Talk:Zaido: Pulis Pangkalawakan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
THIS IS NOT A FORUM ABOUT THE CHARACTERS OR THE SHOW. THIS ISN'T ALSO THE PLACE FOR ANY FANBOYISM. Any such messages will be removed on sight! |
| Episode | Date | Ratings | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | September 24, 2007 | 34.6%[1] | 2nd |
| 02 | September 25, 2007 | 33.3%[2] | 2nd |
| 03 | Septemper 26, 2007 | 34.8%[3] | 1st |
| 04 | September 27, 2007 | 34.1%[4] | 3rd |
placed this table here. it apparently is a non-encyclopedic list but it does have some content which can be integrated into the main article.
203.167.2.209 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 01 0ct 07, 13:54 manunulat pangkalawakan
- ^ Sept. 28 Tatings
- ^ http://www.pep.ph/news/14938/TV-Ratings-(Sept.-25-27):-Zaido-continues-its-strong-showing-while-Wowowee-continues-its-drop
- ^ http://www.pep.ph/news/14938/TV-Ratings-(Sept.-25-27):-Zaido-continues-its-strong-showing-while-Wowowee-continues-its-drop
- ^ http://www.pep.ph/news/14938/TV-Ratings-(Sept.-25-27):-Zaido-continues-its-strong-showing-while-Wowowee-continues-its-drop
- I fixed that up, also, if you people can manage to fix up a ratings such that is para graphical in nature and not in tabular form, especially in a show that airs five times a week, I think it can be included. See Days of our Lives#Ratings and scheduling history for an example on how to deal with ratings for a daily program. --Howard the Duck 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Semi-Protection
It seems that there are still some people out there that hate the show. I have had to delete one user's rather unfavorable comments that were put in the Plot section of the article. Said user put down such things as "gay" (in reference to Dennis Trillo's character), and "asshole" (in reference to Shaider). The last sentence went on to state how bad the show was from the user's perspective. The comments have since then been deleted, and I am requesting that the article be put under semi-protection to prevent any further vandalism in the future. Thank you.
68.231.133.207 04:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] loosely based
i think this series should indicate as loosely based for the following differences: Fuuma Le-ar vs Kuuma Le-ar/ Galactic Union Police vs Galactic Force Space City (?) †Bloodpack† 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
i agree with the "loosely based" distinction, however certain sequences in the series have hinted at a continuity between this series and the original Shaider. Paladin.cross 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are some plot holes here as well. Alexis Del Mundo is an Earthling. How did Gallian became his grandson if Gallian is an alien? ````Maverick Hunter X 7:19, 17 October 2007 (HK)
[edit] Articles of Zaido needs Protected.
I think this page about zaido should be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbr999 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. Full Protection. As much as I don't like Zaido myself, but murdering people's name is already crossing the line. Be careful when murdering people's names, especially family names. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article has been semi-protected until Friday. If there are any further problems, post here or on my talk page. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection is okay. at least those editing can be identified now. weeds out the chaff who really just wanna hate on the page. Paladin.cross 07:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
i guess the protection was lifted. at least the Zaido haters are being more civilized now. Paladin.cross 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Requesting full protection for this page. Paladin.cross 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please Let the Criticisms Be Voiced
Sir, I was wondering why my restoration of some valid point of discussion about the story line deviations was deleted. It may have been posted earlier by Zaido haters, but I would like to make clear that I am not one and I am trying to make the presentation much more encyclopedic. If you would allow it I am willing to tone done its title into "Deviations from the storyline." I hope you could entertain my question. Thank you. Supaagekireddo 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be more neutral to title the section as Criticism. Taking off excessive boldface and italics. In encyclopedic articles, the presentation of criticism has to be presented as neutrally as possible in order to preserve NPOV. Paladin.cross 03:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
okay, i've rephrased the salient points of the criticism section. Paladin.cross 04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please cite this section. Even if they are obvious to toku-fans, this section still reads like original research. --bluemask (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
There are some editors of this page that insist on altering it to reflect their negative views about the production. I've repeatedly tried to present the information they present as neutrally as possible. Yet they persist.
