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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Problem with list of episodes[edit]

According to this link: http://www.tv.com/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-1987/show/2752/episode-guide-lacking-correct-air-dates/topic/2076-615398/msgs.html

"Planet of the Turtleoids" was aired on the 4th season, not 5th season. Can you please check this out, I am really confused if this episode was from 4th or 5th season. Also please note Wikipedia is not giving any air date, and IMDB is not listing the "Planet of the Turtleoids" parts 1/2 on their episode list.

Please take a look into the link provided above. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.142.104 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some dates may indeed be wrong, but please refer to the official site for the correct episode order. Lumaga (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Season 4, 28 episodes were produced for syndication and 26 episodes were produced for CBS. 15 of the syndicated episodes never aired in 1990. The "European Vaction" episodes were not seen in the USA Network started showing reruns in late 1993 and the Easter themed episodes weren't seen until 1991. I believe we should have an episode list that correctly reflects this. Magic-Man (talk) 12:05, 15 Febuary 2009 (UTC)

As with everything on Wikipedia, we need to use a source for everything. The source we have has split the episodes up differently as you have suggested, and this list reflects what the source has. There are a few things that can be done, though. A (cited) note can be made at the beginning of the relevant section, or we can find a reliable source (keyword reliable) that splits the list up as you recommended. Lumaga (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon_information/17693-Tower_Of_Power.html there's a source. The source you have splits them by year not seasons. Magic-Man (talk) 2:11, 16 Febuary 2009 (UTC)

And here's another source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131613/trivia on the "lost" episodes. Magic-Man (talk) 10:34, 21 Febuary 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.96.22 (talk)

Somehow, I don't feel these two sites, The Big Cartoon Database and an IMDB trivia page, trump the official site. The info could certainly be used as part of a season summary, I think. What sort of consensus can we reach on how to structure the list? Lumaga (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for sources yet you only wish to use one and only one source. I wasn't trying to trump the official site. The official site list the episodes by year not seasons. And if you ask them why they have it listed like that and not in the correct order they say they don't want to and are too busy to look up the notes by the Fred Wolf to change it. However they found time to add Next mutation the the original series' list of episodes and fix the 2003 series list of episode which go by seasons. Yes the info can be used as part of a season summary, but shouldn't they be also listed in the correct order if we're going by seasons? The consensus would be to list them by year and use the info as part of the summary explaining if they were listed by seasons the "European Vacation" and "Easter" episodes would be part of Season 4. The other alternative list them by seasons using the correct order and including the "lost episodes" explaining that they are lost syndicated episodes of season 4 that eventually aired in 1993 and 1991. Magic-Man (talk) 2:16, 22Febuary 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the list needs updating. There is a surprising lack of helpful information on correct placement of episodes however, and in fact it seems that only overseas markets got the correctly ordered syndication packages. I have the actual intended order of season 3 in my hands, but it doesn't count as a secondary source. This site[1] contains the list of production numbers and how they were tracked at the Library of Congress. For the wiki list however, it should probably be separated by CBS network vs. USA network vs. syndication, and then splitting them up by production number like so: Separate season by first number (9059 vs. 9060) and then sort by second number. So you would have Season 1 Syndicated, Season 2 Syndicated, Season 3 Syndicated, Season 4 Syndicated, USA, CBS Season 1, CBS Season 2, etc... JoeD80 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List[edit]

I can work on creating brief summaries of the episodes. Dodger55fan (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Dodger55fanDodger55fan (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notibility[edit]

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)[reply]

Case of the Killer Pizzas[edit]

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)

TMNT (1987) Episode Guide[edit]

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)[reply]

This is a good idea. For colors, here's what I suggest.
Season one: Blue (Leonardo)
Season two: Purple (Donatello)
Season three: Red (Raphael)
Season four: Orange (Michelangelo)
Season five: Brown (Splinter)
Season six: Yellow (April)
European Vacation: Green (Turtles)
Season seven: Dark gray (Rocksteady)
Season eight: Peach (Bebop)
Season nine: Silver (Shredder)
Season ten: Pink (Krang)
Thoughts?
Lumaga 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reformatted the whole list now using the above color scheme. Lumaga (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed in Justice League Unlimited[edit]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

