Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. See WP:PRECISION--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 Nickelodeon TV series) → Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) – It would be reasonable just to call it, "2012 TV series" rather that, "2012 Nickelodeon TV series" per MOS for article titles. Sarujo (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As far as I can tell, this is the only TMNT TV series from this year, so I agree Nickelodeon is unnecessary. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above. Since I am a Nickelodeon fan, that "Nickelodeon" prefix is unnecessary. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 12:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support That's enough to distinguish it from the other articles in Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(disambiguation). --Enric Naval (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Excess disambiguation; there's no other 2012 TMNT tv series that this could be confused with. oknazevad (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stop With This Edit War!

Please stop removing the International Broadcasts section! It is for record keeping. Nearly every other show page (e.g. Good Luck Charlie and Victorious) has one too. Please stop removing it!

--DylanGLC2011 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide and doesn't need to feature a laundry list of every country it's seen in. Plus the fact that such information is too much like fancruft and a blatant advertisement. The only relevant premiers are the North American ones as they are from it's native country and are the first time that anybody get's to see them anywhere.

Also, in regard to your examples, other stuff exists is not a valid argument for anything here. Just because some articles have international broadcast lists doesn't justify an inclusion of such here. They are not GA or FA articles and have sourcing of questionable reliability. With the case of Good Luck Charlie using both the IMDB and TV.com as sources - which have been deemed unreliable. Even if a GA/FA article did feature a list of international broadcasts, it still wouldn't be proof of a contributing factor to the article's status of reliability. Sarujo (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't a TV guide? It's for record keeping of when it did go international. Quite frankly, no else seems to have a problem with it so I see no reason to remove it just because you think it is unneeded? Thanks. --DylanGLC2011 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying that it isn't when adding the list make's it come off as a crufty guide. We don't need a record. Even if you take into consideration, it redundant since it is being broadcasted everywhere on Nickelodeon. Also, it's not a matter of what I think. It's a matter of what I know. There is no rules or guidelines making international broadcast mandatory. Other than it's a crufty inclusion. Sarujo (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No. You don't need a record. I do and I know many other people who do too.

--DylanGLC2011 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also ask to leave this Information in! Many other Wikipedia Pages keep this Informational of the Broadcasthistory - without it I wouldn't have known that there was a preview airing in my homecountry of the show last week. So please just let it be there!Hudemx (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate, other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Sarujo (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly: "This guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance." Always actually read before citing anything. Now try some valid argument, Sarujo. --Niemti (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So lets put it back? --DylanGLC2011 (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Niemi, I do read what I cite and a simple tag does not make OSE any less valid in any discussion. It's simple logic not to come to a discussion with an argument that is based around on what other articles are presenting. They are not the gold standard. Yet, my arguments regarding this matter are more valid that a simply including for inclusion sake because somebody needs it there so they will know what time to set their DVR.

Also, I'd advise you to refrain from any personal attacks. They are not becoming of any editor. Sarujo (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Essays are just something what someone wrote. Nothing more. I can write an essay too and it won't matter all the same. I think you presented no valid arguments yet, only a link to an essay. At Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not there's nothing about "a TV Guide" (or even just "TV", or "television") and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat ("This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.") there is no word "country" (or "countries") neither. (That's for your original argument: For starters, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide and doesn't need to feature a laundry list of every country it's seen in.) And pointing out that an essay "is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" (and is just an equivalent of Wikipedia fan fiction) is not "personal attacks", unless maybe it was your essay or something. Oh, and Wikipedia:Fancruft is also just an essay (quote from it: "Essays are not Wikipedia policies"). --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if the international broadcasts are used for record keeping, we are not a TV guide, nor a TV listing directory, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse to repeat the same past mistakes. Also, the relevant guideline for the TV MOS state that: "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged, Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form." So basically, we should not be simply listing every channel that a show appears outside of the country of origin. However, special mention can be used if a broadcast is notable. If the information is reliably sourced, we should present it in prose format, not list format and we should just name this section "Broadcast" to address the broadcast in the country of origin and internationally. As such, I am opening a centralized discussion on the television WikiProject's talk page to see if we can get more opinions there and gain a consensus on this issue. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Darth Sjones, for conveying what I was trying to say. Sarujo (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation Heavy / Citation Required Heavy

Hi, Niemti, I saw some of your recent edits on October 19, 2012. I admire your enthusiasm, but I'm not sure I understand a lot of your edits.

