Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) episodes

Comprehensive TMNT (2003) Episode Guide

I like having the list of episodes for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but as we approach 100 episodes, I feel that we need to create a replacement for this episode list, something more along the line of

• List of Futurama episodes
• List of Family Guy episodes

(Thank you for the links Ritchy)

We'll need something uniform and easy to use and I like the tables for the links above, but I'd like to tweak them a bit and we'll see what we can do. I'll change season 1 and then you can just make sub-categories of any criticisms.

Inner City Blues 05:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Season One Episode Guide Talk

I'd like to open this talk page up so any changes being made to the plot blurbs should go here. I would suggest that any substantive changes being made go up here.

• Multi-Part Episodes: I changed the multi-part episode links to link to one page, so Return to New York, The Shredder Strikes, Notes from the Underground, etc. all have one page despite being more than one episode. I think this should be the format we use for such episodes.

• Foot Genetics Lab: Anything about the Foot Genetic Division should be referred to as the Foot Genetics Lab, it's the term used in the episode and on the DVD.

• Blurb Note: You should make the blurbs say something about the story, but not too much. We want to pull the reader into reading the plot synopsis instead of giving it all away.
  • Example: The Shredder Strikes Back, Part 1, saying that the Turtles learn that Oroku Saki is evil in the blurb is too much. We've introduced the Foot Clan as mysterious (I like that edit) so let's have the episode guide reflect that, even though we already know the direction of the story. Moreover, the Shredder reveals himself in the next blurb, so let's run with that.

• DVD Screenshots: I'll be sure to add more screenshots for Season 2, I'm contemplating how I should go about the episodes that are not yet on DVD (and the DVD I don't have) as I don't feel like slapping a crappy TV capture on the episode guide. I'm wondering if we should create some sort of custom "No Image Available" pic. Any ideas?

Also, if you want to do any screenshots, please consult me on my talk page so I can give you the format I'm using. If you think I should add more info to each screenshot, feel free to talk here.

• Kudos: I really like some of the changes made to my blurbs, some stuff I changed back (not much), but Nano for instance, the word choice was perfect. Some stuff I changed to avoid getting hokey like the DVD's, but overall I like how this is coming together.

DVD Releases

Please put all talk about the DVD releases here, someone recently added episode information that seems to come from messageboard speculation. Please put your sources here, if any, for the episodes on future releases. If the source is legit, then we can update the page, but until anything is official, don't put it on the episode guide page. Inner City Blues 19:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As directed, I'll discuss this here. I for one, find what is currently listed, REALLY STRANGE. As in 'and other strangeness' lol. But seriously, look at those DVD dates:

1. May 22 (1/2) September 18 (2/2), 2007
2. February 19 (1/2) September 1 (2/2), 2008
3. TBA (1/2), TBA (2/2), 2009
4. TBA (1/2), TBA (2/2), 2010
5. May 20, 2008
6. February 6 (1/2) August 7 (2/2), 2007
7. June 3, 2009

When you put that in order, it goes 1.1, 6, 1.2, 2.1, 5, 2.2, 3+7, 4. Awesome? But anyway, that aside, season 1 and half of 2, 5 and 6 should be out. We should be awaiting part 2 of 2, and 3,7,4. It's a strange way to watch things happen. Tyciol (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode Order

What's the deal with the episode order? The DVD's aren't in order with the list. Is there a reason for this?

The episode order is correct, the order of the episodes on the DVD's is not correct. If you would notice, I put the corresponding episode number with each episode because they went out of order towards the end of the second season. Some episodes were called "bonus" episodes (singifying something pulled out of production order), and the later releases are more thematic (i.e., TMNT (2003) 3.5: Mutants and Monsters is geared towards the subject in the DVD title).

Inner City Blues 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyler's mother v. Irma

Here are two pictures of Tyler's mother [1] [2]. And here are two pictures of Irma [3] [4] (sorry for the low quality pics, but she ain't exactly popular on the net). As you can see, aside from being women with brown hair, they look nothing alike. They're not dressed the same, Tyler's mother is much older and has round glasses while Irma's are square, and Irma has long hair tied in the back while Tyler's mom has short hair. So to answer your question, no, your edit does not make sense. Having two people be of the same gender does not make them "look alike". -- Ritchy 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Season Five: Lost Season

"Lap of the Gods"?

