Talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dinosaurs, Cavemen and Rangers[edit]

This show's plot it similar to the exploits of the Flinstones. Both shows are and Dinosaurs and caveman. 108.58.49.218 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Arsenal[edit]

When are you going to create new page for the Power Rangers' Arsenal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.236.207 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and sources are needed[edit]

Please be sure that all additions to the article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow some time for sources to be added.

In response to a few challenged statements in the article, an editor has recently helpfully added a source, which was a link to a Wikipedia article about the Power Rangers. This is not an adequate reliable source as it violates WP:CIRCULAR. Moreover, that, and the edit comment, would indicate that the only support for the statements in the article is from editors who have watched the TV Show. The violates WP:Original research. It is okay for Wikia; but not okay for Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research if this page is just describing what happens in the TV show. There's a rule about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Primary_and_secondary_information The TV show is the source for the article. Someone just needs to add episode numbers. There's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Plot_summaries on the same page. It says "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." You're asking that the plot be sourced to something other than the TV show itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8200:23E5:8092:CB26:F060:FA62 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing it on the Talk page. I'll address each of your two assertions:
1. The first link you provided—Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Primary_and_secondary_information—is actually a part of the full Manual of Style section entited Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. If you read the opening of that section, you'll see that it says:

"When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent, reliable, and secondary sources—this will also ensure enough source material is available for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate. This page is a guideline, not policy"

Establishing notability has not been done for any of the various characters on this List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters page.
2. The second item you brought up is exclusively about Plot summaries. You are correct that Plot summaries are the one exception in Wikipedia where original research is allowed. But that means that a section entitled "Plot summary" on an article about a specific fictional work or episode that otherwise meets WP:GNG, can have a fairly short, concise plot summary that is composed entirely of what folks who watch the episode or read the work say about it. It does not mean that it is Wikipedia policy that arcane plot summary elements about various characters can fill up a subset of Wikipedia articles. Although I believe that Wikia does allow that sort of thing.
Hope this is helpful to you. And again, welcome to Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: I very much appreciate your attempt to add sources and salvage this article. Unfortunately, the many source citations you have added are still to the program itself, and well beyond a simple plot summary in a single named article on the show (as discussed above), and as a result are WP:SYNTHESIS and/or orignal research. We need sources that are to published material by third parties to be valid reliable sources.

As I said above, I really think you'll have better luck with Wikia to get the low-level arcana online on the internet, as their sourcing standards are very different. N2e (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for stuff that's not required on ANY other TV show page. Look at Characters of Supernatural. It's got exactly the same kind of sources as this one. You're setting the bar too high. Describing what happens in a show with respect to one character does not violate those rules you say it's violating.--2601:140:8200:23E5:7D96:3E2A:B8BB:90CC (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that seems like it could be wrong is saying a character is "Energetic". But saying that the Red Ranger has a Tyrannosaurus Zord is not original research because that's what happens in the show.--2601:140:8200:23E5:7D96:3E2A:B8BB:90CC (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice to begin edit waring is not a good approach, and is not showing good faith to me in return. I won't get into an edit war with you.
There is no deadline by which we need to get this cleaned up. Now that I better understand your approach, I will no longer assume you are merely a novice editor, who perhaps is simply ignorant of a few Wikipedia key policies, although you might be a novice; I don't know. I have previously sent you Welcoming messages on all three of the recent IP addresses you have been using, but it is not clear you've familiarized yourself with Wikipedia's core policies.
I suggest you chill out. If you choose to self-revert your last edit, I would of course have no reason to think you wanted to merely have a revert war, and would assume that more discussion here might be productive.
I'll leave this article the mess it is for a while as part of a cooling off period. But I will be monitoring it—and intend to work further to either see it improve to Wikipedia standard or reduce the original research detail beyond a basic plot summary (in a single place: the named article)—at a later time. N2e (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "plot summary" exception does not apply to this "List of ... characters" page[edit]

For reference on this discussion: The Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines that apply to this question appears in MOS:PLOT, which is a subsection of the broader guideline WP:MOSFICT.

It reads:

"The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."

This guideline, however, does not provide an exception to WP:V or WP:CS—requiring reliable, published sources—on any other page other than the article page about the work itself. It does not apply to one or more sub-articles about subparts of the work; e.g, character lists. There is no carte blanche to add a large amount of original research to other articles in the article mainspace, and assert that no reliable third-party source citations are needed simply because an editor asserts that "plot summary" gets a free ride and does not need a published reliable source.

Therefore, the extensive details on plot of individual characters listed in the List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters is not justified. However, an unsourced and uncited (original research) summary description of the overall plot of the fictional work is allowed in the main article about the series: Power Rangers Dino Charge, per MOS:PLOT as mentioned above. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Character biographies count as plot summaries. This is how every list of fictional characters works. You're asking for higher standards just because you found this particular page.--2601:140:8200:23E5:A59A:760A:F591:F421 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this page IS sourced. It's sourced TO THE TV SHOW ITSELF. It's not original research to give a summary of a work of fiction using the work of fiction as the source itself. It's the primary source. You just don't know the rules when it comes to writing fiction and how EVERY page on TV shows, film series, comic books, and book series all do the same thing.--2601:140:8200:23E5:A59A:760A:F591:F421 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability Talk page[edit]

Okay, I started a discussion over at WP:V, a Wikipedia core policy. The discussion is on that Talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#How_wide_is_the_.22original_research.22_exception_for_articles_on_Fictional_works.3F. I would try to directly notify the editor involved in the discussion on this Talk page (Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters), except that s/he seems to use a different IP address with each edit on the Dino Charge characters page.

