The characters section is a complete mess; the majority of the entries are written like a grade-school 'primer' textbook, and some of the entries are becoming too long.
The other sections, especially the Story section, need to be rearranged in order to be understandable (i.e., reduce the amount of spoilers and merge sentences with similar subjects together). El-Tauro 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, first off, isn't this all a bit excessive? Cleanup taskforce? Cleanup notices? An entire page devoted to the topic of fixing the article? For god's sake, it's just a children's TV show. Sections can be turned into articles. Wording can be altered. And all of this could have been brought up and discussed on the article's talk page. Honestly, all this fuss you're making for a few problems is really unnecessary. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Should we just jettison the whole 'toy' section? RJFJR 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, their equipment is a relavent aspect, so no. However, we could at the least, shorten it. Maybe a more of an overview short of section rather than a list of devices which maybe only see use for one episode. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the formatting to bullets with bold names instead of level 3 headings (it doesn't take up space in the TOC this way and it looks smaller, even though I didn't take out any words). RJFJR 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, their equipment is a relavent aspect, so no. However, we could at the least, shorten it. Maybe a more of an overview short of section rather than a list of devices which maybe only see use for one episode. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of other people have been working on this recently. The characters section has been split off. (I added back really short summary of the main members so you didn't have to click to the separate page for that.) It's much more concise and cleaner now.
I'm going to close it as looking good to me. We can re-open it if people disagree. RJFJR 16:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)