This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well
cited using neutral and
reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
toys 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.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
I just thought I'd add that there were indeed a line of toys created for this show. Though I don't recall ever seeing the cartoon, my brothers and I owned three of the cars. I distinctly recall owning the white car with the golden hand and my brothers had the villain vehicle with the buzz saw and the vehicle with the large drill.
Duplication
I've removed a duplication of the character Saw Boss from the Main Character list. thealternativescott 27/01/2006
Fair use rationale for Image:Jayce logo.jpg
Image:Jayce 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 this Wikipedia article 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 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Rationale added.
Neil╦ 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
First and last airdate
Has someone got a definitive source that can proof these when the start and end dates as the 16th September is a Tuesday and 13th December is a Saturday and since it was syndication I would either have thought it would be ever weekday or ever day but it it start on the 15th September then it would be ever weekday meaning the original airdates could be worked out but not sources I think. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Andrewcrawford (
talk •
contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
After more research I have found that the show seems to have varying dates for start and ending if anyone knows the channel's it aired on I will try email the channels to get dates they do keep records well should.--
Andrewcrawford (
talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Voice for Oon Character
I believe they changed the voice for Oon in the middle of the series. I have no idea who it originally was. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.251.15.98 (
talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It actually changed in the second or third episode to something less annoying. I have no idea who either voice was though.
75.142.246.93 (
talk) 20:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Fan fiction
Someone keeps adding fan fiction to the description of the series and the characters, apparently in an effort to get his/her ideas for the show out there as an "official" synopsis.
For the record, aside from Jayce and Audric, NONE of the characters are related. Herc never met any of them until he was tricked by Gillian and he is most definately NOT related to Audric in any way. Flora was created by Gillian & Audric. Due to this she looks to Audric as a parental figure, but he is not her "father" and Jayce is not her brother.
None of the characters have last names. None of this "Lightwheel" stuff is actually based on fact. Jayce is just named Jayce. Not Jason, just Jayce.
Saw Boss is not a king.
Oon is an Eternal Squire, created by Squiresmith Wixland.
All of this is verifiable by actually watching the show. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.30.33.9 (
talk) 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Unreliable sources?
Multiple IP editors have been claiming that the article has unreliable sources but failing to discuss which sources they take issue with despite multiple requests to do so. As a result I have requested that this page be temporarily protected. Before, or at least while, tagging the page for having unreliable sources please discuss here which sources are being called into question (or link to an appropriate discussion at
WP:RSN). Failure to do so may be considered disruptive and treated accordingly.
DonIago (
talk) 12:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Unreliable sources 2
Yet again there's (the same) IP editor claiming unreliable sources without apparently checking the actual content at the sources in question and simply claiming unreliable because the site where this content is located happens to be a blog and fansite. The content referenced is an e-mail conversation with the writer of the show. This includes dates, e-mail ids etc. If a written explanation by the show's actual writer isnt a reliable source I have to wonder what would be considered one. (Especially how there now is no official source for anything on this show anymore, the Millcreek site went dark some time ago).
Any and all information is now solely available on fansites and wikipedia (that got said content from these fansites)
The other links in question concern scans of actual officially published material. Just because they were posted on a blog doesnt make an official publication questionable.
JalGorda (
talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually, while I'm not taking any action at this time, blogs and fansites generally are considered to be unreliable per
WP:RS, and I would tend to support any editor who requested stronger citations. Wikipedia, of course, doesn't itself constitute a reliable source per
WP:CIRCULAR.
DonIago (
talk) 19:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm aware of the policy and in part agree on the position that anyone can make a site and claim various things. However, in these cases the blog contains scans of official publications (and are not user generated/ editable) and should be considered reliable based on the actual content, not where the scans where posted. The other site contains the e-mail conversation with one of the shows main writers and has all information included (minus the e-mail address which was removed for privacy reasons). With regard to the latter I do understand the difficulty in verifying the source other than have the writer state this fact again in an official interview. But given the age of the item and lack of (any) available official sources, the point should either be removed or permitted to stay without further questioning the validity. There is no point to keep that part of the discussion going since all sites containing the information about the Jayce movie got it from this e-mail-conversation. The only "official" site that remained was the limited info on the Millcreek website that has since been deleted. But it still contained nothing in relation to the characters or vehicle names, development, etc. All this information came from the 2 fansites linked as reference. Since imdb is also considered unreliable, this wikipage would be empty now.
