Talk:List of Ben 10 episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Ben 10 episodes article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
CN This article is within the scope of the Cartoon Network WikiProject, a project to protect and maintain articles relating to Cartoon Network. If you would like to participate, you may join at the project page.
List This page has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the priority scale. Mid
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Ghost Freak out

Can any one tell me about the eposoid I only saw the last 5 min. of it

you have to read the short summary, because we cant give you a full summary on the episode here. that makes no sense. Besides, Wikipedia is not a Summary about episodes, if you want that, go to TV.com and find a summary on Ghost Freaked out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunder The Hedgehog (talk • contribs).

Why did Ghostfreak take off the protective layer of his skin if he could be protected in it. He could have succeded in sunlight or not.141.155.170.124 20:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Les Wong 4:27, 2 May 2007

In this episode, why did Ghostfreak have to rip his protective layer of skin? If he hadn't, he could have succeded with or without sunlight.141.155.170.124 20:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) LesWong 4:24 PM 5/2/07 It's not a protective skin layer. Ghostfreak says clearly he needs to have a human host to survive the sun.

Not a forum. You Can't See Me! 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who The Hell....

Who is the freaking persion that did this: Ghostfreaked out? That isin how it is supposed to be! it is supoosed to be Ghost Freaked out. If i Find the person who did that i will kill them--Dark Duelist 5000 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't make stupid threats. It only shows that you're not intelligent enough to back up your statements. It's one word as rendered in the episode. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I WATCHED THAT EPISODE, AND I AM TELLING YOU, IT IS GHOST FREAKED OUT! I WATCHED THE EPISODE. THE EPISODE! ANd I HAVE AN INTELLIGANCE NEAR 190.--Dark Duelist 5000 15:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure aren't showing it with your yelling. You obviously didn't watch the episode, because it's rendered as one word. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I watched the episode, and it is Two words not one word. You are getting on my patenice. it is Ghost Freaked Out, now, just, please leave it like that or else my Dark side might come out. i agree with Dark Duelist 5000. It is Ghost Freaked Out.--71.252.91.153 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, don't make stupid threats. And again, you obviously lack the ability to pay attention. Click here. See that image? One word. Quit being ignorant and leave the title be. Also, don't try to play the sockpuppet game with IP addresses. You're obviously the same person. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will leave it. I Know that it is one word now. Im sorry for all the trouble i caused. But here is one thing i dont get. It says Ghostfreaked out, but cable says Ghost Freaked Out. Could you answer that please? Oh, and that wasnt me. That was my brother.--Dark Duelist 5000 16:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Cable makes mistakes, as do all TV Guides. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Once We get information about the Third and fourth season, do we create a Box for it?, because all i know is that there will be another Episode when Ben Finds a new alien named Electric Bolt, and an episode in which the orginial aliens inside the omnitrix, the ones lurking somewhere in the universe, attack ben because their DNa was imprisioned in the Omnitrix. I Dont know the names, but the second one is, Aliens Freaked Out -- 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No only ectonurites would get mad because ectonurite's personality is found in just a few strands of DNa IcyLizard49
I Know that, that is why i put that informaton. But, Then The other one is Electrical Freaking Out... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.33.14 (talk • contribs) .
Wow, that's original. If you're going to make up your own episodes and characters, start with names that aren't ripoffs of existing ones. Also, dont come to wikipedia to publish your fanfiction.--Piemanmoo 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Try Uncyclopedia, it's a good place for it. -- Jason Palpatine 07:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production code 302

Ben 10,000 is listed as 302 here, but in it's article it is listed as 301. Midnight Madness is listed as 301 here and in it's article. Witch one is is 301? I guessing it's Midnight Madness as it's not uncommon for episodes to be aired out of order, but I don't want to change something on a hunch. Where are the production codes found anyway? --Bobby D. DS. 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben 10000 takes place before Midnight madness, but Midnight madness was on TV before Ben 10000. Maybe they just made Midnight madness first, and that is why the production code is before Ben 10000?

Makes sense. After all, Washington BC is listed as production number 102 but I understand it actually was the first episode made. --Jason Palpatine 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Is there a need for the single episodes?

Redirected articles:

Season 1
  1. "And Then There Were 10"
  2. "Washington B.C."
  3. "The Krakken"
  4. "Permanent Retirement"
  5. "Hunted"
  6. "Tourist Trap"
  7. "Kevin 11"
  8. "The Alliance"
  9. "Last Laugh"
  10. "Lucky Girl"
  11. "A Small Problem"
  12. "Side Effects"
  13. "Secrets"
Season 2
  1. "Truth"
  2. "The Big Tick"
  3. "Framed"
  4. "Gwen 10"
  5. "Grudge Match"
  6. "The Galactic Enforcers"
  7. "Camp Fear"
  8. "Ultimate Weapon"
  9. "Tough Luck"
  10. "They Lurk Below"
  11. "Ghostfreaked Out"
  12. "Dr. Animo and the Mutant Ray"
  13. "Back With a Vengeance"
Season 3
  1. "Ben 10,000"
  2. "Midnight Madness"
  3. "A Change of Face"
  4. "Merry Christmas"
  5. "Benwolf"
  6. "Game Over"
  7. "Super Alien Hero Buddy Adventures"
  8. "Under Wraps"
  9. "The Unnaturals"
  10. "Monster Weather"
  11. "The Return"
  12. "Be Afraid of the Dark"
  13. "The Visitor"

Besides a few of the first season episodes, the plot summaries here seem quite adequate. Seeing as this is a simple cartoon, I see little chance of any sourced information besides a single plot summary for each episode. Does anyone care if I redirect them? Nemu 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

hey i care!

