Talk:Guyver: Out of Control
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
OVA or Film
editIs this an OVA, or a film? The article is contradictory on the point. If it is in fact an OVA, the infobox should be changed to an Anime Project infobox and this article should be removed from the Film Project. Snarfies 17:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- it is an OVA. it is feature length, but it is an OVA. Drag-5 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Valcuria
editIt has been revealed recently that in the manga, the character we associate with valcuria is named Valkyrie. however, to keep with consistency of this article, the name should not be changed to reflect the manga. the reason for this is that all other terms in this article would have to be changed to reflect the manga. this would lead to inconsistencies when people watch this OVA and find strange spellings for the characters, etc. since this article is about the out of control OVA, the spellings should reflect the spellings used in the OVA. Drag-5 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
my recent undo
editI'm writing to explain the full reasoning behind my recent undo, I realise it was rather extreme, but i felt there was too much to address and also, the recent edit felt excessive. the amount of information added to the article was unneeded in my opinion and went into too much detail going over a story that is already documented in the main article of the manga. the main synopsis could be changed,but what it was changed to was rather bloated. aside from that, in the same edit, the image was broken and the link to the manga was changed to the tv series for some reason. this is obviously extremely wrong since the tv series was made in 2005 and this was made in 1986. some of the changes were perhaps beneficial, but i have seen this article changed from OVA to animation to film, and now in this recent edit it was changed back to OVA. so i feel it is best to talk that out first before changing it again. Drag-5 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- on further investigation it turns out the recent edit was actually a revert to a much earlier date. can't understand why.... some new form of spam?Drag-5 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)