1) Rtkat3 wondered if Bradford mutating into Dogpound and Xever mutating into Fishface was citable. Your reverts didn't address this issue. While it might be common understanding, the episode(s) where this might have happened hasn't/haven't aired yet. This is one spot that should get a citation or a CN tag. 2) On the other hand, you've created citations for each of the major voice actors. I don't think this is necessary, because the facts are verifiable. We don't need a citation, for example, to back a claim that Lucille Ball was the star of I Love Lucy or that Spongebob Squarepants is a cartoon. 3) Again, oddly, you've added citation needed tags to Mae Whitman, for example. It's been known for months that she's playing April O'Neil, but more importantly, the first April O'Neil episode has aired. It's verifiable. We don't need cite tags. 4) Kevin Michael Richardson's participation doesn't need a citation. People we're not sure about, or exceptional claims require citations. 5) You've arbitrarily removed links to the Wikipedia pages of other people involved in the project. I don't understand the value of that.

I'm going to revert a bunch of your edits. I don't mean any disrespect by this. It is important to note that information is considered "verifiable" if it is published by at least one reliable source. I'm arguing that the show itself is a reliable source. And should that raise any questions about self-published sources, that is addressed at WP:ABOUTSELF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"The show itself" is primary source (and not "published" at all), and can't be readily verified. If "It's been known for months that she's playing April O'Neil", just go and add the source of this information. Who that "we" in "we're sure"? I didn't "arbitrarily removed links to the Wikipedia pages of other people involved in the project", but you removed all the writers and directors (according to Variety, maybe there were more since then), and 2 producers. I don't know anything about "Dogpound and Xever" (anything at all), so here I added a cn to this, and also an original research tag to the whole section, which lacks sources of the information. --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, the show's on-screen credits are considered a.reliable source for verification of basic facts such as cast and crew, even if primary. Just as the plot of a film needs no other sourcing except the film itself. (interpretation of themes and such is a different story; those need secondary sources or they constitute original research). oknazevad (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Are they actually attributing all the voice actors to the individual characters in the credits? --Niemti (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And in case if you missed an 8-months old tag, I'll cite it for you: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." For now, I've only either sourced or challenged the uncited claims. You can also check Karai for the way it should be done (there are, unfortunately, many dead links there now that need to be archived due to the scrapping of ninjaturtles.com, though). --Niemti (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't:

• link to non-existing articles and to common words (like "rat" or "scientist")
• use forum posts as sources (WP:OR)
• remove cn tags if you didn't provide source of the information.

--Niemti (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't repeat the same links over and over again. --Niemti (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Character descriptions getting a little bloated?

