Talk:Power Rangers/Archive 4

Deletion nomination of List of Power Rangers monsters

I have nominated List of Power Rangers monsters and its associated articles for deletion. For more, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention this at the WikiProject talk page. Not the article talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the reason you say that is so the mentioning gets more attention?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He's likely saying that because Talk:Power Rangers is only about discussion on improving the article Power Rangers. Other than Talk:List of Power Rangers monsters, a deletion like that should only be brought up at its parent Wikiproject. Arrowned (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Season List

It seems to me that the table in the section titled seasons should be altered a bit, so that the first column says "series" rather than season as each "season" (as the table is now named) contains several. What does everyone else think? Nickers (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It' s not fair

It's not fair that the monsters section should be deleted but in other toku sections it left unchanged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangergod (talk • contribs)

The toku pages don't have articles solely dedicated to just the monsters. They have the villain groups and the hero groups separate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably you should do that for power rangers villains section too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.182.129 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Long-running"

I am convinced that "long-running" should not be mentioned on this page. Ever since the IP user removed it, I have been convinced that "long-running" should not be mentioned. Just because this show is long-running doesn't mean that this article should say so.

For example, Sesame Street has ran for more than two decades longer than Power Rangers and in fact, 5 years longer than Super Sentai, and that article does not say that show is long-running. Just because something is true doesn't mean it should be mentioned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, a search on Wikipedia for television show articles that use the term "long-running" come back with over 13000 instances, and PR itself is listed at List of longest running United States television series which, by community consensus, counts anything that's gone on for more than 10 seasons. And I'd say community consensus and 13000 articles is a lot better criterion than individual "opinions". This isn't a case of peacock words or any type of misleading. Arrowned (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Color Table

I added green and black back, as even though they are not known as the green or black ranger, you cannot deny they are green nor black. If they are not mentioned, White needs to be stricken as well, as Dominic is not known as the White Ranger, he's known as the rhino ranger. The color table is based on COLOR not the name. It'd be different if we tried to label green and black because of Camille and Jarrod, but that isn't the case, there are clearly green and black ranger suits. Myzou (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Disney Website for Power Rangers has Dominic as the "White Rhino Ranger" and R.J. as the "Violet Wolf Ranger." That is the only reason he is at White Ranger now, where you can view the reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers video games merge

I wish for the following lists to be merged into this article:

• List of Power Rangers video games

This is because the list is too small to be entirely independent. After the merge takes place, I wish for a section to be on this article called "video games", a section that would contain all the contents that the list has contained. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a Criticism section? The Power Rangers series has been criticized for poor acting, poor storylines, etc.. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We've tried several times, but it's never stayed long; as per Wikipedia's dependence on published material, simple opinions of the general fandom would do no good. If you can find sources (eg: newspaper articles, episode/season reviews from legitimate news websites and not fanforums or user-submitted pages, so on and so forth), we can list some criticisms. I think our best chance here would be DVD review sites. Best I can find that actually do have some reviews of the PR DVD releases are dvdtalk.com and blogcritics.org. The obvious problem here, though, is that only a small percentage of the franchise is available on DVD, so the criticisms would be lopsided. Arrowned (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Television shows with named seasons

This page should not be in this category as the information is not important. I don't think that the information is important enough for mention on Wikipedia. The category also makes information stated more blatant than it should be. I know, Wikipedia needs its information to be blatant, but the bottom line is just as said without being categorized in this category. Information like this may be notable, but notability alone is not a reason for mention. Also, MMPR ran for 3 seasons with the same name meaning that it's the series, and not the seasons that are named anyways in the case of Power Rangers. If you disagree about the "series, and not the seasons" mention, you should know that while each series today only contains one season, it is still the series, and not the season that is named. There are some situations where the bottom line does not need to be explicitly mentioned and that the facts should speak the bottom line. Those situations apply mainly to information that is not very detailed. Information should not be stated on Wikipedia if it is not important. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So, the article rightly belongs in the category, but you don't like it? Try nominating the category for deletion then. JPG-GR (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop arguing semantics, Mythdon. The division between series/seasons is only an American one and frankly, it's not the most important thing to worry about at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So what if I'm arguing? I just happen to disagree with you on a lot of things. There are many issues being taken for granted and you don't get that. Sure, you agree the sourcing is poor, but you're not taking that issue seriously. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguing about the use of this category is getting into ridiculous territory. I understand you have issues with sourcing, but this category should be the least of any worries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether or not I'm actually going to nominate the category for discussion. I haven't decided yet, but, as I mentioned, the information isn't really that important. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In articles, categories are not kept for importance but relevance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CAT.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Table formatting

I think that my table formatting for the table section of this article is better than the previous formatting as it looks better to the readers, as it reduces clutter to a certain point. While I do think that the current formatting gives out just as much information, that is not a reason not to change things. Also, something that is fine is never a reason not to change something. I feel that the current format is cluttered. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The formatting I put in place for the table clearly shows which season/series of the show(s) corresponds to which Super Sentai series, particularly for the earlier series/seasons where the show did not change its name. Mythdon, your version does not show that. That is why I reverted you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My version does indeed show that. Good style is a benefit articles, believe it or not. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No it does not. Your version is simply an alteration of the original table. Compare this with yours and then both with mine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mine is the best of the three. I think the one before yours was better, but worse than mine. Style is a strong need on articles. That is a fact, and has been fact. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as usual, we are the only ones with opinions right now, and I can't find any sort of style guideline that says your formatting is preferred.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any interpretation of any guideline that any formatting is preferred. I'm completely making my own judgments in this matter as to what is better. I will chose my formatting over your formatting to no ends. At least I think so. Are you saying I should request a third opinion?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now requested a third opinion. It could be here any moment now. Okay? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I feel both versions leave a little something to be desired, though can't quite put my finger on it. However, Ryulong's version is the preferred version as Mythdon's use of season numbering next to the Sentai series names could be misinterpreted. JPG-GR (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How could my use of season numbering text next to the Super Sentai series names be misinterpreted? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A layman might interpret that MMPR used the first season of Zyuranger, the second of Dairanger, and the third of Kakuranger. JPG-GR (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Having looked at the two table suggestions, I can see both benefits and faults to both. Ryulong's version is good as it explicitly shows which series of MMPR corresponds with which Sentai series. However, I would also write out Mighty Morphin Power Rangers in full within each cell, rather than abbreviating it in the last two. One good point about Mythodon's version is that his table hasn't merged the two Ninja Sentai Kakuranger cells - as Ryulong's design stands, the merged cells makes the table look odd, as though there's been a coding fault. The footnote about Alien Rangers is useful, especially in view of the lead in Ninja Sentai Kakuranger ("Certain action footage from this series was used in the third season of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and the Mighty Morphin Alien Rangers mini-series"). I would lose the brackets around Alien Rangers in the table though - I feel these are unnecessary.