IMO, it's is no longer encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladin.cross (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
This is an ongoing television and as such they may be very few published sources available, but please indicate the sources of your information for specific items. (for example, i'm sure there must have been a published source for the age references for the Zaido.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.133.142 (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Practically, last night, I have linked pages to the blogs where viewers are voicing criticisms and observations about the series. Why they were removed is not explained yet. I know the site is notorious for the ramblings of some viewers who resort sometimes to cursing, but beneath that their points are still valid. Is this site blacklisted or at "hot water" that's why it isn't an acceptable source? I'd like to know so I can fix it. Other than that, I am also wondering why administrators removed the examples about the inferiority of production quality. The argument became bland and invalid in my opinion when that occured. Thank you. Supaagekireddo 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Blogs/Myspace/Multiply/Friendster/the like aren't reliable sources. --Howard the Duck 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
ok added a reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zantets (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Web forums aren't reliable too. If you people don't find reliable sources, they're kaput. --Howard the Duck 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
GMA/Kapuso Fanboys dont just delete sections without analyzing facts first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.18 (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, all the links and references for the "Criticism" section are blogs and forums, which under Wikipedia's policies are invalid references (Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:External links). That makes the whole section look like an original research. Unless you provide a reliable reference (like an article from the PEP; not a forum link, a news article from a newspaper or a press release from GMA or any other network) then the section should be removed.
- Also try to read this (Talk:Super Twins/Archive 1). This is an archive of the talk page of Super Twins in which an editor is persistent to add a "Controversy" section where his provided sources are just blogs and discussion boards. -Danngarcia 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
ok removed forum references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.18 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- You removed your forum reference but STILL you didn't remove your blog reference and you added more invalid references (YouTube link and a blog link) . Please read Wikipedia:External links before adding more references. -Danngarcia 06:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Controversy" sections are... controversial. Every controversial statement needs to be cited. And every citation should be reliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources (hint: use newspapers, even tabloids as references, not web forums, blogs and anything self-published). If you people can't come up with valid references, the controversy section WILL be gone. --Howard the Duck 06:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
We're forgetting that PEP is a blog. By this standard, the whole article would vanish. -Mike Abundo 06:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- PEP does not appear to be a blog. It appears to be something along the lines of Wikinews or whatever the better version of WikiNews is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- PEP is not a blog. It is an entertainment website, although some sections of that website such as "Korek Ka John" can be considered blogs. Starczamora 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] COI
the article focuses too much on the self promotion of the show and cast. if you notice this article heavily concentrated on the stars of the show itself signaling a conflict of interest. also the criticisms section is frequently removed by authors who focusing on adding casting information only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zantets (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- A conflict of interest is when someone involved with the show has been editting this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is because critics of Zaido do not present credible citations that would make their argument valid. I have found A LOT of newspaper articles (both online and offline) that are critical to Zaido, it is up to you to find them. Starczamora 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FANBOYISM
it seems that some gma die hard fans or gma hired promoters are keeping on removing the the negative aspect of the show(although a kapuso myself). if you cant afford to build your own zaido fan site, stop bugging down wikipedia. study hard work hard and maybe someday you can host your own extravagant zaido fan site lol. the vocal uproar from shaider fans is too much to just be ignored and just deleted if your talking about references then Its much better to just remove this entire article because its not properly referenced either. talking about references, try gooling Zaido (remember google the #1 search engine) and see the results. youll see about 20 gargantuan negative comments vs 1 good comment about zaido. its overwhelming. no wonder this article was quickly vandalized. zaido is really PHENOMENAL! lol the truth is exceedingly obvious: ZAIDO S*CKS!! Eat with it, sleep with it, live with it. thats all! Be honest ok!! God is watching, Godbless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zantets (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read: WP:NPA. WP:RS. WP:SIGN. --Howard the Duck 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Despite the fact that people and administrators keep on removing the voiced criticisms against Zaido, I am restoring the section due to the fact that I believe that it is valid. The section has premised since its inception that it tells the reactions of fans: technically, the fans have already researched it themselves and have posted it already as proof. Due to the fact that fans are a marginalized sector in a production of a TV series, there would be no other logical source for their reactions than these sites posted before; you do not expect them to be able to create a website as no other formal organization formed for propaganda has been created yet. Besides, there is already an obvious uproar about these criticisms among communities in the internet; to be consistent in removing or not giving them a voice is similar to claiming that crows are white.
