Talk:Ultraman (1966 TV series)

Stop Changing the damn title card!

Whoever keeps swapping the title card with the picture of Ultraman and Gyango. Stop!!! The title card goes on the top, all other pictures belong on the bottom!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No Picture of Ultraman?!

How is there no picture of Ultraman on this page??

--

Better storyline than the sentai shows?

No two Ultraman shows seems alike from my watching of the series, the show could be carried without help(lets not hope not). I think it should be noted that every Ultraman series differs from the other shows in the Japan because it lacks an everyplot thus making it similar to shows like the X-files and Star Trek rather than the stock Kaiju shows in Japan. Anyone else agree? Although Ultraman episodes end with him beating the monster, he does it in different ways. Sometimes they don't fight at all...sometimes the science patrol wins with minimal help from red and silver etc etc.

• I absolutely disagree... Original Ultraman is just a weekly monster-a-day show. I love the shows, but the originals are just same old every generation. Suredeath 13:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions:

1. What is a VTOL?
2. Ultraman Great @ Ultraman Towards the Future - is that @ correct?
3. What does the last sentence mean? How do more than one Ultraman appear?
4. Why was the original title of this article UltraSeven/Ultraman? What is UltraSeven? -- Zoe

---

Is this the favorite hero of Shin-Chan, Shinosuke or whatever that anime child is called? -- Error

No it's not, Shin-chan's favorite hero is called Action Kamen -- Zaim

---

Answers for Zoe from Joe Sewell, editor/author of The Ultra[man] FAQ:

1. VTOL stands for Vertical Take-Off and Landing. It refers to an aircraft that can lift off and land without a runway. The vehicle Hayata was in was called a Jet VTOL, often mispronounced "Jet Beetle" (since Japanese has no real "V" sound).
2. The @ is, indeed, not correct; my recent edit corrects this.
3. I suspect the comment about the last sentence refers to a previous version, but just in case it's still not clear ... Series in Japan tend not to be renewed, as they are in the United States of America, but get sequel series. For example, Dragon Ball Z is a sequel series to the original Dragon Ball. The various Ultra-series were, for the most part, sequels to their predecessor(s).
4. Ultraseven is the second "Ultra-brother" to appear. The series of the same name was the sequel to Ultraman. Neither Ultraman nor Hayata appeared in Ultraseven, although both appeared in later series. Perhaps I should create a list of all the different series and/or Ultras in each one? (Oh, there can be more than one Ultra around, too; each one is a separate individual.)

Joe Sewell 16:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I actually played as an extra in Ultraman Millenium Live Show in Bangkok and I got some pictures, of which one has 2 actors wearing Ultraman suites, I made the pictures so the copyright lies with me. I want to upload them, do you think it will be a problem? (as the show was organized by the Thai company in a legal battle with the Japanese company)Waerth 09:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm relatively new here, so I probably should let one of the "experts" handle this, but as I understand it, you might be better off uploading those pictures to a more private area, such as one of the Yahoo! Groups that deal with Ultraman. --Joe Sewell 21:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No complaints were heard on the Dutch wiki where I put the picture on my personal page, so I just go for it. Waerth 08:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I type corrected, then. Go for it! --Joe Sewell 13:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Removing picture

Can the anon in the 61 range please stop removing the picture on this page?? thx. Waerth 12:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The picture of Ultraseven and Ultramother should be deleted, since this article belongs more to the original Ultraman series than to the whole franchise. We've got the Ultra Series article now. Black Condor 19:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove most of the "dispute" section

April 4, 2005, I'm concerned that I may get into an EDIT war with someone very passionate for Tsuburaya. A bunch of info was added that was mostly speculation.

---

Actually, as of this writing (8/4/2005), the section is as fair, balanced and truthful as it gets. Whoever edited it put it much more eloquently than I could.  :)

Personally, I am very passionate for Tsuburaya. Chaiyo is a bunch of con-artists. The article seen on the Thai newspaper THE NATION (about Sompote Saengdeunchai's "court victory" and Tsuburaya's subsequently facing "financial difficulties") was a big lie, and it has gone too far.

FYI, as for the part where Sompote and his son Pirasith could go to jail for 5 years if they lose, it came from this article (which explains his side of the story):

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/life/0,8782,185619,00.html

And remember, this is the same guy who asked Toei for permission to do a Kamen Rider movie. When Toei refused, Chaiyo did it anyway: Hanuman and the 5 Riders. I guess Toei knew better . . .

Ryuuseipro

Too much detail?

I see someone added tons of detail about the original Ultraman. Should we keep it, move it to a new Ultra-specific page, or what? (If the latter, we probably should flesh out the other Ultra-warriors' stories, too.)

I tried to change some of the wording to indicate this isn't the only Ultraman around. --Joe Sewell 16:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I notice there are links to all the other Ultraman series, which causes me to think we should have separate pages. Perhaps the individual who provided all the detail from the first series would like to move it to a new page, named "Ultraman (original)" or something like that? --Joe Sewell 01:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article was way too heavy with details (re: Monster names, explanations, etc.) this is a simple article for basic information, not an actual guidebook, or show bible. Most of the information can be found on fansites all over the web. I edited it down to make it more streamline, and easier to wade through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.31.108 (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't amputate, transplant instead

Imagine if I were to recall that on some episode Ultraman sprayed a monster with water and came here to find out which one. What would it benefit me to know that Ultraman had a water spraying capability with mention of against whom it was used? Fans are going to be the reader of this article. Episodes and monsters are exactly what is called for. They will want this sort of information. You can't realistically link to some fanbook and say Ultraman can spray water, for details, see elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia and encyclo- means all encompassing. I recognize your good faith intention to keep this article wieldy, but simply cutting out the concrete details is not the way to improve an article like this. It would become useless to fans and non-fans will not read this article anyway. Try condensing verbose statements, repeated and redundant mentions of the same detail, without deleting the relevant details entirely. Or, if you find this article too big, move the details to a new, more focused article or articles, perhaps the separate article List of Ultraman Episodes, and List of Ultraman powers. If you need help creating your first article, read Wikipedia:Your first article or let me or someone else know. That is the valid way to handle unwieldy articles; transplantation, not amputation.μηδείς (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the material is unsourced. But then so is the rest of the article, as are almost all articles in the Japanese sci-fi genres. There are dozens of books on these series & films in Japanese, and a few have been written in English lately also. I've got quite a lot of old Japanese material on this genre, but have avoided working on these articles because they seem to be "owned" by editor(s) who will zealously enforce editor-made spelling/formatting nonsense while leaving the articles... unsourced. You are correct though, I believe, that when an article gets too detailed, we should break that detail off to a separate article. Unfortunately, again, I've seen stand-alone articles on subjects related to Ultraman be created and then deleted. Again, they could be sourced easily, but this Inclusion/Deletion nonsense makes it just an irritating game. And encyclopedia should be as encyclopedic as its materials allow. To intentionally do less, and to delete good work other have done, is censorship. Dekkappai (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not all material requires third party citations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citationsμηδείς (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's one of the most irresponsible guidelines in all the nonsensical editor-written WP rules & regulations. It openly mandates original research, it encourages sneaky, difficult to find vandalism, and it is simply lazy. If any one of the unsourced, over-detailed sections at this article were rightly broken off to a stand-alone, it would be deleted for lack of sourcing. Just shows the shoddiness of the thinking behind this guideline-- and it's significant that those claiming to be "Deletionist" often support it. Dekkappai (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The concrete details were not cut away. The names of the abilities (Japanese and English) were kept, as were the descriptions of how they worked. That is all that is needed in a list of powers and abilities. Specific, detailed examples, monsters the powers were used against, ways they were counteracted, etc, do not belong there. Otherwise you have mounds of expositional text that just turns into an unreadable mess. While fans of the show may be the primary readers of this article, it still has to be accessable to the general public. I like the suggestion of a detailed episode/monster/power article, but that is a job for someone else to tackle.Enelsonian (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Enelsonian

So, Dekkappai, can you let us know what you really think on the issue? :D

That a work of fiction itself should be a proper source for its own plot details is reasonable. It is not like there is no reference, the work of fiction is itself the most authoritative reference. You still have to specify the episode or chapter. The material is subject to verification by reference to the work. No one is prevented from checking the facts for himself if he likes. I actually had to rent and watch Blue Velvet to confirm some plot details for the article. It was, admittedly, quite unpleasant. (I have always loved Isabella Rossellini, but the movie is pretentious and its supposedly shocking material is actually quite laughable, as is the interaction between Dern and MacLaughlin.) But I was able to obtain what I needed. Not all works have plot summaries available, and the work itself is always they highest authority even when they do exist. And commentary and analysis still require secondary sources. Perhaps people will make things up, and they can always invent references or attribute to real references claims which they do not actually make, but, in the end, that is always dealt with in the same way, by the oversight of other editors. No mere rule can prevent malfeasance without vigilant human oversight.μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading throught this article, as it was 2 days ago was a chore. There were too many instances of bad grammar, shift in tense, and way, way too much information crammed into it. I'm sure the person who added the info on the monsters, and examples of Ultraman's usage of various powers wanted to help by finding and posting the information, but this article is not the place. If a person wants to know What Ultraman can do, they can look at a list of abilities, and a brief description, if they want more they should be directed to a different section (as suggested above), they shouldn't have to wade through paragraph after paragraph of monster names and examples of how he used the ability and how it was counteracted, etc. Simply put, the article was too fat, and needed a lot of trimming to make it more readable, and at the same time retain the basic information needed. If the person who supplied the monsters and information would like to set up a seperate entry (an episode/monster/power guide) then they should, as that is where most of this information belongs. And for those who are crying censorship, I suggest you re-examine the definition of the word before you start throwing it around willy-nilly in discussion. Enelsonian (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Enelsonian

I encourage you to address any instances of bad grammar and poor style. But according to the policy on plot summaries we are either required to state in which episode an event occurs, or to provide a citation from a secondary source. A list of powers without either verifiable and notable secondary references or references to the plot violates the policy on citations of fictional works. "For consolidated articles discussing a work published or broadcast in a serial form, a citation to the individual episode is appropriate to help readers to verify the summary." Monsters in Ultraman episodes are notable by definition (monstrum monstrare means to show) and providing the name of the monster against whom a power is used serves the necessary end of identifying the episode. Deleting these references, rather than perhaps converting them into chart form, is simply unacceptable. If you do not provide a specific reference for each power then you cannot delete references to the specific plots.

