Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this stuff really notable? It's not like we're likely to have any pages on these episodes. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article has been started on the first episode of the show. I saw the link to the article and happened to start it. It is only the list of episodes. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 07:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Case of the Killer Pizzas

I would like somebody to write an entry on the Case of the Killer Pizzas. Since a several of the episodes listed have entries I would like one for the Case of the Killer Pizzas. Fell to contact me at my talk page if you have any questions or comments. Heegoop, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TMNT (1987) Episode Guide

I am starting a table for a TMNT (1987) Episode Guide. It is modeled after the episode guide done for the 2003 series: List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) episodes.

If there's anything that you'd like to see for this episode guide please feel free to leave your comments here and I hope this project goes over smoothly. For the 1987 series, I was thinking we should model the colors for the seasons based on the order the turtles are named in the intro: Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael, Michelangelo. Since the series has 10 seasons we could have either the first season (or fifth) in green and then just rotate the colors twice. We'll also be needing blurbs, but that can definitely come later on. I'll also add, we should just use screenshots from released DVD's, so avoid putting up screenshots from your VHS and TV rips.

For screenshots, please follow this format, which is used for the screenshots of the 2003 series:

Description
Description of what's going on in the image, you can also use quotes.

Technical Information

  • TV Series: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987)
  • Episode: S##E##, ### - Link to Episode
  • Resolution: 640×480 (Resized from 720×480) Note: Don't forget to chop off the black bars on the side and then resize)
  • Source: DVD Title (e.g., Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Volume 1)
    • Media Type: NTSC DVD (or PAL if that's what you have)
    • DVD Time Code: Time as read on DVD counter (I use PowerDVD)
    • Catalogue Number:

Summary
TMNT - S##E## - Episode Title | DVD Screenshot | Fair Use

Note: For the summary, just use this naming scheme when you're entering the image, it just makes it easier, then you can edit and add in the rest of the information. It makes the file history less cluttered.

Note: There is some hidden fair use text below that you should also enter into all your images

Inner City Blues 20:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed in Justice League Unlimited

If somebody is interested in Justice League Unlimited, please go to the List of Justice League episodes to help fix that page, meet this one's high quality standarts.Some users refuse to create article per episodes, even though they know the existence of the wikiproject and well developed pages like the sub-articles here.--T-man, the wise 02:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)--T-man, the wise 02:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