Suffice it to say that, yes, there is some original research in the material currently in the article, but also that I was confused on a couple of Wiki-policies and had (wrongly) thought that all of the editor-researched character material was OR; and it is not. For example, about the Simpson's, it would not be OR to say "Marge Simpson's hair is blue.", and that could be sourced to the show itself, without being OR. However, it would be OR to say "Marge is a crazy woman who is always having fun as she leads her family like a ditz.", unless it were sourced to a reliable published third-party source. The Dino Charge characters' article has a LOT of stuff in the latter category, which will neded to be cleaned up. But we can deal with that in due time.

There are a good number of other problems with the Dino Charge characters article as is, some of which are being well-discussed over on that Wikipedia talk:Verifiability page. We will need to deal with all of it over here, eventually. In the meantime, I hope very much that it furthers the education of both of us on what sorts of things are allowed, per policy, in Wikipedia, and what sorts of stuff that is outside that policy might need to be moved over to [http:\\www.wikia.com Wikia]. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything has to be cut out of Wikipedia and put onto a Wikia just because you think it doesn't fit here. This is as short as things get for Wikipedia pages on kid's TV shows. Besides, there's already a Power Rangers Wikia, and they have individual pages on the Zords and the one episode monsters. This page doesn't have as many problems as you think it does. You just don't know anything about the show to be making these decisions.--2601:140:8200:23E5:CC54:853F:8C2F:EE65 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to deal with the original research and synthesis[edit]

Let's set aside for now whether "plot summary" info might be in the "List of characters ..." article in addition to the main named article "Power Rangers Dino Charge", sourced only be citations to the show itself.

Then, even if "facts" from the plot might be used to describe a character, it is not allowed that additional synthesis from the shows be added to the encyclopedia without reliable third-party published sources.

I intend to begin to clean out the additional synthesized original research in a few days, unless other discussion based on wiki-policy here indicates we should hold off. Do others have policy-based rationale for holding off improving the article in this way? N2e (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of this page constitute synthesis though? Is it a sentence like "Tyler Navarro is the enthusiastic and adventurous leader of the team" where you're contesting "enthusiastic" and "adventurous"? Or is it something else? Because unless you plan on marathoning all 8 episodes that have been broadcast, how can you be sure what did and did not happen in the TV show which is being described here? From what I read on the verifiability discussion, you seemed to be confused as to what "original research" even was when it comes to this page.--2601:140:8200:23E5:CC54:853F:8C2F:EE65 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the synthesized material like "Tyler Navarro is the enthusiastic and adventurous leader of the team", and many other statements. Several others were identified in the discussion on WP:V, linked above. Simple facts that are merely basic statements of fact (like "Marge Simpson's hair is blue.") are okay as far as synthesis/OR goes.
Since you have a particular affinity for this article, you may certainly feel free to do a pass to get rid of the synthesis yourself. Then I'll try to take a look at it and would likely be making only a much smaller set of edits. Easier for you, then, to review what I do and discuss here. N2e (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of this might be from the old pre-show press releases tbh. If anything, http://www.nick.com/power-rangers-dino-charge/#about has short biographies of the main cast that match what this page says about them. Maybe it should be added as a link.--2601:140:8200:23E5:CC54:853F:8C2F:EE65 (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a source that specifically supports particular statements in the article, sure, please add it. That's exactly what WP:V is about. You can see the typical style for a full ciation in an existing cite like the Nickelodeon one. It is just the extra stuff, not stated directly in a source, that we should not have in the article. The goal here is to improve the article, and leave only the bits that can fit within wikipolicy. N2e (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're removing things that are plot summaries like when you removed everything about Tyler and Fury's fight which you can watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo6N_ItYEmw Why are you removing things that are explicitly describing events from the TV show? Have you watched it? Can you actually say what is and is not relevant? Or are you just removing things which look like they're someone's personal interpretation like "Shelby is pretty" or "Fury is mean"?--2601:140:8200:23E5:C82A:8002:7B56:2161 (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If larger copyedits where an entire paragraph is cleaned up and WP:OR removed are objectionable to you, I'll be happy to make smaller single edits for a while, attempting to eliminate only one bit of the OR/syn at a time. Just did one with "Shelby", removing clear OR: "is a clumsy, slightly ditzy tomboy".

As mentioned above, since you seem to have a great specific interest in this article, you may feel free to copyedit to remove the OR yourself and try cleaning it up. Or not; your choice, since WP is a volunteer-editor effort. I intend to keep the page on my watch list and gradually clean up the OR over time if it remains. The goal is to improve this article, and improve Wikipedia overall. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know anything about the show to know that something has been said in the show and shown in the show (that is Sir Ivan's introduction as a new character in the episode that aired on Saturday) then how come you're controlling what can and cannot be posted? I copied the format from the other episode citations too. If you don't know what happens in the show then you shouldn't be allowed to remove information added by people that do know what happens in the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.138.246 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see the misunderstanding. Unfortunately, being "in" the show is not sufficient for Wikipedia, as that would be original research, as discussed above. Wikipedia needs verifiable sources from secondary sources that show notability. An editor watching the show and then detailing it in Wikipedia is not sufficient. See the entire discussion above. N2e (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. Every other list of characters does this. It's just a list of the main and recurring characters in the show described directly as what's in the show. You don't seem to know how things like this are written at all. Also I read up and saw you posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#How_wide_is_the_.22original_research.22_exception_for_articles_on_fictional_works.3F where people say you're mistaken here. The show can be used to say "Ivan is the Gold Ranger" which he is called in the show. The show can be used to say "there are new enemies called Skybolts". The show can be used to say "Ivan has the Ptera Zord". The show can be used to say "Ivan is played by Davi Santos". Just because it doesn't have a citation next to it doesn't mean that it's wrong and you're allowed to remove it. If you can't be bothered to look up proof on these things after multiple people tell you that the show is perfectly fine to describe then you can't be trusted to police this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.138.246 (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Why would you remove the name of the actor who plays the character just because no one added the ref thing after it? The discussion on that other page says the show doesn't need to be referenced a lot of times on each entry. You don't know anything about this show. You've never watched it. You shouldn't mod the page like you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.138.246 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N2e it's the same shit as last time. You're demanding citations for something as simple as the name of the actor who is portraying the character. It's not necessary for me or anyone else to add a citation that says "This is said in the show's cast and credits". It's also ridiculous to demand a citation for the sentence "As the Dino Charge Graphite Ranger, Prince Phillip III commands the Pachy Zord.". This is all explicitly shown in the TV show. You clearly do not watch the TV show to know what happens in the TV show and just because there's no citation saying what episode this plainly obvious fact comes from does not mean you have the right to delete it every week. It's insane. No other list of TV show characters gets this treatment. It's just you and your anal focus on this page. You're doing more harm than good. If you don't know anything about the show, you shouldn't be allowed to say what is and is not allowed to be written here. Particularly just because one line doesn't have a citation at the end of it, but a line right above it does. 2601:140:8200:DE:3087:2416:55F1:D3A7 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source/citation vs. episodes already aired in France[edit]