You are right that censorship is the improper word for your actions. The proper word is vandalism.μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion then, Get off your high horse, stop restoring a poorly written article and create a table or chart or section that goes into more detail. All of that information does not need to be there. Period. And nice try with the vandalism accusation. Vandalism is what was cleaned up a few days ago (check article history). Editing down unneeded information is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelsonian (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please maintain civility. I am not required to edit at your command. Good faith edits are not vandalism. But removing references to specific episodes after you have been reminded that policy on fiction articles requires that plot elements be identified amounts to vandalism. You are the one who wants to delete. Rather than keep doing the same old illegitimate deletion, try a more focused deletion that leaves in references that identify the episode to readers. Otherwise we will simply have to delete the list of powers as unreferenced.μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And what you are requesting will make this article read as if it was written by a Junior High Student with no training in formal writing. This article as it is now, is, to be be generous, amateurish at best, at worst absolute trash. There is too much information to make this easy to read, or understandable except by the most ardent fanboy. The items I removed were, for the most part, names of monsters, and plot points, which again, have no place in a list of powers. The simple fact is stated on the heading that these powers were demonstrated in the tv series itself, should stand as source of reference that is all encompassing. Your ability to spout quaint phrases, give reminders to remain civil, and cry vandalism is quite good, but it seems your ability to remain objective, and see the whole picture regarding the horrible state of this article, and the need for severe editing is quite lacking. If you can't see that this article needs work, then you are being purposely obtuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelsonian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maintain civility and assume good faith. I have nowhere said that the article is ideal, and I agree entirely that there is plenty of poor writing. The problem is that when one mentions such things as the ability to shoot water one either has reference it, either to a secondary source or to the episode itself. Something like this is fine: "Ultraman has the ability to spray water, called "Ultra-Shower". In My Home is Earth he used it to attack the mutated human monster Jamila, killing him." That is superior to a lot of poor prose. But if we remove any reference to the episode in which the ability is used it has to then have a formal ref from a notable source. This is all very simple. In the meantime, we simply cannot remove relevant and notable material wholesale with repeated reversions of same wholsale deletion. As I said,if you have the time and desire, try doing the edit without deleting references to episodes or the monsters they featured.μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirby/Ultraman question

Dear author: On your Ultraman page, it mentioned that one of the episodes of Kirby Right Back at Ya' had a reference to Ultraman in it. Which episode (name/number) was it? Can you give me some detail on what happened in this episode? Thanks. ---Solara

Issues with Godzilla?

I noticed that some contributors cut out much of the parts that explain Godzilla in them (BTW, these were my contributions).

I don't exactly know why people have issues with my mentioning Godzilla in this Ultraman article. I'm thinking maybe because he doesn't "fit in" the superhero agenda (especially since the original Ultraman is, first and foremost, a science fiction series, not just a superhero show). Maybe I'm telling people what they don't want to hear - the truth.

Then you're going to find that Godzilla will get quite a bit of mention in the Ultraman article, becuase his (and other Toho tokusatsu) influence to the original series (and perhaps the entire Ultra Series) cannot be denied. For several reasons, which I intend to include in the article:

• He and Ultraman were created by Japan's FX wizard Eiji Tsuburaya (this was already covered in the article).
• He inspired the many maurauding monsters on the show, just like in Ultra Q. (In fact, like said show, some people in Japan call Ultraman a "giant monster show", which it essentially is!)
• Like in Ultra Q, he made an appearance on the show (as another monster).
• He and Ultraman are the two greatest tokusatsu icons in and out of Japan, especially in America. (And besides, how many people in the US even know about Kamen Rider, Japan's other greatest superhero, and not confuse him with Ultraman?)

I am in no way trying to push Godzilla on Ultraman fans. I am a very big fan of both Godzilla and Ultraman (not to mention Eiji Tsuburaya). It cannot hurt to do an analysis of Godzilla's influence on the creation and being of Ultraman (and it's been done many times by Japanese fans also). You could be doing the same thing by comparing this show (as well as Ultra Q and Ultra Seven) to shows by Gerry Anderson, which were also an influence to this show (which is evident, as Eiji was a big fan of his shows).

What do you think?

Ryuuseipro

I'd have to go back through the history to see just how much got cut, but it's pretty obvious that this page is slowly mutating to something beyond a description of the entire genre. I agree that Godzilla is an important influence, especially in the USA, but I'm not sure now how it would fit in. I would suggest omitting the part about Godzilla "making an appearance on the show." --Joe Sewell 16:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we move many of the info to Ultra series page

I think that some of the introduction, the ultra phenomenon, and whole legal dispute section should be move to the ultra series page in my opinion. This should be about the first Ultraman, not the the whole series... which we do have an article on.

---

Okinawan Background

Should information on the Okinawan ties of Ultraman be tied into this page? Or somewhere else?

---

Ultraman monsters

I'm the guy who keeps adding heaping portions of detail on the original Ultraman over the past few months (since about December 2005), and as time permits, I continue to flesh out individual monsters and the episode plots each was a part of. I hope that's okay with the "keeper" of this page; I'm not sure if that person is Joe Sewell, who I see has numerous entries in the discussion section. Bottom line, I do not mind if these entries are eventually incorporated into the Ultraman page instead of remaining separate. I just figured the Ultraman page itself was getting kind of overloaded (and that's partly my fault as well, for adding several entries on Ultraman's powers.) - MattBattison

5/22/06: I realize that someone else here is also going to the trouble of describing some of these monsters. That's great, in terms of cutting down my work and still achieving the objective of being informative about Ultraman monsters. I would just ask that whomever is erasing my descriptions completely, sometimes replacing them (Gomora), sometimes not (Hidora), please consider incorporating what I have written along with any information like the "stats." A detailed description of the plot for Gomora was blown away in favor of a completely different account of it, and many of the details were lost. Where I come from, that's not editing. The two accounts could have been merged to flesh out more details overall. I did the same in some pre-existing descriptions for other Ultraman monsters; where someone else's description was sufficient, I either added to it (Z-ton) or left it completely alone (Baltan). At least the Gomora description is on the mark. My description of Hidora was simply deleted.

I have also noticed "flags" on other entries I have made for monsters (such as Dorako) suggesting that I incorporate the information into the Ultraman page. If the "keeper" of all things Ultraman on Wikipedia wishes to do so, I have no objection. I will not do it myself, partly out of respect to those who constructed the Ultraman page in the first place, and partly out of my newness to the system and etiquette. I wouldn't want to presume how they would like the information (re-)organized, while still presented in its entirety.

I have also received a flag on my Bullton entry to "wikify" the monster description. Again, I'm not a battle-tested veteran of Wikipedia, but I believe I have followed the instructions. My entry may not have all the bells and whistles that the Baltan and Bemular entries have -- I do not own the rights to pictures of any of these monsters -- but it remains functional. By all means, if there's something missing from the structure of this entry, please respond here in specifics, and I will do what I can.