None of the episode names are properly disambiguated. For instance, there is no other WP article named "Turtle Tracks," so therefore the title of the article should be "Turtle Tracks" and not "Turtle Tracks (TNMT 1987 episode)" Should we do something about this? tiZom(2¢) 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly go through and fix the titles, if no one has any objections. --Toby Rush ‹ | › 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
This issue is pretty clearly in dispute. Toby, I wish you would have given it some more time before engaging in page moves and changing the page. --Elonka 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm on the record as opposing these moves too. — Toby, what's up, I thought you were all for WikiProject exceptions, so.. just wondering why are you moving things around all of a sudden? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if exceptions were part of the guideline, no one here has said that exceptions make sense. You all have this misconception that no page moves can be done. Exceptions would still need to be agreed on by the community for each batch of pages. Until that happens, there is no reason not to move them. Moving them to fit the current guideline and them having WP:RM discussions to institute an exception is perfectly acceptable. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The naming system for TMNT episodes has gone through multiple iterations, and the editors here arrived at a consensus for the current "consistent suffix" system. They even went to the trouble of clearly listing it at the top of the page, where it's been for several months. It's not appropriate for some other editor to come in and start changing things around without discussion. --Elonka 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is that discussion? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what i'd like to know. Note that the person who originally posted this topic did so in August. And there was no reply until TobyRush replied in December. Quite clearly, no one else here really seems to care. --`/aksha 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I checked with one of the original editors, and he clearly indicated a preference for consistent suffixes [1]. It's inappropriate to be pouncing on this page, moving episodes around, and effectively changing guidelines in this section of Wikipedia with neither notice nor discussion. This is highly disruptive, please stop. --Elonka 07:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"No" -- Ned Scott 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
One guy is your consensus? So your claim of "multiple iterations" and "TMNT editors" is actually one guy that made one edit in February? That's a shameful misrepresentation. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to go on record as supporting this move, thanks for taking the time to do it. If you could move the other TMNT series episodes as well, that would be great. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Yaksha, Milo H Minderbinder, Wknight94, and Ned Scott are all here because of a dispute at the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) page -- they are not neutral opinions. This is a group of editors that has been working their way through multiple sections of Wikipedia, moving articles without consensus. Guys, stop it. This is a clear dispute, so we should be following the steps at WP:DR, not creating "kangaroo court" consensus and engaging in move wars. --Elonka 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, a large part of the dispute Elonka mentions is about whether a consensus about television episode article naming exists or not. A supermajority of the participants in the dispute believe that a consensus has been established. Elonka, and a few others, disagree. Mediation is being pursued, but it is disingenuous to describe this move as disruptive or even as a "move war". —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What edit wars? Yes, you have made it very clear that you care deeply about a trivial naming convention where there is no issue in the first place. Here's an idea, how about you report us for doing these page moves and see if anyone does anything about it. They won't because we're not doing anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Those in the "majority" are of course claiming that they have consensus, and that there is a supermajority. Others strongly protest this. There is a clear dispute, hence the Mediation per WP:DR. Please stop with disruptive acts, and participate in the mediation in good faith. --Elonka 20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay obvious something happened with the naming conventions that I didn't know about, there was no discussion on the TMNT2K3 pages and there should have been. The naming conventions are there to dilineate the series so the person immediately knows what TMNT series page they're viewing. I don't see a reason to change the page and as one of the original editors of the Ninja Turtles pages, I do not agree with these naming conventions. I would like to add, changing the pages here does not apply to pages on all TMNT pages. There is definitely not a consensus, especially from people that did not create these pages.

Inner City Blues 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing new happened. The naming conventions at WP:TV-NC and disambiguation guidelines at WP:D have existed for ages. It's just that no one's bothered for fix the article naming before. And now we have this huge firestorm to deal with. Not all the pages where moved because some did need disambiguation. --`/aksha 04:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ops, looks like you already found the right discussion on the guideline talk page. Just ignore this then. --`/aksha 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am just returning from a wikibreak to find all this, and I apologize to any editors who are just here to talk about the Turtles for the maelstrom that blew in. For the record, I made these moves because, as tiZom originally pointed out, they were using the disambiguation phrases unnecessarily, and no one had expressed any reason to doing this since he pointed it out in August.

