Talk:List of Virtual Dungeon monsters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Excessive Vandalism 2 Vandalized again! 3 Chronological Order 4 It's happening AGAIN... 5 Field Goal 6 Heartburn? 7 Vandalism Strikes Again 8 Was Gunslinger perforated? 9 Where are most of the images? 10 Images 11 Wikipedia policies: Article standards 11.1 Wikipedia:No original research 11.2 Wikipedia:Verifiability 11.3 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not 11.4 Wikipedia:Notability 12 Keep 13 Cleanup may be warranted, but deletion is not warranted. And speedy deletion should be FORGOTTEN ABOUT. 14 Take a gander at this 15 Please listen....

[edit] Excessive Vandalism

There's been too much vandalism going on here as of late. It really saddens me to see one of the best of few online sources for VR Troopers being turned into a cesspool of trolls and grafitti. There are three user ISPs that have changing the names of these characters into something obsurd (although, these three ISPs may in fact be a single user using a different computer location). I checked into these user's contribution histories and noticed that they have many acts of vandalism and warnings. Notable name changes include Cobrot in Granny Cobra. I have a copy of the episode and have been watching the actual episode itself over 50 times, and not once has this monster been referred to by such a name. I clearly heard the name 'Cobrot" from Col. Icebot. Also, changing Mechanoid into Snoop Dogg Bot. If Saban's writer did use that name, Snoop Doggy Dogg and his agents would have sued or asked for some kind of payment for usage of the name. Also changing Cranoid into 'Sliding Glass Door Bot' is the most ridiculous of all. Saban's writers had more creativity than that. The name of the brain monster is Cranoid. As of my recent change, the names are the correct ones as far as I know. I ask for any users that if they see any changes that deface or inhibit this article, please make any needed corrections. Thank You.

[edit] Vandalized again!

The same guy who put in those stupid names like Granny Cobra and Choo-Choo-bot and Snoop-Doggy-Dogg-bot has done it again!! Even though they had been changed back. And it wasn't me, like I had said the first time. This IP address is different for me as I am on another computer, but I am the same user as the one at my home IP, which is 69.117.20.134 (the one that was falsely blocked recently). I couldn't keep quiet about this issue since it keeps on happening, but the vandalizer struck again sometime today according to the edit history. Should I change it all back? Otherwise, something must be done! Thanks.

[edit] Chronological Order

I thought that like most other monster pages (from other shows), the order in which they appeared should be added, which I did (although I couldn't get every single one) with the help of the guide on TV.com. That for the Virtual Dark Fortress still needs to be done. -Anonymous User at 71.249.255.91 (same person whose home IP is 69.117.20.134).

[edit] It's happening AGAIN...

That guy just doesn't know when to quit, does he. Either it is him or someone else at 71.162.43.164 who got the tip to do what he did. Either way, this needs to be fixed again and that IP needs a good BANNING! - User at 71.249.255.91

• It WASN'T me, I notice sometimes I get banned because of some jackass who shares my IP that creates names like "Granny Cobra" from Cobrot, along with some description changes, "Sliding Glass Door" for Cranoid, and one time even described him like a sliding glass door! And I notice Mechanoid gets turned into "Snoop Doggy Dogg", which is stupid, because he doesn't rap. I saw even more absurd changes accredited to me, such as referring to Cannonbot as a train-themed robot called "Choo-Choo-bot". Some of the vandal's changes still exist on this page in small quantities, I'd suggest scouring the page for scraps of vandalism before locking the page permanently (most notably, Cobrot was not referred to as being "all cobra", Col. Icebot DID say, however that his Cobrot's engines would whip the Troopers into whatnot. The exact quote was "You call that a warrior? My Cobrot's engines will whip those Troopers into whatnot!").

[edit] Field Goal

Just watched the episode "Field Goal". There is no monster named Cannonfist used. VR Ryan faces Zelton instead. Also,TV.com has also incorrectly referred to Slashbot as Battlebot. Fellow fans,do not be fooled. - VR Trooper Fan

[edit] Heartburn?

Did JB REALLY give the robots heartburn when impaling them with the Laser Lance? I know he said to Spiderbot, "Heartburn? I've got something for that!", but I thought it was a one-time-only kind of pun.

