Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Archive 2

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.

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 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 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.AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a comment at Talk:Kamen Rider Blade 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: 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 2008-07-14.) 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:



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: 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".
 * Red Ranger
 * Blue Ranger
 * Yellow Ranger
 * Green Ranger
 * Black Ranger
 * Pink Ranger
 * White Ranger

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 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 atArticles 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)
 * 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 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 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 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 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: 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)
 * Template:Zyuranger
 * Template:Gaoranger
 * Template:Abaranger
 * Template:Dekaranger
 * Template:Magiranger
 * Template:Boukenger
 * Template:Gekiranger
 * Template:Go-onger
 * 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)

I find that the following template(s) are not following what the other templates are following: That template using font color "red" and background color "yellow". This is not very stylistic and the colors are extremely ugly. It may be readable, but having them less saturated would make the colors more readable. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Shinkenger
 * Deal with it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what I think the majority of readers feel. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you speak for everyone? And I'm trying to find colors that fit and look good, but I have no idea what to use.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to speak for everyone. I'm trying to speak for the majority. Majority is not everyone. Find some colors, please. Or I will find some myself. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mythdon that color is ugly. Powergate92   Talk  05:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the yellow or the brown that I have placed now?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks better now. Powergate92   Talk  07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Alot better than before. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (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 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

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)
 * Are you actually an administrator? What method did you use to try to delete them articles. Mythdon  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 23:20, 9 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 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. — Dino guy  1000  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. -- AnmaFinotera  (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 &mdash; then why not go with  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)

&lt;killing indent&gt; 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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.
 * 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 &mdash; 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.
 * 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)