Nope. Go ahead. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, before I start, is there anyone that works on these articles regularly that will likely blindly revert the redirects for no real reason besides "they're important"? There isn't much of a point if I have to do it twice. Nemu 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not anyone I'd know off-hand, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone did it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's done. I'll update the double redirects after I eat. Nemu 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, hopefully they remain as redirects. The episode articles were just crap, as many were huge plot guides. RobJ1981 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Offhand -- ME! I have not done much editing of the Ben 10 articles, but blanking the the whole lot by changing them all to redirects to the listing article is a bit extream. In point of fact I at first I thought I had been mistaken about the exitence of the articles and then I came to the conclusion that I AM LOOKING AT ONE OF THE BIGGEST ACTS OF VANDALISM I EVER SEEN! It seems, however, as this page discussion indicates, that at least one of those conclusions was unfounded. This is outragious. There are many such series individual episode by episode articles on Wikipedia. I see no valid justification for taking a flamethrower to them. The views being posted here are indicative of a small group of users here setting a blanket policy on the entire comunity. Look at the edit histories of the individual articles. There are a lot of people here who put a considerable amount of effort into the creation of these articles. Will you please explain who you are to undertake such a reckless action? Just what possible reasoning could justify a total of 36 Wikipedia articles being put to the Guillotine? This is a smack in the face to everbody here. And if you are about to cite policy -- if this actually is policy, then the policy, in this case, should be changed! And fast! -- Jason Palpatine 06:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's systematized logistical projection of its balanced policy contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
Hmm, I actually wasn't expecting you to object. TTN's an extreme guy. The redirect master, you might say. Regardless, there wasn't much beyond summary material for those episodes. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It helps that a lot of these are villain-of-the-week episodes, so the reader won't really miss much if a particular episode goes under-detailed. Maybe the plot episodes could use a bit more detail, though. My checklist is (with bolded episode titles being the most significant):
  • And Then There Were 10
  • Hunted
  • Kevin 11
  • The Alliance
  • 'Secrets
  • Truth Sufficient as it is; this one might even be cut down to leave behind mostly story-related events and info
  • Framed This one's almost done; all that's needed is the end result
  • Grudge Match All that matters here is really the end result; part of what's already up can be condensed
  • Ghostfreaked Out As with Grudge Match, part of what's up can be condensed to make room for the key parts
  • Back With a Vengeance All that's really needed here is a conclusion
  • Benwolf Sufficient
  • Under Wraps More-or-less sufficient
  • The Return
  • Be Afraid of the Dark
Plus, minor expansion to the following episodes for -
...their additions to the Omnitrix:
  • The Big Tick Sufficient
  • Camp Fear Wildvine
  • The Visitor This needs quite a bit more
...magical Gwen's development:
  • Lucky Girl Not as important
  • Tough Luck Just to introduce Charmcaster
  • A Change of Face Spellbook
This list can also be left open for future plot developments (For instance, if Enoch or Animo ever become significant, their initial appearances can be highlighted). I'll leave this up for a while before commencing for the sake of consensus. You Can't See Me! 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But what about the episode notes and other stuff? You can't put it outside! I say you can bring the outside summaries inside and shorten the outside. Dylan Damien 01:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those notes were extremely significant, so as to warrant keeping the article just for them. For the most part, these articles contained a scene-by-scene plot summary and a trivia section, both of which are generally frowned upon. You Can't See Me! 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a need for the deletion of the single episodes articles?

I've been doing some looking around the site. There are MANY MANY simalar articles thoughout right here. Please take the time to follow the links bellow. Each one is similar to the original Ben 10 episodes liting. All of them (there are a lot more where these came from) are reference links to individulal episode articles:


There are WAY too many examples/precidents on site for the ation we have been discussing to be allowed to stand. It is clearly a proper policy here for there to be a central listing of episodes article for a given series that provides links to individual articles for each episode. The extent of this practice is far too widespread thoughout the encylopedia for this to be considered anything but vandalism under the guise of editing/policy. If the fact that the articles contain mostly synopsisses is a problem, then people should endevoure to add whatever additional material they would consider helpfull.


REVERT NOW -- Jason Palpatine 09:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's systematized logistical projection of its balanced policy contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)