And plus, did all the bots REALLY surrender after getting impaled? I don't seem to recall that ever happening at all! - User at 71.249.255.91

• Agreed. I have removed the redundant descriptions of the Laser Lance attack. Many of the people who are familiar with the show know how it works. Plus, someone has posted a clip of it on youtube, they can watch the Laser Lance command there. Pitstain 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I pretty much agree with a single description of the Laser Lance attack, but I also indicated times that bots didn't surrender, had heartburn, were attacked from a VR fighter bike, or weren't impaled. --MVillani1985 23:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• When I wrote that JB gave the robots heartburn, that indicated that they acted like they had stomach pain, but didn't appear to surrender. When I said that they surrendered, they threw their arms up in the air and immediately stopped any efforts to continue to attack. That wasn't true of the bots I listed for having heartburn or other miscellaneous things, like Mechanoid and Electrobot, who continued attacking until they were slashed with the finishing maneuver.

[edit] Vandalism Strikes Again

Please BAN the person(or people) who keep changing the robots names to those ridiculous and untrue names(just check youtube for the English episodes). - VR Trooper Fan

• I changed the names of the bots back to their real names.

• Speaking of vandalism, I had to change back some vandalism that somehow was overlooked. It may have been overlooked because this time it looked more selective and careful editing instead of just the usual silliness. Still, problems all fixed now (I think). MVillani1985 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Gunslinger perforated?

From what I've seen, it looks like the laser lance perforated a small hole through Gunslinger, the only example I can find of a perforation from the laser lance impalement. This may have been a trick of the lighting, however. Could somebody check for me to see if Gunslinger was perforated, or if it was just an optical illusion? --MVillani1985 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I made an edit leaving this open-ended, since I'm not really sure if Gunslinger was perforated or not, but I believe he was. --MVillani1985 05:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are most of the images?

Why are most of the images gone from here (and most other related pages)? Were they stolen much like some Power Rangers images? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.95.150 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Images

Let's start a discussion about the images and whether they stay or go here. It seems like a standard use of images on character page to me. - Peregrinefisher 10:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• We can't use this many images. WP:FUC has two criteria that I call in question here. #3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." and #8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article" The generally accepted standard is 2-3 images per article. This article has 50+ images. This constitutes a copyright violation and wouldn't stand up to the very narrow standard of "fair use". Second, these are just mutants and demons, usually appearing in 1-2 episodes, tops. I consider major villains (like Grimlord and his closest underlings, those who appear in multiple episodes) significant enough to have a picture, but just the monster of the day? Also, the sheer number of mutants on this page dilutes the critical commentary on each image; less images are better. Because it would be somewhat arbitrary to decide who is more significant, I'm in favor of cutting out all of the images here and leaving them for the major villains (Grimlord already has his images). Hbdragon88 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC #3 The "amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible" refers to the amount of copyrighted work taken from the original source. Each image is cropped to only use that which is needed, thus no copyright violation. The "amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible" also refers to inappropriately using multiple images where less would serve the purpose adequately. You can use multiple images in this list because they appear to be needed. WP:FUC #3 is not a basis to delete the images. WP:FUC #8 states "the material must contribute significantly to the article." For this type of article, this means that the text description not only must describe what is shown in the image, but the image must be present to give a complete characterization of the character. In other words, the image must contribute significantly to the text of the Mutant/Cyborg to which it relates. This article has two WP:FUC #8 problems - (i) The article section text does not sufficiently refer to the image(s) associated with it and (ii) each image does not contribute significantly to the text of the Mutant/Cyborg to which it relates. WP:FUC #8 is sufficient basis for you to delete the images. Please delete the images and if you have any trouble with this, please contact me on my talk page. -- Jreferee 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the use of images on this page clearly meets WP:FUC #8. As explicitly mentioned in WP:FUC, all of the images "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". Contrary to your assertion there is no need specified in WP:FUC #8, implicit or otherwise, for the text to refer to the image; rather, the image must relate to the text in a significant way. In this instance each image provides clear identification for the specific Mutant/Cyborg in question, clearly satisfying the "significance" requirement of WP:FUC #8. -- Y|yukichigai 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this page until this issue is resolved. The problems do not seem to be resolved, and non-fair copyrighted material needs to be removed immediately until the problem is resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Escalating this to an edit war without, say, actually expressing your objections to my argument (or even bothering to read it) before reverting me is one thing. Using your administrator privelages to ensure your preferred interpretation is maintained is an entirely different thing. A possible Arbitration kind of thing, if you catch my drift. I'm happy to chalk this one up to a temporary loss of cool, but if that page protection doesn't disappear soon I'm going to be forced to conclude that you've become ill-equipped to handle the abilities you've been given, and I will take the appropriate course(s) of action. Check your mentality; you're acting remarkably irresponsible for someone who has a reputation for being level-headed. -- Y|yukichigai 07:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policies: Article standards