In the past there seems to be an unwritten rule being enforced preventing people from adding information and therefore contributing to the Power Ranger articles just because the episode has yet to air in America and/or can't be properly sourced. I believe this really hurts the articles. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be a wiki then anyone can edit? Therefore shouldn't the editors assume good faith? Would the information be left out of the French language Wikipedia? No it wouldn't and shouldn't. (talk) 12:07 18 September 2015 (CST).

Good faith is an assumption about the motives of other Wikipedia editors, and should be assumed always. It is about editor behavior toward other editors. But good faith is not a policy that means material/statements should necessarily be left in Wikipedia when verifiability is not demonstrated, especially after a challenge of the material by another editor requesting citations.
So, yes, anyone can edit, but Wikipedia does have standards the community has developed over the years that help Wikipedia be a quality encyclopedia. Wikia, on the other hand, has much lower standards and explicitly allows original research, which is explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what he's talking about at all. For some reason no one ever added information on episodes that were broadcast somewhere else before the USA. Why do you keep yammering on and on about Wikia? Stop talking about things on this page when you clearly have no idea what people want to do, people have done, and what is the right thing to do when it comes to these articles on TV shows. Because really man, he's just asking if he can add the entries on episodes that were shown first in France and haven't yet been shown in English yet. Wikipedia has episode lists on tv shows you apparently don't like. And it has character lists for those tv shows. And stop asking for citations for events in a tv show. It's annoying and stupid. If the page is about the tv show then information on it comes from watching the tv show and just because no one added a citation to the tv show when adding something does not mean that it is original research. Stop talking out of your ass. 2601:140:8200:DE:5CFF:3DC4:BA42:979E (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We really should focus on the article content here, and not the contributor. I won't engage with you on article improvement unless you remain civil. I consider your last comment to be uncivil, and violate WP:NPA.
Should you want to get back to article discussion, drop the interpersonal ad hominem attacks. Then ping me. Cheers. 17:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
No, N2e. You have been policing this article for months when you have no clue as to how any article on a TV show is treated. You remove benign statements about casting or short character listings that don't say anything outrageously unbelievable about the show simply because it's not sourced, and then you constantly insist that a page like this is better suited for a Wikia. News flash, there's already at least one Power Rangers Wikia. And they have pages that do go into much more detail than Wikipedia. Please just stop making terrible decisions on this page because someone didn't add a citation to say "Oh, I just watched the new episode and this happened in it". Saying "Tyler is the Red Ranger" or "Stingrage's power is to make people angry with his stingers" should not need a citation every single time. The TV show is considered the source material. No one is making any outrageous claims that constitute original research. The only difference between before and after you remove a statement on the page is that someone adds the episode citation in. And I've been telling you this for months, your extremist applications of the original research and citation policies on this page (for a kid's TV show on Nickelodeon) is not at all applied to any other television show. It's not even used for shows for teenagers/young adults like on List of Teen Wolf characters or List of Arrow characters. The only time I have ever seen citations used is when it's to talk about a behind the scenes thing from an interview with a cast member. And that's not what's going on here. People are adding snippets of information taken directly from watching the TV show ("Tyler is the Red Ranger") and posting it here. It's not like people are saying "It looks like Tyler and Shelby are in love" or "Because Koda pets a cat in episode 4, he likes cats". That I guess would be "original research". Not "Kendall Morgan becomes the Purple Ranger after Albert Smith gives up his powers" because that happened in the show.--2601:140:8200:DE:9582:3DE7:7FC7:EE3F (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Just a follow up note to earlier discussions: the article is fairly well cited now, in that most substantive claims have citations and are therefore verifiable. There are remaining problems of OR or synthesis, discussed elsewhere, but at least the source (in many cases, a WP:Primary source) is given, and can be verified by other editors. This is an improvement over where the article was last June. N2e (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't have to add a citation to each and every episode of this TV series. The source being the TV series should be taken for granted when we are just writing directly about the show's plot. Or cast members' names AFTER the episodes aired.--2601:140:8200:DE:A12C:4CC6:F:DA9 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect on your understanding of the quality level we have decided to aim for while building Wikipedia. If you want to change that, you should head on over to WP:V or WP:RS and try to get wikipolicy changed. N2e (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate level of detail for a "List of ..." characters article[edit]

A recent edit was made to add a lot of detailed plot summary, from multiple episodes, to a character listed in this "List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters" I have reverted, under WP:BRD.

So the Bold edit was made, in good faith. Those edits have been Reverted. Now it is time to Discuss the matter on the Talk page. Ergo, BRD.