• I'm of the opinion that the character descriptions are getting a little bloated. Seems like we're not describing the characters as much as we're describing all of their activities, failures, successes, trickery, etc. The write-up for "Chris Bradford" would be a good example of this. How much do we need to know in an overview? He's a famous martial artist, he secretly works for Shredder, he was sent to NY with Xever to find Splinter. He doesn't get along with Xever, and maybe he tries to trick Mikey into giving up the Turtles by showing Mikey a secret kata. But his write-up gets into the displeasure that Shredder experienced when Bradford fails to find get the Turtles once, twice... Bradford assists the Purple Dragons, his plan fails because the Turtles have "forethought". We're heading into fancruft territory here, I think. But I wanted to field my opinion before going all choppy on this type of stuff, and/or recommending we open up character pages for the series and chopping down the front page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention nothing of that is referenced. --Niemti (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's already been explained that using the primary source for direct observations is allowed, because it's verifiable, (e.g., Mikey's mask color is orange, he uses a kusarigama, he adds Bradford as a friend on a social networking site,) but personal interpretation as to the meaning of the observations isn't (e.g. his favorite color is orange, he needs a blade to cut through Kraang robots, Mikey wants to meet lots of men.) What I'm more interested in is figuring out how much of the busywork that a character goes through is warranted in the character's summary on the main page for this incarnation of TMNT. Do we need more than two or three sentences about a character? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources would be references using episode titles and/or quotes. And no, we don't. We need reception, and updated plot summary. And a real lead, too. And an updated list of writers and directors (currently it is only for the first episode). And also possibly more about the production. --Niemti (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's great that you're volunteering to help flesh out those areas. Not sure how you're going to get an updated list of writers and directors when the only sources you seem to allow are secondary sources. There is not a lot of talk from reliable secondary sources about writers and directors, even though these people do obviously exist and their names can be found quite easily in the episode credits. If you don't object to the use of the episodes themselves for this information I think it should be rather easy to get some of this data on the page.

I'm going to seek out other opinions about the need to cite every observable and verifiable fact in the series, because I find many of the citation requests to be arbitrary, disruptive, and not evenly applied to other facts that somehow slip through your filter. [User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't much problem to use a secondary source to source the writers and directors of the opening episode, did I? Episode titles and/or quotes are very much primary sources, so how I "don't" allow them when I just told you to use them? Oh, and I'm not going to add anything more to this article, myself. --Niemti (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit notes - 18:25, December 23, 2012‎

Hi. I did a big edit to the article and wanted to explain the rationale behind some of my changes.

• SHREDDER:

Changed Hamato Yoshi to Splinter and Oroku Saki to Shredder to make each characters' synopses easier to read. It's also not clear from this incarnation of the franchise if Hamato and Oroku are the character surnames per Japanese convention or if their names have already been Anglicized. Rather than entertain that uncertainty, I referenced their more recognized names. The show also doesn't address how Splinter knows Oroku Saki is "Shredder" or vice-versa. Splinter refers to "Shredder" and Shredder refers to "Splinter." So I propose we call them by their noms de guerre.
Don't need info about Dogpound/Fishface in Shredder's summary. Don't need specifics.

• DOGPOUND:

Subjects should be referred to by their last names per WP:SURNAME
Trimming "Ninja" from "the Ninja Turtles." Turtles is unambiguous and shorter. Otherwise, I propose we call them the Mutant Ninja Turtles.
How do we know that the dog was an akita? And did anyone say/spell its name?
Trying to get rid of unnecessary parentheticals. Regular sentences work fine.
"a spike-backed dog-like mutant with a large left arm called Dogpound" is ambiguous. Is the large left arm called Dogpound, or is the mutant?

• XEVER:

"He knows his ways around the underworlds of each city" reads as speculative, and/or trivial. Obviously he's of use to Shredder for his criminality.
Major chop to improve readability. Previous version was lots of play-by-play which doesn't help us understand the character, a la "and then he goes here, and then he fights the Turtles, and then he goes here, and then they fail, and then they kidnap Murakami..." Let's talk about who the character is.
Incorporated parenthetical into a sentence.
Xever living in the waters at Shredder's "in order to survive" is kind of redundant. If he lived somewhere, wouldn't it be to survive?
Fishface doesn't have his legs yet. Snipped that.