Crap doesn't justify more crap. Anyways, it's fine to have separate discussions on an article by article basis. There is no set consensus to keep every episode. Nemu 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Crap? Your concept of crap leaves much to be desired. Of course, one person's gold is another person's crap, I guess. But, I would like to know why the articles relating to Ben 10 have been targeted? Are you actually saying that everything that branches from the Category:Lists of science fiction television series episodes is actually only crap? -- Jason Palpatine 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's systematized logistical projection of its balanced policy contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
All of the single episodes that those lists have are indeed crap. Less than 100 of the (tens of?) thousands of episode articles on this site actually need articles. This was singled out because I just happened to choose the category when looking for episodes to cut. I don't have an agenda or anything. Nemu 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please stop using the word "crap". It is regarded as uncivil. The Prince of Darkness 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"Junk", "crap", "pointless", "unnecessary" are all taken the same if someone has any sort of emotional baggage within the articles. Crap is slightly harsher than the others, but it's really not that bad. Nemu 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I.e. -- vandalism. Jason Palpatine 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I started a discussion, one of the few people that actively watches this page replied with "go ahead", and there was likely no one else who would respond, so I did it. If that's vandalism, any sort of merger should be banned. Nemu 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Only one person. Pus one makes two. The fact that A person said so. Sorry, but dissagree. Jason Palpatine 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
When one person is the only thing you'll get, that's good enough. Either way, it's being partly bold, so it's still not vandalism. Nemu 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't lump Dr. Who into this. Those articles are ridiculously well-sourced. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I can. A TV series is a TV setries -- whether it has been on the air for 3 years or 3 decades, they are the same type of animal. Jason Palpatine 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really... For one, those are categorized by "serials", which take up multiple episodes, so categorizing them like that seems fine. Plus, those seem to show a great possibility of reaching at least GA status (after a big cleanup). These episodes, on the contrary, don't show that possibility. Nemu 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Jason, think about what you are defending. All of the episode articles consisted of a lengthy plot summary and a trivia section. All of them were completely unsourced. None of them really had any notable real-world context; in fact, these articles are generally excessive when compared to the amount of info given about the series. Really, it's nothing to defend.
By the way, the reasoning you gave on why to keep it is roughly the equivalent of WP:POKEMON - "If these things get articles, so should the things that I want." As if to prove that to be a fallacy, Pokemon's creature articles are undergoing a huge merger. Once and for all, that argument you gave and plagues numerous _FDs can finally be put to rest. You Can't See Me! 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


You Can't See Me!, think about what you are condeming and calling plagues numerous. We are refering to an ongoing series. And the unsourced claim is totally untrue. You are overlooking the fact that the television series itself constitutes mateiral that has already been published by a reliable source. In this case, Cartoon Network and Man of Action are the reliable sources in question. Recently, the first 13 episodes were released on DVD -- that's publication, and the original broadcasting of them also constitutes publication. There's your source verifiability! And please speak in english -- what the heckowy is an _FD? Are you seriously advocationg the complete removal of every such article? You are talking about thousands of articles on the site. There is no way such a thing can be wrong. This isn't a little 7:4:4 vote with the magority's view tossed aside. And A TV series is a TV setries! No matter how much you by another name it. The Notability and Undue Weight used the analogy of an article about a character from a particular film to validate it's matter. The fact that a film character would even have any kind of article lends credence to my arguments here. Right is right and wrong is wrong. What is being done here can in no way be considered right. -- Jason Palpatine 03:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's systematized logistical projection of its balanced policy contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

(Reindent) In order:

  1. Yes, it is an ongoing series. That does not automatically make it notable. Has it made any headlines? Is it commonly discussed on television programs such as Hollywood Xtra or those programs that play on TV Guide Channel while the listings scroll? However much we like it, Ben 10 is just "another action cartoon aimed at a child-young teenager demographic."
  2. By that logic, we wouldn't have to source anything pop-culture related. Try again.
  3. _FD - Think AFD or CFD. It's simple Wikijargon. Also, try not to criticize one's English when using invented words such as "heckowy" in the same sentence.
  4. You're pulling out WP:POKEMON again. There is such a way that those kinds of things can be wrong; in fact, those often are wrong. But to put it as TTN did, "Crap doesn't justify crap."
  5. This isn't a little 7:4 vote. This is not a vote at all. This is an enforcement of Wikipedia policy. You may think that you are putting a vote in, but you're really just standing in front of bulldozers ready to level the House O' Cruft.
  6. You weren't even trying to counter the Notabilty and Undue Weight argument. You just looked for a loophole. Let me clarify for you: It is undue weight when an unencyclopedic aspect of a series (that being a scene-by-scene synopsis of the plot) gets more attention than the encyclopedic value (the real-world impact, which is more-or-less nonexistent on Wikipedia because it is more-or-less nonexistent at all). I could go as far to say that the character list, villain list, and Omnitrix articles are crufty and nondeserving. In fact, if I had infinite time, infinite energy, and infinite work ethic, I could probably boil down every entertainment-related article down into its main series article with 3-4 paragraphs each. That's not what we're doing here. We're just getting rid of the cruftiest parts. And re-read the Undue Weight section if you think that character articles lend credence to your side. You didn't grasp the concept.
  7. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Yes, that's common knowledge. We don't have room for ignoratio elenchi.


You Can't See Me! 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I'm going to throw up -- ignoratio elenchi is ignoratio elenchi. And you are the ones not getting the point. You can trow and cite policy as much as you want. But in the final analysis, you 3 are commiting one of the biggest and most brazen acts of vandalism I've ever encounted in all my years with Wikipedia. No amount of rationalizing or comments will ever change that. And thank-you for your cander about your intent...Vandal!

Your arguments boil down to:

  1. The inclusion of so many articles is a mistake, and two wrongs don't make a right (see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability).
  2. Notability of characters may not be equivalent to the notability of other subjects; the argument implies that a different parallel bar should be set for every type of article. (i.e.: double standard)
  3. Finally, an argument that an article is at least as notable as a random one is still a subjective argument on the notability of that article. Who knows, maybe you really are more notable than Uncle Steve's Garage Band, after all. But, so what?