Encyclopedia policy for "List of..." articles does not support the Wikipedia encyclopedia becoming a repository for details of what every character did in each episode. The "List of ..." article for characters is to list the characters—to the extent any list even meets the General notability guideline for a standalone article—and certainly could be a place to source information about fictional characters that is widely used/sourced in mainline secondary sources (e.g., Ebenezer Scrooge's impact on literature and society beyond the in-universe world of A Christmas Carol would be appropriate). It is not a place for Wikipedia to become just another extended and detailed plot summary of the show/movie. The appropriate amount of Plot Summary is obviously in the main named article for the show/movie, not the "List of ..." characters article related to the show/movie.

Would like to discuss the issue here and see if a consensus on re-adding the detailed plot summary material can be achieved, or not. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the editor who reverted the additions, I believe the excessive detail is inappropriate for this article. I will start an WP:RfC for the matter. N2e (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC isn't necessary. You just don't know how lists of fictional characters are supposed to work. It isn't just "this character appears in the show". Blakebs expanded an entry that had no information on the character. Maybe he wrote too much but that's not reason to delete the whole thing.--2601:140:8200:DE:A002:A4F4:B2EA:FA2 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Appropriate detail of plot summary information[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is that secondary sources are needed. WP:RS requires secondary sources and is a core guideline, the majority cites it and its secondary source requirement. As a side note primary sources can be used to supplement secondary sources, but an article should not rely on them. AlbinoFerret 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is detailed plot summary for characters appropriate in this article, sourced from in-universe primary sources, without establishing secondary source significance of these fictional characters outside of the fictional universe? N2e (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, November 29, 2015‎ (UTC)

Yes. That's how character lists work.--2601:140:8200:DE:A002:A4F4:B2EA:FA2 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it makes sense that the entries on characters that don't appear more than once are too long and I tried to fix that. But recurring characters need more than one sentence entries, which is what Blakebs did for Heckyl.--2601:140:8200:DE:A002:A4F4:B2EA:FA2 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you go back and glance at the article's history you'll see that I'm not the one who wrote up the ridiculously detailed biography, I merely attempted to clean it up and streamline it, just to clear that up. Blakebs (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2015 (CST)
  • Wikipedia generally discourages in-universe writing and plot-only articles. That means the article should focus on critical commentary from secondary sources. Skimming over the article, it doesn't seem to be at the point where I'd get overly concerned, but it looks like it's starting to collect details more appropriate for Wikia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. I would suggest that if the article is expanded further, it should be out-of-universe details on casting, writing, and production. I haven't the faintest clue what this article is even about, except it has something to do with the Power Rangers franchise. This is one thing to fix. Articles on Wikipedia should be understandable and informative to people who don't know anything about the topic, not just collections of trivia of interest only to fans. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of what independent, reliable sources have said about a topic, not a collection of random details - there are fan pages for that. If these are notable characters in Power Rangers fiction, someone will have written about them in a magazine or book somewhere. In-house material is a good check for consistency, but shouldn't replace independent sources. Information that is written only in company material reflects the entertainment company's perspective, not necessarily what a neutral source would include, and shouldn't be added to the article.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a list of characters not unlike any other list of characters already on Wikipedia for any other show, be it Power Rangers or American Horror Story or Glee or whatever popular anime is out there. The content here is simply plot summary of the TV show and not serious discussion of the character's creation and such that would need the level of sourcing you're insisting it needs. Compare this page to List of American Horror Story: Hotel characters or List of The Flash characters and you'll see it's the exact same kind of content, and those aren't shows for young children.--2601:140:8200:DE:4851:853A:7B57:3D2C (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. in my view Wiki policy does not support detailed plot summary for each character, major and minor, in the article space. This is especially so when sourced from in-universe primary sources, without establishing any secondary source significance of these fictional characters outside of the fictional universe. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, should indeed be a summary of what independent, reliable sources have said about a topic, and not just what a lot of show watchers want to collect about a topic based on watching the shows. The exception, of course, is Plot summaries, but that applies to a conscise plot summary in the article on the show, not in a series of related/extended articles about the characters, their geo locations, their fictional weapons, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen other character lists? This is how they're all treated. Your obsession with citations on this page has done more harm than good over the past year. The entries here are as short and concise as they can be. All of 4 or 5 sentences on each major character, and two to three sentences on minor and recurring characters that aren't the main cast. You don't understand that Wikipedia:No original research does not cover "watching the TV show and saying exactly what happens in it". That's not original research. That's using the TV show as a primary source, a source that's cited now throughout this list to individual episodes. And you don't understand that the entry on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information doesn't cover things here. The page is not just plot summary. It includes casting information. It perhaps could use more information on things the cast members have said, but this is how every list of this type (not just Power Rangers) does. Pages like these should be governed by the rules on Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Particularly Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Lists of fictional elements. I have tried to explain this to you time and time again but you refuse to acknowledge it in any fashion, N2e. Look at List of The Flash characters or List of Teen Wolf characters or any page in Category:Lists of American television series characters. Those pages are written better than this one and have a ton more plot summary for shows just about as long as this one and just about as much real world context (the cast members' names and that's about it). What makes this page any different from those, other than the fact that this TV show is made with a younger audience in mind than Smallville or Gotham? The most this page needs is someone to find any interviews with cast members like any of these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and try to incorporate that in the page instead of whining that the page doesn't meet your incredibly high standards of "what a list of fictional characters in a kid's TV show" is supposed to look like.--2601:140:8200:DE:B00C:ABC5:1F62:A358 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Relatively straightforward decision per above: independent, reliable sources are required. Local consensus doesn't override community consensus, we're not a fan site. 166.172.61.178 (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what you're essentially saying is a list of characters article should have no plot details whatsoever, save for what color a Ranger is? And you say sources, and who pray tell is gonna go through the trouble of detailing every possible detail of the show? Its not as if Nick's official site would give you information as to Sledge's fate, or to whether Tyler's father is dead or alive, as such where are we supposed to find plot details from a secondary source when there essentially ISN'T a secondary source for such things? Are we supposed to find it mentioned in an episode synopsis or what? And going even further the most you could get from an official plot synopsis is that "Sledge is defeated", doesn't matter how or why he's defeated, he just is. Following this line of reasoning, should the entire Sledge section be redone and should any and all important details about his death be exorcised? This logic makes no sense.—Blakebs (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2015 (CST)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC complete; time to clean up the article[edit]

With the RfC complete, it is time to clean up the article and remove the extensive primary source plot description.

