Talk:List of Virtual Dungeon monsters

message: Did JB REALLY give the robots heartburn when impaling them with the Laser Lance? I know he said to Spiderbot, "Heartburn? I've got something for that!", but I thought it was a one-time-only kind of pun.
And plus, did all the bots REALLY surrender after getting impaled? I don't seem to recall that ever happening at all! - User at 71.249.255.91
*Agreed. I have removed the redundant descriptions of the Laser Lance attack.  Many of the people who are familiar with the show know how it works.  Plus, someone has posted a clip of it on youtube, they can watch the Laser Lance command there. Pitstain 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heartburn? 

message: Please BAN the person(or people) who keep changing the robots names to those ridiculous and untrue names(just check youtube for the English episodes). - VR Trooper Fan
* I changed the names of the bots back to their real names.
* Speaking of vandalism, I had to change back some vandalism that somehow was overlooked. It may have been overlooked because this time it looked more selective and careful editing instead of just the usual silliness. Still, problems all fixed now (I think). MVillani1985 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Strikes Again

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

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

message: Let's start a discussion about the images and whether they stay or go here.  It seems like a standard use of images on character page to me. - Peregrinefisher 10:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We can't use this many images.  WP:FUC has two criteria that I call in question here.  #3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." and #8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article"  The generally accepted standard is 2-3 images per article.  This article has 50+ images.  This constitutes a copyright violation and wouldn't stand up to the very narrow standard of "fair use". Second, these are just mutants and demons, usually appearing in 1-2 episodes, tops.  I consider major villains (like Grimlord and his closest underlings, those who appear in multiple episodes) significant enough to have a picture, but just the monster of the day?  Also, the sheer number of mutants on this page dilutes the critical commentary on each image; less images are better. Because it would be somewhat arbitrary to decide who is more significant, I'm in favor of cutting out all of the images here and leaving them for the major villains (Grimlord already has his images). Hbdragon88 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; the use of images on this page clearly meets WP:FUC #8.  As explicitly mentioned in WP:FUC, all of the images "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text".  Contrary to your assertion there is no need specified in WP:FUC #8, implicit or otherwise, for the text to refer to the image; rather, the image must relate to the text in a significant way.  In this instance each image provides clear identification for the specific Mutant/Cyborg in question, clearly satisfying the "significance" requirement of WP:FUC #8. -- Y|yukichigai 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The are no citations in the article and it appears to be written from someone's personal knowledge of the topic.  Even if the WP:FUC #8 problems are overcome to keep some of the images, the text utilized to overcome WP:FUC #8 would need to be published by reliable sources.  Further, the entire article may violate Wikipedia:No original research.  In view of the additional  WP:FUC #8 problems, this article appears to be ready for deletion.  I did not put it up for deletion because there may be some value in having a list of Mutants and Cyborgs in the Virtual Dungeon.  However, such a list would only be of value if accompanied by text published by reliable sources.  Please continue to work together to get this article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. -- Jreferee 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The show is a primary source: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." - Peregrinefisher 02:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Peregrinefisher - I'm not familiar with using television shows as a Wikipedia reliable source.  I would appreciate your providing a link so I can review it.  As far as I understand it,  a primary source is a document and a television show is not a document.  Aren't their books published on this topic or magazine articles that describe the characters?  What about the scripts for the shows?  They probably contain descriptions of the characters.  If there is no description of the characters and the images violate  WP:FUC #8, the only thing left is the names of the characters.  You can use  tertiary sources for the names of the characters.  Please keep in mind that, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Wikipedia:Citing sources discusses how to add reliable sources to the article.  -- Jreferee 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *The show itself is a resource, because you can't find an article about this in Funk and Wagnells or Encyclopedia Brittanica. We can't use sources like the New England Journal Of Medicine or NASA because, well, traditional means of sources just wouldn't work. Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken is to be an encyclopedia that includes reference sources beyond what you may find in a traditional encyclopedia in your local library. Yes, there are still articles about The Periodic Table, the Spanish-American War, Thomas Jefferson, and so on, but Wikipedia is more than just a reference source on hard knowledge. Please consider that before dropping a tag concerning use of Original Research. Original Research would include fan speculation, for example "Had Grimlord built Fiddlebot so that his power source didn't require a human, he would have been unbeatable". Or maybe "Had Col. Icebot given Rabidspore more armor, he would have made short work of JB and Kaitlin". Just keep in mind that an article of this nature can't be treated like an article on something like the sun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi .218.  Original research refers to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts and an edit counts as original research if it defines new terms.  The text accompanying each Mutants/Cyborgs term seeks to define that Mutants/Cyborgs term with material that has not been published by a reliable source, which makes each such edit original research.  The article continues to be noncompliant as original research.  I appreciate that an article of this nature can't be treated like an article on something like the sun.  This is why I prefer to address these noncompliant issues first on the talk page.  However, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  The examples you cite address Verifiability, for which I added a separate thread below. -- Jreferee 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *"Original research refers to material that has not been published by a reliable source."  Per WP:RS, primary sources are considered adequately reliable (if not the most reliable) sources for establishing basic claims and information about a topic.  They cannot establish notability, but the mere collection of information about a topic is not Original Research.  It is only when new conclusions, previously unpublished in any reliable source, are created from that information that it becomes Original Research. -- Y|yukichigai 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Some of the inferences like "this monster belongs in x category" is definitely original research unless Grimlord himself or someone specifically categorized these monsters.  I don't believe that they ever did, having watched 3-4 episodes on YouTube in the past few weeks. Hbdragon88 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:No original research 

