the article, would this be acceptable or would I be wasting my time? And thank you for having this discussion with me :-) JalGorda (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to assume good faith with regards to the IP for edits prior to the time when this conversation began. At this point I would consider it kosher to revert them and direct them to this conversation with a notice that they are now editing disruptively...that said, I think they're within their rights to tag as unreliable, or remove, the sources which I consider unreliable, though tagging might be preferable.

Reliable sources need to have been published, but they don't need to be available online. If it's an official publication and you can provide an appropriate citation then I think you'd be good to go. For instance, DVD commentary tracks are reliable sources. It doesn't matter that I can't personally immediately verify that information you source to a commentary track is accurate, what matters is that it would be within my means to verify it (by acquiring the DVD and listening to the commentary track). Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It does, so thank you for the assistance! I will revert the edits to those previously made by the IP editor with a note to read this conversation on the talkpage. As a final comment on the IP editor, I will say that despite several request by me to discuss the changes, they went unanswered. I've always left more "common" changes made by the IP editor intact (correcting grammar, removing dead links etc). The problem occured when citation tags were added to practically every other sentence. At this point I removed them and requested to discuss it on the talk page. Despite me watching this page for a few years now, I'm still new to all the wiki tags needed for corrections etc. The IP appeared not to be and I assumed they would at least know about the talkpage and that it is the place to discuss these changes if another editor disagrees. I assumed good faith until the persistent tagging without any explanation kept happening. Re: offline publications. That is good to know! There is some good information in several books I have, so I'll scan some and cite the rest with the proper ISBN/page numbers. Thank you again :-) JalGorda (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think with regards to the IP, at this point it would be best to let the matter rest until such time as they edit here again. Rather than just reverting them I'd also make sure to leave a message at their talk page (assuming you haven't already done so). Besides the potentially disruptive nature of their edits, they may be edit-warring, which would be actionable in and of itself, but informing them of what they're doing wrong (and how they can avoid doing it wrong) is essential. Note that edit-warring can go both ways, which is why I tend to recommend a read-through of WP:BRD. But again, unless/until the IP decides to edit here again I think it may be best to just move forward. Glad I could help! DonIago (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://128.242.236.53/site/catalogue/vhs/detail.php?serie=89&cat=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manga-distribution.fr/md/index.php?script=fiche_serie&id_serie=89

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Surnames

Do either Audric or Gillian have a surname? Haven't gotten a chance to watch this yet. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Categories

This series was needlessly hard to find because someone removed a number of categories over a year ago. Please don't do that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And.... after reading the history on these categories I'm of the opinion that categorization of these shows is broken. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)