And another thing -- THESE ARTICLE ARE NOT ABOUT POKEMON! Why even bring them up? -- Jason Palpatine 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This User is outraged by recent changes to the 'Functional Incremental Options' of Wikipedia's 'Systematized Logistical Projection' of its 'Balanced Policy Contingency'. (speak your mind | contributions)

WP:CONSENSUS. There are five people in this discussion. Four have said yes, one has said no. That is a consensus backed by guidelines and policy. Don't call it vandalism just because your opinion isn't the majority. Nemu 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hypocrisy and vandalism. You wiped out over a quarter-million characters of material! And why are only four people making this sweaping decision? Why are only five talking about? Just how many people have contibuted to the articles you destroyed? How many people are contributing to the site? Thisd is a sick joke. You four may have discussed it, but in reality, it was as unnoticed as a backrooom. I know what I ave said is the truth. THAT'S ALL I NEED! -- Jason Palpatine 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This User is outraged by recent changes to the 'Functional Incremental Options' of Wikipedia's 'Systematized Logistical Projection' of its 'Balanced Policy Contingency'. (speak your mind | contributions)
Just stop. You're way obsessed with this. Nemu 18:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, when presented with a link, please follow it. WP:POKEMON is the argument that you are pulling. It has little to do with Pokémon itself. I'll leave it to you to follow the rest of the links that were provided. You've missed out on some critical points by skipping them over. You Can't See Me! 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:POKEMON is the argument that [I am] pulling? Does that make it invalid? Does that mean it is not the truth? -- Jason Palpatine 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) This User is outraged by recent changes to the 'Functional Incremental Options' of Wikipedia's 'Systematized Logistical Projection' of its 'Balanced Policy Contingency'. (speak your mind | contributions)

(Reindenting) Allow me to clarify: The Pokemon Test is a comparison between the existence and notability of a pair of articles. It typically involves the comparison of another article to a Pokemon creature's article, but can apply to other subjects.

The test originated when someone realized that all of the 300+ pocket monsters at that time (which has since increased to 493)had articles to themselves. That user and users following used that to their advantage. For instance (taken from the Pokemon Test essay):

if we can have articles for every minor character in Star Wars, Star Trek, and each of those pesky Pokemon, we can have an article about Professor Hopper.Kelly Martin 22:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper
More keep-worthy than any individual Pokemon. Zoe 07:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nipp
...if we'll keep made up pokemon characters, write 600+ words on a character mention only in passing in a harry potter novel, I see no reason this cant be kept. ALKIVAR™ 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.a.G.e
Keep. I hate to resort to the Pokémon test, but... if freaking Golbat has its own article, freaking 593 deserves its own article. Not a ton of stuff is more notable than a number, right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/593 (number)

The premise of this particular section is similar to that of the Pokemon Test. It is essentially in the same format as "If Grimer gets an article, so should _____." What you have indirectly written is, "If each of the episodes on List of The 4400 episodes gets its own episode, so should List of Ben 10 episodes."

One of the major criticisms of the Pokemon test, one that I had previously expressed in this discussion, is that some users think that the fact that every pokemon has its own article is a mistake. In other words: the Pokemon test is invalid because not all pocket monsters should have their own article, and that their inclusion is not an indicator of notability. As if to confirm this, there is a massive merge going on with the Pokemon creature articles. What was once 493 individual Pokemon articles will soon boil down to ~205 Pokemon group articles.

That is basically my long-winded way of saying, "Yes, the Pokemon Test is invalid." You Can't See Me! 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JOHN 8:32 -- Jason Palpatine03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
and, unless you are refering to a soap opera or daily news bradcasts, I know of no television series that has run for 4400 episodes. -- Jason Palpatine 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm... I don't remember the exact quote, but John 8:32 makes me think of the word "freedom." I'll check it later. As for the 4400 episodes, it was one of the links you had at the top of this section. You Can't See Me! 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Very good memory my friend. I actually had to look it up in order to cite it. I hope I am being civil now. After all, what there is to have been said on the topic has all been said. You guys got you way. Is there something else I'm missing? My last comment was (I think) formatted and worded to be simple and civil. Did I fail? Sorry if I had. Interesting arguments in User:You Can't See Me!'s last post. Sorry, but I did follow the link in that area and I read what I found there. But the way it read out to me was meaning this Pokemon Test was refering only to any and all articles pertaining to Pokemon. At least that's how I read it. And now? Where do we go from here? I am scratching my head now, wondering about these latest posts here. Is it possible that you are attempting to persuade me to come over to your POV? Sorry guys, I see your POV, but I'm afraid a turnover on my part is not forthcoming. A decision was made by you and enacted and is in force. The matter ends there (am I wrong somehow?). Unless you intend to put the 39 redirects up for AFD. If you do, please let me know, as I would vote in favour of such a manuver. IN their present state, they might as well not exist at all. Best: -- Jason Palpatine 07:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
My last answer had nothing at all to do with anyone being uncivil or trying to pull you over to my point of view. I just prefer not to leave questions unanswered. I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way.
As for where to go from here, my best guess would be to expand the episode summaries on the main episode article so that they adequately describe the episode in question. Who knows? Perhaps if they expand enough and have enough secondary sources (and assuming that the other Ben 10 articles expand at a similar rate), you might get your way after all! I'll help out a bit later. You Can't See Me! 08:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course your last answer had nothing at all to do with anyone being uncivil. But, I was concerned about the liklyhood of my being such again -- so I apologized. As for the other, it was what I came to wonder -- a question that needed asking. And as for Ben, the matterial was always in need of expansion. But expansion how? And what sources are there out there that we could even begin to look for? The only sources I am aware of are the series episodes themselves. Makes me wonder..... -- Jason Palpatine 08:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please can some one just put all the episode articles back how they were. I see lots of single episode articles so shall i go and delete them then! 81.98.152.16 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: Topic closed, deed done, read above for reasons. Don't make me pull out the long answer. *grabs ruler* You Can't See Me! 05:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