Thanks to 2601:140:8200:DE:A002:A4F4:B2EA:FA2, Blakebs, NinjaRobotPirate, Anne Delong, N2e, and 166.172.61.178 for participating in the RfC; and also to uninvolved editor AlbinoFerret for coming over to evaluate and close the RfC.

So what next?

In my view, several editors have worked hard to develop this detailed plot summary from the shows, and while such material is not appropriate for Wikipedia, the material would make a very solid addition of good information to the Wikia project, which is explicitly set up to host such material on the world wide web. So should any editors be interested, the current article state might make a good set of data to copy and freely move to Wikia, while it is still in its current form.

Of course, any editor may clean up the article now, per the RfC consensus. But for myself, I'll wait a bit before doing so to make it most simple for even newbie Wikipedia editors to grab the material for insertion into Wikia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You asked an incredibly leading question to get to this conclusion and it's not even how the RFC was closed. AlbinoFerret says that the page simply needs secondary sources. His close says nothing of the sort about cutting out plot summary or transferring everything to a Wikia, which has been your obsession for the past year. A Power Rangers Wikia already exists at http://powerrangers.wikia.com and as I've pointed out to you in the past, they have far more detailed plot sumary and coverage than this page does. They don't need this content. All that really needs to be done here is incorporating secondary sources, as AlbinoFerret's close suggests, and I already said that these links should be looked at and incorporated because they're interviews with the cast members on their roles:
So why not add information from these interviews to the page to satisfy the "secondary sources" requirement instead of demanding that any plot summary be removed and given to a website that already has much more plot summary than we have here? The Power Rangers Wikia has enough on the Red Ranger to fill up a whole page and they have a full page on Greenzilla when we only have three sentences. What good is anything written here to them?--2601:140:8200:DE:243F:1BE7:F05C:AB0 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to me N2e, because every time I've mentioned that powerrangers.wikia.com already has all the information that they need on the show you've ignored me and insisted that the minimal plot summary posted here should be moved there. And you've also ignored how myselfand Blakebs have told you repeatedly that this page is just like every other list of characters on Wikipedia. The only diference is that this is Power Rangers and not Scream Queens or anything else on primetime network television.--2601:140:8200:DE:243F:1BE7:F05C:AB0 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think a couple/few days is enough time before removing the unsourced content. They can always grab it from history. 166.172.61.199 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with 166.172.61.199 on the point that the information can always be obtained from the article history, so there is no reason that it need be maintained in the article space to make it "easier" to do so, as I had earlier been thinking. So the article can be improved, per the RfC consensus, at any time now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already performed such edits which you can see here. This cut out excessive and irrelevant plot summary and details. Maybe more work needs to be done on the monster of the week section but honestly they're not as important as every other character on the page who is main or recurring cast. And as I've previously stated, I've added information from secondary sources to the page concerning real world information. I also note that you seem to be reading the close of the RFC in a way that doesn't match with what was actually said. People were saying that the page shouldn't just have primary soruces (despite that being what nearly ALL character lists have) and you were pretty much the only person to suggest anything with regards to Wikia (which I've repeatedly told you isn't necessary because the Power Rangers Wikia is much more thorough).--2601:140:8200:DE:BCE5:27D5:E81A:D444 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one has to remove anything. That isn't what the RFC decided. It needs more sources that aren't the TV show and I've added them. Nothing has to be taken off of Wikipedia and put on the Power Rangers Wikia instead because the Power Rangers Wikia already has all this information and more. Why do you guys always ignore me when I say this? I've added stuff from the interviews to the page. Now it's not all primary sources. It has actual information that isn't just about the plot of the TV show. You don't have to butcher this page just because N2e doesn't know that this is how all TV show character list pages are set up and ignores me when I bring up that other TV show character lists have more plot summary than this one and aren't made for little kids.--2601:140:8200:DE:243F:1BE7:F05C:AB0 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improper tag removal[edit]

