Talk:The Powerpuff Girls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Powerpuff Girls article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
To-do list for The Powerpuff Girls: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • re-work episode content to only what is relevant
  • avoid bullet lists and single sentence paragraphs
  • sources, sources, sources
Priority 2  
Peer review The Powerpuff Girls has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:



Contents

[edit] The ratings and popularity section is back again.

That's right. There was never a consensus among the editors of this page to remove the sentences about the ratings of the show, they were only removed by one single user. I did'nt bother fighting back and put the sentences back that time, since i felt i had to many other, more important, tasks on my hands. But now that i have some free time for a while, i am going to set a few things straight here. And those few sentences concerning the popularity of the show i wrote several months ago WILL stay in the article. They are suported by three perfectly valid sources, which is more than you can say about similar statements about most shows (such as, for instance, the "Fairly Oddparents" article, which merely states that "Other than SpongeBob SquarePants, it was later Nickelodeon's most highly rated show." withuot any reference at all).

Now, if anyone has any complaints about this edit, then let us discuss it i a civil manner right here on this talk page. Rattis1 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Go back to the debate archive and find out what the agreement was. The sites are not inaccurate at all because they promote fan-fiction. By adding this information back, you prove yourself to be a fan-fictioner, and not someone who wants to add facts to the encyclopedia. If you fail to prove that these sources are accurate, stay the fuck out of this. Marcus2 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as i can see, the Peer Review states that the history section is "the article's strongest section, simply because it has so many sources."
And how the heck can you consider the sites referenced to as "fan-fiction"? Do you even know what that is? One of the articles referenced to is from friggin Time Warner's official site! If THAT's not a reliable resource when it comes to Cartoon Network shows, then litteraly NOTHING is. And the other two references are from the professinal animation organisation Animation World Network's "Animation Magazine", a printed journal of theirs.
And once again i must ask you Marcus, if it is true that the only reason you keep bitching about this article is cause you want to keep it NPOV, than why the hell dont you keep removing unsourced statements from wiki-articles about other shows (articles that i KNOW you do edit a lot, since it shows on your edit history). It's no secret anymore that you have a extreme negative bias against the PPG. So i think it's time for you to stop acting like some kind of spiteful obsessed lunatic and just leave this article to us who actually care about making it a good article. Rattis1 (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I know how to settle this, in my opinion or view, whatever you guys call it.

Yes, I think Rattis1 is right because I found out that the ratings had increased once again as I overheard from some American Kids that I don't know stated that the Powerpuff Girls are back once again with a new 30 Minute Special and a possible new season with 25 Episodes. I did not trust that however because if it is true, my country will have this 7th/New Season or 30 Minute Special which did not happened yet or at all to be exact.

Now that neutrals my opinion or view. If you want straight answers and the best ones, go and I mean go for Craig McCracken himself because he owns the Powerpuff Girls, not any of us. We Wikipedians are just here to give facts and good informations, not to have fans around disrupting threads like the Powerpuff Girls, being the most obvious for example.

That is what I can say. Want some answers? I repeat, ask Craig McCracken himself. Powerpuff Girls Forever! Heh, yeah right. That would go to the outside world, not Wikipedia. Adam Heart03 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean to sound rude to you AdamHeart03, but the idea of trying to get a hold of McCracken himself and have him set things straight in the article does not sound very practical or even possible...
And to you Marcus, i just want to say that i just read the entire debate archive, and it is NEVER suggested by anyone but you that the mentions of the shows popularity should be deleted. And, as i said, it was in fact stated on the peer review that that part should definatly stay. Just go read it for yourself.
So just give it up and realise this: i will never, ever again let you delete it. And dont give me any of that "you WILL be banned from wikipedia"-crap. Im not the one breaking rules here, YOU are, so if this dispute is going to get anyone banned, its YOU. Rattis1 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't mean like we go for the Great Guy himself to settle this. But you know what, you are very right after I read what you said. It is a bad idea but still, if there is no any other way to know whether the ratings are what you said. I'll just let the others take care of this issue, I don't want to get entirely involved like Night Leon, that fan fictioner. Good luck man, you're going to need it.