The following sub topics addresses the relevant Wikipedia policy article standards (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiable information only, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons).

[edit] Wikipedia:No original research

The are no citations in the article and it appears to be written from someone's personal knowledge of the topic. Even if the WP:FUC #8 problems are overcome to keep some of the images, the text utilized to overcome WP:FUC #8 would need to be published by reliable sources. Further, the entire article may violate Wikipedia:No original research. In view of the additional WP:FUC #8 problems, this article appears to be ready for deletion. I did not put it up for deletion because there may be some value in having a list of Mutants and Cyborgs in the Virtual Dungeon. However, such a list would only be of value if accompanied by text published by reliable sources. Please continue to work together to get this article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. -- Jreferee 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The show is a primary source: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." - Peregrinefisher 02:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Peregrinefisher - I'm not familiar with using television shows as a Wikipedia reliable source. I would appreciate your providing a link so I can review it. As far as I understand it, a primary source is a document and a television show is not a document. Aren't their books published on this topic or magazine articles that describe the characters? What about the scripts for the shows? They probably contain descriptions of the characters. If there is no description of the characters and the images violate WP:FUC #8, the only thing left is the names of the characters. You can use tertiary sources for the names of the characters. Please keep in mind that, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Wikipedia:Citing sources discusses how to add reliable sources to the article. -- Jreferee 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The show itself is a resource, because you can't find an article about this in Funk and Wagnells or Encyclopedia Brittanica. We can't use sources like the New England Journal Of Medicine or NASA because, well, traditional means of sources just wouldn't work. Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken is to be an encyclopedia that includes reference sources beyond what you may find in a traditional encyclopedia in your local library. Yes, there are still articles about The Periodic Table, the Spanish-American War, Thomas Jefferson, and so on, but Wikipedia is more than just a reference source on hard knowledge. Please consider that before dropping a tag concerning use of Original Research. Original Research would include fan speculation, for example "Had Grimlord built Fiddlebot so that his power source didn't require a human, he would have been unbeatable". Or maybe "Had Col. Icebot given Rabidspore more armor, he would have made short work of JB and Kaitlin". Just keep in mind that an article of this nature can't be treated like an article on something like the sun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

• Hi .218. Original research refers to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts and an edit counts as original research if it defines new terms. The text accompanying each Mutants/Cyborgs term seeks to define that Mutants/Cyborgs term with material that has not been published by a reliable source, which makes each such edit original research. The article continues to be noncompliant as original research. I appreciate that an article of this nature can't be treated like an article on something like the sun. This is why I prefer to address these noncompliant issues first on the talk page. However, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The examples you cite address Verifiability, for which I added a separate thread below. -- Jreferee 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

*"Original research refers to material that has not been published by a reliable source." Per WP:RS, primary sources are considered adequately reliable (if not the most reliable) sources for establishing basic claims and information about a topic. They cannot establish notability, but the mere collection of information about a topic is not Original Research. It is only when new conclusions, previously unpublished in any reliable source, are created from that information that it becomes Original Research. -- Y|yukichigai 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Some of the inferences like "this monster belongs in x category" is definitely original research unless Grimlord himself or someone specifically categorized these monsters. I don't believe that they ever did, having watched 3-4 episodes on YouTube in the past few weeks. Hbdragon88 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability

The are no citations in the article and it appears to be written from someone's personal knowledge of the topic. Even if the WP:FUC #8 problems are overcome to keep some of the images, the text utilized to overcome WP:FUC #8 would need to be published by reliable sources. Further, the entire article may violate Wikipedia: Verifiability. In view of the additional WP:FUC #8 problems, this article appears to be ready for deletion. A list of names of Mutants and Cyborgs in the Virtual Dungeon would only be of value if accompanied by text published by reliable sources. The article continues to be noncompliant as unverifiable and I reinserted the noncompliant teplate on the article page. Please continue to work together to get this article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. -- Jreferee 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think we'll be able to find hard reference resources to back up our claims. Maybe you should become an editor of a more hard reference encyclopedia, like Funk and Wagnells, since that seems more your style. I don't know HOW an article like this could be compliant when the only information you can find about VR Troopers, is through so-called "original research". -- 209.158.19.218 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your argument, Jreferee. What you're talking about is the requirement of solid secondary sources to assert notability, not verifiability. The notability of this list is asserted by the notability of the "parent article", i.e. VR Troopers, which warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia; as to verifiability, rather than ramble on forever I'll just borrow some wise words from A Man In Black: "In the absence of a secondary source, we use a primary source for uncontroversial claims about the subject. Such primary sources can't establish importance, but they can be used for simple, uncontroversial claims in the absence of any alternative secondary source." I believe it is clear that the content of this article falls well within the realm of "uncontroversial claims about the subject." As such, it meets WP:V. -- Y|yukichigai 02:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• My ears are burning!

"Such primary sources can't establish importance."

I don't see any assertions that the various enemies, collectively or individually, have had any impact on the real world, in the form of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Direct observation of the subject can't establish this importance.

So, produce the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not something I can readily do, not being particularly familiar with this series, but more to the point it's not what I was discussing. I was simply pointing out that WP:NOR and WP:V have been met, and the "non-compliance" tag doesn't apply.

Now, as for WP:N, I don't have a detailed argument specific for this series, but in general Lists are often made to present relevant and detailed information which, if not separated into its own article, would otherwise disrupt or negatively impact the quality of an article despite providing more complete information. This is common for information like lists of episodes or, in this case, lists of characters. But like I said, WP:N is another issue altogether; let's not get too sidetracked. -- Y|yukichigai 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show verification that this list is relevant, and not an indiscriminate collection of random facts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a subcategorization of a category, breaking down this category into another to tell more about the subject. Similarly, I'll cite a real encyclopedia article on insects. It discusses briefly the different orders of insects, and that clearly is not just a random collection of trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

But I could easily turn up reliable sources on any real-world species of insect you care to name, thereby easily establishing importance. Not so in this case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

The are no citations in the article and it appears to be written from someone's personal knowledge of the topic. (i) The information in this article publishes new information not heretofore published. Per WP:NOT#OR, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. (ii) That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective. An in-universe perspective leads to the very problems we now are discussing. This article solely is a summary of the plot characters of the fictional work VR Troopers written in an in-universe perspective. Per WP:NOT#IINFO Item #7 Plot summaries, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of plot information on works of fiction. -- Jreferee 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're misconstruing what WP:NOR is intended to prevent. As I mentioned before, uncontroversial claims about a subject can be sourced from the primary source, in this case the show itself. As far as citations, note that every entry in the list mentions a specific episode or episodes which the Mutant/Cyborg appeared in; that qualifies as an in-line citation. Just because it doesn't use the "ref" tags or have a link doesn't mean it's not a citation. As for your objection to the in-universe writing style, I think that's somewhat justified; a lot of it is written in-universe, but some of it is also written from an out-of-universe perspective. This warrants a cleanup, not a deletion. -- Y|yukichigai 05:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't license to write articles entirely from primary sources. Doing so is original research, since you're making subjective judgements about importance and emphasis, with no cues from published work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is not Original Research, that is a failure to meet notability requirements. The mere collection of information is not Originial Research; if it were, all of Wikipedia would fit the definition. Originial Research applies when new information or conclusions are synthesized which have not been previously mentioned by a reliable source. -- Y|yukichigai 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well since there are no books published on this article, you might as well delete it, and all other articles about such things like Power Rangers, VR Troopers, etc. This article has now been suggested for deletion, but, you had better believe that this move is going to get Wikipedia some bad publicity, even if you reinstate the article later on. This isn't a threat, but a warning of concern. Doing so will turn wikipedia off to everyone except medical students, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. This article does warrant a few cleanups, I'll grant it that, one that we can't agree whether it's Frogbot or Rugbot, but you had better believe that I'm going to save a text form of all of the VR Troopers articles and post them somewhere else so that people can actually learn about VR Troopers. The stuffy, militiant, editors who insist on nothing but the most extreme of rigidity and formality at all times are going to contribute to the decline of Wikipedia until only a handful of people even visit here. Soon this will be "just another encyclopedia" that will be only used by people looking up something for a research project for school or wanting to answer their kid's nagging questions about how things work. Is that what we want? Just so everyone knows, I'm going to be saving ALL VR Troopers pages in text format to my hard drive and posting them on other places online, lest this page actually be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