The article lists two Season Five episodes, "Lap Of The Gods" and "Legend Of The 5 Dragons", which it says will both air on August 9. What are these episodes, and what's your source for them? I wasn't aware that there are any plans to air any of the next-season episodes that were made before Fast Forward, or that the episode titles had been announced yet. - Brian Kendig 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They're available through Comcast On Demand. The S 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Demons & Dragons"

Okay... this is listed as being released for the same day as the other Lost Season episodes. However, I just checked Comcast On Demand and it is not listed. The listing is as follows:

• Lap of the Gods (Episode 105
• Legend of the Five Dragons (Episode 107)
• More Worlds Than One (Episode 108)
• Ninja Tribunal (Episode 104)

Where is this information coming from, that Demons & Dragons has already been released? The S 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost Episodes Release Dates

I think someone has their wires crossed and keeps putting August 9th for the Comcast On Demand. However, this cannot be. Comcast's official site says August 7th, and I saw the episodes on the 8th. The only episode that did not air on the 7th was Demons & Dragons, which is not as of yet available via Comcast's On Demand. The S 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost Season Plot Synopses

The episode guide should not be a mirror image of the episode guide on NinjaTurtles.com. I suggest adding original synopses of the three episodes that have already aired, and then add the rest accordingly, ensuring that they are original synopses. Doing it this way keeps the episode guide fresh and different, as well as avoids any copyright issues from the official website.

Inner City Blues 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode Articles

How come there is no summary of episodes in the episode articles, most of them only have voice over introductions, and do we really need the voice-over introductions? Gman124 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Request move for Clash of the Turtle Titans (TMNT 2003 Episode) --> Clash of the Turtle Titans

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move. Duja► 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Another Request Move here. All the rest of the TMNT 03 articles have already got moved, but this one got moved back. And now for some reason i can't seem to move it over the redirect, so hence RM again.

Requested move

Clash of the Turtle Titans (TMNT 2003 Episode) → Clash of the Turtle Titans — same as all the other request moves here. Disambiguation unneeded, per these guidelines and WP:D. `/aksha 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey II

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey II Support

1. Support - as the nominator. --`/aksha 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per previously stated reasons. Jay32183 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support -- Ned Scott 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Despite Elonka's claims, the applicable policy/guideline here is WP:DAB, which clearly states: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate. No category-specific guideline, including Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), can trump this Wiki-wide convention and guideline, regardless of what it says or how much it is supported or disputed. Whatever controversies about the TV guideline may exist, they are irrelevant to this move, because the TV guideline is irrelevant to this move. --Serge 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per WP:DAB. --Polaron | Talk 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per WP:DAB. --Brian Olsen 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support there is no other article by this name therefore no for to imply that there is a dab page. --69.156.206.147 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per WP:DAB and absent any reason not to. Mediation has been rejected, MedCom's position is irrelevant. –  Anþony  talk  08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per all previous beatings of this dead horse. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom and WP:D --BlueSquadronRaven 17:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nom and everybody else, especially Milo. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey II Oppose