And to Marcus, I'm not going to stop you because I do not own Wikipedia. I'm just here to help give facts, informations and to make it a good article and so on. Not to be a pain in the neck to everyone. Adam Heart03 (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was NOT the only one who deleted that statement, Rattis1, you IDIOT! Why do you make a mountain out of a molehill?! Because you are a mentally-ill freak, an idiot, and above all, a madman and a lunatic!! I have seen some other anonymous user IP complain about you also. You are fatally wrong and that's that. So stay the fuck out of this, you rat!!! If you think the agreement in the debate archive was that it should definitely stay, you are a mentally retarded man! If you are too stubborn to learn the truth from me, my mother, or anyone else, you will NEVER learn the truth! You apparently don't have the balls to learn the truth about the Powerpuff Girls and its popularity, and you trust the publicity and media: a shitty, unreliable magazine and some leftist Turner official site. Marcus2 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
And to Adam Heart03, you really don't know what you are talking about. PPG is out of style, no American kids like it anymore, and it jumped the shark at least five years ago. Kids now like SpongeBob, The Fairly OddParents, the Avatar, Scooby-Doo, Dora, Diego, etc. You must have been dreaming it up in your sleep, if you know what you are talking about. PPG is getting NO MORE seasons, and the reason is this: it is a fairly minor animated series: it was never very popular. Marcus2 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Marcus, settle down. I know it's frustrating, and I agree 100% with you that it should stay off this site. Just try to relax. 70.101.160.105 (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
See that? Someone DOES agree with me. Marcus2 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's reliably sourced then it can remain whatever personal views about it are. --neonwhite user page talk 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you too, Neon white. But this isn't reliably sourced, as far as I'm concerned, and Marcus is probably right. 70.101.160.105 (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
We have Time Warner and an industry journal, how is the not verifiable? --neonwhite user page talk 06:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The story is this: the magazine apparently promoted the show ("God bless Craig McCracken, god bless him very much..."), and the Time Warner site can't always be counted on just because it's a well-known, famous organization. As far as the ratings at that time go, hardly anything pops up besides Nickelodeon shows, and I assure you, no Cartoon Network programs. And furthermore, sources like these tend to exaggerate all of the time, and no one even thinks it's that big of a deal to sue them. It would be a waste of their time. 70.101.160.105 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
None of that is anything but speculation and personal views, they have no relevance on whether a source is verifiable. We are looking at an industry journal. Journals are considered quite reliable according to WP:V. If there are figures that contradict those presented by the sources, then it would change things, otherwise, i can see no reason to assume they are exaggerated. --neonwhite user page talk 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This must be the biggest non-issue I've ever seen. Does this come down to something as simple as a references' factuality? If so then find some sources which are verifiable and truthful. If you can't (and I reckon you or anyone else won't be able to) then you take the next thing down which in this case are the current references because they're verifiable even if they might be factually incorrect. If that doesn't meet up with the requirement imposed by you, anonymous person and Marcus2, then screw it, the section can't work as there's nothing to prove what's being said is there? Junk the section, the shitty, unreliable magazine and some leftist Turner official site aren't trustworthy sources! But that's the thing though, I think these sources are as good as you may get in this scenario due to what it is and how old it is. If you want this fixed though, there's always WP:RSN but the bottom line is this as written at WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", remember that. --treelo talk 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The 'magazine' is an industry journal linked as a resource by university libraries, that suggests it is reliable. --neonwhite user page talk 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Now I think I understand what you're saying. However, there may be writers for the magazine who are crazed fanatics of PPG or anything else, and will say anything to get people to buy a product. Therefore, the section shouldn't stay. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate a point I made but everyone seemingly ignored, if the words of an industry journal aren't in your opinion factual (which, again, is not a criteria set by Wikipedia for references) then you're welcome to find some alternate references if that is the crux of your argument against it. Can I ask, is what the section states detracting from the article in your opinion or is it that the references aren't factually accurate? --treelo talk 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again Marcus2, I am not being on the Fan side or your side. I am just here to maintain things. The Powerpuff Girls are not popular in your view and it is a true fact to you. But in my view or fact, from what I know, Craig McCracken stopped the Powerpuff Girls because he did not want it to jump the shark due to new directors and so on spoiling everything, changing lots of things, upsetting the American kids which is why it is no longer popular to them and most of all, you. But since a lot say that a 30 Minute Special and a 7th Season is coming, I have no comments because I do not own the Powerpuff Girls, Craig McCracken does. And don't make him involve in this "Might-Be-Pointless-Again" arguement. Now if you please, don't throw your Anger on me, throw it on someone else because I hate wars and arguements, end of story, thank you very much. Adam Heart03 (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rattis1, neonwhite and treelo that these sources are reliable. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Asserting that "there may be fanatics of PPG" who knowingly write factually wrong articles is rather unconvincing. Any sources for this assertion? No? Then we shouldn't consider such theories. --Huon (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If they have fact checkers they would not be able to publish it if it was false. I can see the arguement that it would be easy for a small publication to get away with exaggerating numbers but ultimately we have to go with wikipedia policy and that suggests it's likely to be a verifiable source. --neonwhite user page talk 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the bottom line here that a verifiable source is good enough to use and that factuality doesn't take precedent? WP:V is a policy, 70.101.182.149/Marcus2's opinion however is just that, opinion. I'd say the policies win over dissident from two out of five voices over factuality which doesn't even factor in that element as long as it's verifiable. This has been silly from the outset, someone thinks something isn't factual even though it doesn't matter and this ongoing editwar has been facilitated and kept alive by him solely. If anything should occur, the references and section should stay and Marcus2 should be prevented from his POV deciding if a section's references need to stay on this or any article. --treelo talk 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, we have nothing that contradicts the figures and suggests they are not correct, it's highly unlikely that any editor here would be able to say so from personal knowledge, wikipedia does not claim to be factually accurate, it's designed to be a compendium of sourced text. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There you go then, this isn't a true problem and if one, single person dislikes it then he's free to find a separate reference and add it, he does NOT get the right to delete a section because he disagrees with the factuality of references and I'd be lying if I ever considered Wikipedia as 100% factual as it just can't be. I feel the only thing that's actually impeding the development of this article is Marcus2 (and his sockpuppet IP) bringing up this and consistently giving invalid reasons as to why the references should be dismissed. From what I can tell, consensus was reached on this issue but he disagrees and dragged the remainder of the regular editors of the article into an editwar. He's the problem, not the references. --treelo talk 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Who said that my IP is a sockpuppet of Marcus2? Not true. I've never even known anything about him until recently. And did you know that this world can be so crazy, that anything said against these figures can be repressed? You're driving away a perfectly worthwhile Wikipedian. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's great to hear my Senior Wikipedians, I have no comments. Do what you like and I'll learn from you Seniors. Adam Heart03 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Marcus2 is much more of a senior Wikipedian than any of these two guys. His earliest edit dates back to April 1, 2004. Treelo began in 2005, and Neon white, 2006. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's put this aside into a "Debate Article 2," and let's move on, because frankly, I'm starting to get a little upset about this. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What's upsetting you, Marcus? Please don't remove sourced material. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I will not revert this article any more, to prevent an overwhelming edit war, but I'm not Marcus. And if you're going to pun users like Marcus2, stay out of his way, let alone staying out of the main article. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense to Marcus2 at all, but I got to say just because he is more Senior doesn't mean he has the right or power whichever it is to just delete away things he find must be deleted by him but not by any other users. And man, you and I don't own Wikipedia, what more to say about Marcus2? Ah, whatever. He'll do what he likes and I'll just stay out of it.
But if the sources are resourceful, they must stay. In fact, just because for example the websites are just to let people buy the products doesn't mean they MUST buy the products so why delete the sources? Remember that we don't control the customers. If they chose not to buy, let them be. Instead, someone who I'm not going to stop at all just had to completely delete the resources and let it be. Wow, talking about this makes me want to have Casper and Mantha be a couple.
Anyways, to be honest, I am and I mean I AM NOT on anyone's side, I am always in between, learning from one another and to see whether or not I could make it better and not make it worse which I am not going to do so because it was like a "ZOO" at that time mostly especially obviously between Marcus2 and Night Leon. I just hope they won't do it again because it would just make things even worse than it either is now, soon or some time in the future. Adam Heart03 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I honestly think that marcus2 should be forbidden to ever edit The Powerpuff Girls article again. And im not just saying that out of spite for him, but because i think that's the only way to protect the article from him and his disruptive edits. After having literaly spent years of removing or attempting to remove perfectly valid information, and also having stated openly how much he hates the show, i think its clear to everyone that the guy has a severe negative bias against the show and that his edits should be labeled as vandalism. For those of you have'nt read the summary of disruptive edits made by marcus that someone wrote over a year ago (and is saved in the "Archive 1"), i suggest you do (and remember, it only goes up to november 2006. And its not like he has stoped since). Just a few of the things he has done include removing the "awards" section again and again, despite it being sourced, and constantly removing statements that he considers "POV", despite the fact that no one else agree with him that it is (often, the things he claim are "POV" are exremely obvious things such as that the Powerpuff Girls are the heroes and that Mojo Jojo is a villain), and deleating every individual episode article, and showing NO respect whatsover for democratic decisions, instead just edit the article anyway he feels like. And ever so often, his stated reasons for these edits is simply that the article does not deserve, for instant, an awards section, because the show "IS SO UNPOPULAR!". He just claims that the show is not popular and was never popular to begin with, bu he can NEVER, EVER state where the got that piece of information (except occasionally stating "my mother told me so"). And if im not mistaken, is it not true that one can get banned from Wikipedia for being rude to other people? Cause if that's so, then nobody deserves to get banned more that marcus. I mean, for God sake, just look at the stuff he has said it this debate! "Thay the fuck out of this", "you idiot", "you mentally ill freak". Is that not bad enough!?