I have read the rules, and parroted existing structure as a primer for learning the system, but if someone wants to contribute pointers or work further on what i have contributed that's fine with me -- hopefully they do so without completely destroying information I have provided. - MattBattison

6/14/06: I think I'm done helping out. Paging through to see what's happened lately, I noticed that descriptions I left for Aboras and Bullton have been linked in a vicious circle back to the Ultraman page, instead of to the information I wrote. I could understand if it linked to better substantiated info, but the current set-up is a disservice to everybody. I have also been asked to document/cite sources my entry for Banila. I watched the video and took notes. That's about as direct a form of documentation as I can provide, but I realize that may not be what Wikipedia expects. Oh well. I guess some badly translated Japanese account of the episode will be cited sometime later, and that will have to suffice. Siyonara. - MattBattison

Have you thought to even try and confront the person doing so? Or, as I would suggest, making a single "Ultra Kaiju" article? -- Majin Gojira 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MattBattison. I noticed the absurd situation in re the Ultramonsters on this page just the other day. Click on any one of them and you are redirected back to this same page. This is clearly wrong. I see now that you had individual articles for each of the monsters. I think this is fine. Or, as Majin Gojira suggests, one Ultra-monster article with some sort of table/description/image (if we dare) on each of them. Either way would work, but the present re-redirecting situation certainly does not work. Most of the redirects were done without justification, I notice one says "not notable." I would question that. And if these monster characters are determined to be not notable, certainly a group "Ultra kaiju" would still be justified. -- Rizzleboffin 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I jumped the gun and already started to work on one, though my knowledge is very limited, it's little more than an incomplete list of Ultraman monsters - Majin Gojira 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

7/31/06: My thanks to Majin Gojira and Rizzleboffin for your points. This is the first time in a long time that I visited to see what's happening. I do not know who destroyed the monster descriptions, but since the damage hasn't continued, I'll try to get back to reconstructing them. If a reasonably good explanation is put up already, I won't quibble on the details. As always, I am completely open to this info being pasted into the Ultra Series or Kaiju pages. - MattBattison

A lot (all?) of the monster links redirect back to the Ultraman page... Not exactly useful! 84.68.159.186 21:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultraman Shadow

Ever heard of Ultraman Shadow?He is the evil ultraman zearth.67.175.138.202 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... on the ultraman zearth's page.Suredeath 11:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seo Taiji Album/Song Ultraman

Seo Taiji (a huge korean rockstar) has an album with a song called Ultramania which deals with Ultraman. I don't know if it should be mentioned here though... a link to translated lyrics are: http://taijimania.org/english/html/album6.htm#7 85.8.13.99 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Zoffy?

I see several references to "Zoffy" in the article but there is no explanation or link of who he is.

In answer to your question, Zoffy appears in the original Ultraman television series, though he is not identified as such. He was Ultraman's mentor, and he rescues Ultraman after his battle with Zetton (Z-ton). Some sources, although I cannot confirm them, have claimed he is a relative, possibly Ultraman's big brother, cousin, or uncle. He is very similar in appearance to Ultraman, but has a series of rivet-like bumps in a U-shape across his chest. MattBattison 13:15, 11 July 2007

The references you mention are plentiful; they come often from "background story" provided unofficially by Tsuburaya Productions or some of their employees, though some of the manga stories claim to include some of the back-story as well. Whether they're considered canonical or not is up to the individual. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultraman logo.jpg

Image:Ultraman logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Arashi in the US

I believe the notation that Arashi was called "Iyoshi Ishii" in the US is incorrect. The actor may have been called that, but the character's name was rendered Arashi, even in the US. (This is from memory, though, so I cannot provide citations to "prove" it.) --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The original Ultraman show in the U.S.

I heard that this show was brought to the U.S. during the time the 1960s Batman television series went on the air, but never did succeed well enough to have several its successors brought outside of Japan until one or two others like Ultraman Tiga came over. I looked in this article and don't see any information about the show's runs outside of Japan, should this article include information about the U.S. version or not? Parrothead1983 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this version of the show http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068145/fullcredits#cast with no japanese people in it?It should get a mention I think as well. 66.189.38.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

image

This article definitely deserves a good fair use image. I have taken a screenshot I think is especially illustrative since it shows Ultraman in the context of a fight with a monster amid buildings to demonstrate scale. I think the picture would actually serve as a much better main image than the current logo, but am adding it lower in the text to ask for comments before replacing the current one. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We've had slow motion edit warring over this for almost three years now. This is the English wikipedia, and an illustrative image for the infobox is appropriate. The Japanes title will be meaningless to most readers of the article, and conveys no informations about the title character or the nature of the show. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, why can't we have a title card at the top instead of a picture. All the other "Ultra" Pages have title cards at the top. Why not Ultraman. 00717F (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly you're both wrong. The title card should be in the infobox itself and it does not matter that it's in Japanese. It still illustrates the article by identifying the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The "40th Ultraman Episode".

Currently, for the episode list of Ultraman, the 1996 film Revive! Ultraman is listed as the 40th episode.... which it isn't. I've personally never seen Tsuburaya Productions list it as a 40th episode of the original Ultraman.

I thought that I should post something here before removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zemistar (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why Can't We Have a Title Card at the Top?

Seriously, why can't we have a title card at the top instead of a picture. All the other "Ultra" Pages have title cards at the top. Why not Ultraman. Continuity people!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As you see, we have had the title card at the top for a few weeks with ultraman's image. I prefer the English card, but will leave the Japanese card since the English name is given. In any case, readers should see the image of ultraman himself, since they may recognize it while not recognizing the japanese title card. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is not the place for such content as it is not indicative of the entirety of the program. The screenshot works fine in the article proper, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, stop putting the Gyango screencap in the infobox and stop moving the title cards around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And fine Medeis, here are all the messages I sent you regarding this page on your user talk that you demand be here rather than there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please use the television program's title card in the infobox and a photo of the character in the article itself. Not the other way around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, the title card belongs in the infobox. Not a screencap from the TV show. And just because the title card is Japanese does not mean it's not to be used. Also, the English language title card should not be in the "title" parameter of the infobox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And at this point, you have to recognize that you have had your preferred version reverted by multiple editors over the course of 3 years since you uploaded File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG. Give it a rest already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing about your file. It's still too big. Non-free images on Wikipedia should be as small as they can be (generally the auto thumbnail size) which means 600x500 or whatever it is too big. Whenever I upload things like this I make the max width 300 pixels because non-free images like these usually show up as 220 or 250 pixels wide. And stop futzing around with the article's images. You've been reverted by multiple editors over the course of 3 years. Take a hint that your version isn't the one that everyone wants. Hell, Gyango isn't even a particularly iconic Ultra Monster. You don't have anything of Baltan or Dada or Pigmon?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the article about the race?

I came here to find out about the race in Hawaii. Normally there is a link at the top of the page if you go to the wrong page with the same title, but I can't find out where the Ultraman race is. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.129.119 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

non-free unlicensed images

Please do not add images described as public domain that were made in the 1960, or describe as "screenshots" unlicensed images taken from commercial websites. See WP:FAIRUSE. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What do these things matter? If it's a screenshot it's a screenshot. You just seem to be intent at this stage on keeping the Gyango one on the article because you uploaded it 3 years ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with one that is completely different, has proper sourcing, and shows the character more clearer than either your screencap or the ones uploaded by Teridax. Now drop it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see a "new" editor who's never editted this article and whose edit history matches that of banned user ryulong has decided not only to make ryulong's upload of costumed people in a trade show the main picture, he's also deleted a screen captue actually showing ultraman in action in an episode. I'd suggest leaving the sreen capture as the main image and allowing ryulong's picture to remain, although it does not depict the "actual" character in an "actual" situation. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The screenshot sucks. The convention pic has the main character front and center. We don't need an "action" shot. - Strongjam (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair use (1) only allows one picture, and (2) requires that it illustrate some relevant aspect of the subject discussed in the text. That Ultraman is a giant being who fights godzilla-like monsters is a relevant aspect mentioned in the text, the Tokyo festival is not--that picture of two people on a stage in a convention hall would be fine for an article on the Tokyo festival. Complaining about the quality of the picture is off topic, only low-res cropped images under a certain size can be used, as Diannaa has explained. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My problem with the screenshot is that Ultraman is not the main subject of the picture, only occupying the left third of the frame. The press event shot has features Ultraman front and centre and as it's a press kit shot the fair use case for using that is stronger then a still from a copyrighted broadcast. — Strongjam (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'll repeat, No trademarked or copyrighted material is of valid use unless it is commented upon in the text of the article. Since one cannot accurately describe ultraman in words, a picture is entirely reasonable, and a low quality picture with commentary in the text meets this requirement. But it is perfectly simply to say that a title card says "ultra man" in white letters on a red background without having a picture. Second, there's no policy that a text-only title card be used in an infobox, only a suggestion that a show's titlecard be used if it is iconic. See, for example, the title card for The Lone Ranger. Third, uploading another copy of the same file under a different file name will simply get one blocked for disruption and non-free use violation. Having two copies of a titlecard and no image of the character in an article is simple unhelpful. Edit warring to keep an non-free image and remove a fair use image will simply draw the attention of the administrator's notice board and a sock-puppet inverstigation, and result in sanctions. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The pictures of the title cards are free because they are just text on a background so there is nothing extra needed. And you need to stop adding your screencap into the infobox. The infobox is for title cards. That picture of Ultraman and Gyango belong next to text describing what Ultraman looks like. Look at any other page on TV shows and you see that they're set up in the same way. Title card in the infobox. Other images in the rest of the article. You are the one who should be sanctioned μηδείς because it looks like you've been fighting over this for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1700:516E:A49C:E96B:123E:FA6A (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit War on the page

It seems to me that User:Medeis feels the need to monopolize the page. Any new edits made and he reverts them back to his version and the centerpiece of these edits are his constant needs to add and re-add his image (which he's uploaded years ago) into the infobox, which is not an appropriate spot for such a picture. Like I've stated before, wiki's infobox TV guidelines states that a title card should typically be used for the infobox's image, however, Medeis keeps adding the Gyango image instead, always referring to wiki's MOS (never specifying which rule) as his justification, however, WP:TVIMAGE clearly states this, The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. Looking at the page's history, this same edit has been reverted by multiple editors. I've placed his image under the HEROES & MONSTERS section of the article (as a compromise) because I believe it's an appropriate spot because the image illustrates the subject of the section, which is heroes and monsters and exactly what the picture shows but again, Medeis reverted back to his version with the gyango picture in the infobox, claiming that the "named character belongs in infobox", which wiki's guidelines/rules DO NOT STATE. A consensus must be reached before this completely turns into an all out edit war. If no consensus or compromise can be reached, I think it would be fair to bring a third opinion to help settle this. Armegon (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