• KRAANG

Re: their language, I snipped "making them extremely comedic" for obvious reasons.
Don't need a lot of info about how the Turtles transformed in the Kraang's write-up. We learn about that elsewhere.
Don't need to know how the Turtles found the information (Kirby) in a write-up about the Kraang.
The line: "It was also revealed that turning humans into monsters with the mutagen, (even if it was modified), is merely a byproduct of the Kraang's endgame" is needlessly confusing and doesn't even explain what the Kraang's "endgame" is.
I'm also going to propose that the last two sentences "they are similar to the Utroms..." and "share a homophonous link..." be cut, because I can't understand why it's worthy of mention, but we don't mention the ways that Splinter, the Turtles or Shredder resemble characters from the OT. Unless someone just wanted to use the word "homophonous," which is a perfectly fine reason. :)

• PURPLE DRAGONS

Added some CITE tags, as they were warranted. While writers may have said these things, we should get some references. Haven't done a clean-up pass on this section yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

January 11, 2013 - Revision of Rtkat3's edit 532643781

I've reverted this edit, because I'd previously reverted this information and I believe I explained most of the changes in the edit summaries.

1) WP:NOR - a "strange-looking" fish is your personal interpretation. "Strange" is subjective.

2) MOS:ACRO - Name of thing goes first, then acronym in parens. Example: Female Body Inspector (F.B.I.), :not "F.B.I. (short for Female Body Inspector)." And technically, per the style guide, M.O.U.S.E.R.S. should be defined in the Baxter Stockman section, since that's where the first mention of M.O.U.S.E.R.S. occurs.

3) We don't need Wikilinks for common words like "weeds".

4) Is there an indication that Leatherhead is not an American Alligator? There are only two species of alligator. I could go either way on this point, but I'm curious as to your rationale.

5) Do we need to be specific as to the components of the chemical cocktail Rockwell was injected with? Especially since "neurochemical" in TMNT context is in-universe language, (like "mutagen", as a matter of fact.) Ultimately, the main article page should be a summary of the character, and needn't attempt to log every mundane in-universe fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 27, 2013 - Re-removal of re-submitted content - edit 535194907

1) Fishface: Removed "to survive" again. When something lives somewhere, it lives to survive. Changed "the fish-like mutant called Fishface" to "the fish-like mutant Fishface" for the same reason that "the world-famous boxer Muhammed Ali" sounds better than "the world-famous boxer called Muhammed Ali."
2) Rat King: Removed extraneous "Dr. Victor"s per WP:SURNAME. The accident gives him control over all the rats in the city, not just the rats in the lab. That Falco first gets control over the lab rats then controls the city rats is step-by-step detail unneeded in a summary. Went with "self-proclaimed Rat King", because there was a plot point that Mikey didn't name him. But I'm deleting self-proclaimed, because it's a summary. "Plague doctor" outfit is personal interpretation without a reference. And why is it notable? Deleted "The rats present at the time were able to get Rat King's body away from Splinter and the Turtles" again for personal interpretation. The rats swarm over Rat King and he disappears. They may have eaten him for all we know. And again, probably not notable for a summary.
3) Snakeweed: Removed wikilinks to common words again (weeds, plants) per WP:OVERLINK.
4) Carlos Chiang O'Brien Gambe: "Strange" is opinion. And does he only report on the Turtles' activities?
5) Dr. Tyler Rockwell: Again removed an unnecessary wikilink for "monkey".
Some of these changes have already been explained in edit summaries or on this talk page. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jason Biggs controversy

I know it was almost six months ago, but I thought about bringing up the inappropriate Jason Biggs twitter content since it was controversial.[3] High School Musical 3 talks about the nude photos of Vanessa Hudgens. That controversy came to my mind again when I watched her in Journey 2: The Mysterious Island the other day. Should it be discussed? Sb1990 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Too fleeting with no long term impact; he wasn't fired or anything else that affected production. So, no, not needed. oknazevad (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. That's all I needed to know even though I was about to say that he brought them up again in November 2012.[4] Sb1990 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this why he's departed the show? Because that might be something to put in the article. 74.12.12.31 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows

The article says, the upcoming videogame "has no relation to the Nickelodeon series or any other". Then why is it mentioned here in the first place if it has nothing to do with this particular series (or any other)?

By the way, the game's article says the complete opposite and that it's "based on the 2012 TV series".