I object to the removal of the primary sources and original research tags in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters&diff=701505865&oldid=701505689 These problems haven't been addressed and I see no consensus for their removal. 166.172.63.244 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch of sources that aren't the TV show. That's why they can be removed.--2601:140:8200:DE:243F:1BE7:F05C:AB0 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with 166.172.63.244 that the two article-level cleanup templates should not have been removed yet. They should be added back. Because of the repeated disagreements between myself and IP-editor 2601:140:8200:DE:243F:1BE7:F05C:AB0 on this Talk page, I will not be the one to add them back at this time, and will leave that for other editors.
However, I will provide the following clear rationale for why they should be added back, at least until the article is cleaned up in accord with the recent RfC consensus: simply put, the vast majority of the statements made in this article are supported exclusively by primary sources. A few secondary sources were added today; however they do not purport to be sources that backup the extensive amount of detailed plot description from this series. Those many statements were, and still are, nearly entirely sourced by primary sources, which per the consensus following the RfC, are not sufficient for keeping this material in Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "vast majority of the statements in this article" are plot summary which is supported by citing the television show itself. The secondary sources I added concern so-called "real world" information on the casting process and statements the cast members have said about their roles, rather than plot summary, because that's what people on Wikipedia say is more important (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction). You seem to think that the RFC has decided that all extraneous plot summary is to be cut out from this page and moved to Wikia (which I have been saying for months now is a bad idea because the Power Rangers Wikia already has more information on this show than we do). So now the sources and content I added that add real world context to this aren't good enough? You're making demands of this page that aren't ever made on any other page on fictional characters on more serious TV shows than one for children. Why N2e? Why are you insisting upon this? And what are you planning on removing from this page that you think belongs on Wikia when each major character has at most 5 sentences explaining who they are and their goals? And why won't you answer any of my questions?--2601:140:8200:DE:243F:1BE7:F05C:AB0 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing IP editor "2601:140:8200..." directly for several reasons. One, not sure whether this is one person, or many; there have been nearly a dozen comments by (one, or various) IP editors with an address that starts with those hex characters, addresses which are quite different in the later part of the address. Could be a single editor; might be a fandom club for folks who like Power Rangers; I simply don't know. Secondly, when I did address the person/persons directly earlier on this Talk page, that editor edit warred rather than resolve the issue on the Talk page first. Thirdly, when I engaged with that editor/s previously, on more than one occasion with a message on their IP editor Talk page, no helpful response was forthcoming. Fourth, that editor has not (or those editors have not) been responsive to other editors (not me) whenever what those other editors say has not been what the IP editor "2601:140:8200..." has wanted to hear.
I assume good faith on the part of any single editor I interact with, until proven differently, and expect the same in return. That has not occurred with this editor/s on this page. Perhaps if you'd like to obtain a Wikipedia ID, as you were invited to do six months ago (diff), then editors who engage with you would know you are a single person, and might better assess whether your behavior is constructive and assumes good faith. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have only been one person thank you. I have never said that I'm not so it's weird that you would think otherwise. Your edits have been incredibly misinformed on the article and have been detrimental to trying to improve the page because it seems that you lack knowledge of how these pages are treated on Wikipedia. All attempts to converse with you on THIS page have been fruitless, and I apologize if I haven't seen any of your messages left to the individual talk pages because I haven't had that IP repeat. No one else seems to respond to anything despite the extensive attempts I've made to convince you and others otherwise that character lists are usually set up this way, and there's much more lax treatment of sourcing on more "serious" television shows' character lists. All of this is despite having gone back to restore content you removed for lacking a source and then giving it one (is that the edit warring you are talking about?) and going out of my way to find interviews with the main cast members and adding non-fictional information about the roles they play to satisfy the actual outcome of the RFC that this page shouldn't wholly rely on being plot summary sourced to the TV show broadcasts, even though you constantly do not believe such content is valid on Wikipedia and constitutes "original research". But apparently all of this is for naught because I'm not editing from an account and you won't give me the decency to respond to me like anyone else on Wikipedia all because my internet isn't stable.--2601:140:8200:DE:19F6:FB89:F17:1A7B (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
F17:1A7B you say "so it's weird that you would think otherwise." I don't believe that is "weird." Communications often end with signature lines. If the signature line is different it is not weird that the reader would be uncertain that more than one person is involved in sending the communications. It would be, on the contrary, weird for the sender to think that readers would think they are the same person even when they frequently sign their communications with different signatures. Think about it. N2e (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't responded to my inquiries as to your intentions for this page because Wikia doesn't need it, the RFC (even with your loaded question) didn't end with "move it all to Wikia instead", and you still think that this page is somehow an oddity within Wikipedia when other character lists go into even more detail than this one does (even before I had edited it) and yet there isn't someone like you demanding sources for cast member names or individual episodes.--2601:140:8200:DE:19F6:FB89:F17:1A7B (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you asked on the verifiablity page, they told you that the TV show counts as a source. I've repeatedly linked to the writing about fiction page which says that citations to every episode aren't exactly necessary. During the RFC people complained that there were no statements about real world context and I added whatever I could find in the interviews I posted and added that to the page. You keep bringing up Wikia and I keep saying that they have plenty more coverage on these characters than Wikipedia does and what's listed here is incredibly shirt and to the point compared to every other page on power rangers. And it's much shorter than pages on other popular TV shows that aren't made for little kids. But you never actually address these things I've done. You ignore me because I didn't make an account and because you thought that the similar looking addresses were somehow all different people when there aren't any other people posting here without an account so regularly. But forget all of that because it's not scaly important here. What is important is that you've shown very little applicable knowledge of this subject and instead been an incredibly annoying stickler to the rules when this page is no different from something like List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters. Character lists exist when individual characters aren't important enough to have separate pages on Wikipedia but the character list would take up far too much room on the page about the TV show itself or the movie or the comics or the video game or whatever medium it is. And these lists contain plot summary with regards to that one character and maybe some information on the casting of that character as well. Maybe other pages are on more "serious" shows than Power Rangers but they're no different and you've never understood that. It also doesn't help that there's been a vandal adding fake information on every other page on this show that means no one can easily post new information about it while you're here obsessing with this one page because someone added a sentence about a new cast member and didn't add a citation to the credits like what had to be put on every other line because of you. Maybe this page is more sourced than others but in your vision it seems you just want it to say "Tyler is the Red Ranger and he has a T-Rex Zord" and that's all you think anyone needs to know about him because the sentences about how he is looking for his dad and thinks the monster Fury knows where he is belongs on Wikia instead.--2601:140:8200:DE:19F6:FB89:F17:1A7B (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was added in another section of this Talk page by 107.107.60.152

I can't follow this conversation either. I've restored the missing tags which should remain until all relevant sourcing issues are resolved. 107.107.60.152 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

and—following discussion by four editors—the tags that had been removed have been added back to the article by editor 107.107.60.152.

 Done—tags have been re-added, with the support of three of the four editors who commented. So the subject topic of this section has been addressed. N2e (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor (or editors) using the IPv6 address that starts with 2601:140:8200:...[edit]

There are now edits and comments on this Talk page from something like nearly a dozen different IP addresses that start with something like "2601:140:8200:..." but are quite different in the final part of that address. I do not know, and I suspect there is no way for non-Wikipedia administrators to really tell for sure, if this is, in fact, just one person using many IP addresses, or multiple IP editors using that IP address domain to edit Wikipedia.