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)[reply]

I'll gladly go through and fix the titles, if no one has any objections. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where is that discussion? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I checked with one of the original editors, and he clearly indicated a preference for consistent suffixes [2]. 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)[reply]
"No" -- Ned Scott 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am in agreement with the statement of Inner City Blues and Tedius Zanarukando [3], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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 [4]. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


TMNT (1987) DVD Releases[edit]

I believe that the episode listed as 77, Once Upon a Time Machine (12th episode of season 4) is not actually in the season 4 box set, and is listed on other episode guides as the second episode of season 5. I don't know if the season 5 reference is based on production number or what, but if it wasn't in the DVD box set for season 4, then that should be noted on the table. Can someone who owns the DVDs confirm this, and correct it if necessary? Thanks Thestorm042 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single episodes[edit]

I plan on redirecting these per WP:EPISODE soon. Information from multiple secondary sources must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Single plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. I suggest Wikia and tv.com as alternate venues for this information. TTN 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably an ok idea since the articles are only plot summaries anyway. However, please hold on doing this until this list has a short one- to two-sentence description of each episode. It would be very helpful to use these articles for reference. Lumaga 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the episode articles be transwikied to TMNTPedia. It is a Wiki dedicated to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, and it is affiliated with Wikia. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 07:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that plans for writing episode articles didn't pan out. I think it's a good idea to remove the blue links since they're redirects to the list article and serve no other purpose. If you want to write a summery write in in the list article. VoL†ro/\/Force 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode dates[edit]

Where does the information for the original air dates come from? IMDB, this guide, the infobox on the TMNT page, and even this list all have different dates! Do the DVDs include information about when the episodes originally aired? If so, this really should be cited. Does anybody have any info? Lumaga 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone else is able to provide a list of dates that is entirely accurate, I will be working off of this list. It seems to agree with both the official guide at NinjaTurtles.com and with many of the dates that were already in the list (before I began messing with it this summer). Please continue to look for exact dates for this list. Thanks Lumaga (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • The result is a merge and redirect, based on no actual rebuttle to the proposed merger. Since this is a discussion, and not a vote, there needs to be more than simply "object". Also, IP user's object, though containing actual reasoning, does not actually explain why these pages cannot be merged to this list of episodes pages. Reasoning to keep as they are seems limited to just the amount of plot information and nothing else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only contain overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list. If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. TTN 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Please use the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process. - Peregrine Fisher 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object to changing these episodes, what reason does the user have to believe these pages will not be improved? He's given no reason for this. The pages are works in progress much like all pages on here. In addition, one should at least leave notable episodes or pilot episodes of the series alone. You can't put all that information on the main page. For instance, the first appearance of Baxter Stockman is big because he is as he is portrayed in the comic, as a Black man. It's one thing if you had only one of these things, but then you also have the portrayal of the Shredder in the series, which is in stark contrast to previous incarnations, as well as the interplay of characters and how they've changed them in the series. If you keep adding this information to the "main page" it just becomes cluttered, that's why you get blurbs and then separate pages.
71.222.194.105 05:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to interested editors[edit]

This is a boilerplate bit of advice to editors of television episode articles which have come under Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review.

There is fairly widespread consensus that not all television episodes are sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own in Wikipedia. In the interest of fairness, the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process has been established, to determine whether it's possible to establish out-of-universe importance and real-world context for television episode articles. For example, after uncontroversial discussion here, articles on individual episodes of The Simple Life were turned into redirects to List of The Simple Life episodes.

