User talk:Ryulong/Archive 60
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
Power Ranger Samurai French Airdate Removal?
Why were the first "world wide" (French) airdates removed for the Power Ranger Samurai episodes? In every other Power Ranger episode section when the first airdate "world wide" wasn't identical with the first airdate in the U.S. both the "world wide" and "U.S." first airdate are listed (with the country for both airdates noted in parenthsis).172.191.33.88 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article lists the US airdates. Not French ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Technically every Power Ranger episode section (including Ninja Storm, S.P.D., Mystic Force, and Operation Overdrive) lists the "US airdates" according to the table listing. If you look at those particular Power Ranger episode sections though you would also notice that those sections (on a select one or two episodes) also lists Canadian or UK airdates. In those few episodes the additional Canadian or UK airdate is also listed (in addition the US airdate) on account that Canada or the UK beat out the US to airing the episode first (the first airdate "world wide" was earlier than the the first "US airdate"). A similar event has just now happened with Power Rangers Samurai. France has (or will) beat the US to airing those episodes first for the "world wide" debut (hence listing both the French and US airdate). It doesn't matter in the long run which way we go on this, but all the Power Ranger episode sections should be made consistant in regard to this matter on airdate listings. If you make an exception for the Canadian and UK airdates that have beat the US airdates for "world wide" airdate debut status (for Ninja Storm, S.P.D., Mystic Force and Operation Overdrive), then an exception has to also be made for the French airdates (for Samurai) that do the same. Either that or all foreign airdates (UK, French or Canadian) should be removed (regardless of being the "world wide" debut airdate).172.190.30.212 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then remove all foreign airdates.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Technically every Power Ranger episode section (including Ninja Storm, S.P.D., Mystic Force, and Operation Overdrive) lists the "US airdates" according to the table listing. If you look at those particular Power Ranger episode sections though you would also notice that those sections (on a select one or two episodes) also lists Canadian or UK airdates. In those few episodes the additional Canadian or UK airdate is also listed (in addition the US airdate) on account that Canada or the UK beat out the US to airing the episode first (the first airdate "world wide" was earlier than the the first "US airdate"). A similar event has just now happened with Power Rangers Samurai. France has (or will) beat the US to airing those episodes first for the "world wide" debut (hence listing both the French and US airdate). It doesn't matter in the long run which way we go on this, but all the Power Ranger episode sections should be made consistant in regard to this matter on airdate listings. If you make an exception for the Canadian and UK airdates that have beat the US airdates for "world wide" airdate debut status (for Ninja Storm, S.P.D., Mystic Force and Operation Overdrive), then an exception has to also be made for the French airdates (for Samurai) that do the same. Either that or all foreign airdates (UK, French or Canadian) should be removed (regardless of being the "world wide" debut airdate).172.190.30.212 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Kirsten Price
Hi, I noticed that you redirected Kirsten Price (pornographic actress) to Kirsten Price (actress). I must disagree with your choice, given that other pornographic actresses with DABs almost always have the DAB (pornographic actress) in their article titles, and thus it seems like a double standard to give Price's article the disambig of (actress). Perhaps the disambig of "sex worker" would be a better compromise since her career involved stripping and adult modeling as well? Asarelah (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there's no other actress, why do we need to point out she's a porno actress in the title?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Asarelah, I do want to note that mentioning of "pornographic" or "porn" in the article title (whatever you have mentioned) other than the word itself would not be allowed in my standards (and possibly within the Wikipedia community as well). CHAK 001 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Chak, I have no idea what your talking about. There are plenty of articles with the term "pornographic" in the title. Anyway, Ryulong, you do have a point, but since there are several other articles in that category with the disambig "pornographic actress", it seems inconsistent with the rest of the category. Are you okay with the disambig of "sex worker" instead? Asarelah (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Move the other ones to "actress" then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll just move Price's article to "sex worker" since that term also encompasses her career as a stripper and adult model. Asarelah (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's worse than "pornographic actress".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm rather puzzled as to why you object to the disambig of "sex worker". "Sex worker" is a term that was coined by a sex worker activist, and it is widely used by the World Health Organization, and it encompasses pornographic actresses, strippers, and adult models, as well as other occupations in the sex industry. I'm also puzzled as to why you object to the disambig of (person) for Belladonna, as I started using that disambig as much as possible for pornographic actors because it is humanizing, and it also encompasses her career as a businesswoman and director. I'm also puzzled as to why you think the term "sex worker" would be a possible BLP issue since Kirsten Price is famous FOR BEING a sex worker in the first place, and the article contains citations that clearly show that Price is a sex worker. Anyway, as it seems we have reached an impasse, I am considering putting in a request for comment on the "pornographic actors" category itself so we can ultimately resolve this issue. Asarelah (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read WP:BLP. "Sex worker" is not an appropriate term to refer to someone on Wikipedia. Just get with the program and stop moving pages. And "person" for Belladonna is not ambiguous enough. Just use "actress" instead of "pornographic actress". If there's more than one actress with the name, use "adult film" instead of "pornographic".