From the tone and nature of the comments made, a single person might be inferred; but I honestly don't know how that could be pinned down.

I'm just adding this comment so that it is, a) visible to all editors who might comment on this Talk page, and b) to note it explictly so that this subject (the unitary identity, or not, of the editor at address 2601:140:8200:...) does not confuse a comment any comment I made in the prior Talk page sections on the substantive issues with improving this article page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those have all been made by one person (me). It is just that my address seems to change every time I shut my computer down.--2601:140:8200:DE:19F6:FB89:F17:1A7B (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't follow this conversation either. I've restored the missing tags which should remain until all relevant sourcing issues are resolved. 107.107.60.152 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 107.107.60.152. These issues remain to be resolved. (but I think your comment belongs in the Talk page section immediately above this one; so perhaps someone can move it there, and delete these words on moving from me). Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a quick scrape script to pull out the various IP addresses used by editor(s) who've been active on this Talk page at 2601:140:8200:.... Here is that list, for the record.

Now, per comment above by the editor whose address ends in F17:1A7B, there is an easy solution to this. If you want to be taken as a single editor, and not many different editors, then you could do, ya know, what other editors do: obtain a wiki id, and use that id. Then you would build, and keep, a single reputation. That reputation would then go with your now single descriptive id, and you would gain from a good reputation, and of course, be hurt by a poor reputation. You have received at least two invitations to do so at your various IP addresses above, just from me alone. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to do that, I would have done so already..--2601:140:8200:DE:19F6:FB89:F17:1A7B (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly your right to do on Wikipedia, per WP:IP editor. But if your comments are responded to as if they come from different editors or if, on the other hand—after you disclose that many comments are yours using similar IP addresses—you are taken to be the editor with the behavior exhibited in earlier edits by editors using that broad range of IP addresses (edit warring, failing to assume good faith, etc.), as you have done on this page, then you are also choosing to accept the consequences of that decision. N2e (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've told you that I'm not. And I haven't edit warred with you. I've simply restored content that you removed that lacked citations and added citations. You are simply myopic when it comes to this page.--2601:140:8200:DE:BCE5:27D5:E81A:D444 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To IP editor 2601:140:8200:DE:BCE5:27D5:E81A:D444 (who also uses many other IP addresses as previously noted): Brief responses to your latest assertions, assertions you made in this Talk page section, above. (which is why I'm directly addressing them here, one time, even though they are not much about the subject of this section)
  1. Your memory is not serving you well. Yes, you have edit warred with me. See here, and here. All while an active discussion was going on this Talk page (see the entire Talk page section, Citations and sources are needed, here). And no, you did not merely add citations, as you claimed above; you repeatedly removed article cleanup tags while the discussion was ongoing on the Talk page, not waiting for the discussion to develop (potentially, with other editors besides us two), since you repeatedly short-circuited the discussion with your edit warring.
  2. Yes, you have repeatedly and consistently over the past seven months failed to assume good faith with respect to me. See here (diff), and here (diff), for just two examples (of many) on this Talk page. And this recent edit summary you made is a clear violation of WP:AGF: diff. You were asked by me, civily and politely, on 11 October 2015 to "focus on the article content here, and not the contributor." I noted to you that I would not "engage with you on article improvement unless you remain civil."(see the last two paragrahs, from me, of this diff).
That is all I intend to document for now. And that is the last I will comment in this section about anything other than the many different IP address signature lines that you end your posts with. In other words, this section is about the subject of the section header in this section: "IP editor (or editors) using the IPv6 address that starts with 2601:140:8200:..." I'll not address any other issues with you in this section that are not within the scope of the topic summarized by that header. (Feel free to start new sections, with clear subject headers, should you wish. I may reply there if I feel that working with an editor who edit wars and does not assume good faith is in any way worthwhile to the project of improving this article.) N2e (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
  1. Those two instances you count as edit warring are dutifully explained because you are ingorant as to what constitutes "original research" on an article about a TV show. And after that, citations were provided.
  2. And I am frustrated with your ignorance as to how articles on fictional characters. You have shown zero knowledge in how pages like these are written and formatted and kept insisting on moving things to Wikia or removing completelybenign statements like a cast member's name because it was added without a citation. And since then I've been nothing but civil except when it comes to the fact that I know you're not going to be able to rewrite this article such that it works.
And if you don't want to address any of my other statements in this section, then respond to me in all of the other sections that my questions and comments that are identical to the ones I've made here are on topic instead of demanding I repeat myself, again, in a separate section.--2601:140:8200:DE:B8F7:62B7:A11E:19A8 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It seems to me N2e, that any and all pertinant edits are now unwelcome here as you have essentially become dictator of this page; you continually insist for sources pertaining to benign statements, while characters that have they're own page like Rita Repulsa have fewer than eight sources with the rest of the page mostly plot summary while this page has dozens; and the quote by Jimbo Wales on your page really irritates me, claiming its better to have no information if they're are no sources; which has got to be the most asinine statement I've ever heard in my life; its one thing to link to an IMDB page or the like to prove a series or movie exists, its a whole different thing to say every move a character makes, every word a character utters should be sourced; any casual hobby any of the characters enjoy within the context of the series must be sourced whether the character breathes oxygen must be sourced; who may I ask put you in charge of policing this page? More importantly why do you care so much that this page contains sources anyway? Have you ever watched the series? Do you know anything relevant about it? Any plot summary is now unwelcome here, it reads like an insipid bio written by interns for the official Nick site; You say we should assume good faith, yet you are essentially saying "what I say goes" and anything we could possibly contribute isn't wanted here in the least; it essentially boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong", you haven't assumed good faith when it comes to our edits, why should we assume good faith in regards to you? Wikipedia used to be fun to edit, now its a battle to maintain our contributions from being reverted; well I'm done with this page, I'm done trying to contribute, and I'm nearly done with wikipedia entirely; this sourcing nonsense has gotten extremely out of hand, and I'm sick of it; IF you continue to insist on providing sources for everything under the sun, then I'll never edit this page again, its all yours N2e; Blakebs (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2016 (CST)