He did it again. He's been doing this forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1700:516E:A49C:E96B:123E:FA6A (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Armegon I think it's obvious that Medeis doesn't care about third opinions because of how long he has been fighting over this one screencap being in the infobox. There are so many messages on this page left by other people asking why the Ultraman and Gyango picture is at the top while the title cards aren't, and the title cards are apparently free too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_April_23#File:Ultraman_English_Language_Title_Card.jpg Medeis just wants to be special and have his picture on the page or else no one has their picture on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1700:516E:A49C:E96B:123E:FA6A (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Medeis still doesn't want to listen to anyone else. He keeps adding that bad picture when people have been getting rid of it over and over again. He just wants his screencap at the top of the page and saying everyone is a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1700:516E:9015:C39E:5C31:E615 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• The characterization above is false, I have not been removing both title cards from the infobox, just using the combo titlebox/screenshot. Also, the guidelines do not mandate a titlebox or a titlebox alone or disallow a picture of the title character. Nor have I reverted textual changes to the article. The article has gone for months at a time in this state with the dual card and image, I think its funny to be accused of edit warring when the last four edits on the page besides mine have been anonymous single purpose IP's one of which was just blocked for two years as a proxy. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of image(s) for infobox

Hopefully we can finally settle this. Once again, I must stress that the infobox image should only represent the show's title card, per WP:TVIMAGE and the very fact that the article is about the show and not the character, so an image showing the character is not the best image for the infobox. User:IJBall, I hope you can still lend your help on this matter. Armegon (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I'd like to hear the point of view Medeis, before I offer any of my own comments... --IJBall (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, Armegon is insisting on a non-existent standard. If you go back through the article history, you will see that when I first uploaded the image of Ultraman, I replaced the title card entirely. After some BRD I was happy to leave it with the title card as well as the picture of Ultraman in the infobox. The dual image infobox format was worked on and perfected by several users over time.

It's an elegant solution. After all, the article is about Ultraman the monster fighting hero, not about the title card. This is so obvious it's absurd to have to point it out. Users will wish to see who Ultraman is at the top of the article, without having to wonder if they scroll down will they see him. He is unique as far as superheroes goes, he's not some white guy in tights and a cape. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, for a "third party" opinion on this, here goes:

1. WP:TVIMAGE does seem to prefer using a 'title card' as the image in infoboxes, and they are widely used in TV series articles.
2. WP:TVIMAGE says nothing about using a second image in the Infobox, neither endorsing nor discouraging it. This is almost certainly not the only TV article that has more than a 'title card' image in the infobox (I think I've seen others, though I can't find any currently), though most seem to have only a 'title card' or DVD cover. Bottom line: I think use of a second image in the infobox is probably allowed, as long as it's the Consensus.
3. In any case, WP:TVIMAGE is a guideline, which means it should generally be followed, but it's not entirely "binding" either.

With that out of the way, now here are my specific opinions:

• I personally think two 'title card' images in the infobox is overkill.
• I strongly prefer using the English title card in the Infobox (it's the article's title, and under WP:ENGLISH I think it's the appropriate one to use) over the Japanese 'title card'.
• Medeis' image from the show itself should be used somewhere in the article, if not in the infobox.
• Whichever 'title card' is not used in the infobox should also be placed in the article somewhere.
• I have no strong feelings whether the infobox should contain just the 'title card' image, or the 'title card' and Medies's image.

So, I suspect on the most contentious issue, I may not be of much help, as I really don't object to the infobox having just one image, or two. --IJBall (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we follow the WP:TVIMAGE guidelines and limit ourselves to one infobox image. If we allow to even use a secondary image for the infobox, then where will it end? What if someone updates the secondary image with a new image and Medeis reverts the new image back to the one he uploaded? It would cause another edit war on the page and we'd be back here. This is what caused the issue in the first place, Medeis wanted his image to be the secondary image in the infobox while I (originally) wanted the English title card as the secondary image. Medeis' image is better suited for the "Heroes and Monsters" section of the article because the image itself illustrates the subject in question, the hero (Ultraman) and the monster. As IJBall said, WP:TVIMAGE is a guideline and it is meant to guide users in situations of uncertainty like the issue before us. I believe it is in the best interest of everyone and the article if the infobox image be limit to one image, again per WP:TVIMAGE. As I've said, if we allow a secondary image on the infobox, others will eventually want to replace the image with a new image they'd find better or favorable and given Medies' history of adding and re-adding his uploaded image back into the infobox, examples shown here, here, and here, the infobox image issue will never be settled and edit wars between users switching the secondary infobox image back and forth will never end. This is why I believe WP:TVIMAGE is the best solution. It is fair and it meets Wiki's TV guidelines criteria. Armegon (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are quoting a guideline suggestion as a policy requirement, and ignoring the template page itself which says an image relevant to the show is fine in the infobox. You simply say the same untruth louder and louder. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My preference is just the Japanese title card since it's a Japanese show, and then the English title card in the Story section as that's where the English dub is first mentioned. I don't feel that strongly about that though, and would be fine if that was swapped. The screencap with Gyango would fit perfectly with the Heroes and Monsters section. — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Strongjam. Armegon (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Both title cars can't be used, the policy on trademarked logos is that fair use allows only one usage. There's no reason to remove Ultraman from the infobox, he was there for months on end with no problem, the issue has however been argued on "I don't like it" by sock puppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 May 2015‎ (UTC)

The template page is a guide on how to set up a TV infobox. WP:TVIMAGE sets up the rules that a TV infobox should follow. It is not a matter of "I don't like it", it is a matter of meeting the encyclopedic standards of MOS:TV. Medeis, the fact that you're calling my arguments (based on official Wiki guidelines) as "untruth" just proves that your choosing to ignore Wiki's official MOS:TV guidelines because it does not meet the official criteria to keep your image in the infobox and as I've said it many times before, WP:TVIMAGE clearly states, "The image presented in the infobox of the main article SHOULD ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself". Additionally, that same paragraph also goes on to say that, "For episode articles, a screenshot may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate a significant element of the episode". With that being said, the appropriate spot(s) for Medeis' image is better suited somewhere else in the article or an article of the episode from which Medeis' image originates from, per WP:TVIMAGE guidelines. Armegon (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Both images are public domain, fair use has nothing to do with it. Both images can be used in the article without issue. — Strongjam (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I still think (strongly) the English title card should be used in the infobox – this is English Wikipedia, and WP:ENGLISH seems pretty straight-forward here (it's also how most readers will have come to know of the show – from the English-language dub). The fact that the origin of the show is Japanese is mentioned elsewhere, and that's where the Japanese language title card can go. --IJBall (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, unless I'm missing something, this article is actually light on info on when this show aired in the English-language world (e.g. when, and how) – that info actually needs to be added to the article... --IJBall (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• These points don't invalidate your comments, but you are missing several items. First, the gamergate crowd that were taken to arbcom recently (see Ryulong have long claimed ownership of the various Ultra- articles (Ultraseven, Ultraman Ace, and many others, and they all have Japanese language title cards as their infobox images. This did not become evident to me until I started trying to upload images of monsters that were mentioned in several series. The bottom line is that EVERY ULTRA- ARTICLE MUST HAVE A JAPANESE TITLE CARD AND ONLY A JAPANESE TITLE CARD for the header.

The second issue is that we have had endless edit warring from now banned users and edits by single purpose anonymous socks screaming in the edit summaries that we should not have that ugly picture of Ultraman in the head. Ryulong supported two unlicensed images as alternatives to it, both taken of the web but without proper attribution to the source, and hence both deleted as not fair use. The image I uploaded is the only one that has been uploaded with a proper license.

If another image showing Ultraman and a monster both in full view were easy to capture I'd have captured another, but that's a lot simpler in the imagination than it is in reality. Look on my talk page at the demands that I upload a better picture. The bottom line still remains that both a titlecard of whichever language and a picture of Ultraman fighting a monster have long been available in the infobox. There's no practical, policy, or user-friendly reason to change that, or to make readers scroll through half the article to see what Ultraman himself actually looks like. When whas the last time someone told you, "You have to watch this show, the opening credits are spectacular"? It's absolutely absurd. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Once again, the article is about the show, NOT THE CHARACTER. If this were an article completely dedicated to the character, like the Godzilla and Mario articles are, then yes, Medeis' pic would be appropriate for the infobox but unfortunately for Medeis, the article is ABOUT THE TELEVISION SHOW. Many TV show articles, like The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series), Daredevil (TV series), and Arrow (TV series) articles for example, follow the guidelines of WP:TVIMAGE, they all have the title card of the show as the image for the infobox. On top of that, each of those articles I've referenced have images representing the characters placed in latter sections of the article(s) and not in the infobox, examples shown here for Hulk, here for Daredevil, and here for Arrow.