JalGorda (
talk) 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not comfortable with the theory that we should leave unreliable sources intact because to remove them would "damage" an article, as I think it's far more damaging to an article to contain information from unreliable sources. I think we may need more editors than simply the two of us involved in this particular conversation. It may be worth asking for additional input at
WP:RSN. How is Joe Editor to know that the scans are official and have not been altered? You already raised the question regarding the authenticity of the email, so I won't belabor that point. The hard fact is that we may be dealing with a topic where we're just not going to find much in the way of reliable sources...and while, as I said, I'm not inclined to engage in any removal myself at this time, I'm not going to defend the material without a strong consensus in favor of doing so.
DonIago (
talk) 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It was not my intent to suggest leaving unreliable sources intact just to keep an article undamaged, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. If a source is wrong or lacking any kind of credentials it should be removed. But regarding the scans and questioning if they where altered I have to wonder where it would end? In this case it is very easy to see the links where only provided to show examples of the comic in question. Were they included as images in the article itself I think the question would probably never have come up. Regarding the e-mail, as there is now way to prove it other than the picture of the signature or the id's/timestamp, removing the point entirely would probably be best. I agree that this is a topic where finding official sources is going to be difficult. And finally there is also the problem of the IP editor. Looking at the history of the various IPs and the constant tagbombing of the article, I have to question the intent of the editor. One question I have; i have several official publications in my possession that contain some information. However, they are hardcopy. If I were to scan these and upload these as images in the article, would this be acceptable or would I be wasting my time? And thank you for having this discussion with me :-)
JalGorda (
talk) 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to
assume good faith with regards to the IP for edits prior to the time when this conversation began. At this point I would consider it kosher to revert them and direct them to this conversation with a notice that they are now editing disruptively...that said, I think they're within their rights to tag as unreliable, or remove, the sources which I consider unreliable, though tagging might be preferable.
Reliable sources need to have been published, but they don't need to be available online. If it's an official publication and you can provide an appropriate
citation then I think you'd be good to go. For instance, DVD commentary tracks are reliable sources. It doesn't matter that I can't personally immediately
verify that information you source to a commentary track is accurate, what matters is that it would be within my means to verify it (by acquiring the DVD and listening to the commentary track). Hope this helps!
DonIago (
talk) 12:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It does, so thank you for the assistance! I will revert the edits to those previously made by the IP editor with a note to read this conversation on the talkpage. As a final comment on the IP editor, I will say that despite several request by me to discuss the changes, they went unanswered. I've always left more "common" changes made by the IP editor intact (correcting grammar, removing dead links etc). The problem occured when citation tags were added to practically every other sentence. At this point I removed them and requested to discuss it on the talk page. Despite me watching this page for a few years now, I'm still new to all the wiki tags needed for corrections etc. The IP appeared not to be and I assumed they would at least know about the talkpage and that it is the place to discuss these changes if another editor disagrees. I assumed good faith until the persistent tagging without any explanation kept happening. Re: offline publications. That is good to know! There is some good information in several books I have, so I'll scan some and cite the rest with the proper ISBN/page numbers. Thank you again :-)
JalGorda (
talk) 13:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I think with regards to the IP, at this point it would be best to let the matter rest until such time as they edit here again. Rather than just reverting them I'd also make sure to leave a message at their talk page (assuming you haven't already done so). Besides the potentially disruptive nature of their edits, they may be
edit-warring, which would be actionable in and of itself, but informing them of what they're doing wrong (and how they can avoid doing it wrong) is essential. Note that edit-warring can go both ways, which is why I tend to recommend a read-through of
WP:BRD. But again, unless/until the IP decides to edit here again I think it may be best to just move forward. Glad I could help!
DonIago (
talk) 13:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
And.... after reading the history on these categories I'm of the opinion that categorization of these shows is broken. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 19:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)reply