fine i'll mobolise my troops and charge the delete cannons I THINK NOT! why oh why did you have to target poor defensless ben10 episode articles and there are loads of other articles like this and check if you wish but last time i looked they were still sitting there and i dont actualy see any reason for the deletion *grabs bigger ruler* 81.108.233.59 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brought Up Before

The matter we have been arguing about was brought up before back in November. Why wasn't the advise offered then followed?

Plenty of shows have an entry per episode. You should take this up with WikiProject Television and see what response you get. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving! • WP:NYCS} 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Coast Highway's suggestion appeared to be a good one. Was it followed? Was WikiProject Television consulted? -- Jason Palpatine 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't take people's statements out of context. He in no way suggested that is a necessary step, nor is it, as WP:TV is by no means policy. TTN was bold and merged them, simple as that. As others agree with him, that boldness formed consensus. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

See #Is there a need for the single episodes?

The remarks quoted above were the entire discussion on the matter. It was an exchange between Nemu and Someguy0830 over a period of only 34 minutes! Add the almost flipiant manner of the decision Nope. Go ahead. That has all the sound of seriousness as an order I was once given by a boss at a former job of mine; he said read the thing! You cite policies, but as I recall, AFD is supposed to be discussed at the AFD section for A FULL WEEK by any and all contributors to Wikipedia who would want to speak in tne matter. From detail and prolonged lectures such as I have posted here and on your individual talkpages to one word votes of Keep, Delete, or Mege. None of that took place. 2 admins just discussed it among themselve for little more than half an hour before putting 39 articles to the ax. I don't know what the legalese term for such an act would be: the only expression I can think of is kangaroo court as it was only an ad hoc discussion.

Mr. You Can't See Me! has on the record stated:

“ In fact, if I had infinite time, infinite energy, and infinite work ethic, I could probably boil down every entertainment-related article down into its main series article with 3-4 paragraphs each. ”

I found his candor gratifying and shocking What he speaks of is what I fear happening (see my earlier comments). Any article anywhere which meets the flimsy criteria stadard such as the episodic articles did here (you all said they fall short of policy stands, as I understand you) will become tagets for anyone with an additude. One exchange with an admin for half an hour and poof, it will be gone. A quarter million characters of material were deleted here. What'll be next?

Two people discussed this over a 34 minute period and then droped the ax. I and the other 2 came in after the fact. Are you seriously calling that a consensus? -- Jason Palpatine 07:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

I'll address this quickly.
  1. AfD: They're not deleted, they're redirected. There is a difference. Point is moot.
  2. Consensus: Like I said, it's an after thing. What he did achieved consensus by virtue of him doing it. Apathy is wonderful like that.
Simply put, shit can happen. People aren't happy about the image slaughterfest, but we're stuck with it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

They were articles and then they ceased to exist as articles. More than a quarter-million characters of material droped in a matter of minutes! "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Don't start arguing seimantics with me now, it's really annoying. The contents of all 39 articles was droped in their entirty -- no matter what you name it, it is deletion! Besides, you got your way. 4 to 1, those are nasty odds. So what are you complaining about? You'll have as much chance of changing my mind as I have of changing yours. -- Jason Palpatine 08:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

PS -- What's done is done.
Just give up. You are only complaining because this doesn't go your way. You would still be complaining if we had a month long discussion with three hundred people to one. A quick consensus backed by policy is just as good as any other. Nemu 10:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What part of What's done is done don't you understand? You got your way, what more do you want? -- Jason Palpatine 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
If it's done, stop digging it back up. If push comes to shove and a consensus is formed over returning things to how they were, it's not going to be a hard thing to do. For now, case closed. -- Jelly Soup 09:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said, What part of What's done is done don't you understand? I thought the meaning of the remark was clear. Like my sig says, speak your mind is a concept I strongly belive in. -- I spoke the truth. So why are you now digging it back up? If you have something to say in regards to what's been discussed here -- THEN COME AHEAD AND SAY IT! But if your just here to tell me to -- like some other bigots I've encountered in the past -- shut up, then I would recomend you take take that particular subject up with a mirror. --Jason Palpatine 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Image:confused-tpvgames.gif This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
You gripped about not getting your way and NOW you're gripping because I've asked you to stop? It's done, stop bitching. And if all you're going to do is throw around more accusations, please save face by not responding.
In regards to the matter at hand, I am in favor of the changes that have taken place. There is no need to have huge articles outlining every largely insignificance episode of cartoon. -- Jelly Soup 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Outside observer here. The individual-episode pages do (did) seem excessive and seem(ed) to give substantial undue weight to non-notable content. There's acually already a WP guideline for this situation, one that supports a unified page with only limited plot summaries. DMacks 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is they were fun to read (and write, I'm sure). Wikipedia has no reputation for being notable, never did, and this is not going to change that. Wikis can only be expected to be fun, not informative. It was stupid to cut something in the name of the entirely subjective context "notability." If you don't like an article, guess what, you don't have to read it. -- Drive-by Ben 10 fan

Wikis can only be expected to be fun, not informative.