Tell me, what makes the Ultraman article so different and special from those articles that its infobox must be above those articles and above WP:TVIMAGE guidelines? Medeis' reason for keeping his image in the infobox is so that readers don't "scroll through half the article to see what Ultraman himself actually looks like", which is a question of personal taste instead of meeting the encyclopedic standards of MOS:TV. Medeis, I challenge you to try to pull the same stuff on those articles as you have with the Ultraman article and I can guarantee you they'll remove your character-image from the infobox and strike you with the same guidelines I've been referencing, just go ahead and try it, if you truly believe your way is not wrong. There's no practical, policy, or user-friendly reason to keep Medeis image in the infobox but there are guidelines that clearly state that a title card "SHOULD" be used as the main image for TV infoboxes.

ANOTHER THING, it seems some of you think I'm in defense of keeping the English title card in the infobox? Honestly, I don't really mind if it stays or if it goes. My defense is simply keeping one image (the Japanese title card) in the infobox, rather than two. I agree that keeping two images is over-kill, however, if my 2-cents count for something, I'd rather see the English title card moved to a later section of the article. Armegon (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer the Japense title card as well, but IJBall makes a good point about WP:ENGLISH. If there is consensus to keep just the English title card in the infobox I'm fine with that. — Strongjam (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it as well. I'm still all for keeping the Japanese title card in the infobox because the show is Japanese after all and there's very little information about the English dubbed version. Armegon (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can make a new section about the English dub using what we can from these sources, here and here, and move the English title card to the new English dub section to illustrate the subject in question and keep the Japanese title card in the infobox, as I said before, since the show is Japanese. Armegon (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

English Title Card

Medeis There is no policy that restricts us to only one title card. They are free images from the commons. I believe you are referencing WP:TRADEMARK which says Note that non-free logos should only be used in the infoboxes of the primary article(s) to which they are affiliated. Note it says non-free logos. That is not the case here and doesn't apply. For example, the article on Dell freely makes use of 3 non-copyrighted trademark images without issue. — Strongjam (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually there is a policy which says stylized trademarks can only be used once per article and only in the info box. (And since the item is still for sale, neither trademarked logo is "in the public domain" as you have screamed above. The usage rationale is fair use, or there wouldn't even need to be a policy.) Didn't I link to that above? I'll do so again if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither image is tagged as fair use rationale, both are on Wiki commons and tagged as public domain (File:Ultraman Japanese TV Series Title Card.jpg, File:Ultraman English Language Title Card.jpg.) Feel free to link to any policy the restricts the usage of PD images, but I'm not aware of any. — Strongjam (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Should Ultraman have a character page?

Almost all of the Kamen Riders have a page dedicated to the titular rider of each series, I think that at least Ultraman and Ultraseven should also have their own pages dedicated to their own history, powers & abilities, etc. There is now a lot of places on the internet to find the necessary information about each character so that information can be sourced, e.g. the Japanese Wikipedia, Ultraman Wiki, and several forums and fan-subs of the series.

I feel that these characters deserve their own pages just as much as Superman or Godzilla because they are just as iconic and loved as them. Ultraman and Ultraseven were pioneers in Japanese monster craze back in the late 60's and it's safe to say that Kyodai Heros wouldn't be as popular with out the two crusaders from the Land of Light (the home of Ultraman and Ultraseven in Nebula M78). And they are still very popular today with over 40 spin-offs (composed of sequels show, side stories, and cartoons), and 19 movies with two additional short films. I think we really need to give these characters the credit they deserve.Teridax122 (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160707000946/http://m-78.jp/ultraheroes/ to http://m-78.jp/ultraheroes/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620001731/http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/eiji-tsuburaya-master-of-monsters-paperback.html to http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/eiji-tsuburaya-master-of-monsters-paperback.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

HD Non-Free Images

Not only has User:Armegon (Ryulong?) apparently claimed ownership over this page, he is posting hi-res non-free images specifically because they are HD. This violates the policy of WP:NONFREE and I am reverting both postings. I have no problem with adding a low-res image of a further monster, but "because I prefer it" is not a reason to violate fair use doctrine. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Medeis is accusing me of "claiming ownership" over the page yet he is the one who started an edit war. Medeis undid two of my edits and even threatened to have me blocked if I restored my edits, despite the fact that my edits meet wikipedia's image guidelines. The first image that Medeis removed was this one, I'll refer to it as the "Zetton image" from here on and it should also be noted that I did not upload the Zetton image, another editor did back in 2015. Medeis removed it twice, shown here and here. Claiming HD images are "forbidden" and citing WP:NONFREE (yet not specifying which rule has been violated) stating the image is not a "permissable low-res image", despite that fact that the image is indeed low-res because a bot reduced the size of the image in July 2015 and nothing in WP:NONFREE states that HD images are "forbidden". In fact, I found rules on that page that contradict Medeis' claim. WP:NONFREE states Non-free media must be from a published source; the unpublished non-free media is forbidden. Both images come from an officially publish source... the Japanese Blu-ray. Both images are non-free use yet WP:NFCI states that video screenshots that are non-free images may be used and have the tags have been filled to meet Wiki guidelines. Instead, Medeis kept restoring an image that he uploaded, shown here.

The second time Medeis removed one of my edits is shown here, which was an upgraded version of the title card taken from the Blu-ray, image shown here, claiming "tag unreferenced puffery" and that the image, is "low-res", despite that a Bot had already reduced the size of the image and the Media data/Non-free use rationale template has been filled out to meet Wiki guidelines.

I chose the Zetton image for the Monsters section, which highlights the making of the Ultraman and monsters suits, choreography, experience from the suit performers, etc. because it shows a clearer image of Ultraman and a monster, while Medeis' image seems like someone randomly paused the scene and just took a screenshot, it's not really the best image to illustrate Ultraman and monsters but Medeis refuses to let anyone remove his again because... again, he uploaded that image.

I chose to update the title card with a screenshot taken from the Blu-ray because the old title card desperately needed an upgrade but again, Medeis removed it because it's my edit, despite that it meets Wiki's guidelines. The Zetton image has been on the page since 2015, so why is Medeis choosing now to take action against it? Again, because it was part of my edit.

I've argued with Medeis before and I already know where this discussion is heading... a deadlock. So to avoid all that, it's best to discuss this issue with editors who've helped dispute a similar issue before... Strongjam, IJBall, you've helped in a matter like this before, also started by Medeis. I hope you both could bring your two cents on the matter? Teridax122, your two cents would be greatly appreciated as well. We are talking about the image you uploaded after all. Armegon (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I was summoned to this discussion by Armegon on my talk page. Firstly: An edit war takes more than one editor, and no matter who started it, all involved editors are responsible for their own edit-warring behaviour.

I've looked at the diffs, the page history, and the images provided, and... honestly, I'd go with the original image. It's not perfect, but it's perfectly workable (it didn't desperately [need] an upgrade) and the free-ness of the original image isn't disputed. The monsters section does not sorely need an image, but I personally have a slight preference for the Ep 11 image - I think it communicates more about the stylistic choices of the show and the construction of the costumes.

With all of that said, Medeis, this edit was unconstructive. In your haste to remove the image you also reverted a selection of good copyedits. Please take more care in future, hasty reverts often carry collateral damage which can lead to edit wars.

I urge you both to step away from editing the article for a while, and try to find common ground here on the talk page. You're obviously both WP:HERE to build an encyclopaedia, and you're obviously both passionate about the subject; There's no reason you two can't collaborate, instead of clashing with eachother. If you find yourselves unable to find consensus, I can recommend the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, where we provide mediation in content disputes.

Again, you're both constructive editors, I see no reason why you two can't bring this article to GA status if you work together. Please let me know if there's anything further you'd like my input on, and good luck! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 06:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie so does the Zetton image and HD title card even match the violations that Medeis claimed they had? Did they merit removal at all? Regarding the new title card image, If the file size is the problem, a bot has already reduced it. If the info provided for the Non-free use rationale is the issue, it has already been updated. With that being said, it should warrant to replace the old title card. Here are my recent edits on it. Armegon (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Armegon: You're not going to 'win' this on a technicality by proving "well actually, Medeis is wrong!" because that's not in the spirit of good teamwork. As demonstrated below, Medeis is trying to work with you on this. It'd be prudent to try and work with them, instead of edit-warring over replacing the title card with a functionally identical, but more legally controversial, image of the title card. There are no 'winners' in content disputes - Ultimately, we all lose, and the encyclopaedia is worse off because of it. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Armegon, I am not going to give any extra weight to a consensus built by recruiting another user to comment. The bottom line is this, per WP:NONFREE: extent of use. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). (Bolding by Medeis)

I have absolutely no problem with adding a low-res image of the Zetton encounter, as opposed to replacing an intentionally low res image with one an HD one you prefer. (Note that the Ruffian image had even been reduced in resolution by another editor for just the same fair-use rationale reason.) Please simply improve the article by adding an acceptably low-res version of Zetton. Having an example of one alien-type and one Gojira-type monster makes perfect sense to me. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Medeis, But the Zetton image and the improved title card are already low res! If you check the file history on both images, the original sizes have been reduced by bots, see here and here. The original size for the Zetton image was 493 KB but a bot reduced it to 191 KB. The original size for the improved title card was 4.58 MB but a bot reduced it to 129 KB. Are you saying they should be even lower in size? I've chosen to replace the old title card with a new one because a better version was available and there was no option to upload a new version on that file for some reason, so I had to upload the new one from scratch. The improved title card is more pristine, clearer, and properly cropped than the old one. Isn't that the whole point of contributing to Wikipedia? To improve articles wherever possible? Armegon (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me with your every comment, it's a form of harrassment that assumes I don't have the ability to follow my own watched pages. Why have you not added the Zetton image with some supporting text back to the article, as I suggested? I have never opposed this, just your willing to edit war over what you saw as a superior product while insisting that I had to start a talk page discussion to justify a long-established precedent. My only concern at this point would be where the image originated. Did you upload it from a screenshot you can verify? Is it from the Tsurubaya website? Or is it a copyvio from an Ultrawiki?