That said, if anyone feels that the TMNT 1987 articles should always use disambiguating phrases, please bring it up so we can talk about it and determine a consensus. If a consensus-building discussion determines that an alternate naming convention should be used for these articles, I will gladly go through and change the episodes back myself. --Toby Rush ‹ | › 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the statement of Inner City Blues and Tedius Zanarukando [2], the editors that have put the most energy into these TMNT pages, that all TMNT episode articles should use a suffix. Though I believe that TobyRush was acting in good faith, I do not believe that he should have moved these episodes based on a single unchallenged post by a random editor three months ago, especially considering the controversy about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Random editors post unanswered comments on talkpages all the time: "I think this should be moved." "I don't like this paragraph." "This looks POV." It doesn't mean that such comments should be acted on immediately, especially when there is significant dissent about the issue in other locations. --Elonka 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There's currently a RM on one of the TMNT episodes. If that passes with consensus, what makes you believe that a similar RM for all the articles in question wouldn't pass? What would differentiate that one article from the other similar ones for this show? What would be the justification for doing another RM for the remaining shows, other than attempting to slow down what seems inevitable? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The "guideline" was established here by one guy with one edit - what makes you think it can't be disestablished by one guy with one edit? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, we don't do binding decisions here on wikipedia. Regardless of what the consensus was when the articles where created, consensus now can be different. Request Moves is a fair and open way of proposing any move, and anyone can easily come in and vote (since it's listed on the RM page). So if it passes request moves now, then it means consensus has changed. I don't see why we even need to argue about it here. --`/aksha 09:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's clear that if there would have been an RM here, that it would have been deemed "no consensus", which means that the articles would not have been moved. As such, I would like to see them all moved back to their original versions. Per WP:RM, the burden of proving consensus is on the people who want to move a page, not on those who want to stop it from being moved. --Elonka 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You're obviously aware that there's a RM for a TMNT episode going on right now. And so far, editors are heavily in favor of not disambiguating unnecessarily in that case. What do you feel is different between that single episode and all the other moved TMNT episodes? Why do you feel that a RM for the other episodes would have a result that was any different? Your request seems like wikilawyering and attempting to filibuster. See WP:SNOW. -Milo H Minderbinder 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with Milo) Why would earlier move requests have been any different from the one that is at WT:TV-NC now? Surely you don't dispute that the two current move requests on that page have a consensus for moving the pages. It seems fairly obvious that the result would be the same for all these moves. I think that these requests are representative of the general view on Wikipedia; and, for what it's worth, the mediator you chose at MedCab seems to agree that there is a consensus supporting the WP:TV-NC guideline [3]. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A "general view on Wikipedia" is not sufficient justification to make controversial moves. Not all editors monitor all pages -- the fairest way to handle it, especially when there are objections, is to file a Request at WP:RM, and put a notice on the page that is going to be moved, to ensure that the editors who participate on that page, are aware of an upcoming move. --Elonka 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that this is your position, Elonka. I hope you understand that most other editors believe that there is a consensus to support the guideline at WP:TV-NC, and these moves were made in accordance with that. However, even if, for the sake of argument, I grant your position that there is not consensus for the guideline, and that the process of these moves should have been different — how would the outcome have differed? I cannot conceive that anyone would have voted differently for the TMNT episodes en masse than how they have voted for the one under consideration now. Can you? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I start off by saying what the hell happened here??? I'd like to make sure that I've got everything straight, so I'm offering this summary. Please let me know if any of this incorrect:

  • I see something that is inconsistent with WP guidelines. I check WP:D, and I'm right. I check the WP:TV-NC, and I'm right. I check each episode page, and there is nothing indicating to me that this set of pages follows a different set of rules. I pose a question on the talk page.
  • Three months later, someone shows up and agrees with me. We've got consensus. Granted, it's only two people...but we are the only two people to have edited this talk page since July. It basically seems like we're the only two people in all of Wikipedialand who even remotely care about this topic. He takes the initiative to be bold and does it himself.
  • One day later, finally, an outsider. He tells us how badly we messed up, how we should have known what was going on in his WikiProject. How this is a very hot issue right now, and we just should have known about it.

Do I have this right so far?

  • It sparks a debate. People start using words like supermajority, maelstrom, and mediation (::shiver::)
  • And now we have to decide on the WT:TV-NC page if we want these pages (and similar episode pages elsewhere in the project) to be properly disambiguated, or if we want to set them aside as a group of pages that are uniform in name.