I don't know what planet you're from, but on Earth, encyclopedias are supposed to provide notable information and should not violate copyright. You Can't See Me! 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what planet you're from, but this is hardly an encyclopedia! Not just anybody can edit entries in an encyclopedia at their leisure, printed or eletronic. And encyclopedias are boring, read by students who need to write a report for social studies. By encyclopedia standards, television show entries shouldn't even exist. This is a wiki; if anyone can edit, anything can be entered, i.e. anything goes.

Wow. You really need to find a forum. This is "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It says so on the main page, you literally see "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia" at the top left corner of the screen on default setting, and it even says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" under the title of each article. Please... Before you even attempt to suggest something on Wikipedia, come to realize what it is and is not. You Can't See Me! 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Black rhino ranger: Why did you redirect the episode articles. I must let everyone see a longer article for younger veiwers. So give them back or else

That's why god invented Tv.com. -- Jelly Soup 09:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

look i cant think that many people would always casually check the talk page until something bad like that has happened, i know i didnt, and COME ON TWO PEOPLE! not exactly what i call a proper desicion and i didnt notice any notices on the list of the episodes or the episode articles themselves which isnt very nice. if someone said to someone else "hey, shall we bomb all countrys that dont speak english BECAUSE THERE NO USE TO ENGLISH SPEAKERS LKE US" and the other guy said "yeah ok!" and did it without telling any one else would you consider that acceptable? because thats just about what youve done here!81.108.233.59 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people regularly check talk pages, just because you do not does not mean others do not. if you wish to be knowledgeable about the "behind the scenes" of the article, pay attention to the talk pages. Oh, and the U.S. has done that, and has been accepted fully in their actions, so, yea, i guess it is acceptable. Rau J16 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

who deleted my coment that should be right here?81.108.233.59 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

fine i'll re-write it: Those people just came in THE NEXT DAY. I’m not sure if THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD WORK but I thought we had signs saying stuff like "it has been proposed that <this article> be merged with <that article> please discuss this matter on the talk page" and I didn’t see any of those either! And with that thing the US did bombing countries I bet it wasn’t just TWO people! LIKE IT WAS HERE! And also I’m in the UK and here it’s not acceptable. And you still haven’t answered some other things! I once saw an article which had the merge sign on it for WEEKS! They came in ONE DAY after it happened and I came in not long after that! And it's still only a 34 MINUTE discussion! if only you'd left the discussion open AT LEAST A WEEK and then we wouldn’t be here arguing, wasting time, effort and disc space!81.108.233.59 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Did I mention there are already lots of single episode articles?

Just drop it. It is done, it was a good move, and WP:POKEMON just helps people ignore what you're saying even more. If it hadn't been done the next day, it wouldn't have been done for a month, considering the discussion started April 30 and ended May 25. Oh, and for you "other articles have them", know this, Avatar went through the same thing a few months back. They came out of it fine, and it looks like Ben 10 will too. Seeing as its been a year, and nothing is on fire. Rau's talk 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

cant we at least have a different page every series so we can have at least a slightly more detailed synopsis? ps thanks for saying about avatar, i'll argue there next pps i've never been could with metaphors or anything but i'm presuming that the "on fire" thing meens that people arnt just doing it any way. if thats right then perhaps you should know that people have wasted lots of time arguing on the talk page so its sort of "on fire" and i'd do it any way if i had a copy of the episode articles on my computer.81.108.233.59 (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The "on fire" bit was a metaphor that means that it happened and nothing bad came of as a result of it. Kind of, if it was a bad move, something bad would have happened. Rau's Speak Page 10:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Limax Episode Notes/Goofs

In that episode, Max was kidnapped and couldn't he use his Plumber Equipment?141.155.170.124 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)LesWong 4:40PM April 30, 2007

I think you mean: In what episode, Max was kidnapped and couldn't he use his Plumber Equipment? -- Jason Palpatine 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he's talking about the season 1 episode with those Limax blob-things; He didn't use the equipment because he was still keeping it a secret.

[edit] A Ben 10 plot page?