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Where in BLP does it say that "sex worker" is not an acceptable term? I'm rather confused since the parent category for pornographic actors, erotic dancers, and adult models is Category:Sex workers. If you find the term that unacceptable, you should try to get that category name changed. Furthermore, why do you think that the term "adult film" is more appropriate than "pornographic", especially given that "pornographic" is in the category title itself? And what do you mean that "person" is not ambiguous enough? Asarelah (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just use your damn common sense when choosing disambiguations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've been quite reasonable and polite to you and there's no need to be curt with me. I'm putting in a Request for Comment in Category:Pornographic actors so we can settle this issue once and for all. Asarelah (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You do not need "pornographic" in a dab name unless there is another subject with that name that is a non-porn form. And there is no reason to use "sex worker" as a dab. Just use actress.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can see the issue with including an adjective in a disambig, but I still don't see why you object to the terms (sex worker) and (person). Asarelah (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- "sex worker" goes against WP:BLP and "person" is not ambiguous enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you mean "not specific enough"? "Person" is about as ambiguous as it gets. Furthermore, I really don't see how the term "sex worker" could possibly go against BLP when the people in question are famous for being sex workers. How is that libelous or harmful to their lives? Asarelah (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever. Just use something that is more specific than "person" and not as specific as "sex worker".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you mean "not specific enough"? "Person" is about as ambiguous as it gets. Furthermore, I really don't see how the term "sex worker" could possibly go against BLP when the people in question are famous for being sex workers. How is that libelous or harmful to their lives? Asarelah (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- "sex worker" goes against WP:BLP and "person" is not ambiguous enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can see the issue with including an adjective in a disambig, but I still don't see why you object to the terms (sex worker) and (person). Asarelah (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You do not need "pornographic" in a dab name unless there is another subject with that name that is a non-porn form. And there is no reason to use "sex worker" as a dab. Just use actress.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've been quite reasonable and polite to you and there's no need to be curt with me. I'm putting in a Request for Comment in Category:Pornographic actors so we can settle this issue once and for all. Asarelah (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just use your damn common sense when choosing disambiguations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Where in BLP does it say that "sex worker" is not an acceptable term? I'm rather confused since the parent category for pornographic actors, erotic dancers, and adult models is Category:Sex workers. If you find the term that unacceptable, you should try to get that category name changed. Furthermore, why do you think that the term "adult film" is more appropriate than "pornographic", especially given that "pornographic" is in the category title itself? And what do you mean that "person" is not ambiguous enough? Asarelah (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read WP:BLP. "Sex worker" is not an appropriate term to refer to someone on Wikipedia. Just get with the program and stop moving pages. And "person" for Belladonna is not ambiguous enough. Just use "actress" instead of "pornographic actress". If there's more than one actress with the name, use "adult film" instead of "pornographic".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm rather puzzled as to why you object to the disambig of "sex worker". "Sex worker" is a term that was coined by a sex worker activist, and it is widely used by the World Health Organization, and it encompasses pornographic actresses, strippers, and adult models, as well as other occupations in the sex industry. I'm also puzzled as to why you object to the disambig of (person) for Belladonna, as I started using that disambig as much as possible for pornographic actors because it is humanizing, and it also encompasses her career as a businesswoman and director. I'm also puzzled as to why you think the term "sex worker" would be a possible BLP issue since Kirsten Price is famous FOR BEING a sex worker in the first place, and the article contains citations that clearly show that Price is a sex worker. Anyway, as it seems we have reached an impasse, I am considering putting in a request for comment on the "pornographic actors" category itself so we can ultimately resolve this issue. Asarelah (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's worse than "pornographic actress".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll just move Price's article to "sex worker" since that term also encompasses her career as a stripper and adult model. Asarelah (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Move the other ones to "actress" then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Chak, I have no idea what your talking about. There are plenty of articles with the term "pornographic" in the title. Anyway, Ryulong, you do have a point, but since there are several other articles in that category with the disambig "pornographic actress", it seems inconsistent with the rest of the category. Are you okay with the disambig of "sex worker" instead? Asarelah (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Article Protection?
