Talk:New Getter Robo

Article

I've filled out the article as best as I can, but I do agree that it needs some extensive cleanup and references.
Erecyog (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought "anyone" can edit? What happened to that concept?

It seems nowadays that Wikipedia is swimming far too deep into it's own "rules on how to write an article". I mean, what can you possibly write in this article that isn't allowed, about a super robot show. Do you think something like this can only be written by an "expert"? Also, how can something like this have references? I'd like to see someone who can answer this question, seeing as the same person keeps deleting my edits (which, IMHO, are not even related to spamming of any sort). I also feel this "AnmaFinotera" fellow is a bit zealous about keeping guard of this article, I mean, did you really have to remove the correction I made to the Episode numbers, only to do the same thing yourself? Does your corrections have more authority than mine, even when they are exactly the same?
(67.85.253.60 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

I put back your episode correction because it was wiped while reverting the inappropriate trivia you attempted to add. There is a lot you can write about an article that isn't allowed, including original research, your own opinions and pet theories, trivial information, and unverifiable/inaccurate statements. The expert is calling for an expert from the project to come clean up the article and bring it in-line with our MOS. Verifiability is a core tenet of Wikipedia, and that requires references. Any good anime/manga article should have plenty of references, as is easily seen by looking at any of our B class, GA, and FA anime and manga articles. For some samples: Wolf's Rain (B), Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two (GA), and Madlax (FA). Anyone can edit Wikipedia, it doesn't mean your edits will not be "edited mercilessly", as it says below every edit box, and it doesn't mean you edits will not be removed if they are not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What I find funny is that you claim I did original research, and put my opinions into it, yet did you see the series? I really doubt so. Wikipedia is getting pretty notorious for doing stuff like this, it seems. Also, give me an example of an "expert" of this series. It's pretty laughable to me, it is only a super robot anime.
(67.85.253.60 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

For the time being, I think 67.85.253.60 and Erecyog should be allowed to add whatever they (if "they" are not the same person) can. The article is less than a week old. It's still a stub and not really in need of major cleanup or an "expert" in Getter Robo or the MOS to come and help. If after months of contributions, the article is nothing more than a bunch of trivia, then we must cut it down to size.--Nohansen (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So you'd recommend let it be built up as a bad article, so it goes in the backlog of articles needing clean up, instead of encouraging it to be built up properly from the start? I'd rather not see this one go the way of the other Getter Robo articles, which are in hideous shape. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still to early for this article. When I cleaned the Tsukikage Ran article not long ago, SeizureDog told me "While your version does seem to get rid of all the crufty details, you're shortening an article that is already short to begin with. In this case, unless you plan on adding to the article yourself, you might just want to let the cruft build up a while before you start hacking it down." I think the same principle applies here.--Nohansen (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that idea. If its possible to educate newer editors so they properly expand the article from the beginning, why not take the opportunity? It may not be the best sourced, but I think we should at least encourage them to work within the MOS sections as much as possible. This way not only does the article benefit, but they can learn how to work on the anime/manga articles on a newer article, where mistakes are not going to be as big as issue as it would be if they jumped in on an article being prepped for GA or FA. Its a good learning ground, but I know for me, when I started editing, I'd much rather have my mistakes corrected than I be allowed to spend hours, maybe days adding all kinds of stuff to an article, only to have it removed during the clean up. Then I'd be wondering why it was allowed to stay so long, and why I wasted the time. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Erecyog and I are the same person. I only created it to create this article.
(67.85.253.60 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Stockpile

Holy shiiii this article needs work. First of all, NEW GETTER ROBO has not had a manga; simply enough it was another retelling of the original manga, though it is more directly adpated from the manga in the introduction of the characters than the other shows. Second, there is not enough information on the characters, and what about the ONI gods? Third, Since when does it mention anything about the Oni resembling monsters from mythology in the show (correct me with specific episode if i'm wrong). They are simply presented as an enemy that has existed for many years and are bent on the destruction of the getter. I'm not planning on editing anytime soon due to MODS but there is a lot more info that can be presented besides the mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GETTA GET (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Getter Robo. 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/20050729112615/http://www.japanhero.com/super%20robot%20reviews/new_getter_robo-1.htm to http://www.japanhero.com/super%20robot%20reviews/new_getter_robo-1.htm

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) 01:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)