Talk:AM Driver

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I know very little about this show. In fact all I know is what I put in this article. I would be grateful if anyone more familur with this show would add on to this artcile and improve it. Prede (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the name of the article back at AM Driver. We use the official English name. It was released as AM Driver, so that is the name the article uses per the Anime and Manga MOS. The edit summary claiming that TV.com is using Get Ride! Amdriver is also false. TV.com has the series listed as AM Driver, same as the US release. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the person who did the music of Get Ride! Amdriver does not have to be referenced (the official TV-Tokyo site has this information in the "Staff and cast" [スタッフ・キャスト] section, and this site is included in the "External links" section).RekishiEJ (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that, for a stub, the little bit of into in the lead does not need referencing. However, if/when actual prose discussion the production is included, sources would be needed, including direct links to the staff/cast section when talking about who did what. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the source of a certain part of the article is from the general references, further reading or external links, then it does not need inline-referencing.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ELs are not references, nor are further reading lists. General references should not be used in a primary article. Specific, in-line references are needed unless of course one never wants this to be more than a start class article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know general references, inline references, further reading lists and external links are different. But if one text uses the source from a page within a certain external link, then it does not have to be inline-referenced unless it uses other sources as well, since doing so can avoid duplication and improve the style of a certain article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The only parts that do not need direct sourcing is content from the primary reference, in this case the existence of the series and its plot. Even the character descriptions will need sourcing eventually. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a Reception section for this article. DJ Autagirl (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy and Steel1943: Please read WP:BANREVERT again. Inter alia, it says: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. Moreover, it does not mandate the reverting of banned editors' edits, and positive contributions may be kept.

Therefore the IP user with whom you have been in dispute is entitled to remove the material in question, as it is contested and unsourced. They, and now I, take responsibility for the edit by doing so. You may not reinstate the material again on the grounds of BANREVERT. BethNaught (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @BethNaught: Thanks for making this talk page section. I was about to actually revert you and/or create a section on this talk page myself since you claimed that this was discussed on the talk page in your edit notice when it actually wasn't ... until now (you edited the page before you created this section.) As long as someone other than the WP:SITEBAN-ned editor is willing to take responsibility for their edit (which you have now done) given that I actually think that their edit was a bit questionable (they also removed the "expand" template at the top of the page), I'm good. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BethNaught: Understood. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]