Hey there, I have evaluated the editing history in List of Pokémon: Black & White episodes. Unfortunately, after my evaluation, I have seen an increase in reverting edits in that article. (See also the article's talk page.) Either way, I will keep watch of that article/talk page (and related articles), and I do pledge to take action against users who chooses to vandalize articles that I am currently monitoring (such as the one mentioned herein). CHAK 001 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot do anything about this. Please request protection through normal means.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Chaktomuk Era
Hi, I was curious where did you get your information for this article (Chartomok Era)? As far as I know, this term refers to the period of Phnom Penh, hence Krong Chaktomuk and all the other places named after it like Chaktomuk Conference Hall. Which is contrary to info you added to the article. I'm not saying I'm right, but I would like to get a referenced source so I can refer to this term in the correct sense in one article I am editing. --Dara (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have never edited that page. And I do not know how you found me from it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I was at User_talk:Ddd1600 and had assumed your page was that user's secondary account. My fault for just skimming through it (I hasn't realize it was a welcome message XD). --Dara (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I was at User_talk:Ddd1600 and had assumed your page was that user's secondary account. My fault for just skimming through it (I hasn't realize it was a welcome message XD). --Dara (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Super Sentai Bazooka
What are we to do with the Super Sentai Bazooka? Will we put it in Gokaigers or Goseigers? Should it be a seperate section? ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- this. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 18:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Movie only.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- And? ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 18:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be described anywhere but on the movie page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- And? ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 18:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Movie only.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- this. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 18:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting a section of the "35 Sentai Robo" (tentative) in the Gokaigers article, and even maybe the Goseiger srticle but it would make more sense if it were in the Gokaigers aticle other than the movie article. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. Anything in the movie belongs with the movie.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not to be assertive, but how are we going to cover 35 Sentai Robo in the movie article when it is better to put it in the Gokaigers article as it is possibly the Gokaioh combining with all the core mecha. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can wait for the damn movie to come out before we have to decide on anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry... ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's just that we have nothing on it and you're already planning on where the information should go. We do not need to put anything into writing this far before the movie comes out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's kind of a habit I have. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's hold off.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's kind of a habit I have. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's just that we have nothing on it and you're already planning on where the information should go. We do not need to put anything into writing this far before the movie comes out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry... ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can wait for the damn movie to come out before we have to decide on anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not to be assertive, but how are we going to cover 35 Sentai Robo in the movie article when it is better to put it in the Gokaigers article as it is possibly the Gokaioh combining with all the core mecha. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
In regard to this user page, if you believe it should be deleted, please take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If it should be deleted, I don't think it should be a speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Amazing Race China Rush 2
As you're like The Amazing Race guy, do you have any plans to start a page for the Second China Rush season? Its currently filming as noted by Allan Wus blog and various websites, yet it currently doesn't have a page on Wikipedia yet, I figured il'd ask you as you're like the best TAR editor on here 82.15.8.146 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- We need sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Best place I can find is here, Allan Wu has posted information, and pictures of the filming crew and locations and notes the race has started http://www.wulander.com/2011/05/the-amazing-race-china-rush-has-begun/ 82.15.8.146 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Point this out to User:Intoronto1125 and he will work on it. I am not knowledged in the non-American editions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Best place I can find is here, Allan Wu has posted information, and pictures of the filming crew and locations and notes the race has started http://www.wulander.com/2011/05/the-amazing-race-china-rush-has-begun/ 82.15.8.146 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Takagarooba
It's from Telebi Mangazine.72.184.129.252 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- That issue isn't out yet so we cannot put anything from it on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is for the OOO HBV, and it is Televi-Kun not Televi-Magazine. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wherever the hell it's from, the issue isn't out yet so we're not covering it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just sayin'. Anyway how do you think we should put Takagarooba (and Takatoragaroo) in the article? Not now of course. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Same way we have Takapanba.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think Takagarooba should be special. As this Combo is are advertized more along with Burakawani. Plus, it is the Hyper Battle Video. I think it should have a seperate section. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 13:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Burakawani is the movie form and it's getting coverage in the July TVKun. The Kangaroo crap is going to be HBV only and will be treated like any other HBV only item.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think Takagarooba should be special. As this Combo is are advertized more along with Burakawani. Plus, it is the Hyper Battle Video. I think it should have a seperate section. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 13:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Same way we have Takapanba.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just sayin'. Anyway how do you think we should put Takagarooba (and Takatoragaroo) in the article? Not now of course. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wherever the hell it's from, the issue isn't out yet so we're not covering it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is for the OOO HBV, and it is Televi-Kun not Televi-Magazine. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)