As long as you've got a proper provenance (and the image I uploaded was timestamped from a published DVD,) the resolution is lower than the original, and cropped, and you have added some text to the main article, please add it. Again, add does not mean replace. There's a rationale for showing the two general types of kaiju, and I think we should stick to that. μηδείς (talk)

My apologies. I'm not "pinging" you to harass you. Sometimes when someone replies back on a talk page, the other user doesn't receive a notification that his/her comment has been replied to. Anyways, like I said, I didn't upload the Zetton image. Someone else did but it's likely screenshot from the DVD. Just to clarify, you want to add the Zetton image with the Ruffian image? Armegon (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of Medeis' comments is that they want to add the Zetton image below (or above, it really doesn't matter) to the Ruffian image, and leave the original title card intact. I support this, I think it's the best way forward. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 00:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I restored the Zetton image to the Monsters section per our agreement but I do believe we should have a fair discussion about the improved title card. Looking at the old version's file history, it has been replaced with improved versions before. Even the Star Trek title card/logo has undergone various replacements with improved replacements for the last 7 years. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have slightly enlarged the monster images, 150px comes across as very small on my monitor. I see no reason to provide a higher-res title card. The characters are perfectly legible. On that basis I oppose a more high-resolution image, but not strongly, and am open to argument. Why do we need a higher res image? For example, is the current image illegible in other viewing formats? I edit from my laptop, and need reading glasses for some actual printed books, but not for wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess my argument might be considered weak here. I proposed the improved title card simply because it looks better than the previous versions. The red/white color grading has been fixed and keeps the colors in order, they're sharper and clearer. My initial thought was that when readers reach the page, the first thing they'll notice is the title card and with the old version, readers may have thought that the editors may have been too lazy to find a better version. My hope was to counter that belief with an improved title card taken from the Blu-ray. That's also another reason why I decided to do a massive clean-up on the page and actually write down information based on verified sources, so that the article can look good rather than looking like a Wika page filled with laziness and disordered with unsourced claims and fancruft. Like Alfie said, I'm passionate about the show and I wanted it to look good from every aspect, including the title card, even if it's a small thing to fight for. Not my best argument but it's the only one I can think of now but if you both oppose to changing the old version with the new title card, I won't fight it any longer. Armegon (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your work on the sources has been quite helpful. I think a very simple solution is to use the image from the bluray set at the same resolution as the current image from the dvd. That way it is not we who are choosing to depict their property at a higher resolution in our settings, but they who are providing a better source by their own actions on their end. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was invited to discuss in this, and I am not very familiar with the program, but as it is a title card of a logo, it can fall under Commons:Threshold of originality. So while I'm all for having a file of the correct size and scale, one without jpeg artifacts, like the older version has some slight Compression artifacts on it which we should avoid if we can. If the newer version has less artificats, I see no reason why it should not be used. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes! My whole intention was to upload the Bluray title card at the same size and scale that meet Wiki guidelines! The problem is I personally don't know how to do that. I always assumed the Bots did it for us. Anybody know how to do that? Or can someone give me steps on how to do it, for future references? Armegon (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Armegon, you would simply play the bluray on a computer that has a screen capture device (windows 10 comes with "snipping tool", resize the image to the right pixel resolution (which I undertsnad to normally be around 300px wide) and then use the upload file function button on the side of your wikipedia browser, and follow the instructions, including giving the proper credit information and timestamp of the image. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• All this does, however, bring up two sticky issues. Again, the Ruffian image is fair use because it is a screen capture from a published copy of the work. I paid the current copyright holders for that disk which they published, and I attribute it directly to them. That is valid. But the Zetton image is credited to Wikia which claims copyright for its own work, but which does not own the rights to and has not legally published the image of Zetton, but has placed it on their website.

They are no more publishers of that image than we are publishers of Ruffian's image. They and we are users, not publishers. So our fair use claim for that image is invalid. We need either a screen capture from a physical copy, or some other copy published or licensed by Tsurubaya. Ultrawiki obviously has no such license. I have not checked, but Ryulong's title card may have the same problem.

Also, publishing a title card from a bluray screencapture done by one of our editors would be fine, but it should not be at the larger 580 pixel width, but at one closer to the original 320 pixel width of Ryulong's first upload. Given Ryulong claims to have "found" a better image, I suspect that means he saw it posted without license on the web and copied it, rather than using the original work. Hence the Zetton image currently being used has to be replaced, and the title card should be replced and reduced to the original 320 pixel resolution, which was perfectly clear for our readers viewing and our editorial purposes. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So I would have to re-upload the BD title card again? I use a MacBook Pro late 2016 and it has an option to take screenshots of any size, so I guess I would have to snap a smaller sized shot? Also, we could just replace the Zetton image with a screenshot of Ultraman and Jiras. It would be appropriate since the Monsters section goes into detail that Jiras was a combination of two Godzilla suits and how the Godzilla performer, Haruo Nakajima, also became the choreographer and occasional monster performer on the show. I can screenshot that as well from the BD. Armegon (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Why am I dragged into this mess by Armegon? Zero stylinx (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I invited a few editors to this discussion in the hopes they could bring their two cents and a fresh perspective on the matter, for the benefit of the article, of course. Thankfully, not everyone accepted my "invitations" because they were done in poor haste and for that, I apologize for troubling you and the others. You're welcomed to join this discussion and help us sort out some issues but you're also not obligated to do so if you don't want to. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience. Armegon (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I can't comment at length, but reuploading may not be necessary if the original websource like the wikias actually do give all the proper information that we require, such as actual publisher, date of capture, timestamp, etc. This is just like expecting a ref like The Book, John Smith, Knupf Publishing, New York, 1987, p6, retrieved 21/2/2018. Just saying it was from an episode (how do we verify without timestamp, which is like page) or a wikia but not the manufacturer/actual owner is as unacceptable as a poor reference especially since we are making a claim of fair use.

If it were to come down to it, I could probably get the Zetton image and the Title Card myself, but they would be from the original DVD release. If the data needed can be found at the wikias in the proper detail we need, we can still use them. But the Zetton image as is certainly does not have proper attribution and documentation for a non-free image basically stolen from a fansite.

I do have a bluray, but don't know if I can use it as an external source for my laptop. That would take a few days and I am running up against legal and academic and medical deadlines for the next two weeks. As it stands, I'd be happy to have these files simply tagged as needing documentation with a generous deadline of a week, or 30 days if there's precedent for that. It's not like they have to come down this second, since in AGF it is obvious we can eventually get the proper provenance. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I can reccomend playing the DVD with VLC, and using the Video>Snapshot menu option to capture the single frame as an image which you can then scale and upload. You can do the same with a bluray if you have a bluray drive (They're not that expensive on Amazon, and they're worth having) -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 20:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I do have a Bluray drive, which is how I got the title card. I may be beating a dead horse but why can't we use this one that I already uploaded? The size has been reduced to an appropriate scale and the Non-free media information template has been updated as well. Armegon (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added a reduced version of the title card on the article, 58 KB, which is much lower than the previous versions. I hope this is passable? Armegon (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Other Appearances

Can you add "Other Appearances" in this page? Oon835 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

OPPOSED: It's not notable. Unless it can be expanded with information supplemented with verified sources, then it would be okay but if it's just to link a page, then it's unnecessary. Armegon (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved and redirected as proposed. bd2412 T 00:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ultraman → Ultraman (1966 TV series) – To redirect Ultraman to Ultra Series. Seems that the best/most helpful target for the term "Ultraman" would be its series article (which Ultraman (series) also redirects to) so that readers can determine if they are attempting to locate one of the multiple shows, the character, or some other subject/article related to Ultraman. (Note: "Ultraman (TV series)" currently redirects to Ultraman (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 12:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