1. Strong oppose, and recommend speedy close. Please note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Request for administrators' intervention#Requesting block for non-consensus moves, and official requests by ^demon, a member of WP:MEDCOM [5][6], to cease with these page moves since they are interfering with a mediation. I recommend that all RM proceedings on this page be speedily closed. --Elonka 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
   • • • My reading of ^demon's comment is that it is about pages being moved without going through the RM process. If you doubt that the guideline here has consensus, surely going through RM should demonstrate where the consensus lies? I consider using RM a concession to those who don't believe the guideline is supported by consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
   • This is actually exactly how a move and a reverted move is supposed to be handled. The discussion needing mediation has no bearing on how WP:RM operates. Jay32183 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
     • I move articles without Request Moves and it's "Yaksha should be blocked." I move articles through Request Moves and its "it needs to be speedy closed". Some delay tactics you've got. The Request Moves are showing clear consensus for moving pages, just deal with it. We only have two TV series left to go. And i'm not afraid to put all the Buffy, Angel and Star Trek articles needing moving up through Request Moves if simply moving them is going to mean i'll get threatened with blocks. --`/aksha 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
       • I actually agree with Elonka that these should both be speedy closed. There's ridiculously obvious consensus for both, and WP:RM says that in that case they can be closed early, and the pages moved: "Page moves usually take place after five days, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged. Generally speaking, page move requests which have already reached consensus are processed quicker than those which have not."
         • Elonka, the mediation is over before it began, so anything from them is moot. And, according to you of all people, polls like this is how consensus is gaged. Let it go. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose - per WP:TV-NC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
   • How exactly is your position "per WP:TV-NC"? WP:TV-NC states the opposite of your position. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose, episode could be confused as being part of the 1980's TMNT TV show. All 2003 and 1980's show episodes should have disambigs for this reason IMO. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   How could it be confused with the 1980's series if the 1980's series doesn't have an episode titled "Clash of the Turtle Titans"? The lead and infobox on the page should both contain the original airdate as well of a specification to what series it belongs to. Jay32183 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Why is it that every oppose has someone commenting on it? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Because your reason for opposing is unclear. You mentioned that confusion would arise if the article is named "Clash of the Turtle Titans". I would like to know how this confusion would come about if nothing else can be called "Clash of the Turtle Titans". Could you please explain that reasoning so that we may all understand? Jay32183 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Seemed pretty clear to me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Well, it's not clear to me. Or at least, it's not clear to me that you understand the purpose of article naming. The "confusion" you refer to would be alleviated by reading the first line of the article. On Wikipedia, parenthetical suffixes are usually used to distinguish articles that would otherwise have the same name, not to provide context for the article. The article itself provides that context. "Clash of the Turtle Titans" no more needs the suffix (TMNT 2003 Episode) than Kofi Annan needs the suffix (Secretary-General of the United Nations). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   There's where we disagree. One should not have to read the first line to know what the article will be about. Where there are multiple TV shows with the same name IMO the episodes under each show should note in the title which show they belong to. TMNT is one such case. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   But "Clash of the Turtle Titans" can't be anything but a TMNT 2003 episode. It doesn't matter at all that there are multiple TMNT's since there are not multiple "Clash of the Turtle Titans". You reasoning would make sense to me if it were suggested to move the article to Clash of the Turtle Titans (TMNT), in which case TMNT is ambiguous. But that's not the suggestion and there is no ambiguity here. The only supporting evidence you're providing is your opinion. I cannot begin to guess what you might be basing this opinion on.Jay32183 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree and say there is ambiguity here. End of story. No need for further responses. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   That's true: I trust the closing admin to evaluate this reasoning on its own merits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

TMNT discussion

An anonymous user has voted and left a comment on the episode talk page. I'm not sure what proper procedure is, but I thought I'd point it out. --Brian Olsen 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we bring the comment here? It's something the closing admin should at least see. Jay32183 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Like 20 to 1 or 21 to 1 will make a difference?  ;-) --Serge 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I guess we should be happy they knew to sign their comment. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of the editors that created the TMNT episode pages, I would like to voice my disapproval of the page moves. The dilineation between different series was done because like Star Trek, there are several series within the TMNT world. I can understand leaving out the title disambiguation with some series, but considering TMNT has four series (1987, Next Mutation, 2003, Fast Forward), I think the pages should remain dilineated as such.

Inner City Blues 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No one has suggested that the TMNT series all be lumped together. When disambiguation is needed go ahead and specify which series it came from. But that isn't what this move is about. Clash of the Turtle Titans doesn't have any other meanings than the TMNT 2003 episode, so it doesn't need disambiguation. In fact, the reasoning behind the Star Trek pre-emptive disambiguation was so that all of the pages would be created properly. Before the pages were built the ones that needed dismabiguation were being linked to another meaning rather than having a redlink and other such problems that result from using redlinks in large groups. Jay32183 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So are all the Star Trek pages going to have their specificity removed when the pages are completed?

Inner City Blues 04:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the plan. There will probably be another discussion like this, in which you will be welcome to participate. Jay32183 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the plan. Just because there's a disruptive group of editors attacking category after category, does not mean that there is consensus for such moves. Please see my statement at the mediation page, and, Inner City Blues, please feel free to include your own statement. --Elonka 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please keep in mind the civility policy. Accusing others of comprising a "disruptive group" and "attacking" is a subjective valuation and in clear violation of this policy. Thanks. --Serge 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, give me a break. You're the one who's been issuing attacks like saying that my mind "isn't in the real world" [7], and you've repeatedly attacked my comments with language such as "sour grapes delay tactics"[8]. Plus of course let's remember that you're the one that opened the "Is Elonka filibustering" poll [9] which was later deleted by Radiant as inappropriate. Personally, I'd love a more civil atmosphere here, but how about you start with yourself, okay? --Elonka 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, whether I have transgressed in this area myself in the past is irrelevant to the fact that you have here and that the civility policy calls for all of us to discourage others from behing uncivil. That's all I'm trying to do. Okay? --Serge 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record:

• I never said your mind was not in the real world. I simply contrasted what was going in your mind per your own words ("Josiah agreed" to call for a new poll), with what was going on in the real world per Josiah's words (reluctant support "in the interests of clearing the air").
• Letting you know that your actions come across as "sour grapes tactics" is hardly an attack on your comments. In fact, characterizing a non-attack as an attack is arguably uncivil in and of itself.
• The filibustering poll was meant as an evaluation of your behavior, not of you personally. And I resent the implication that there was something uncivil about it.