-
- Sir Howard the Duck, I would like to note that some of the Wiki articles that you use as part of enforcing the "illegality" of the Criticism section are premised as "guidelines" and not "policies"; there is a very big gap in them, and you seem to use these guidelines as policies set by Wikipedia already.
-
- I may be wrong in my statements, but my belief holds that the Criticism section is valid. If persisting in putting this up is tantamount to suspension from editing, I shall hold from doing so, except if the points raised are not given space for discussion. We editors have done our best to make the expression of such statements neutral: if doing so cannot be tolerated, we leave the field, knowing that we should respect the rules of the organization we move within. Supaagekireddo 16:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
All criticism sections need to be sourced to reliable sources. As it stands, all that was used are blogs and forum posts, which cannot be taken as reliable or linked to under WP:EL.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there has ever been any challenge to what the content of the criticism section contains. It's just that without reliable sources, it won't pass WP:RS. Paladin.cross 03:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has policies, and guidelines to enforce these policies. Whether it is a guideline, a rule or a policy we are required to follow them unless common sense tells us not to. WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:V are the basic policies WP has - blogs, networking cites and web forums aren't supposed to be used as sources since they're not reliable, and are all OR.
And as Paladin said, nobody's disputing the criticism section, what we are asking is to use reliable sources as references. --Howard the Duck 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right. There can be a criticism section. But the one that is constantly put back in the article is just fans bitching about it in a free forum. If the primary source is a forum poll or a blog entry, then don't put the section back in. The constant citation of "all viewers are critics themselves" or "everyone's a critic these days" are not sufficient. If anything solely uses blog entries or forum threads, then it has no references that are of worth.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a criticism to Zaido with a valid reference. I hope this would be followed by other critics of the series. Starczamora 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Way to go Starc. I hope this will serve as an example. Paladin.cross 02:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original Research
I put the OR template because I have found several details in the article that are merely based on observation. Starczamora 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Which details? Would what you suggest in the succeeding section, indicating episode numbers a good way to over come the OR tag? Zaido started on 24 September and runs monday to friday, so... today would be Episode 36 i believe. Paladin.cross 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've actually erased some of the sentences that I view as OR (statements that were not based on the episodes or on any valid resource). Here are examples that reappeared just now:
- "The name Cervano is quite close to Sharivan, and his suit's color, which is red, is what makes the link to Uchuu Keiji Sharivan"
- "Kuuma sounded backwards after Makuu, also an evil organization from Uchuu Keiji Gavan."
- It is best that contributors of Zaido indicate the episode number which they got the information about character profiles, plot, etc. Starczamora 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indicating Episodes for Reference
Please indicate the episodes used for the cast profiles. You can refer to what I have done with Ida II or to the Wiki page of Smallville. Thanks! Starczamora 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Telesucces Dubbers section
What happened to that section ? Shaider is an important character there. He is the one who narrated the Zaido Armor and information about the Time Space Warp. Rubiks is also a character there. Moonfang (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] copy edit tag
While I applaud JBR999's efforts to write everything about Zaido, I feel that the article needs to be cleaned up some more. I'm confused with some of the text. To jbr999, please do not just remove the tag without talking about it over here. I'll come about to repairing some of the stuff myself. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