On the whole, I think Ryulong's table works better, although I honestly don't think having any merged cells helps in this case. Therefore I would suggest having each series of MMPR separate, together with the footnote.

I hope this helps. Cheers, Bettia (rawr!) 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing this, I can see how a comprismise between Mythdon and Ryulong can be reached. Mythdon's suggestion was based on avoiding repeating 'Mighty Morphin Power Rangers' across three rows. This solution can still be reached while still keeping the clarity of Ryulong's table like this:

Series		Year	Super Sentai Series
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers	Season 1	1993	Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger
	Season 2	1994	Gosei Sentai Dairanger
	Season 3	1995	Ninja Sentai Kakuranger
Mighty Morphin Alien Rangers*		1996	Ninja Sentai Kakuranger
Power Rangers: Zeo		1996	Chouriki Sentai Ohranger
Power Rangers: Turbo		1997	Gekisou Sentai Carranger
Power Rangers in Space		1998	Denji Sentai Megaranger
Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy		1999	Seijuu Sentai Gingaman
Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue		2000	Kyuukyuu Sentai GoGo-V
Power Rangers: Time Force		2001	Mirai Sentai Timeranger
Power Rangers: Wild Force		2002	Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger
Power Rangers: Ninja Storm		2003	Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger
Power Rangers: Dino Thunder		2004	Bakuryuu Sentai Abaranger
Power Rangers: S.P.D.		2005	Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger
Power Rangers: Mystic Force		2006	Mahou Sentai Magiranger
Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive		2007	GoGo Sentai Boukenger
Power Rangers: Jungle Fury		2008	Juken Sentai Gekiranger
Power Rangers: R.P.M.		2009	Engine Sentai Go-onger

It's more complex, granted, but it takes both suggestions into account. Bettia (rawr!) 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This version is way more complex than the changes I initially made, and I cannot see how having the Kakuranger cell being wider make anything more confusing. If anything, having the same thing twice is redundant, which is why I made the changes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take: JPG-GR (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Series		Year	Super Sentai Series
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers	Season 1	1993	Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger
	Season 2	1994	Gosei Sentai Dairanger
	Season 3	1995	Ninja Sentai Kakuranger
Mighty Morphin Alien Rangers*		1996
Power Rangers: Zeo		1996	Chouriki Sentai Ohranger
Power Rangers: Turbo		1997	Gekisou Sentai Carranger
Power Rangers in Space		1998	Denji Sentai Megaranger
Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy		1999	Seijuu Sentai Gingaman
Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue		2000	Kyuukyuu Sentai GoGo-V
Power Rangers: Time Force		2001	Mirai Sentai Timeranger
Power Rangers: Wild Force		2002	Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger
Power Rangers: Ninja Storm		2003	Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger
Power Rangers: Dino Thunder		2004	Bakuryuu Sentai Abaranger
Power Rangers: S.P.D.		2005	Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger
Power Rangers: Mystic Force		2006	Mahou Sentai Magiranger
Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive		2007	GoGo Sentai Boukenger
Power Rangers: Jungle Fury		2008	Juken Sentai Gekiranger
Power Rangers: R.P.M.		2009	Engine Sentai Go-onger

Last year, I changed the table into a bulleted list, which I think is better than a table. I cannot see any beneficial table besides mine and nobody completely agrees with a particular table as far as I can see. I think we should either go with my table or forget the tables and just do bulleted lists. Bulleted lists are not cluttered in any way. Even after a year, I still think the section should be a bulleted list. I see no benefits with any other table except mine. A bulleted list would meet Ryulong's claim that his table makes it clear as to which series used which Super Sentai series's footage. I know that my table does not make the years as clear, but my table is the best in my eyes. Why not just use a bulleted list like on the Super Sentai article?. It would be beneficial. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That is because on the Super Sentai article, the information that was there was initially in a table and was better suited for a bulleted list (it gave short descriptions of each series as well as various things that they were the first of). The much shorter length of this table as well as the subject itself makes a table a better place to host the information it currently has.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of a better table than yours?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no other way to display this information in the clearest manner possible. The only thing that you seem to think is clutter is that there are separate cells for only each Super Sentai series, and my version of the table has no redundant information. If anything, JPG-GR's formatting would be the best amongst these other opinions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

JPG-GR's version is an alternative to Bettia's version. JPG-GR's version alongide Bettia's are worse than mine, yours and the one before yours as theirs produce excessive clutter on the cells. Sure, they fulfill your desires, but that is not a reason to call something good. My version reduces clutter and presents the information in a stylistically great form. We both could very well be wrong, but since Wikipedia works with consensus, we have to go with what is thought to be correct by the community. I know that my version is not within any other editors consent completely as of what it appears to be, but I will fight to get my version to stand. Clutter damages articles like an avalanche would damage a house. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How are any of these more cluttered than yours?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent)All in all, I would say JPG-GR's table is now the better one - I agree that, just as the three mentions of MMPR, the repetition of Ninja is also unecessary. As he has also stated already, the main problem with Mythdon's version is that the season headings at the top are confusing, they imply that MMPR corresponds with the 1st season of Kyōryū, the 2nd season of Gosei, and the 3rd season of Ninja. I also don't agree with the bulleted list option - in some cases they work better than tables, but not in this case. Bettia (rawr!) 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Why not I alter my table to look more like this?:

Series	Year(s)	Super Sentai Series
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers	1993 - 1996	Season 1 - Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger Season 2 - Gosei Sentai Dairanger Season 3 - Ninja Sentai Kakuranger
(Mighty Morphin Alien Rangers)*	1996	Ninja Sentai Kakuranger
Power Rangers: Zeo	1996	Chouriki Sentai Ohranger
Power Rangers: Turbo	1997	Gekisou Sentai Carranger
Power Rangers in Space	1998	Denji Sentai Megaranger
Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy	1999	Seijuu Sentai Gingaman
Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue	2000	Kyuukyuu Sentai GoGo-V
Power Rangers: Time Force	2001	Mirai Sentai Timeranger
Power Rangers: Wild Force	2002	Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger
Power Rangers: Ninja Storm	2003	Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger
Power Rangers: Dino Thunder	2004	Bakuryuu Sentai Abaranger
Power Rangers: S.P.D.	2005	Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger
Power Rangers: Mystic Force	2006	Mahou Sentai Magiranger
Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive	2007	GoGo Sentai Boukenger
Power Rangers: Jungle Fury	2008	Juken Sentai Gekiranger
Power Rangers: R.P.M.	2009	Engine Sentai Go-onger

That would reduce the misleading impliciations. Would this work?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating that (frankly) all versions that aren't yours are "cluttered" but have yet to elaborate as to what you exactly mean by that. Can you explain as to what exactly you are referring? JPG-GR (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yours and Bettia's tables are cluttered because they put season cells within a series cell (the MMPR cell). Ryulong's is cluttered because his abbreviates MMPR in the last two cells of that series and because Kakuranger has its cell size at "2" meaning his is cluttered too, but his is not that cluttered if you think about how cluttered yours and Bettia's are. Does that make things clear?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

None of that reasoning makes any sense whatsoever. Your logic is extremely flawed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not flawed. My reasoning makes alot of sense. If I clutter the whole article, and make it to where everything is cluttered and crowded, then my logic would be flawed. If I wrote an article that was biased, pure original research, unfactual, out of style, then my logic would be flawed. If I vandalize an article, then my logic would be flawed. If I re-added unsourced information, then my logic would be flawed. And speaking of unsourced information, I have yet to see more sourcing on these articles, and on the top. People of the WikiProject currently responsible for this article are ignoring the issue and I have yet to see them concerns addressed. And back to the subject of the tables, I can find no way that my current table has anything wrong, and I bet you'll mentioned there's something wrong with it when you reply to me. But I'll disagree with you, I have no doubt about it. WikiProject Tokusatsu, the WikiProject that is responsible for this subject area is flawed because of their lack of concerns about common issues such as sourcing. There really needs to be something done about the issues. And again, back to the tables, if someone thinks of a better table, find one. One needs to be found. Since there is no direct consensus to keep either mine or your tables, both of us are going against the consensus shown, which is why we must find another table. A table must not be cluttered, as the readers will not see a professional and stylistic table. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You have essentially been repeating the same thing without anything to support your arguments. You seem to think that everything but your own formatting is cluttering up the table. All there is is that in my new version of the table, there's an expanded box for Kakuranger because having two boxes for the same entry is ridiculous. Your table doesn't solve that problem. Neither does Bettia's. And your harping on the same "there aren't enough sources" or "these sources aren't good" for the past year has been not helping anyone. Finding secondary sources for some of the content on these pages is never going to happen, especially for older television programs. We are lucky that there exist sources for the new programs, as there is rarely anything that needs to be supported by anything other than what has actually happened in the show. If I wasn't deeply involved in dealing with you, I would have blocked you a long time ago for disruptive editing. But as it stands, I do know that you mean well for the project and the subject area. It is just that the way you go about improving things rubs me the wrong way and the way you try to discuss things bothers me and other users (in conversations with Cyde, he has also seen how you generally act and cannot understand why you argue the way you do).

Mythdon, I think it would be in everyone's best interests if you put your energy into subject areas that really do need someone with your eye, because this argument over how a table should be set up is getting very lame.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why link me to a humor page? That is only humor, and since that is the case, I will not read it. To tell me that I'm disruptively editing is irrelevant, except for the massive edit warring since the policy covering such incidents does say making changes despite opposition by others is a sign of disruption, but I don't think that part is what you mean anyways, so what you're saying that I'm disruptively editing is most likely irrelevant. If a reliable source can't be found, don't write an article about the subject. WP:RS even states this "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Even though that is a guideline, it is one of the more important guidelines, and I wish to make sure it is followed. While you are interested in enforcing WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, you are not enforcing them enough as you only enforce them for information that is dedicated to the future. While future should be sourced carefully, you should also be sourcing information of the present and the past. WP:V and WP:NOR are policies that are important and should be followed without contradiction, even when WP:IGNORE can suggest contradiction. In my eyes, WP:IGNORE only applies to the less firm policies, such as WP:3RR, and that it never applies to the firm policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. By the way, I'm done with this table discussion, and if you want to reply to me about what I'm saying about policies, do so on my talk page, since it would be off topic doing so here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, if you don't understand why I linked you to that page, you need a break.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And stop throwing policies at me. I do have administrative privileges for a reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can throw policies at you anytime I choose. I link you to them to get you to comply to them. You seem to think you can ignore them simply because we have WP:IGNORE. WP:IGNORE is a policy we have to stop policies from interfering with our goals, but that does not suggest or imply that we can ignore them simply because we want to do what we please. You think Wikipedia doesn't need to sourced much. It always needs to be sourced. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never said that. I have only said that some things are difficult to source and we get by with what we have on them. That doesn't mean because (say) Mighty Morphin Alien Rangers has no sources that you should put it up for AFD. It is clear it exists. It is clear that other things exist. And we have various primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that show that they exist, but you take these as not compliant with WP:RS. I don't know why you felt the need to put so many pages up for deletion since you started editing in this subject area. I have not yet seen you actively contribute to an article's creation and upkeep as I do, and with R.P.M. starting up in the next X months, I would hope that you work on that article as I do on others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It sure seems like you have that lack of concern. Whether or not you acknowledge it. Why aren't you removing the unsourced information? Why have you been re-inserting unsourced information? You asserted that the Power Morphicon was verifiable, but you have yet to cite your sources. That is evidence right there. Also, here is some more evidence that you think this. If you are so concerned about sourcing, why can't you leave my removals of unsourced information alone? I make them removals for a reason, and that is to keep Wikipedia sourced. If you want that information kept, cite your source. Otherwise, removal will happen. You can no longer say that removing unsourced information is disruptive because the policy has recently changed and here is a link to the discussion concerning the change if you want the information and to get an understanding of it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think JPG-GR's version is better. Powergate92Talk 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And since how did you find this discussion?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the talk page and notice it! Powergate92Talk 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism problem