Someone keeps reverting me without looking[edit]

Yesterday, I removed a sentence added by User:OptimusMagnus that said that Arthur Ranford is the oldest person to play a Power Ranger. This is not sourced. It is also useless trivia that doesn't improve the article. At the same time, I did a bunch of other fixes to the page. A little while later, 166.171.186.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) undid me saying "not trivia, stop reverting against consensus". I came back and undid this because it is trivia and there is no "consensus" to include the silly little fact that Mr. Ranford is the oldest actor to play a Power Ranger. 166.171.186.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) undid me again saying "Multiple editors disagree; don't edit war". This is a lie because 166.171.186.212 and 166.171.186.30 are clearly the same person. Then 107.107.56.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 107.107.61.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) make the same edits, restoring the version with the sentence saying Ranford is the oldest actor to be a Power Ranger, as well as undoing every other change I make.

This is ridiculous. These are all the same person lying that I'm breaking a rule because I removed a silly unsourced statement and there's somehow a consensus for the version he keeps restoring (which there isn't). I'm making this talk page section so people know that there's a problem here because the same thing has happened in the past where this guy (and the IP addresses are always the same) reverts what I've done to fix pages after a lot of people make edits that need fixes and then accuses me of edit warring when he claims there's a consensus for the version he keeps going back to and then he posts an edit warring report like he did to my talk page (and now he's 107.107.61.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too). There's no consensus to say "Albert Ranford is the oldest actor to be a Power Ranger" because it's just a piece of unsourced trivia that OptimusMagnus added to the page. This isn't important. That's why I cut it out. And now this guy who keeps joining on new IP addresses keeps restoring the bad version of the page (the unsourced trivia sentence, everything before I tried to make fixes to the first paragraph and other paragraphs) and is trying to get me in trouble when all he does is lie about what is and is not valid.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's done it again as 166.172.62.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its as well sourced and relevant as anything else. You're the only one so far who thinks it isn't. If other editors agree I'll respect that. Currently you're the only one 166.172.62.149 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. OptimusMagnus just added ", who is the oldest actor to be cast as a Power Ranger in the history of the series" to the page right before the citation to the credits. I removed that sentence and did other fixes that you can see here. Stop lying. Stop logging out of your computer and back in again to get new IP addresses. Stop reverting everything just to get me in trouble.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you talking about? First he/she's not me and second I'm not trying to get you in trouble. Get consensus for your changes - that's how this page works. 107.107.62.149 (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. You keep logging out and back in again. Why else do all these people suddenly know about this page?--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now all the good fixes I made here are locked out because of this guy who keeps vandalizing these pages when I try to fix them. This is not fair.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone involved here needs to come to a consensus about the changes to the page. Edit warring is not constructive and has resulted in page protection until an agreement can be made. clpo13(talk) 09:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I removed a piece of unsourced trivia and made a bunch of expansions and other fixes to the page (like adding links to other pages and making the opening paragraph longer), but because one person who jumped all over the place with a billion IP addresses decided that the page had to have an unsourced sentence that one person is the oldest Power Ranger actor ever means all the good changes I made are gone for now. OptimusMagnus shouldn't have added the trivia yesterday and 107.107.*.*/166.171.*.* shouldn't have lied that there was a consensus for that version and forced this whole thing to happen. He's done this to me before on other pages too. He's a vandal who chases me around.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I doubt that there's ever going to be a consensus when the other person has lied that they're multiple people to make it seem like I'm arguing against more than one person when he's in the wrong by adding back an unsourced sentence while removing every other unrelated change I made to the page in between. Also, he's not going to ever come back to argue about this. He got what he wanted.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any real problem with what I did other than the fact it made the other guy angry enough to go on 6 different IP addresses to lie that he's 6 different people arguing with me? I removed unsourced trivia (despite what the other guy says it is not sourced, and it's trivia). I changed a lot of instances of the word "Rangers" to "Power Rangers". I fixed links to a bunch of the actors whose names weren't linked. I expanded the first paragraph to be like the paragraph on List of Teen Wolf characters. If there's nothing inherently wrong, then I think this other guy who is clearly a vandal (seeing as he did all he could to remove EVERYTHING I did despite explaining what I was doing) should be ignored and my fixes that I just described should be put back.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, dude...it's an article about Power Rangers. I thought that the bit about the actor who played Albert was a valuable piece of trivia that would be interesting to fans of the series-I didn't realize anybody was going to get a coronary over it.OptimusMagnus (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia isn't valuable. "Trivia" literally means "unimportant information". No one cares that he's the oldest actor. Only you. And this page isn't for fans of the series. It's for everyone.--2601:140:8200:DE:E081:167E:5FAE:7DCB (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely to me that fans of the series will be the ones most interested in the page, and just because something is "unimportant" doesn't mean it's not interesting. You're getting awfully hot under the collar for someone who doesn't even have a User ID for the wiki.OptimusMagnus (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page is supposed to be a general reference for all readers. It's not a Power Rangers fansite like Wikia. Also, my lack of an account doesn't mean anything here. The issue is that you've added useless trivia without a source to the page.--2601:140:8200:DE:3D0C:B9A2:1752:7822 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But he had a user ID for this wiki before he got himself banned. You're currently bickering with Ryulong. That's why he won't sign up for an account -- he can't. 166.171.248.242 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this guy is still lying about everything in order to get his way. Before 166.171 was saying there was a consensus for this information when there was never any discussion on this page. Now he's saying some other lies to get his way.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters&oldid=1205277300"