God, all the shit with this article drives me f*cking insane. And i know that there is really no point in trying to improve the article (such as, for example, write more "out-of-universe"-information, as the peer review states there should be) as long as marcus is allowed to edit it. Cause even though hes gone on one of his little vacations right now, he will delete all information that speaks against his personal view of the show ("its bad and unpopular") regardless of whether it is accurately sourced or not, when he gets back. So please, cant some administator just ban him already?81.231.172.124 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Gah, i forgot to sign in before i wrote that. But anyway, that was me who wrote the rant above. Just so you know. Rattis1 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Rattis, you need to calm down too and not take word for word what Marcus said out of anger. I have heard virtually nothing but anger from both sides, and we have no need for anger. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Marcus. I haven't been hearing anger, heated debate maybe but no real anger besides Rattis' rant and pretty much everything Marcus has written to date. As before the true issue lies with Marcus as being a problematic editor and not with source reliability as that's just a smokescreen for Marcus' dislike of The Powerpuff Girls. The only other person who agrees with him is 70.101.X.X who I reckon to be a meatpuppet as they happen to have near enough the same opinion and clearly know their way around Wikipedia well enough to list this issue at WP:RS and use the exact same arguments Marcus did when removing them previously on the reasons why it's unreliable. I've decided due to it being such an issue on this article that progress cannot be made that I've created a suspected sockpuppet case on Marcus and the anonymous friends as it doesn't add up and if they're not the same person then there should be no issue. If anyone is in agreement then please pass on any evidence. --treelo talk 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it turns out that 70.101.182.149 is really not marcus (in which case he must be a friend of marcus) and marcus is NOT banned because of being a puppetmaster, then we will just have to continue to put up with his edits to the article. I for one just dont have the nerves to keep arguing with him like this, since i now know that nothing will make him change his view that the show simply does not deserve an article with much info, and his belief that any source that suggest that people actually like the show is lying, and his habit of deleting any info he wants too without considering the opinions of others in the slightest.
Im no wiki-expert, but is it possible to prevent single editors from editing specific articles? Cause if it is, then i dare say this is a very valid case to do just that, to prevent marcus from ever touching the PPG article again. Or, as i said earlier, to just ban him altogether.
I realise that i must come of as rather hostile for continuing to suggest such actions against marcus. But its honestly not something i do just because i dislike marcus and want to get back at him, but because, as i have stated so many times already, i know that as long as he is allowed to edit this article he will continue to destroy it. There is just absolutely no way to reason with him. And, as far as i know, by just about all standards wikipedia has about dealing with problematic editors, he should rigthly be banned. Rattis1 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, kinda. If the result is that the IP addresses and Marcus' account aren't related there's still a lot of proof that he's a disruptive force to the article and action could be taken in some way even though from what I know it's usually an all or nothing approach when it comes to actioning on someone who's making what are essentially POV edits on one article but editing well otherwise.
I'm not happy about having him banned regardless of what he's said here but if we are taking that road then it might be a case of us ignoring him (and the sockpuppets) and getting on with editing the article anyway with the agreement that the references stay for the basic reasoning that there's no others. I'd figure that given the period of time this has been going, we're just getting bogged down in needless debates and in a way playing into his hands by allowing it to occur as he gets us tangled in this web of bullshit and he gets a crappy article in return because we're focusing on minutiae instead of the whole article.
I see a simple and easy resolution to this: if he takes it out, warn him. It's no longer a case for discussion, we're way past that and he lost the consensus a long time ago. Shut up talking about it and just edit the damn thing. --treelo talk 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Now that's what I was hoping some Seniors would say because if not, things would get worse as usual. Adam Heart03 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I could support you but I chose not to. But then again, if anyone else agrees with you, then I have no comment but to support you then. Remember not to get your hopes too high because he'll be back one day, again and again and again. Adam Heart03 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm NEUTRAL. But for this case you stated, I kind of have to agree. All 3 acted almost the same way. But to be on the safe side, I'll let the others handle this. I'm here just to control and settle things properly, not to cause trouble. Adam Heart03 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess it was easier said than done. And Rattis, Marcus2 would just have another account unless he could not officially get into Wikipedia anymore if he is to be banned. For once, I have to be on the sources side. If not, this place will be more than a "ZOO". I made a point somewhere and I'll make it again with some more extra informations.