If you're interested in keeping episode articles, the key thing is to find reliable sources discussing individual episodes. Sources which may help establish notability for these episodes include reviews in newspapers, discussion in specialist magazines, and detailed episode guides. (Some of my fellow editors feel that episode guides aren't sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability, but I disagree, especially for professionally published episode guides.) The key thing for improvement of these articles is to include some real-world content (ratings are a good start) and information beyond plot summaries and cast lists. If there are any books published about this series, see if the production or impact of individual episodes are discussed, and add that information to the episode articles. If someone used sources like these books on a handful of these episode articles, to indicate that the episodes of this series have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that any episode of the series could have encyclopedic coverage, I'd support leaving the other articles as they are, because the potential would have been demonstrated. I hope that interested editors will take up this challenge, and improve the articles so that they won't be redirected.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Season 1 Original Airdates[edit]

I have provided a source for the original airdates of the first season. The information comes from the official TMNT site. This has been reverted several times now, each time without any citation or even reason. If there is a more accurate or reliable source, it needs to be included as a reference. If there is none, please stop reverting these sourced airdates. Lumaga (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This slow edit war is getting to be a little ridiculous. I've provided the original site as my source and have been countered with either no source or a celebrity dating site. If you have a good reason to change the season one airdates, use the talk page to make your case.Lumaga (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles did premiere on 12/14/87. There are plenty of sources out there that could prove it. Some sources say TMNT premiered on 12/10/87. I could find sources that prove that as well. You see the original TMNT cartoon ran in first run syndication so for all the different television stations it was sold to, the episodes had different airdates depending on which television market you were living in and what station you were watching from so in this case when TMNT premiered it was 12/14/87 at least to the first stations it was airing on. And speaking of which official Ninja Turtles website [1] it probably didn't give a very accurate listing of the airdates of the episodes because not every episode listed had it's airdate featured. Not only is the official website maintained by Mirage Studios, these folks do not own the rights the 1987 TMNT cartoon so they might of just took there best guess and could of more than likely been wrong. Heegoop, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

There's no evidence that ninjaturtles.com guessed at anything. As for finding sources that contradict Mirage's official site, there's no way to know how accurate the dates those sources provide are. One source may have had 12/14/1987 regardless of if it was correct, and from this source many others may have copied it as fact. As an example of this point, looks at the many lyrics sites on the web. If you happen to find incorrect lyrics, you may notice that many other sites have the exact same error in their version of the lyrics. The problem with using any unofficial source is that it isn't necessarily a reliable source. We can always ask for a third opinion on this since you and I are seem to be the only two editing this list at the moment.Lumagha (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a minute I have spend a good amount of time searching for sources that prove TMNT premiered on 12/14/87 and I have found some good sources. Also I have found some good sources proving that TMNT premiered on 12/10/87. Now if you give me a week I will find all these sources and list them. Heegoop, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are you guys fighting over ninjaturtles.com. Isn't that the official site? so anything on there should be considered correct. --Gman124 talk 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of my point... Lumaga (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The syndication market is tricky. Each station might pick a different date to air a certain episode within a certain time-frame. Unlike a network show, there is not a date you can pin it down to and be accurate for every city. It could very well have premiered on the 10th, 14th, and 28th. I would stick with the web-site. JoeD80 (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week and I found some good sources, here they are: Heegoop, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources proving that TMNT premiered on 12/14/87:

Sources proving that TMNT premiered on 12/10/87:

I found the sources and please leave me feedback at my talk page. Heegoop, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the link to tv.com [5] on your dvdtalk.com reference lists the air-date as 12/28/1987. So which source should you believe? There is clearly misinformation going around the web. I don't see why you aren't relenting when there are sources more reliable than yours out there. Lumaga (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute TV.com originally referenced 12/10/87 as the premiere date and I can find some archives proving that. Oh and when TV.com was TVTome.com it referenced 12/10/87 as the premiere date. So it seems like TV.com looked upon some unreliable sources saying that TMNT premiered on 12/28/87 as the official TMNT site did. Anyway I am still going to see what Fred Wolf Films has to say about TMNT's premiere date. If they say "12/10/87" then that is what we are using as the premiere date. I will also see what TV Guide has to say. Heegoop, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You're kidding me right? This has all been some elaborate prank, hasn't it? No? You're serious? I've tried to be patient, but I'm starting to lose my cool with you. You aren't listening or learning anything from this discussion. Your email to FWF means nothing unless you can find a reliable source for your info. Your email is unverifiable, and you are not a [WP:RS|reliable source]. You also cannot unilaterally decide what sources will or will not be used if there's debate about them. Wikipedia is built on [WP:CON|consensus]. I don't see why you think archived versions of websites are evidence (please stop confusing that with proof) when more current versions have different (and consistent) dates. You seem to think that no matter what, December 10 must be the date and any source that says different (December 28) is wrong and unreliable. It is equally likely that the opposite is true, but you refuse to acknowledge this. Lumaga (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute you said to find some secondary sources if I get my e-mail from Fred Wolf Films. Will I have found plenty of secondary sources to support it. I found the supply and now all I need is the demand. Heegoop, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You can't honestly think that any of those sources holds any weight compared to ninjaturtles.com. The only one that could be a reliable source is IMDB if we didn't already have a date from the official site. Lumaga (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little silly to say one reliable source doesn't count because we already have a date from the official site. IMDB can be more accurate than official web-sites on occasions, and as I believe has been pointed out previously ninjaturtles.com is the official site of Mirage Studios, *not* of Fred Wolf Films. It seems likely to me that TMNT first aired before Christmas, because they wanted to sell toys that year. I would think a TV Guide from 1987 would be the best source to confirm. JoeD80 (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB is not a reliable source for information like this, as all the information there is user-submitted and subject to change. Also, with no record of the changes, it could have matched the listings on the official site last week, but someone could have submitted wrong information that just now got posted. Unless someone can come up with scans from a TV Guide of the day, or some other reference from that time that show otherwise (no recent references), the airdates sourced from the listings on the official site should remain the standard. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a print source such as Variety or TV Guide is best. I notice the ninjaturtles.com web-site doesn't really have a lot of air-date information though (none for the network seasons, not a lot on season 3), so is it really any more accurate than IMDB? Going back to the link I posted earlier in the "Problems with list of episodes" section, I see the "publication date" is Dec 28th. It probably didn't air before that date. I was mostly just commenting on using one source vs. another JoeD80 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could do that, Heegoop, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


See my notes on syndication markets above. You can't pin it down to a date, because not every market used the same date. The only things you can pin down are the CBS network showings. I think using ninjaturtles.com makes sense, but no one date for a syndicated show is going to be accurate for every market. JoeD80 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the notes but I think either "12/10/87" or "12/14/87" makes more sense because one of these two dates came first and that is what should be used. So I will use one of the sources above and use of these two dates to mark it's premiere date. I'll try "12/14/87" first and if that doesn't work then I will use 12/10/87 instead. Heegoop, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left the reference from ninjaturtles.com, and I added some text to the season one section explaining that the show was aired in syndication in December. Hopefully this is a fair compromise. Lumaga (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what I have just got done finding two reliable sources proving that TMNT premired on 12/10/87. One is from the official Ninja Turtles site, the other is from Big Cartoon DataBase. Now let me tell you something about BCDB. It is a professionally maintained web site and everything on there is submitted by professional editors and nothing on there is user submitted and therefore it is not a blogging site. It has been around since 1996 and it would have to be older than the official Ninja Turtles site. So it seems like the official site relied on what BCDB had listed and then the site probably started looking upon unreliable sources saying that TMNT premiered on 12/28/87 and I told you that the episode list on the official site is poorly compiled and that the site is maintained by Mirage Studios which does not own the rights to the 1987 cartoon. So it stands out that BCDB is more correct about the airdates than the official site is. Heegoop, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

We clearly have a difference of opinion on what is a reliable source for the air date. JoeD80 is the only other user with any input on this, so I suggest we ask for some more outside opinions and get a third opinion. Lumaga (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source is an *older version* of the *Mirage site*? That same web-site that is being referenced has updated that particular page to reflect December 28th. Also, the US Copyright office has a publication date of 12/28. JoeD80 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree that TMNT premiered on 12/28/87. It would of had to of premiered before Christmas because as you said they wanted to sell toys when the show premeired. Believe it or not I found a third source that could prove that TMNT premiered before Christmas. Go here and click on 1987 at this link and it will mention "holiday season broadcast of a five part cartoon mini-series" so that would suggest that TMNT premiered before Christmas and most likely on December 10th. Oh and about Big Cartoon DataBase it is a reliable site. Nothing on there is user submitted therefore it is maintained by professional editors. I also explained that when TMNT premiered it was in syndication and it could of premiered at different times and that the episode list on the official Ninja Turtles site is poorly compiled. Now if TMNT premiered on a network we could all agree on what date it premiered on. I also remember that we use a TV Guide to find the right premiere date and I do agree that will be helpful. Please drop me a line if you have anything to say. Heegoop, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