No. I vote that these kinds of pages STAY. It would certainly turn Wikipedia off to me (who is a proud un-registered contributor). Needlessly deleting VR Troopers, Power Rangers, etc. pages would really make you guys at Wikipedia look bad and not to mention the site itself, and no one would ever want to visit again. Please - do NOT delete these pages at all. 71.249.233.190 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. It would make it look like Wikipedia is a stuffy and rigidly conservative type of encyclopedia, like one from the 1930s or before. The notion of Wikipedia deleting these articles because they aren't your father's encyclopedia articles will soundly kill Wikipedia's repuation as an all-around encyclopediac reference source, and make it look like it only defines "encyclopediac" as the traditional articles you can find in ANY Encyclopedia, leaving the person who wants to find out about Power Rangers and VR Troopers in the dark. 209.158.19.218 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not poll, we discuss. WP:V and WP:NOT override all else. Power Rangers yields some reliable sources, as it's still being currently produced; VR Troopres, unfortunately, has been left in the dust, similar to Masked Rider and other Saban tokusatsu productions. Make us look bad? On the contrary, this would make us look good. We'd be getting rid of a ridiculously overdetailed article that lists every monster to ever appear in an obscure TV show. Wikipedia gets heavy criticism for having such detailed articles on topics of such trivial importance (as opposed to core articles regarding mathmatics, geography, etc.). Hbdragon88 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it would make you look bad to delete this. Should we forget everything that doesn't currently run on television? Should we begin deleting articles on old television and radio shows now? I don't know WHO criticizes Wikipedia for not looking like your traditional library hardcover encyclopedia, but I can assure you, there are far more who appreciate Wikipedia's referencing of these kinds of things than there are the rigid, stuffy, nose-in-the-air types.

Who? It's just the general feeling. Here are some QDB quotes of people making fun of Wikipedia [1] [2] People obviously like how it isn't constrained to the hardcover topics - WP:UA is proof of this - but there are limits. Some people would label this article as fancruft. We aren't forgetting the shows; the article on VR Troopers still exists, for instance. It's a side effect of not being paper; topics that haven't gotten the same kind of reliable coverage are just going to have fewer articles. Hbdragon88 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability

A Man In Black (talk • contribs) has brought up a few potential issues regarding the notability of this article in the course of discussing its verifiability. Rather than continue cluttering up the "Verifiability" section, I figure we should have a separate section to discuss the issues relating to notability of this particular article.

Due to my relative unfamiliarity with the subject I can't speak to the notability of this article in great detail; however, I would like to reiterate my previous comments. Generally, lists and similar articles are held to a different standard of proof for notability due to the basic "sub-article" nature of such articles. While lists cannot be exclusively justified simply by the notability of the "parent" article (in this case, VR Troopers) that measure of notability comprises a large percentage of each related list's notability. -- Y|yukichigai 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

Let this page stay. I've been correcting the vandalized info everytime I've seen it. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 11:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Co-signed. Let these pages STAY. 71.249.233.190 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tangented. :-D Let these pages stay. If these pages go because of some stuffy editors who don't think this is scientific or historic enough for Wikipedia, then these are going up somewhere else AND will give Wikipedia bad publicity in the process. I've saved text versions of all of the pages to my hard drive so that if they need to be posted somewhere else at a moment's notice, they can be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cleanup may be warranted, but deletion is not warranted. And speedy deletion should be FORGOTTEN ABOUT.