The Highest Rated Premiere: It is shown just to show that it is the highest rated premiere. To me, it is also "Who cares?" but someone just had to delete them immediately. Why not just leave it alone if you don't like it? What I mean is like do you think other people care if they saw that source? They would just see it and leave it alone. It's like whether it's there or not, eventually people will look into it and not look into it again because they already know. And it just had to be deleted. Remember that we don't control those people especially American kids. If they like the Powerpuff Girls, let them. If they don't like or don't give a damn at all, let them. Why do you even bother? I have a feeling that now I know why Marcus2 is getting on Rattis1 and Night Leon's nerves. He doesn't care what others think. He would just delete them whether the American kids chose to love the Powerpuff Girls or hate them and I have a strong point that Marcus2 has this problem. He doesn't care about any other people's feelings. And no offense but, he seems to be only thinking about himself. And I hope you, 70.101.182.149 are not that kind of person because that kind of person never thinks out of the box. Adam Heart03 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference/in-universe tags

JSH-Alive put tags on the top of the page that it needs references and is written in universe style. I do not see the writing as being "in universe". Can s/he put some citation needed tags where he feels they should be, as well as pointing out examples of being written in an in-universe style? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Because this article cites sources a little. And see also Wikipedia:Peer review/The Powerpuff Girls/archive1.--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. It's not so much that the writing is "in-universe" it is just that the writing is about show content. We need more writing about non-content. "in-universe" to me has meant articles that are written as if fictional subjects were real. There is a lot of that in other articles about fiction, particularly comics, animation, and sci-fi metaverses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Reliable sources noticeboard