Since there isn't anymore episode pages, can I make a page to tell people about what's happening in a Ben 10 season? Like an episode page but all the episodes in the season combined? --Naruto134 11:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It's already summarized quite nicely on the main page. There's no need to list out every random adventure. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant the episodes in the season that involve with the plot of the season. --Naruto134 12:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying? How far are you willing to go? Perhaps you would have the brief summaries removed as well, reducing everything to the simple episodes list posted above. In that case, we should just transfer the listing to the Ben 10 article page and transform this redundent article into yet another Redirect. -- Jason Palpatine 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Image:confused-tpvgames.gif This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
Huh? No, that's not what he meant. What he meant was that the episode summaries sum up the plot enough (or at least, they will once I'm through with them) that a general plot page is unnecessary. I've just begun work on those, by the way. They'll go up some time this week.
A plot page would be difficult anyways, since Ben 10 mostly goes by a villain-of-the-week format. You Can't See Me! 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I thought this was a general plot page. --Jason Palpatine 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Image:confused-tpvgames.gif This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
Er, by that I meant a general plot page, such as Plot of Naruto; essentially, one that summarizes the overall plot without divulging into specific episode occurences. I just meant that that would be hard to do because of the villain-of-the-week fillers jumping between plot-related episodes. You Can't See Me! 04:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What he said. This isn't Naruto, where every event is more or less significant. About a tenth (give or take) of this show is actually plot-driven. The rest is just "ZOMG villain, pwn" and back to square one. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well and good -- I'm looking forward to seeing the final results. Ben 10's use of the villain-of-the-week format is one of the things I particularly like about the show. Much like the old Marine Boy series, were every episode featured a different villian -- never the same one twice! Not even Thadius E. (for evil) Brakish, who was the one villian in the series to get away vowing to someday return, never made a second appearance. Ben 10 does use the villain-of-the-week format, yes. But it uses the format well; there are a set of underlying polts with some characters making return appearances (like Charmcaster) and having a larger sceme affecting the season (like Ghostfreak). That's what's good about the show; you get the best of both worlds. Think about it: how many villians (not counting the episode BEN 10000) have only made a one-shot appearance as opposed to more than one? -- Jason Palpatine 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, your comment here just made me realize something. Ben is like a Black Cat. He always causes trouble in one form or another for anyone whose path he crosses. Curious. Remember Kevin 11, he wasn't exactly on good behavour there. --Jason Palpatine 08:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Image:confused-tpvgames.gif This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

[edit] no images

the article no images Example:image:Ben10 ep01 image.jpg image no article and image:UpchuckAlien.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.34.12.151 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The first image was for the episode summaries, but we don't have those anymore, so the image is no longer needed. The second image is being used on the Omnitrix page. I don't see the problem. -- Jelly Soup 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A recent edit

Someguy0830, I gotta ask: you recently removed an edit to the article linking to a site listing infor about the expected time period for the start of season 4. Why? -- Jason Palpatine 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Image:confused-tpvgames.gif This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

This might be better suited to offending users talk page. -- Jelly Soup 08:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, according to an unoffical website of ben 10, there won't be any episodes untill summer and fall 2007
Fansites do not a reliable source make. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense -- Thank-you. --Jason Palpatine 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Image:confused-tpvgames.gif This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

[edit] "Washington B.C."

I gotta ask: Comcast lists this episode as #1, implying that "Washington B.C." is the series pilot. Does anyone know anything about this? --Jason Palpatine 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Image:confused-tpvgames.gif This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

That is strange... Could it have been produced first but aired second? That's the only explanation I can come up with... You Can't See Me! 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a common occurance. Most networks want to see an in series episode, instead of an origin ep as pilot. There were many cases where an origin pilot made a good stand alone, but the series then was a flop. For example: The Man from Atlantis. --Jason Palpatine 00:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New episodes in Summer?

Is there going to be new episodes in summer? --Naruto134 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was stated that we would be looking at a fall season. -- Jelly Soup 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm losing my patience. These new episodes better come soon. I can't wait any longer! --Naruto134 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just as I thought, the Forever Knights are going to be the main villains of season four. I knew it! --Naruto134 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NO PICS?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!??!!

Okay, it was BAD ENOUGH to take away the eppies' own page, it could have ended there, but nooooo, its too much fun torturing those without cable and can't watch the episodes, so you take the pictures too, huh?! --Xlr8 the Hedgehog 00:00 02 June 2007 (UTC)

www.ben-10.com, click on download. Happy? -- Jelly Soup 16:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
All the pictures are non-free, and Wikipedia only uses non-free pictures when it has to. --Phirazo 06:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I totally agree, but how would we get free images for a television show? --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These summaries are a bit rambling

A couple months ago (before User:TTN started redirecting episode article) I shortened the first season down to a sentence or two, since I felt the summaries given were to long and a bit rambling. I think the rest of these should be shortened this much, but since User:TTN's redirects seem to be standing, how much detail should this go into? --Phirazo 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a difficult question due to Ben 10's Villain of the Week format. I'd say only the most important parts of episodes that contain multi-episode plots. Then again, that's what I attempted when I rewrote a lot of those episode summaries, so perhaps I'm not the best person to decide. Still, I think a sentence or two is too short since the episode articles don't exist anymore. You Can't See Me! 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the monster of the week episodes can go down to one or two sentences. ("Ben must battle an evil clown.", for example) The more important ones could be a few sentences, at best. --Phirazo 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The movie

shouldn't the movie be here, because it falls in to continuity. other shows that have movies have their movies on their episode list, just thought it should be considered.

[edit] ben 10000

in ben 10000 who is exo-skull? 81.108.233.59 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exo skull is that rhino guy near the beginning of the show. Check the characters. LesWong 16:53, 12 July 2007.