That was probably one-time, BUT I saw "peter griffin is a poop nose" in the broadcasting summary. I deleted it, but now I'm concerned. There are a few PR haters out there. Could someone lock this article so only registered users can edit it? 121.96.126.81 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean you deleted it? I reverted that edit. Powergate92Talk 05:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuity Points

I think we need to point out in the article that all the Power Rangers series are set in the same continuity, excluding RPM. I read somewhere that the maker of RPm intended it to be outisde of normal power rangers continuity. This should be pointed out in the series i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.40.67 (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Series Ending?

Rumors have been flying for the past few months that RPM will be the final Power Rangers series, and lately more and more "Reliable Soruces" have been reporting that it is. Now this article has popped up: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10560372, Should it been written that the series could be ending, or should we wait for official word from Disney? Henshin86 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear if the production manager is referring to their own company no longer being used or the show is being dropped by Disney completely. Something from BVS or Ranger Productions would be a better source, if one ever shows up, but this content can be incorporated somewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok ryulong, oh, and this New York Post Article popped up too: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03102009/tv/lights_out_for_power_rangers_158807.htm, looks like it really is the end..........Henshin86 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They refer to the NZ Herald article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't they move production back to the US or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not over people: http://henshinjustice.com/2009/03/20/breaking-news-power-rangers-lives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.155 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That refers to an unverified letter received by a fan/blogger. Neither Bandai nor Disney has released any official statement one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.192.50 (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

iTunes Availability?

I know on the main page it says that episodes are available on the iTunes store. However, I can no longer find them or a reason as to why they have been removed. The only listings for Power Rangers is the songs, movies, & movie soundtracks, no season episodes. --stanmarsh2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanmarsh2003 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Disney not airing any past seasons of power ranger?

will there be and mention on the page that disney has stopped airing the old seasons of power ranger on there varoius disney channels and that the only season that is airing RPM on ABC Kids? Inferno17 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there something official we can use to say that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

well if you search for any listings for episodes airing for those seasons none can be found .I checked the tv schedule of those seasons on imbd.com and Rpm is the only one that show a list of the episodes that will air over the next weeks . i check the disney website and it doesn't have any videos for of powers on there. i'm still looking into it but i haven't found anything offical but it look like at least for now they have stopped airing the those episodes. besides rpm on ABC kids the only other place to watch the episodes of the older seasons are on youtube and other video sites cause they are not on airing tv. (Inferno17 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

HULU.COM posts Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie

Oh and is it alright to post that Hulu.com has Mighty Morphin power Rangers the movie has been posted on there.link to page below:

http://www.hulu.com/mighty-morphin-power-rangers (Inferno17 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Unimportant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think its alright as it was officially posted by 20th Century Fox and this article list the official iTunes and Disney Xtreme Digital releases so i don't see way it should not list the official Hulu release. Powergate92Talk 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong you say its unimportant but i fell the same way as powergate92 it was posted by 20th Century Fox and this article goes made mention official iTunes and Disney Xtreme Digital releases of Power rangers movies ,episodes etc... what harm could be done by adding the info above .(Inferno17 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Power Morphicon coming summer 2010

oh and can you add that the 2nd Power morphicon will be held next year? It will be held somewhere in Los Angeles, California. This convention will be coinciding with the 15th Anniversary of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers full details have not been confirmed but if you got to this page you can read all the info out on it . http://linearranger.com/RPMNews/NewsPMorphicon.htm (Inferno17 (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)).

Linearranger's website cannot be used as a source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[Official website.] Arrowned (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are sometimes false, so we can't trust them. Sorry. At least with the "official website" linked by Arrowned, you can rely on it in terms of trust, but neither are reliable for justifying notability. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Who gives a shit about notability? It gives us knowledge that it's going to happen.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability is an official Wikipedia guideline! Powergate92Talk 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the issue at hand here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because we're not writing about it in its own article. We're writing about it happening in this article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you guys to attack the suggestion of mentioning Power Morphicon 2010 and for what its worth i did say that you could got to linear ranger's page to read more detail just forgot to put the link to the offical Power Mor. page but the link was on that page.The person who runs the page makes sure to list any links to the info they post and it been a pretty reliable source for pr related stuff sso far for me . I hope no one gets mad at me for writing this.(Inferno17 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Write what? The information on the articles, or your post? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

my post.(Inferno17 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Reference issues.

1. Reference 5: Is "Action Figure Insider" a reliable source on future production plans?
2. Reference 7: It's considered inappropriate to cite Wikipedia itself in a footnote, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. That's considered a circular reference.
3. Reference 8: same problem. Also original research.
4. Reference 9: no source, original research.
5. Reference 10: original research.