 Fixed -- I removed the unsubstantiated claim, which you also could have done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I know I could have removed it. But I wasn't sure if the game is supposed to be based on the show at all. So was this confirmed now? Because the game looks nothing like the show. I know they're using the Nickelodeon logo in advertising but that might just be due to Nickelodeon holding the rights to the name at the moment. The videogame, or at least what we've seen so far, doesn't look to be based on the show (the look of the Turtles themselves, array of enemies, locations, etc. is vastly different). Sites like IGN or Turtlepedia also stress that it's not based on the TV show but merely "inspired" by it (whatever that means) Anorexia (Germany) (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, Turtlepedia is not a reliable source for our purposes. While the Turtles don't look too much like the 2012 series, there are some parallels: Raph has the cracked plastron, some of the promo videos showcase fights in Splinter's dojo, which includes the scavenged carpeting and the tree in the center. There may not be enough information out there for fans to decide how similar it is, or how "based on" it is, but if the reliable sources are making those statements, that should be sufficient to quote until storyline, list of villains, etc. is released. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Please change "Wormquake!" has, so far, received the highest rating of 9.5/10. to "The Invasion" has, so far, received the highest rating of 10/10. source: http://www.ign.com/tv/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-2012 178.40.79.111 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Non-capitalized Team Name

Anybody here who supports the notion that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' short team name, namely "Turtles" (which is an appellation referring to a group of established individuals), should NOT be capitalized? I mean, it's commonly used in popular culture, such as in:

(Citation) "In the ongoing power struggle between the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, General Krang, and the Foot Clan, allegiances have shifted and the battle lines have been drawn. Krang concocts a plan to rid himself of both the Turtles and Shredder by transporting them to another dimension, where they land in the dark and dangerous streets of Gotham City. It isn’t long before they encounter Gotham’s most famous resident, Batman. The Caped Crusader may be their only hope of overcoming their enemies and getting back home. But not before they encounter a whole cast of Gotham’s most infamous rogues.".

Or else everywhere in the comics, films, merchandise market et. al. the team name should likewise be changed to non-capital "turtles" in casual descriptions, if things are going according to the most recent developments on this Wikipedia page.DanielC46 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Drmies, may I please solicit your input in this discussion? DanielC46 Assuming Drmies does not respond, the issue is that "turtles" is a common noun. In my edit summary I included a link to this discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb: Be as it may, but the capitalized "Turtles" clearly refers to the series' eponymous team. The use of capitalization of a name, used in daily language, signifies an association to a certain, publicly established object of everyday life. One example: What would the term "United Nations" translate to in the mind's eye if its capitalization were nullified and notched down to "united nations" instead? DanielC46 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That last example, Daniel, is not to the point: the question here was specifically about a "shortened" version. I saw the discussion you linked to, Cyphoidbomb, and while it's not as conclusive as I'd like it to be, there appears to be a consensus for the lowercasing. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The "shorter version", as you put it, still refers to an established set of acting (even if fictional) main characters. Besides, there is at least one more turtle in the series - Spike, later known as Slash - and he doesn't take part in all the action the eponymous Turtles take part in, as a lowercasing of the term would - not directly, but unconsciously, in the readers' mind - suggest. It will certainly not be outright confusing, but still unsightly. DanielC46 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cyphoidbomb, I just violated that guideline and I didn't even feel guilty. I'm sorry, I'm the worst admin in the world. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies Doubtful. I'm just looking for a consistent thing to hang my hat on. If this Turtles thing ain't it, lemme know and I'll drop the stick. Mixed metaphor? Yep. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015

Please, change the number of aired episodes from 81 to 82, because the episode "The Outlaw Armaggon!" is 82 and already aired.

GirlPeace086 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. You should be able to make those changes yourself after about a dozen edits or so (which is known as "auto confirming" your account). But as you've just registered and therefore couldn't make it, I've gladly taken care of it for you. Welcome aboard, hope you enjoy the place! oknazevad (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Please, change the number of episodes from 82 to 83, because "Riddle of the Ancient Aeons" is the 83th episode and already aired. GirlPeace086 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)