This article is now present on the reliable sources noticeboard. Please share your thoughts if you desire. It seems that the edit war is getting way out of control. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look who's talking. It has been way out of control since 2004 I bet because that's when Marcus2 joined Wikipedia, right? If we want the edit war to be stopped once and for all as well as having peace. Then there are only these things I had in mind which I am 100% sure that most of the other users want and I'm as usual, Neutral to it. It goes step by step.

1: Ban Marcus2 (Instant Peace) 2: Leave the Powerpuff Girls alone and FORGET about everything and I mean everything about the Powerpuff Girls. Just IGNORE the Powerpuff Girls as if they don't even exist to you. 3: Let the TRUE SENIORS of Wikipedia (((No offense but I myself strongly believed that Marcus2 was, is and never will be one of them due to him being a pain to everyone especially Rattis))) give sources and nothing but sources to the Powerpuff Girls.

Then when "if" that is done, there will never ever be anymore edit war about the Powerpuff Girls. You should lay off too because you and Marcus2 think the same way. Once again and I mean ONCE AGAIN if no one and I mean NO ONE especially Marcus2 believes me, I am on NO ONE'S SIDE. I am doing what is right for Wikipedia and obviously for the Powerpuff Girls article currently due to it being disrupted the most and mostly by (((No offense))) Marcus2. And furthermore, I for once, have to be one the sources side because for once, I strongly agreed with Rattis, Neon White and many other Seniors and Users. Adam Heart03 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the girls.

The article really needs atleast ONE picture of the main characters. Isn't there anybody who can get one? Rattis1 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Peer Review

Just intrigues me just how messy the article is if you look at it closely. Let's see what's up.

  • No image of the girls but plenty of the villains, something seem wrong there to you?
  • Just underneath the infobox for the show, for me the text flow inbetween there and the image below looks messy. Best remedy for that would be to shrink the voice actor list within the infobox to the main five.
  • The Powerpuff Girls character article (sharing its' content with Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z which it really shouldn't, more below) and the main Citizens of Townsville section could be spun off into one main character list for the show. Villains could have their own separate article also and the minor character list has got to go. The in-universe style comes from this section specifically, it needs to be moved.
  • Where's the section about the popularity? If you're going to get it back in then some citable critique of it would be good to balance it out more.
  • Setting section is heaving with links and is very excessive, cut them back.
  • Too much talk of Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z in this article and others, a simple header with a small paragraph explaining what it is and a main article linkout should do enough in this article only. Whomever maintains Demashita! should maintain their own lists and articles even if the shows are directly linked, they're not the same and shouldn't be associated as such.
  • "References in other media" I'm concerned about. Sure, other shows do have these but each of them are {{trivia}} tagged and correctly so because I question just how much relevance a section which shouts "This one's for the real fans!" at me. Because others have them it doesn't justify their existence and I think that it clogs up the article with... well, trivia as it adds nothing.
  • There's two concerns about sourcing and references which are correct but only the one which asks for more citations, the other one would only hold water if there weren't any at all.

Beyond that, it's alright but nowhere near good enough for GA status which this article given its' impact on culture during the mid 90's should have attained by now. Keep at it, you could do a whole lot better. --treelo talk 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, concerning the "References in other media " section, I think the essay on relevance of content makes a good point, don't you think? —T-borg (T | C) 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It does but it's still irrelevant where and when a reference was made if it has no bearing on the article. --treelo talk 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I gotta admit that it looks kind of messy. The Overview and History are okay. All the characters should be compressed into a single article section of "Characters" whether it is Minor or Major. The Settings are okay. The Opening and Ending Themes and Sequences are okay. The Episodes are okay. The Awards are okay. The DVD Releases are okay. The "References in other media" should be compressed into its own article section of the same name. The References, See Also and External Links are okay.
So the only problem in my view are the Characters and References in other media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Heart03 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems no one is making a move yet. It would not be easy for a Rookie like me compress the characters into a single category simply called "Characters" so it won't be as messy. Adam Heart03 (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Profesor Utonium.JPG

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)