SUPPORT: This specifies things and makes them more clearer. There's two other shows that share the same title, The Ultraman and Netflix's Ultraman anime. Disambiguating the original 1966 series would be a wise and organized move. Armegon (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ultraman (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @In ictu oculi: I get that, but targeting Ultraman to Ultra Series is akin to a series/franchise article sitting at an ambiguous title since it encompasses all media associated with essentially everything associated with the title (such as Shantae). If you are saying move Ultraman (disambiguation) to Ultraman ... why instead of my proposal? Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not certain - but seems that (character) or (disambiguation) are both possibles, as is a redirect to either character or disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support I think moving Ultraman (character) to primary might be the better way to handle this than a primaryredirect, but perhaps that can be a separate move request after we see how this one closes. Certainly, the single 1966 series is not more notable than the character or the overall franchise. Ultra Series works as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. -- Netoholic @ 02:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Then what do the Ultraman (disambiguation) works as? Even the Japanese wikipedia stick to just "Ultraman" in their article page. The Ultra Series is how generally the succeeding seasons of Ultraman being labelled as and it should be.Zero stylinx (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but per this comment, I'm unclear why this move is being opposed, or if an alternative option has been presented. To me, this comment sounds more like either a concern that Ultraman (disambiguation) and Ultra Series are two separate pages, or a counter proposal to move Ultra Series to the base title (which supports my initial claim either way that the series article is the primary topic for the term "Ultraman".) Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Nominator comment: For the record though, I support Ultra Series being moved to Ultraman (in addition to my proposed move) if this discussion goes that way. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't move "Ultra series and "Ultraman" to one page. "Ultraman" isn't the franchise it's the second entry of a kaiju franchise. In the case of the other anime, one (The☆Ultraman) isn't sharing the title any mor than any of the other Ultra Hero entries in the "Ultra Series", and as for the other it's a pretty obvious sequel with a different style of spelling (in Japanese). Also why is the disambiguation page a hard sell? You need it any way thanks to characters from DC, might as well use it for the different Ultra Series. Not much to it.Teridax122 (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I'm also not understanding this comment either. The first sentence makes me believe that the comment it thinks this is a merge discussion: This is not. Secondly, this comment has in no way, from what I can see, enforced any reason to leave the current article/subject at Ultraman, the 1966 TV series, at its current location. Some clarification on the above comment would be helpful; I'm not clear what they are exactly opposing ... (Upon further review of this statement, to me, this sounds like the comment or above is actually "supporting" the proposed moved, but then wants Ultraman (disambiguation) moved to Ultraman ... [I may be wrong, but this is how I'm reading it.]) Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No concerns on why both Ultraman (disambiguation) and Ultra Series exist here, I don't understand how you drew that from my comment. Above you are suggesting that "Ultraman" be renamed to "Ultraman (1966 series)" so that a page called just Ultraman will be able to cover all the entries of the Ultra Series, yes? If that is not what you are suggesting, could you please explain your intention some more as I'm not understanding your choice of words above.Teridax122 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay, thank you for clarifying. And to respond to your inquiry, from what I can tell from viewing Ultra Series, it looks as though it's intended to be a series and/or franchise article for the Ultraman Tokusatsu series/franchise and character(s), so my answer to that is in effect "I'm okay with that, though that is not my proposal." My proposal is to have Ultraman redirect to Ultra Series. (Though I support Ultra Series being moved to Ultraman, it would also be good at Ultraman (series) or Ultraman (franchise) if this move request fails ... or even just leaving Ultra Series where it is.) Either way, just to clarify, opposing the proposed move without a counter proposal means that you believe that the 1966 TV series is the primary topic for the term "Ultraman"; is that your stance? Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Alright, yes I do believe that the original series is the primary page for the topic of Ultraman, as the Ultra Series is not just "the Ultraman Franchise" it is "the Franchise where Ultraman comes from", the kaiju of the Ultra Series make up most of what the ULtra Series is all about and the main focus of every episode, Ultraman is only there so that there can be a hero at the end. The very first Ultra show was Ultra Q, all about the kaiju, Ultraman was only added to give the show more mainstream appeal. Tsuburaya has never recognized the Ultra Series as the Ultraman Franchise, it a very different show than the like of Kamen Rider or Super Sentai, who's monsters are not given as much attention. You can write articles on one Ultra Kaiju, you can maybe get a paragraph on a Rider Kaijin.Teridax122 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
          • ...Interesting, Teridax122. From what you are stating, it sounds like the term "Ultra Series" as well as the subject itself is WP:OR/WP:NOTWIKIA, and the article may better benefit our readers as a generic series/franchise article. Does that sound about right? (I noticed that the majority of your recent edits are in relation to Ultraman, so I figure you may have some insight on this.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes, I believe that to be the best way to approach the Ultra Series. The user who first opposed, Zero stylinx, he and I both have been writing about the Ultra Series for about a decade on the Ultra Wiki. We both are also Admins, and Zero stylinx has been trying to expand Wikipedia's articles of Ultra Series characters, while I try and back him up after he's finished most of the writing.Teridax122 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Nominator comment: As I've already stated above in one fashion or another, it seems that the two "oppose" comments above have concerns about why both Ultraman (disambiguation) and Ultra Series exist. On a related note, I plane to prune/cleanup Ultraman (disambiguation) soon per MOS:DAB to make their distinction clearer. Steel1943 (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ...And I have now performed the aforementioned edits to Ultraman (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think that the franchise is the clear primary topic here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this move 2601:541:4500:1760:A89A:65D6:E57B:36CE (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Barca (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect

@Armegon: and @Steel1943:: If you guys are the ones supporting this redirect, then don't forget to link all the pages with the "Ultraman" tag to "Ultraman (1966 TV Series)". The renaming process has left with a big mess that need to be fix, or else every page would lead to the mistake of assuming it was the "Ultra Series" brand. Zero stylinx (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ultraman (1966 TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• The images are suitably tagged, but there are three fair use images -- five if you count the three in the composite image of the suits. Given that that image is also in Ultraman (character), I don't think we can justify all of this is minimal. I think the suit images need to be removed.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • dvdtalk.com

    Atlantic306 said it was a reliable source on the RSN thread. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  • henshinjustice.com -- appears to be a blog
  • theroarbots.com
  • slashfilm.com -- appears to be a blog
  • aintitcool.com
  • birthmoviesdeath.com -- seems to be a one-person operation

All of these sources, sans Henshin Justice (I removed it), are marginally reliable, similarly how Screen Rant is deemed marginally reliable on WP:RSP. WP:RSP does not list these sources as reliable or not but there's very little sources that cover topics such as obscure 1960's Japanese sci-fi films/shows. The sources I culled were the best I could find and were carefully chosen based on how neutral and educational they presented the subject. Armegon (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand the limitations of the available sources, and I think ScreenRant is a good example -- WP:RS/PS says it can be used for entertainment topics but not controversial statements. I agree that if we can show these sources are in the same category as ScreenRant, they can be used in the same way. The problem with these is that I can't even tell if they rise to ScreenRant's level. ScreenRant has a pretty big footprint and has corporate backing, a fact checking policy, and editorial staff -- see here. I wouldn't need that much evidence to support these sources, but I need to see something to show that they're not just one-person sites that do no fact checking. Can you show that any of these are treated as reliable source by other reliable sources? E.g. do they get quoted by the media? Are they listed in books about Japanese culture as reliable places to go? Can you find anything about their fact checking or editorial approach, or whether they are corporate owned rather than fan-run? Are any of the authors acknowledged elsewhere as subject matter experts? Any of that would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'This version also featured an early version of the Beta Capsule called a "Flashbeam"': what is the Beta Capsule?
• Repetition: 'The first iteration of Ultraman was named "Bemler"' in the "Development" section, and 'The first iteration of the Ultraman character was originally named "Bemular"' in the "Design" section.
• "They eventually decided on a brim-like nose that runs from the mouth to the top of the head like a dorsal fin": I don't think "brim" can be the word you want here -- it means the edge of a hat, or the top edge of a container.

"Brim-like" is the description the cited source uses and Ultraman's nose/mouth area perfectly resembles the edge corner of a table/counter as well. Armegon (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Ultraman's three-minute Color Timer was added": what is this? Readers who don't know the show need an explanation inline.
• "practiced the beam and Shuwatch poses": again, what are these?
• "retaining the appropriate grain": what does grain mean?
• The first sentence of the "North America" subsection is uncited.
• "most of the Ultraman library from Tsuburaya Productions through Indigo Entertainment, including 1,100 episodes and 20 films": there were 1,100 episodes and 20 films of Ultraman?
• I've added links to SVOD and AVOD, both to video on demand, but it's ugly to have two links to the same place, and given that they had both rights, I would suggest just making this "granted them the exclusive video-on-demand digital rights".
• "Ultraman, amongst other titles, will stream in the United States and Canada": written to refer to the future; presumably this now needs to be rewritten as it's two years later.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to fixing up the article someday soon since the nominator seems to have forgotten about it. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 3:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Also pinging the nominator, Armegon, in case they just didn't notice this was being reviewed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't "forgotten" about it. Life and health has gotten in my way and some things required priority over this since I'm given at least 7 days to make these changes. Armegon (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to give you more than 7 days if you need it; I'll check back in a week if I haven't seen any changes, but I'm fine with leaving it open for a while. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

More time would be greatly appreciated. Armegon (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I added a majority of the suggestions. Armegon (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I've struck everything except the remaining source questions. I'm not saying those have to be removed, I'm asking for evidence that they're reliable, in which case they can stay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems Slashfilm is pretty reliable. They have corporate backing and a fact checking/correction/ethical policy [1]. Birthmoviesdeath and Ain't it Cool don't seems to have a policy page like Slash or Screen Rant. However, Birthmoviesdeath confirms to be part of Cinestate [2]. I'm not sure if that constitutes as corporate backing. Ain't It Cool has been referenced by the LA Times [3] and NY Times [4]. However, those articles are from 1997/98 but the site seems to have grown since. Additionally, both sources are exclusive interviews with Del Toro where he confirms the show's influence on Pacific Rim. Armegon (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The most recent mention of Ain't It Cool News was back in 2017, albeit it was about addressing Harry Knowles' sexual misconduct allegations [5]. Armegon (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

OK on Slashfilm; thanks for finding that link. The AintItCool stories talk about the site being essentially one person; clearly he is/was influential but I don't think it's enough to show the site is reliable. Yes it seems to have grown since then but I think we'd need evidence that the site is treated as reliable by other reliable sources. For BirthMoviesDeath.com the contact page says "contact the moderators" and "pitch a story" which makes it seem at least partly user-contributed. I think we need a bit more evidence there. Any more thoughts on theroarbots.com? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The Roar Bots appears to be a blog with multiple users, and since blogs aren't reliable sources, I'm just going to go ahead and remove it. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 7:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed it a few days ago [6]. Armegon (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok then, I forgot to check the article first. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed aintitcool.com as it also appears to be a blog. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The only remaining source question is birthmoviesdeath.com; see my comments just above. Earwig comes up clean except for quotes. Spotchecks:

• FN 25 cites "UA-TV commissioned an English dub from Titra Studios": the source doesn't explicitly say the dub was commissioned nor that it was by Titra; Winckler mentions Titra as the most usual company in a response about the industry, not about this show.