Some improvement in those references would be appropriate. The others seem OK. --John Nagle (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be a more efficient way to add footnotes and references using the same formatting. References 7, 8, 9, and 10 are all footnotes and directly referenced to the series they refer to, not really original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Reference 2 and 3: Neither of these articles note anything about the use of 2009 senti footage in the rebroadcast of MMPR. My son did say that they are adding new effects like was done for the remastering of Star Trek: The Original Series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.179.234 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting International Broadcasting Table

Thanks User talk:Ryulong for your suggestion to discuss this issue. I believe a table is unnecessary because "Broadcasters" change constantly and are outdated quickly and are unable to be cited from an outside source to verify if the information is correct. Also according to WP:DIRECTORY Wikipedia isn't an electronic program guide and posting such information would be unencyclopedic if it isn't notable enough (like if there was local criticism about broadcasting the show in a certain county, i.e. New Zealand) to be included. Secondly, I had already moved relevant information that used to be in the table into the paragraph under Power Rangers#International airings that pretty much summed up what the relevance table had to begin with, that Many markets carry or have carried Power Rangers on their respective FOX or later Jetix/Disney XD channels or have syndicated the program on regional children's channels or blocks, either dubbed into the local language or broadcast in the original English. Information regarding Japan's reairing of dubbed content and Korea's broadcasting was relevant and moved to the paragraph as well. Another important point is for an article about a television series to be notable, it should follow precedent of the articles other shows; articles of featured TV series and media franchises such as The Simpsons, Star Trek, and LOST to name a few, do not have international broadcasting tables and seem to have no need for them to become notable articles. However, looking at other articles, any need to list the international broadcasters in the future should include any criticisms or rating information from those countries in prose form to meet notability and format guidelines.

Rebel shadow (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, doing that would boost the quality of this article Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that info is unsourced and original research so it should be removed per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible misuse of words?

The article reads:

"Its first entry, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, helped launch the Fox Kids programming block in the 1990s during which it capitulated into popular culture"

Which sounds really odd. Should "capitulated" be "catapulted"?

Vince In Milan (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be "catapulted".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that in the power rangers article in the very first paragraph on the top you said "the original series was rebroadcast in lieu of a new series utilizing footage from the 2009 Super Sentai television series"

That is a huge mistake because Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Season 1 adapted footage from the 1992 - 1993 Super Sentai Series: Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger and NOT the 2009 Super Sentai Series: Samurai Sentai Shinkenger. Please Fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.182.73 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be a grammar mistake if there was a comma in the middle there, but as it is now, it's talking about a new series using the 2009 footage, not the original series using the 2009 footage. The grammar is okay. Arrowned (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up for creating a "Power Rangers (characters)" article

...to spin off the "The Power Rangers" and "Ranger colors" sections in order to separate character information from series information?

Rebel shadow (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all necessary. It splits off mostly unreferenced content from this article into its own article which will surely be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be better to just reference the unreferenced content on this article and delete the trivia? This article has a lot of trivial content that can be trimmed or at least needs cross-reference. Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What can be referenced is referenced. Some items are true but there does not exist a third party reference for it. What you deem as "trivial" may be essential to the knowledge of the subject to others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What you deem as "essential to the knowledge of the subject to others" may be inappropriate or unimportant for Wikipedia. Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot coming from someone with only six edits. Most of the content that you are deeming "unimportant for Wikipedia" and "unsourced" is descriptive and from the primary sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded standoffish or anything, just doing more reading and understanding guidelines than editing, don't wanna get in any wiki-vets' way. Onechocharlieonecharliecho (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good thing to understand the guidelines. However, it should be noted that some article subjects simply don't have what would be deemed a reliable source to the general Wikipedia crowd. I'd be hardpressed if I wanted to find a critical review of any particular Power Rangers episode, which obviously isn't a problem for television shows geared towards an adult audience (Lost, Battlestar Galactica, etc.).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Some info I think is original research

I think this info: "Rather than making an English dub of the original, the American production team put together a "new" production with English-speaking actors spliced in with the original Japanese footage in varying ratios. Due to the very Japanese nature of many of the Super Sentai Series' stories and design, the American shows vary detail to appeal to a Western audience. However, they typically dub many of the action sequences featuring the characters in costume and the mecha (referred to as "Zords" in Power Rangers)." is original research, so on October 11, I added a citation needed tag to that info, but User:Ryulong removed the citation needed tag saying "obvious enough" and "It is something that one uses their common sense to infer". So I started a discussion at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Is this info original research? but there has only been 1 reply since that discussion was started 3 weeks ago. So I would like some users who edit this article to say what they think about this info, is it original research? Powergate92Talk 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I told you last time, this is not original research. There is even a new reference that was added to the article since you made the accusation that supports the statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That reference says "MIGHTY MORPHIN’ POWER RANGERS was the Americanized version of the 1992 Super Sentai Series KYORYU SENTAI ZYURANGER." the reference doe's not say anything about "Rather than making an English dub of the original, the American production team put together a "new" production with English-speaking actors spliced in with the original Japanese footage in varying ratios. Due to the very Japanese nature of many of the Super Sentai Series' stories and design, the American shows vary detail to appeal to a Western audience." Powergate92Talk 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It states that "POWER RANGERS is the Americanized version of SUPER SENTAI". The fact that there is footage of American actors and footage of suit actors, the rest is common sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:No original research says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." the source you're citing doe's not "directly support the info" and WP:Reliable sources says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." so common sense is not a reliable source. Powergate92Talk 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the only person to ever have an issue with this. Everyone else has taken it for granted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting it doe's not make it not original research as you (a Wikipedian) watched and interpreted primary source material (the show) for yourself, so there is still no reliable source therefore it's still original research per WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Powergate92Talk 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no interpretation of anything here. It is contained in the production credits of the show. You are the only person here who has expressed any problem with the text. Aspects of it previously were WP:OR. Now, it is not. It is based on observations and not interpretations of the primary source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly useful to cite for under a criticism or the production section about early SAG situation: http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4365040-1.html Rebel shadow (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that powergate is right, by the letter of wikipedia law. Personally, I would leave the information in however. It amazes me that anyone would want to take it out.--Timtak (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the dates on these things. This thread ended approximately four months ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I got an idea for improvement