I guess I'm lucky in that I'm completely ambivalent with regards to what happens from here on in, but come on guys. Can we just take a breather? This is a wiki - it is everyone's project, and nothing is irreversible. Everyone just chill - if the Ninja Turtles can defeat Shredder in the Technodrome, then I'm sure we'll all get through this!!!  :o) tiZom(2¢) 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Close.  :) Actually, TobyRush was an outsider too. This particular page became the site of a skirmish from a larger battle that's been raging at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) for several weeks now, and has recently moved on to ArbCom, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. One of the problems that's been exacerbating the dispute, is that some editors have been moving several hundred pages, without ensuring consensus for those moves first. Since the moves of these TMNT articles (and the 2003 articles as well) were controversial, they should have gone through Request Moves first. That would have involved a poll opened on this talkpage for about 5 days, so that everyone interested could indicate whether they supported or opposed the moves. That such a poll was not started, is the reason for the battle and bloodshed. There are also side issues involved, where some TV series have debated a specific naming system (like at Star Trek), but now there is disagreement about whether or not those debates can "stick", or whether they can be overridden by anyone who wants to come along and disagree.
Sorry for the chaos. If you'd like to pop in to the ArbCom case, you are more than welcome to participate or offer a statement. It's an interesting process, sort of like the "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia. My own opinion on things, is that the TMNT editors should be allowed to come up with their own naming system, and that your decisions should be respected by the non-TMNT editors. However, as is seen by the flaming above, not everyone agrees.  ;)
Hope that helps explain! --Elonka 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I should add that Elonka is the chief disputant of the current guideline at WP:TV-NC, and her summary is somewhat slanted towards her own perspective in this debate. The opposing viewpoint — which happens to be held by roughly 80% of the editors active in the dispute — is that a November discussion at WT:TV-NC reached a consensus to support the existing guideline and to support WP:DAB in television episode article pages. If you're looking at things from that point of view (as many of us are), a consensus to move these pages had been reached, and thus WP:RM was not necessary. (Elonka is by far the most vocal critic of the guideline — insofar as a "controversy" exists, it is largely due to her intransigence; MatthewFenton has been a loyal supporter of Elonka's position.)
The Star Trek example is also worded in rather skewed language: nobody is suggesting that "anyone who wants to come along and disagree" can override a WikiProject's guidelines. What many of us are suggesting is that if a WikiProject has guidelines that are inconsistent with general Wikipedia guidelines, the members of that WikiProject should be able to explain the reasoning behind making an exception in their case, and that reasoning should have something stronger than "because we like it this way" behind it. If there is a reason not to follow a guideline, then that reason should be comprehensible to Wikipedians who aren't regular editors of those articles. If no such comprehensible reason is forthcoming, then and only then should the articles be altered to fit the more general Wikipedia guidelines (which presumably are based on a wider consensus than the WikiProject guidelines).
As it happens, there's been very little disagreement from WikiProjects which had the practice of always putting disambiguation suffixes (whether they were needed or not) — at one WikiProject, WikiProject Stargate, the editors helped out with the page moves themselves.
As for the TMNT editors: I am sure that everyone respects the work you've done on these articles — at least, I do. But as WP:OWN points out, nobody owns a Wikipedia article, or a set of articles. As TobyRush (talk contribs) pointed out early in this debate, " In other words, if the Star Trek folks feel that they have a rationale for not following TV:NC, a consensus-building discussion should take place there. And since this is Wikipedia, we're all invited. :)" The same could be said of the TMNT editors: if there's an argument why Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes are different from all other television episodes, we'd be delighted to hear it and discuss it. (We've already had a frank exchange of ideas with JohnnyBGood (talk contribs) here. I'm not sure we completely understood each other, but it was a good start.)
Anyway, I'm sorry that this tempest in a teapot has spilled over to bother y'all, and I hope this explanation makes sense. As Elonka says, you're welcome to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions and related pages to see all the gory details if you're interested. Come on down! The circus is in town! I'm sure the Turtles would have something pithy to say about this. Dude. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Before I had thought that TobyRush did not know about the discussion going on at WP:TV-NC, but now I see that it is deeper than that. Ah, what a mess.

With regards to the ArbCom process, I'm familiar with it, but completely disinterested in participating. Like I said before, I'm utterly indifferent with regards to the decision that is made. I see the case for giving the page names a "proper" disambiguation, because it doesn't make sense to disambiguate something if you don't really need to. I also see the case for the "forced" disambiguation, because it is nice to have all the episodes the same, and it is much easier to recognize. And after all, isn't this why WP:IAR exists? So in any case, you guys duke it out there. I'll be waiting and ready to help when you come to a conclusion. tiZom(2¢) 07:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I don't think that the arbitration has any effect on the move request at WT:TV-NC; one move request there has been closed recently, and the TMNT one may as well. Elonka asked for a moratorium on page moves, but the arbitrators haven't addressed that, so it's likely that the moves will continue (at least through RM). Anyway, sorry to disturb you with all this. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Elonka's complaint that there should have been Request Moves, there is a RM going on right now for the one TMNT article she reverted, discussion is at WT:TV-NAME. Anyone is welcome to weigh in - if you have an opinion on the naming, that's the place to do it. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)