message: has brought up a few potential issues regarding the notability of this article in the course of discussing its verifiability.  Rather than continue cluttering up the "Verifiability" section, I figure we should have a separate section to discuss the issues relating to notability of this particular article.
Due to my relative unfamiliarity with the subject I can't speak to the notability of this article in great detail; however, I would like to reiterate my previous comments.  Generally, lists and similar articles are held to a different standard of proof for notability due to the basic "sub-article" nature of such articles.  While lists cannot be exclusively justified simply by the notability of the "parent" article (in this case, VR Troopers) that measure of notability comprises a large percentage of each related list's notability. -- Y|yukichigai 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability 

message: Let this page stay. I've been correcting the vandalized info everytime I've seen it. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 11:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Co-signed. Let these pages STAY. 71.249.233.190 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper
This basically says that Wikipedia is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or an online version of a paper encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a gander at this 

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

message: The brothers Slice and Dice's section, is so unclear that I can't figure out what happened. Could someone point me to episode synopsises for all the episodes they've appeared in, or else explain it here? I've been mostly editing for clarity and conciseness so far, but I can't do that if I don't comprehend what's going on. This is why sources are supposed to be listed on each article.--Spriteless 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The obscurity of this show is such that there probably weren't any episode guides or anything produced, or if they were produced they are probably very rare and hard to get.  The only source is the show itself.  A user named "netdave" has uploaded all 90+ episodes onto a certain video sharing site.  That would be the place to clear up any confusion. hbdragon88 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If something is too small to have secondary sources it's not notable in Wikipedia. Luckily you added this reply after I'd found an episode list from a big site, so I added it to the pages in this category.Spriteless 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I attempted to argue in the AFD, but was shot down almost thoroughly enough to warrant a WP:SK.  Also, I should specify that I'm pretty sure that Fox or any official source ever produced an episode guide. hbdragon88 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: Metaborg has multiple forms, a tank and humanoid form, and a picture of each. Greybot has multiple forms, a human disguise and a robot form, but only the robot form has a picture. What I'm getting at is, is one picture enough for each bot, or should someone dig up a picture of "Jeremy?" If there's no answer, here or in my talk page, in a week, I guess I'll try to afd the tank picture of Metaborg and bring it up there.Spriteless 15:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we need fewer pictures.  While there was some dispute before about images for each list entry, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes seems to be tipping the other way in removal of these images.  In any case, i asked this before on WP:MCQ, and one person said that 2-3 images per character was definitely not WP:NFCC-compliant. hbdragon88 04:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. I'd be all for removing images of every one of these that has no name, or only appears in one episode, myself. But I'll save that debate for another day.Spriteless 20:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple forms/multiple pictures 