I was looking at the Stargate page, and it could be cool to model the PR article along the same structure, with Main Article: links after headings to lead readers to the appropriate series/character pages; and most of the 'series overview' content can be blended in with the current 'television series' heading to look like the Stargate#Television section, but maybe with fusing MMPR-Space in one sub-heading. A Reception heading can have a Fandom section if there's reliable information out there about popularity, critism, and more info about Morphicon. And a cohesive Premise section in the 'elements of a PR season' near the beginning would make the info more cohesive; since there isn't much info on production, that can be scaled down, but we shouldn't deemphasize that PR originated from Sentai, which is a really notable fact about PR. Rebel shadow (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel shadow (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rebel shadow, that would make the article look better. Powergate92Talk 20:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What's good for one article is not what is good for all articles. Stargate is going to have a lot more information on it than Power Rangers would because Stargate is not a TV series meant to sell toys to children. We don't have any sources of critical commentary in the article to garner the need for a "reception" heading. Other than that, you're basically saying we should move things around, again, as you did last time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not duplicating the structure of an article exactly, per se; I just think the sections can be tweaked so the article flows better; starting it with a Production section with meticulous details about Saban/Fox Kids/Jetix/ABC and cited statements about recent news concerning the re=airing isn't as much a priority as what to what the show is actually about. So to take a page out of that other article, a concise lead-inb Premise section would be more appropriate. And anyways, changing stuff around from time to time to see what works seems more constructive for us as editors of this page to do than just waiting for opportunities to correct vandalism. Rebel shadow (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could be bold and just do it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok then; and would you think a section analogous to this would work on this page (maybe under a reception section), possibly to mention stuff like this? Rebel shadow (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd give undue weight to that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the basic superhero stuff that's mentioned in the Power Rangers#The Power Rangers section can just be referenced to Superhero#Common traits section. Rebel shadow (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no such Striking Samurai nonsense

I just saw a video on youtube of some fan posting that they edited the page to say some crappy (opinion) fanfiction is an official series and, gasp, they managed to get that into the wiki entry. Anyone can take out this information??? If you do a simple search of the fictional series, you will see theres no official information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danadrianrico (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.229.38.214, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add that Power Morphicon will be held in Pasadena, California. Source: Elie Dekel from the Licensing Expo via Live web feed. The scene can also be viewd on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB5fwgxYL0Q 96.229.38.214 (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source other than YouTube? —fetch·comms 22:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.officialpowermorphicon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.75.7 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2011 Adaptation

Looks like they're adapting Shinkenger, per this casting site (NOTE: You must be a registered member to view the page). It mentions a green ranger, which Goseiger does not have, so it must be Shinkenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi-San (talk • contribs) 03:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A casting call site cannot be used as a reliable source for anything because the project may not go through and the names may very likely change.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree Ryulong. The only reason that website is an unusable reference is because you have to register to view it. The fact it identifies Shinkenger could be considered Original Research, but the fact that casting call is out there does confirm that season 18 WILL be made. Saban didn't buy the rights back just to sit on it. If the info was on a site you could just view without needing to register, then it would be a perfectly citable source. Digifiend (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The core cast has now been confirmed, along with the executive producer (Jonathan Tzachor) and a writer (Tony Oliver). Do we need to wait for an official title before creating an article for the new season? Digifiend (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed how? Do you have an official press release that names these names? Confirmation for the fandom is not the same as confirmation for Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can now mention that the new power rangers is adapted from shinkenger. there is an image of the fire kanji on the OFFICAL power rangers website now. -Ragnaroknike (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. We can only state that it's Shinkenger when the name "Shinkenger" shows up in the first episode's ending credits. Just because the fire kanji is on the official Power Rangers site does not mean we get to jump to that conclusion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're actually saying that until the episode airs (not once we see a promotional shot, or something of the like), then, and only then, we can say it's Shinkenger. Even if the picture shows the Samurai team, we can't say that. Wow, that's bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.94.7 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

New season's episode count

It's been now established in an interview with Elie Dekel that there would be 40 new episodes,not 20! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.198.195 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Season table

Any one interested in having a Series overview table like the one in the List of Futurama episodes article, possibly under to be placed under the Production heading? If in the PR article, it wouldn't have any columns for DVD releases of course, but a table like this could quickly organize the original airdates and have comparable links to Sentai articles and original networks. Rebel shadow (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We had one of those a while ago, but got rid of it in favor of a bulleted list format.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Roly1993, 16 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} you have written down that Power Rangers Jungle Fury Volumes 3, 4 & 5. Dvds have only been released in The U.K. but they have been released on dvd in Australia. I know that because i personally own them so can you please change it to say that it is on dvd in the U.K & Australia

Roly1993 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

samurai is 19th, not 18th

according to this, it is 19th season. just to let you guys know. -Ragnaroknike (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's so, then they're counting MMAR as its own season?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be MMPR2010 as 18th season? -Ragnaroknike (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well MMAR is its own season Rick lay95 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95

Perhaps according to you. Accordingly to everybody else, no. JPG-GR (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a good source, but it also mention that samurai is the 19th. either mmar is considered a season, or mmpr2010 is the 18th. -Ragnaroknike (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a good source. Also please pay attention to dates. This was from October 2010 and it is now January 2011.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

technically it is the 18th season, but those sources count Disney re-editing of the original season as an 18th season.69.40.21.100 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

power rangers logo

I think the power rangers logo should be deleted because it is not the new saban power rangers logo as seen on the power rangers samurai logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.230.159 (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Season logo and the series logo uses different font i think? the disney logo should be uploaded again as separate file. since the original saban logo is on the article, the disney logo should be on the list too. -Ragnaroknike (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The current logo and the Disney logo are about the same so there's no need to add the Disney logo. Also since they're about the same we can not add the Disney logo per WP:Non-free content criteria#3a. Powergate92Talk 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The logo in the article should not be removed as it's the current franchise logo as you can see on powerrangers.com, the Power Rangers Samurai logo is the logo for that Power Rangers season not the franchise logo. Powergate92Talk 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

please put it back the original logo for the original series since thats what made it popular in the 1st place, the later ones seem to be getting also idk if its not the latest series logo since its not faithful to the original series --Ronnie42 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"What made it popular" is not a valid reason for image use. This is for the franchise as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers monsters

I don't know if this would be a good idea but I think a good idea for the Power Ranger-related articles is to create an article for all the monsters and villains introduced in Power Rangers similar to the article that lists all of the monsters from the Ultra series, especially since in the older Saban series they reused many of the monsters even in later seasons, that way it would be easy to keep track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.158.186 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by monsters. If you are talking about all of the monster that were sent and destroyed in a single episode that would probabally be considered too much trivia. If that is does it should only cover the main villain, the primary minions and only other monsters if they had a significant effect on the plot.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Morphing Grid

There should be a section all about what is known and not explained about the Morphing Grid. I have already noted such things in the section about Zords in regards to how it is not explained why the destruction of the Zords causes the Rangers to lose their powers. Also, it would be important for such section to include info on the Power Rangers in Space episode "Always a Chance" in which Adam Park almost dies from using a damaged morpher. Other things to include would be the fact the Sentinel Knight could restore powers destroyed but not the Overdrive Ranger's powers. (User talk:Actcohen) 16:42, 7 February 2011 (PST)

The "Morphing Grid" is a concept that has no merit in a real world context. A vague plot device mentioned in only a handful of episodes with no reliable sources talking about it does not belong on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} i need to to notice that the new season samurai its the first one that hjas been recorded on hd and the first one to be broadcasted with such quality— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roymauriciou (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Series vs Season?