I did say that because it made sense to me, but since then I haven't found any evidence that the toys were produced before 1988, so it wouldn't have mattered if they aired before Christmas or not. I think Holiday Broadcast means "during the holiday." JoeD80 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It said "holiday season broadcast" and that means that it was during the holiday season and before Christmas. The holiday season begins after Thanksgiving Day and ends after Christmas Day. Heegoop, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

There are no solid dates given, so we can't infer or assume anything from that source. All we know is that the show aired during the Christmas season. Lumaga (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I am going to do. I sent an e-mail to Fred Wolf Films, the author of the original TMNT cartoon, and asked if the the cartoon premiered on 12/10/87. If Fred Wolf Films says yes then we will use 12/10/87 as the premiere date. Last but not least I will cite the e-mail's reply as the source. Heegoop, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

OK. I hope it can pass WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:PSTS. I can tell you right now that it won't. Lumaga (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will, I could at least share it with you and JoeD80. Heegoop, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just figured out a way to solve this debate. The first solution will be to see what Fred Wolf Films has to say about the premiere date. As you know Fred Wolf Films is the author of the original TMNT cartoon. The second solution will be to see what TV Guide has to say about the premiere date. So about TV Guide we will need a copy dated December 5-11, 1987 and we will also need a copy dated December 26, 1987-January 1, 1988 to see which one is right. If the first copy I suggested has showings for TMNT then we will go with the premiere date it provided, but if it doesn't have any showings then we will go with what the second copy says, unless Fred Wolf Films has a different explaination. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to scoop up a copy of TV Guide from December 1987. I searched on eBay and the site didn't have a copy but I have put in a request to remind me if a copy of such turns up. So it seems like we either have to see what Fred Wolf Films or TV Guide has to say. So this seems like it will be a fair deal. Heegoop, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

It doesn't matter what Fred Wolf Films says about it in an email to you. That's original research. What we need is a reliable secondary source, TV Guide perhaps, that shows us the date. Still, as we discussed earlier, the show may have aired at different times in different markets. Which air date do we choose then? We would have to weigh the sources we have, and I'd say Mirage's official site and the US Copyright Office carry considerable weight. I really don't see why we're having this discussion still and why you're so adamant on showing that the air date is 12/10/87 when several good sources say otherwise. Lumaga (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on if TV Guide says 12/10/87 and I list it with the others sources that said 12/10/87 that could carry considerable weight. And if Fred Wolf Films would perhaps hand out an official document saying that TMNT premiered on 12/10/87 that could also carry considerable weight. Now for what Fred Wolf Films has to say about the premiere date I will at least share with you and JoeD80. Oh and about "original research vs. secondary sources", original research can be more reliable and better yet sometimes more accurate than secondary sources. So it seems like we have to reflect on what's really correct than what carrys weight. Heegoop, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Not if one of your sources is an outdated version of one of the current sources. And original research on Wikipedia is a no-no. Please read up on the policy. Lumaga (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I have read up a little on the original research policy and here is what one thing said: To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. So this means that if I get an e-mail reply from Fred Wolf Films saying that TMNT premiered on 12/10/87 I could gather up all the sources explaining that TMNT premiered on 12/10/87 of which I originally provided and cite those sources along with the e-mail reply and last but not least if I find a TV Guide with a 12/10/87 showing of TMNT and I could cite that as well and that could support what I am providing. Heegoop, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Your email is unverifiable, and you are not a reliable source. Please read up on these policies to get a better understanding why. Lumaga (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some more things I have read up on: Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material. Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below.
In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see these sections of Verifiability for exceptions.
If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a discovery. Once your discovery has been presented in a reliable source, however, it may be referenced.
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy.
For all of this it seems like if I provide my research from Fred Wolf Films then I will have to cite some secondary sources to support it. Heegoop, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Official Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Website