  This has been removed. Armegon (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  There's another reference to Titra still in the article; I had a look at the source in case that would support putting Titra back in, but it looks like Titra's not mentioned there either. It's "which included the Titra English dub" in the "North America" section. The source just says "classic English dub", so I think we need to cut the word "Titra" unless you can source it elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• FN 5 cites "In November 2020, Tsuburaya Productions and Pony Canyon released a 3.0 HD remaster of the series on Blu-ray titled Ultraman 55th Anniversary Ultraman Archives: Ultraman MovieNEX, suitable for large screen televisions. For this release, EXA Quality Advanced Service were commissioned to remove excess picture noise while retaining the appropriate film grain": technically this only says it will be released in November, though that's a minor point. The source has "was done to remove excess picture noise while leaving the appropriate graininess"; this is insufficiently paraphrased.

  Changed it to Composite technology EXA Quality Advanced Service (EQAS) was used to process the series to remove excess picture noise while retaining an appropriate level of graininess. Armegon (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's still too close; it needs to be completely rephrased so it no longer resembles the original sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• FN 27 cites 'Describing the process, Fernandez said: "I had a Moviola, sometimes a projector, and I’d go back and forth over each line carefully and carefully, building the line to look like English." Fernandez also went on to explain that a greased pencil was used to mark scenes that needed to be dubbed, even if it were only a few lines. A loop of the film would be projected so that the voice actor could memorize his or her lines and see where the scene needed to be dubbed. The voice actors had to wait for a beeping signal before starting, Fernandez explained: "So in the studio you hear “Beep… beep… beep…” then you talk, as if there is a fourth beep. Those beeps are drilled into me. They are two-thirds of a second apart. Later on, the film is reassembled and mixed with the original music and sound effects."': It should be "grease pencil" not "greased pencil"; see our article." The quotes are OK, of course, but the source has "One took a grease pencil and marked the film where it was to be cut for just those few lines" which has been insufficiently paraphrased, and is incorrect in replacing "cut" with "dub", unless I'm misunderstanding the source.

  Fixed this as Fernandez also went on to explain that a grease pencil was used to mark scenes that needed to be cut for specific few lines. Armegon (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think it would be better to just extend the quote to cover this; it's going to be very difficult to rephrase this sufficiently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• FN 33 cites "In July 2019, Mill Creek Entertainment announced that it had acquired most of the franchise library from Tsuburaya Productions through Indigo Entertainment, including 1,100 episodes and 20 films. Mill Creek released the series on Blu-ray and digital on October 15, 2019, in standard and steelbook editions": again this says "will be released" not "was released"; as above I would suggest tweaking the wording to describe the announcement, which would allow you to use the future tense.

  I am absolutely confused here. The Mill Creek Blu-ray was already released back in October 2019, per what the source confirms: Mill Creek Entertainment’s debut releases from this deal will be limited edition SteelBook® complete series releases of ULTRA Q (ウルトラＱ, Urutora Q, 1966) and ULTRAMAN (ウルトラマン　空想特撮シリーズ, Urutoraman Kūsō Tokusatsu Shirīzu, 1966-67) on Blu-ray on October 15, 2019. You want me to add "will be released" despite Mill Creek having already released their Blu-ray 3 years ago? Armegon (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  No -- this is an issue that comes up when one uses release announcements to cite dates that are in the past now. You're right, of course we can't pretend that date is in the future, but the source says it was planned for release on that date, not that it was actually released. Lots of things can delay release dates, after all. A standard way around it is to make it clear it was an announcement of a release date. Here we could make it "On July 10, 2019, Mill Creek Entertainment announced that it had acquired most of the franchise library from Tsuburaya Productions through Indigo Entertainment, including 1,100 episodes and 20 films, announced that the series would be released on Blu-ray and digital on October 15, 2019, in standard and steelbook editions". Joining the two sentences attaches the date to the announcement which is what we want, and since we're only talking about what the announcement says, the future tense is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Of the four I've checked, there were two paraphrasing problems and two minor issues. This makes me want to check the offline sources. Can you post the text from Ragone 2007 you're using to support "Haruo Nakajima (who played Godzilla for the first 12 films in the franchise) choreographed all the monsters' battles with Furuya and even played a few monsters, such as Neronga (episode 03) and Jirahs (episode 10). Nakajima also had two cameos, one in episode 24 and one in episode 33 as a police officer" and "Eiji Tsuburaya found the early versions of Ultraman's design to be too alien and sinister and requested that production designer Tohl Narita draft something more benevolent, despite teleplays already being written. Narita took inspiration from classical Greek art, ancient Egypt, the European Renaissance, and Miyamoto Musashi. Tsuburaya and Kinjo added input to each of Narita's new drawings. Ultraman's silver skin symbolized steel from an interstellar rocket and the red lining represented the surface of Mars"? If it's easier, just take screenshots and email them to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's page 117 [7] and page 128 [8]. Armegon (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

For the first quote above, that looks good except it doesn't cite the monster's names. Can you add a cite, perhaps to the episodes themselves, for the names? For the second quote again there is too much close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have re-vised the second quote as: Eiji Tsuburaya found the early versions of Ultraman's design to be "too alien and sinister" and requested that production designer Tohl Narita continue drafting additional designs as teleplays were being written concurrently. Narita chose to root Ultraman's design in the Greek concept of cosmos (order and harmony), in contrast to Narita's monster designs for Ultra Q which were rooted in the Greek concept of khaos. Narita also took inspiration from classical Greek art, ancient Egypt, the European Renaissance, and Miyamoto Musashi. Tsuburaya and Kinjo also provided input to Narita's designs. Ultraman's silver skin symbolized steel from an interstellar rocket and the red lining represented the surface of Mars. Armegon (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

For the first quote, I revised it as "...choreographed all the monsters' battles with Furuya and even played the monsters for episodes three and ten." Armegon (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Both are now OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Both the last two citations have problems, so I would like to request two more. Can you let me see the sources for:

• "Eiji Tsuburaya and writer Tetsuo Kinjo chose to take the barebones idea of Ultra Q about civilians and scientists dealing with monsters and have a group specifically created to deal with monsters and supernatural phenomena as the focus of the new show. The group was tentatively named the "Scientific Investigation Agency" (SIA). Tsuburaya and Kinjo decided to add unused ideas from Ultra Q and the rejected outline Woo."

Here's page 114 [9]. Armegon (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Narita's assistant, Akira Sasaki, sculpted clays, but became concerned about the nose and mouth looking too human. They eventually decided on a brim-like nose that runs from the mouth to the top of the head like a dorsal fin. They also allowed the mouth to be flexible for speech. Early outlines had Ultraman capable of spitting fire and a liquid called "silver iodine", but these ideas were later dropped."

That's from page 117 and I had already provided that one. Here it is again [10]. Armegon (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Also:

• Please note we still need evidence of the reliability of birthmoviesdeath.com

The site is owned by Cinestate according to this article, which is a film production, distribution, and publishing company headquartered in Texas. So I believe it should stay as Cinestate seems to be a reliable source for film information. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 2:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• There is now an uncited sentence at the end of the second paragraph of "Development".

I've added a citation. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 2:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I am failing this GA on too-close paraphrasing. The first ones I checked revealed several errors; the next two I asked for revealed that these last two quotes are too close to the original; the content isn't being rewritten in Wikipedia's own words. I would recommend going through each source and making sure there is no close paraphrasing, but it would be even better to take the material and rephrase it from scratch without trying to take it sentence by sentence from the original, which always makes it harder to avoid close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Gyango" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gyango has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 7 § Gyango until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"Guigass" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Guigass has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Guigass until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Zambolar" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Zambolar has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Zambolar until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Gesura" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gesura has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Gesura until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Greenmons" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Greenmons has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Greenmons until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Gamakujira" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gamakujira has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Gamakujira until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Chandrah" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chandrah has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Chandrah until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Kiyla" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kiyla has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Kiyla until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Alien Magma" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alien Magma has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Alien Magma until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Zaragas" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Zaragas has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Zaragas until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Ultraman Hayata" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ultraman Hayata has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Ultraman Hayata until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Dada (Ultra monster)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dada (Ultra monster) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Dada (Ultra monster) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)