I noticed that the page is prevalent in calling each name as a "series" rather than "season". Since Saban Brands and Disney produce it as "seasons" (given the consistent production crew and continuous production numbers of episodes) rather than as consecutive spin-offs, shouldn't this be changed?69.112.173.254 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a quandary. Differently named shows are "series" but they also consist of multiple seasons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that, but that really only applies for MMPR, Zeo through Samurai aren't truly their own "series" really, so maybe at least in the list of different "series" it should instead by the listed as "seasons"69.112.173.254 (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus, there's a few issues as a result. RPM, for example is listed as the 17th SERIES, but since the show's first three seasons are one series, the series number for any season is two less than its season number.... I'll fix that at least but I think at some point season should be emphasized more than series since they're really not separate series.ScarletSpiderfan (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

2000 and colors

First of all, I thought Mighty Morphin Power Rangers started in 2000 because I remember watching it as a little kid on one of the Disney Channels in the early 2000's. Second of all, were't all the colors Red, Yellow, Blue, Green, Orange, Pink, Grey, Black, White, Shadow, and Violet. 75.225.126.227 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No and no. MMPR is from 1993. And I don't know where you've pulled all of those colors from when Red, Yellow, and Blue are standard, with Black, Green, Pink, and White alternating in, with an additional set of miscellaneous colors, of which grey and orange were never a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

I got all the rest of the colors from other types of power rangers not just MMPR. If you look up the colors on google, it WILL give you a picture of the toy and when it was on a episode. PS Why did the MMPR on DirecTV Say it came out in 2000 on the caption but I agree with them. PSS Please don't get mad at me for that 75.246.198.199 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There has never been an orange or grey Ranger although those colors were used in the costumes for some of the one-episode-only Rangers in SPD. Shadow Ranger was in SPD but "Shadow" isn't a color, and a Violet Ranger appeared in Jungle Fury. However, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers premiered in 1993. DirecTV was clearly wrong or you were watching whichever Power Rangers was out in 2000.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK thank you.75.246.193.105 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically Cat in S.P.D. is a kind of Orange Ranger. She only apears once in the morphed form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.236.120.190 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

the morphs word links to the japanese version of the word

that isnt how it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying, the time will come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.60.235 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Update Power Rangers Wikipedia Page

On the main Power Rangers Wikipedia page please can someone put details of Power Morphicon 3 (http://officialpowermorphicon.com/) on there as well as the news that Shout! Factory will be putting every season of Power Rangers up until RPM on DVD in North America starting Summer 2012(http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Mighty-Morphin-Power-Rangers-DVDs-Planned/16646)!

Abgop (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)abgop

Merge Proposal for the "Power Rangers" video game articles

I think the Power Ranger video game articles should be merged to the main article of whatever series they were made for (e.g. Power Rangers Zeo: Battle Racers is merged to Power Rangers Zeo and Power Rangers Dino Thunder (video game) to Power Rangers Dino Thunder). With the exception of the Power Rangers: Super Legends and Mighty Morphin ones, the video game articles are relatively short and not likely to be expanded since I have not been able to find any evidence confirming their notability (I honestly believe they can qualify for deletion). Some of the articles also contain inappropriate content like game tips and the word "you." Any thoughts? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Megaforce

Ryulong, I see you reverted an edit about Megaforce being Goseiger. It is confirmed (as of about three hours ago, an hour before the reverted edit), the press release has info that matches the Goseiger villain groups exactly, and the descriptions of the characters of Gosei and Tensou match Master Head and Datas. The source was added. Digifiend (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. But that does not mean we need a link to the non-existant article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2013

Shout Factory doesn't have the rights for the first 15 seasons. It has the rights for the first 17 seasons. On the official press release, it said more than 700 episodes of Power Rangers from 1993-2009. At the end of 2009, the most recent season was Power Rangers RPM, which was season 17 and the last episode was episode 700. Also, on http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Mighty-Morphin-Power-Rangers-DVDs-Planned/16646, it shows that all of the seasons that Shout Factory has goes from Mighty Morphin Power Rangers to Power Rangers RPM. 70.109.77.63 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Dino Charge and Kyoryuger/Go-Busters

Wikipedia's original research and verifiability policies forbid using a combination of pre-existing knowledge about any Super Sentai series and any imagery that may have been released to make a statement on this website that Dino Charge is related to Kyoryuger. That KSiteTV website also does not appear to meet the reliable sourcing policies as it is not clear who is in charge there. Also, their posting seems to be "tainted" by one of several fansites that have been posting this similar information over the past couple of days.

Wikipedia cannot use Tokusatsu Network, Orendsrange, Rangercrew, or any fan site to post information regarding this.