Incomplete episodes source?[edit]

The end of the article lists 3 titles for incomplete episodes, but when I searched on google, the *only* hit for these titles was from the wikipedia article. Is there a source for these titles? JoeD80 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure these episodes don't exist. Lumaga (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling for "The Eye"[edit]

In Incredible Shrinking Turtles and the following episodes, is it "Eye of Sarnoth" or "Eye of Zarnov"? I always heard Sarnoth when I watched this show initially, but I had a book where I'm pretty sure it's spelled "Zarnov." Unfortunately, I've lost this book. Any one have this or another official source? JoeD80 (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil turtles?[edit]

The article say that the turtles "switch side" in episode 97: "The Big Cufflink Caper!", does that mean they become evil? Conty 20:35, 10 April 2010

No, they just try to infiltrate the maffia by joining the mob. J 1982 (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home Video Release[edit]

The Series is also being released in Germany (Region 2) and is even far ahead of the UK Release:

  • Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - DVD Collection: Includes all 24 Episodes from the final 3 Seasons (German Audio Only), released July, 26th 2007 [6]
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Box 1: Includes the first 25 Episodes from the Show (Season 1, 2 and the first episodes from Season 3; English & German Audio), released March, 12th 2009 [7]
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Box 2: Includes 25 more episodes from Season 3 (English & German Audio), released May, 3rd 2010 [8]
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Box 3: Includes the last episodes from Season 3, the first 2 of Season 4 and the complete European Vacation Side Season (English & german Audio), released July, 12th 2010 [9] The European Vacation Episodes are placed between episode 1 and 2 of Season 4

Also all episodes which were also released in the UK, were first released in German so the Date in the Infobox should be edited, because the german released came first!91.114.225.179 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How it all Began[edit]

Hi i was wondering does anyone know if the VHS "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - How it all Began" is this considered to be an episode or does it have a different name on the episode list. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teenage-Turtles-How-Began-VHS/dp/B000OT8J28 Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clip from episodes 1, 2, 4 and 5, totally without episode 3. It should be mentioned that this was actually done back in 1989, but it's definately not an episode. J 1982 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 missing episodes[edit]

The Season 2 episodes "It Came From Beneath The Sewer" and "The Mean Machines" were deleted back in November 2012. Can someone put them back on the list? 110.174.166.224 (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 episode list[edit]

Is the list correct?? I'm seeing on the right column that everything isn't. King Shadeed 14:15, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

The chronological order of the episodes?[edit]

If I want to watch the episodes in season 3 in chronological order, what is the correct order? For example, episode "Beneath These Streets" is episode number 19 and episode "April Fool" is episode number 20 but the first one has been aired in Sept. 25, 1989 and the latter one in Dec. 1, 1989. And episode 21 has been aired in Sept. 26. 1989. And there are also other seasons with this odd thing. Could someone please help me? (Omitti86) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Episodes[edit]

The Bishop Turtles, Go West, Young Turtles and Irma's Gang, and Turtles Meets Irma are all fake.

Yes, a rather astounding act of vandalism that appears to have been for every season and I think this is culprit: Special:Contributions/2601:204:DC00:C6E0:BD74:7590:B22B:EF93 You gotta hand it to them to do so much work for something so pointless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.6.11 (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it doesn't look like vandalism to me. It looks like they were correcting episode numbers to reflect how many were actually listed. Though if there is fake episode I think an official source would be helpful here. 2601:204:DC00:C6E0:5446:1045:8D74:ABE (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misattributed the IP for the actual most destructive edits - there may be a few of 'em - but they did happen across many articles and I do wonder if this is just the beginning and many more "episodes" will keep appearing. I've noted a lot of activity like this with fake DVD & Blu-ray releases in the years in home video articles and I strongly suspect this may be connected to the many fake home video articles from places like the Fandom Ideas wiki among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.6.11 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(1987_TV_series)_episodes&oldid=1206480914"