There was mention of Power Rangers having some reliable sources. What are they? JRovang.com and grnrngr.com are fansites, nothing wrong with them as reference sources, but you can't hold this VR Troopers article to higher standards than you hold Power Rangers. I edit both of those and I see no difference in the reliability of the sources used. The main sources used here are YouTube and TV.com, examples referring to Kongbot being finished off with the laser lance on YouTube and The Magician being incorrectly referred to as Forestbot as noted on TV.com. And about the outsiders perspective, we provide misconstrued and fan-created names, so that non-fans will know which bot is really which, that "Forestbot" is really The Magician, and "Cannon Fist" is really Zelton. Power Rangers is primariliy being focused on being cleaned up, while VR Troopers is seriously being considered for deletion. After reading this, ask yourselves WHY? In short, let all pages of this type stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Take a gander at this

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper

This basically says that Wikipedia is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or an online version of a paper encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Please listen....

I see that this is being considered for deletion......again. Please reconsider. It will give Wikipedia bad publicity, and I don't care why it wouldn't, it just would, especially given that Lemmiwinks from South Park can have his own article, and who only appeeared in one episode, yet there can't be an article for an entire season's worth of Mutants and Cyborgs in Grimlord's Virtual Dungeon? If you're going to delete this because it's not 100% like a paper encyclopedia in style, then I should expect to see all side-branch articles removed. If not, it shows that Wikipedia has prejudices, if so, it shows that Wikipedia is too obsessed with ending its image that "it can be edited by anyone" (despite the impressive quality control checks of the moderators here) to the point of making it just another internet encyclopedia. Blah, I say to that, blah. And where would this find a new home? Certainly not Uncyclopedia, where it could be mercilessly edited into a joke, and not one of the other joke encyclopedias. Some sort of agreement needs to be met as not to damage the credibility of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.252.106 (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

• I concur. This sort of a move could kill Wikipedia's reputation as we know it. And once it is dead, we don't want the pro-deletion fanatics to complain to people like us when Wikipedia fails because of these needless deletions. Stop this now, please. Leave the article alone. 71.249.255.91 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't know if it's just plain bias or attempting to confine Wikipedia to the constraints of a paper encyclopedia. They're worried about a few snobs who piss and moan about Wikipedia not living up to the standards of a paper encyclopedia, while alienating the commoner who likes Wikipedia because it has a quality control check in addition to allowing articles about things you wouldn't find in a paper encyclopedia. They say that if we allow these it'll look like you can add anything to Wikipedia, until I start seeing articles about things like the best way to fart in a bathtub, I'm not going to buy that argument of the pro-deleition fanatics. I have saved a backup copy of every single VR Troopers article currently on Wikipedia, and I am prepared to post them somewhere else so that the infomration still exists. And I will not hesitate to describe Wikipedia's snubbing of VR Troopers, while giving a one-episode charachter from South Park his own article. I think that on an online Encyclopedia with articles on every single charachter in existance from a popular TV show, past or presence, and an article about the downtown of every small Anytown, USA in America (example: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), there is no room for pro-delition fanatics.

• • • I agree, yet again. People can just LEAVE Wikipedia and start their own site. And leave they should if the pro-deletion fanatics continue to run amok. For real. IMO I think these fanatics are completely biased and hate stuff like Power Rangers, VR Troopers, etc. while smiling at stuff like a minor South Park character. Sad indeed. 71.249.255.91 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I agree 100%, and not only did they give Lemmiwinks his own article, but they basically listed half of the script for The Death Camp of Tolerence, as seen here [[3]]. And I'm not afraid to give Wikipedia the bad press, too. And they can't block my edits, either, since I'm doing nothing wrong except for protesting against their bias. Another example of their bias (but political) is the fact that they allow the Global Warming article to look like it was written by Al Gore himself, full of opinions, and consider any introduction of the opposite side of the spectrum as "vandalism".

• • • • • So now we gotta deal with political bias too. Between that and the repeated threat of deleting such a wonderful article as this one for VR Troopers, Wikipedia is certainly losing their good reputation and fast. We may all leave it soon. I'm not afraid to say it. 71.249.255.91 14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • I think they heard us and listented to our advice, it looks like they're trying to reach a midground with us, it can stay as long as it's written from an outsider's perspective. I say ok, but it risks being redundant, since there's articles that explain who Grimlord is, who the VR Troopers are, etc, but at least it gets to stay and that's what's important.