Additionally, just because you and I can look at this image and everything on this site and see that the subjects of the photos are identical, is not allowed. We went over this when Power Rangers Samurai was announced and when Power Rangers Megaforce was announced. This violates WP:OR, particularly WP:SYN. Until the end credits roll on the first episode of Dino Charge or unless Saban explicitly admits the fact that Kyoryuger was used, Wikipedia cannot host this information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Syndication

A section for its syndication should be there, like Nicktoons, Mighty Morphin marathon on TeenNick, the first 11 seasons of Power Rangers on Jetix, and the Jetix shows on ABC. Mikester11 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Syndication of individual series is not relevant for this primary article, but may have uses on the individual pages. Also everything needs sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Power Rangers Pirate Armada

There is a rumor of this series comming up in 2013 (you can search videos of it on youtube inlcuding intro). But when i came here the next generation is called Power Rangers MegaForce. So, I want to know what is the truth. the pirate armada look cool and so the megaforce but i dont know which it will be because both have not subtitles meaning that they are film on the U.S.70.242.187.250 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's Super Megaforce. Not Pirate Armada. 118.209.255.76 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2014

Let me edit it. And it's unfair I can't write about Dino Charge. Dicks. 118.209.255.76 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights for which you also need an account.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

S.H.E Rangers

In favour of S.H.E (Taiwanese Girl Group) Yawyawkam (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2015

In the second paragraph of the Premise section, the sentence "Morphed Rangers generally possesses superhuman strength, durability, and ability in hand-to-hand combat." uses incorrect grammar. The sentence should read "Morphed Rangers generally possess superhuman strength, durability, and ability in hand-to-hand combat." LoganPrime (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 16:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Character vs Cast

A conversation has arose between myself and Cyphoidbomb (talk), here it is

Why do we have one rule for MMPR, MMAR, Zeo, Turbo, and In Space, but another rule for Lost Galaxy onwards? Power Rangers is a children's show first and for-most, therefore it would make sense to have a character list over a cast list due to most children recognise the characters of a tv show first, then (if lucky) will acknowledge the cast who plays the characters. my edits were to keep in line with what is set out on MMPR, as all the other series are in effect spin offs from MMPR.

I see the other argument for cast lists over character lists, however i see it that they only work for visual entertainment that is firstly aimed at an older audience, in which perhaps children have also secondly liked. Older audiences tend to respect the actors involved, for their portrayal of a character; thus the example used of Harrison Ford's Han Solo works.

To Conclude, while i favour cast list over character list, a children shows should be done in characters lists because of how the majority of children perceive the show.

Note: this is coming from someone who grew up with Power Rangers, and knows from personal experience of myself and my friends who also watched the show. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajenkins (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to changing the cast presentation into a character list. I tend to prefer character lists for this sort of thing anyway, because cast lists typically attract a lot of cruft— people adding every single actor and role that the actor has done, instead of focusing on the main roles. Character lists are also a little better for presenting information about each character, with the caveat that they should not become ponderous lists. We should only be focusing on the main characters and significant recurring characters, and prose about each should be brief, unlike what we see at Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu#Characters Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

The discussion of color frequency at the end of § Premise seems like it might be original research. Is there a source for it? Or did an editor just tally them up (and is that synthesis)? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible info from archived website

But what are your thoughts on this page? http://web.archive.org/web/20001003035800/http://www.foxkids.com/power_rangers/faq/index.html It talks about how children are selected to be on the Power Rangers and also the "typical day" on the Power Rangers set. Would this be useful for the article series?

The cast page http://web.archive.org/web/20000706225857/http://www.foxkids.com/power_rangers/shows/lightspeed/meetthecast/index.html might be useful too for the Wikipedia articles on the people... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Heroic Hollywood - not a reliable source

Lg16spears has twice added good-faith content [1][2] about casting, but the source used, "Heroic Hollywood" I am challenging as not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's reliable source standards. There's nothing about that blog that suggests in any way that they are a legitimate entertainment news venue, nor that they have a clear editorial policy. If the information is noteworthy and accurate it seems that it should be easy to drum it up from a more reputable trade publication. Until that happens, the content doesn't belong in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In Space

it should be Andros', not Andros's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.60.230 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Power Rangers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101205035755/http://www.kungfucinema.com:80/power-rangers-samurai-premiering-in-february-2011-16644 to http://www.kungfucinema.com/power-rangers-samurai-premiering-in-february-2011-16644
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070716032841/http://www.powerranger.co.kr:80/dino/ to http://www.powerranger.co.kr/dino/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110621234841/http://www.myfoxorlando.com:80/dpp/entertainment/061511-power-rangers%3A-at-a-netflix-near-you to http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/entertainment/061511-power-rangers%3A-at-a-netflix-near-you

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

3rd Film/Reboot Film

Should't we start to branch off the 3rd/reboot film into it's own page? Don't we have enough credible information to move forward with that? rick lay95 (talk)

rick lay95 A paragraph of information seldom warrants a unique article. If you want to build it into a proper article, you could do that, but you'd need far more info (and references) from what's there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to start with, plus just need to migrate the information from the reboot heading to the new page. I got it up and running, it's a good start. Power Rangers (film). rick lay95 (talk)

Okay, so. The movie hasn't been properly announced, yet. There is nowhere near enough information to justify a new page, considering we don't even know the whole cast and we only vaguely know the writers and such. WP:CRYSTAL Please do read. Specifically, the product announcement bit. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. All you did was copy and paste the paragraph from one page to the other and there is not enough proper info to make a whole seperate page for a barely announced film. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The film is officially announced. We have official writers, director, producers, and cast. It's going to happen. These are not rumors, these are facts and every fact has a link and citation. Yes I migrated the information over because it no longer needs to be here, it needs to be on the main page. rick lay95 (talk)

The film's simple existance has been announced. Beyond that, we only know small tidbits. Not enough for a whole article. Please stop restoring it and instead make a draft version at Draft:Power Rangers (film) Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tons of other upcoming films on Wikipedia have "tidbits" and yet are full pages, why can't we have the Power Rangers page? What is it really hurting? It meets all criteria for an upcoming film page. If you don't think it should be there, nominate it for deletion, NOT just reverting all the work from the last hour.rick lay95 (talk)

WP:CRYSTAL. Read it. Specifically section number 5. And, what work? You just copied the stuff from the main page over. We need to wait until there's more information. Until then, you can feel free to make your version on the draft page. Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Formatting is work! And what more information are you waiting for? Give me EXACTLY what more is needed.

You can format all you want on the draft version of the page. Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The only way this article will survive is if it can be demonstrated that principal photography has begun. That's not the only criteria, but that is one important one. See WP:NFF. Also, if content was copied from this article to another, proper attribution must be given. See WP:CWW. At this point, I think the {{Copied}} template is the way to go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)