message: An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, :Image:Metaborg1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Spriteless 20:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Metaborg1.JPG listed for deletion 

message: If the stuffy snobs who are deletion fanatics want to delete this, yet allow some silly, ridiculous "articles" remain that look like they'd be more at home on Uncyclopedia, you'd better believe that this article will find a home elsewhere. How is it being somewhat of a list unencyclopediac? Look in any encyclopedia, you'll see MANY articles in list format. Search "mammal" in a hardcover encyclopedia. After some breief description, there's a list of mammalian orders. You care to challenge the methods used by hardcover encyclopedias?
Wikipedia is trying too hard to become an electronic paper encyclopedia and is too concerned with shedding its image of unreliability to see the big picture here. This may be a bit of past pop culture and may not have the relevence of current events, but what about many other articles? Sometimes a one-time only charachter gets his/her own article! Is this a personal bias against Saban's shows? I don't see the harm in putting more than something like "Cranoid was a brain monster defeated by JB". Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to promote education?
Right now Wikipedia is the best source for past and present pop culture, that's one thing that Wikipedia can place itself at #1 on. It'll never compete with the paper encyclopedias for what people want to look up information on brain surgery, the origins of the sun, or information about the Mayan cultures, although it still should have that information, but this pop culture information here is sometimes the ONLY source on the internet for it. That's right, until Wikipedia was created, these things ONLY existed in our memories, but now you want to eliminate the educational information about them and reduce them once again to memories in our brains and possibly a few blogs?
Explain to me exactly why you believe this article must be deleted. You seem very determined to have this article removed from Wikipedia and I want to know why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.216.93 (talk) 23:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
:We have certain standards for articles; this cannot live up to those standards. Wikia is better for fan based information like this article. TTN 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain how and why this can't live up to those standards? This is not entirely fan-based or fan speculation, the sources used include the show itself. Could you mind explaining how Lemmiwinks, the one-time only gerbil from South Park, had his own article for a long time, AND how each episode of South Park has its own article, yet VR Troopers can't have an article about the creatures and robots fought each season?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.216.93 (talk) 14:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
Wikipedia has a lot of crap, but that doesn't mean that other crap should exist because this crap exists.  All crap needs to go, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  Lemmiwinks should probably be merged into a "List of South Park characters".  Episodes have been established per discussion at Wikipedia:Television episodes. hbdragon88 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't crap. It's been worked and reworked in order to be encyclopediac, and it's had a lot more asked of it than most pop culture articles. If this is crap, then by definition, 99% of Wikipedia is, too. Not every article is going to look like a paper encyclopedia article, but this article does use many of the same standards as a Funk and Wagnells.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.200.28 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit, it's as good as it can get for a show that probably doesn't have the secondary sourcing that WP:WAF requires.  But it still does not feature any secondary sourcing.  Yes, actually applying this policy (which is of WP:NOT#PLOT would kill a great deal of Wikipedia, but one step at a time.  I'm still not sure why this is such a great concern; the deletion discussion was a seriously overwhelming keep (almost to an WP:SK degree), which means that the community will readily overlook that particular policy. hbdragon88 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alright.......... 

message: I've noticed that there's been some vandalism lately, and some have apparently tried to fix it, but some remanents are left over. However, some of it I wasn't sure was actually useful, or if it was vandalism. I tried to clean up a little here, but there might be some things I got wrong. Feel free to fix up any obvious mistakes I might have made. MVillani1985 (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This is just infuriating. All the articles for Power Rangers monsters were wiped out by the pro-deletion fanatics. And yet Lemmiwinks still lives. There was no other place to bring it up than here, because trying to bring it up on the discussion page would've been vandalism. And plus, this page has been under fire as well.
Seriously - I hope people saved hard copies for the Power Rangers monsters lists, because they belong on the internet for sure.
And who knows? If they've been deleted, this one may not be safe for long, either. 72.37.171.148 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All similar articles deleted!