[edit] The Season Four episode pages

These two users Indricula and Komodo Rhino keep reviving the season four episode pages that were redirected by me and Someguy0830 that were recently made by Komodo Rhino. Can someone block these two users or delete the episode pages so this ends? Don't they understand that there are no more episode pages? --Naruto134 14:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

People need more imformation for the season four episodes, So wait for a week for the whole season to end and then you can do it. 58.71.156.224 01:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If they need more information, this is better achieved by expanding the article, not removing templates and adding trivia to pages that are nothing more than summaries. Lucky number 49 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Airdate

can anybody tell me when is the new episode of Divided We Stand, beacause I missed it. (Master King 11:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

sunday at 10 am 71.206.136.69 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

can anybody tell me when is the new episode of Don't drink the water, beacause I missed it da first an d second tim eit aired. (Master King 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

could someone please tell me when the next showing of the final three episodes of ben 10 come on again71.191.125.174 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movies and Specials section

i cleaned it up because it was ugly and lacked sources, so i just put what we knew


[edit] major vandalism?

someone has added a lot of new episodes to the series 4 part of the table without any sources, should i revert?--Lerdthenerd 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

never mind the edit was made in good faith with a suitable source by User:Someguy0830 don't revert.--Lerdthenerd 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I know at least one of those eps is totally fake. Ken 10 is a FANFIC with that exact same plot. It's vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.198.27 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Check episode 49. The world's hungriest paperweight 19:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The world's hungriest paperweight is right check the history page, Someguy0830 said he got it from the official CN website.--Lerdthenerd 09:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

someone has deleted half the article but i've just reverted them, should we semi-protect?--Lerdthenerd 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it'll happen again. If it does then maybe. But for now let's not. After all, there will be a new episode this saturday. The world's hungriest paperweight 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yingyanglightningflash had vandalised the article repeatedly yesterday, someguy0830 has reverted him and has spoken to him, although someguy0830 shouldn't have reverted him that many times as its against the 3 revert rule.--Lerdthenerd 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK or US?

I'm kind of confused now. Do we use the US airdate, the UK airdate, or the earliest date, no matter the country? I always thought we went by US dates. Pacific Coast Highway {Trick • or treat!} 16:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I just had them up so the IPs would stop adding them constantly. I'll switch once CN dates come along. — Someguy0830 (T | C) —Preceding comment was added at 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Now it seems they're being removed constantly. I wanted to suggest the it would be noted that the dates were for the UK, but that would be too drawn out. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyone's a critic: if it's not trying to add them, it's trying to delete them. Hopefully, they'll get back to airing the episodes once the live-action film hits, then this nonsense can stop. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben 10 Shorts

There are a couple of shorts of "Ben 10" On Demand from Time Warner Cable. They're in the Ben 10 section under Cartoon Network under Kids. Just thought I'd tell everyone.Chaoshi 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Noo there aren't. At least, not anymore.Igglybuff63 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

someone added a Ben 10 short called 'Carjacked' to the article--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] who wrote the article "be afraid of the dark"?

who wrote it? if you're reading this, answer this: why did you change it back to what it was before I changed it? (guy who edited the article)

[edit] Airdates

For the airdates of Goodbye, and Good Riddance, and Ben vs. the Negative 10 it says October 22, and November 3. Those were the airdates in the Netherlands, not America or England. If you want to see the Netherlands airdates, go to the Netherlands Wikipedia, not here. We should change them to TBA.Igglybuff63 (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's quite confusing. I fear us US people may never see those 3 eps. ,OR the ending 10 eps. of Code Lyoko...SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

They aired back in December. Rau J16 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

no, he means the US airdates. they havent aired in the US, and i think that we should put TBA, because those airdates shown are the ones for the Netherlands, not america. and i think that we should take it off because if you want to see when they aired in the netherlands, you should go to the dutch wikipedia, not the american/brittish wikipediaIgglybuff63 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I live in the US, and i watched it on TV in December. Rau J16 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
are you the one editing it, because not that i distrust you, but i dont belive you. there were never any commercials, and nobody else saw them on tv in america.Igglybuff63 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I havent touched it. i figured i'd let consensus rule(which was that it did not air). Rau J16 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I'm going to change the dates, though because it seems that other people agree with me.Igglybuff63 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

the Rougue Penguin and Todd appear to be reverting each other over the airdates.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

why does it say march 9?Igglybuff63 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where? Rau J16 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
what about Goodbye and Good Riddance? that hasnt been aired in the usIgglybuff63 (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That aired the day before the live action movie, didn't it? Rau J16 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking the article

whoever keeps blanking the article please stop, you will only get yourselves banned--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Ben Wolf or Benwolf"

I don't want to start another arguement about episode names, but is the episode when Ben obtains Benwolf called "Ben Wolf" or "Benwolf"? I recently bought it on iTunes and on the title (before I bought the episode) it says "Ben Wolf", but when I saw the episode, it said "Benwolf"?--Yenaldooshi (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ben 10 shorties

Why have these been put back? I thought they were removed from the Cartoon network website.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because they're not available now doesn't mean they shouldn't be included if they've existed in the past. Ged UK (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw the three of them On Cartoon Network Video, so I agree that they should be included.--Yenaldooshi (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
someone changed them to season 5--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Then they changed it back. Ged UK (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ben 10: Alien Force episodes

The Cartoon Network website[1] has a list of episodes, plus descriptions, from Alien Force, should we put them in the article? Rhonin the wizard (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say, but god that's an annoying website. Haven't got past the 'loading' icon yet. Ged UK (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Make a new article, for both the show and its episodes. This is long enough as is, and it'd be ungainly to use one page for both once it actually gets up and running. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and if you're trying to access the website using Firefox and NoScript, allow both Turner and Cartoon Network. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ken 10

I believe that there was an alien in Ken 10 which appeared similar to and had the mannerisms of Billy. Can anyone remember what the Ben 10 week pop-ups stated that the alien's species was? The Martyr (converse with the Martyr) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)