--Serge 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's let ArbCom make declarations like that, shall we? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the "plan" includes doing RM's for moves, or at least notifying the editors of a group of articles, there's nothing disruptive about it. And RM's generally stay open for five days (the recent LOST one was open longer than that) - in such cases I don't see how "jumping in and rapidly agreeing" makes it less of a consensus. Particularly if an admin closes the RM and declares it consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, once someone decides they have a few hours of free time to deal with the huge mass of Star Trek articles =). here's the full list of TV series that had articles been moved over the last month, if you're interested. --`/aksha 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Really the point is that you don't need the title to group any set of articles. You group articles by including them in the same list articles (List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) episodes) and by categorizing them all together (Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes (2003 series)). With two methods specifically designed to group articles together, a third grouping by article title is unnecessary. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Inner City Blues, I'd recommend participating in the TMMT survey above since it seems like the reason you came here. Your opinion is welcomed. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I wasn't paying attention.

Inner City Blues 02:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note to any closing admin: This move, and other requested moves, are currently the subject of an open ArbCom case. An injunction has been requested to stop all page moves while the case is in-process. For further information, please see the ArbCom workshop. --Elonka 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Elonka, you're statement is misleading. The Injunction has NOT been approved by the ArbCom. So there is no request to stop all page moves from the ARbCom, as youre statement implies. Also, an injunction means people like me can't move pages, but it doesn't mean to freeze all Request Moves. Further more, this Request Move is already over - it's been more than 5 days and has been placed on the backlog section of WP:RM. --`/aksha 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Nightmares Recycled episode for season 5

In the summary of this episode it says that the production of this episode was never completed, so do we really need to have this episode listed in season 5 since it hasn't been completedGman124 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it should be listed, as it is just giving further information on the series. Since it was intended as part of the season, it should be kept, much like some series list unaired pilots.

71.222.165.247 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode Plot

How come the episode pages don't have the plot summaries? Gman124 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Single episodes

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 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense, when series like the The Batman and The Simpsons have episode lists with episode synopses, the idea that this series should not have one makes absolutely no sense. Considering that there are episodes with full articles, it makes no sense deleting all that work that someone did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.194.105 (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

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 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No objections here especially since these episodes do not contain any plot summaries and that be merging them to the episode list only simple summaries will be needed. Besides if anyone needs to look at a more in-depth summary they can go to the official TMNT website or TV.com. P.S. I may more interested in verifiability over nobility but seeing as how these episodes are copying a similar style to the official TMNT website and have been poorly written then I will support your current campaign. -Adv193 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I object. Please use the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process. - Peregrine Fisher 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I object also. An incomplete episode guide is not grounds to have it deleted. To say that these episodes cannot be improved seems rather presumptuous. I can understand if this episode notability question was coming from an editor of the series, but someone completely unrelated to the editing of this series shouldn't make this call, especially if there is no discussion. For instance to say episodes like The Shredder Strikes and The Shredder Strikes Back is ridiculous considering the way in which they introduced the character, which has been unlike any previous incarnation. To say the summaries are overly long would mean series like Star Trek, The Simpsons, South Park, etc. need to be deleted under these same standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.194.105 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seasons

The page is getting too long, i suuggest that we make this page similar to Simpsons episode list and move summaries to season pages. Gman124 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Season Pages

I am trying to find information on the Individual seasons, so that season pages can be created, but I am having problems with finding sources and information. If anyone want to help go ahead and add to the following pages:

• User:Gman124/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) Season 1
• User:Gman124/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) Season 2
• User:Gman124/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) Season 3
• User:Gman124/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) Season 4
• User:Gman124/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) Season 5
• User:Gman124/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) Season 6
• User:Gman124/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) Season 7

When these have enough information, they will be moved to regular articles. So please if anyone wants to help improve these, go right ahead. Gman124 ^talk 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • moved the pages --Gman124 ^talk 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Secret Origins

Does anyone on here besides me find it odd that all the people in Feudal Japan in the Secret Origins episodes are speaking in ENGLISH? Perhaps something about this could be mentioned in the article? Gringo300 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Lost" Season 7/Fast Forward Season 2 Animatics issue=

Okay, there's been new developments on the front for the "lost" second season of Fast Forward.

First let me provide some background for those who don't know: 4Kids was producing a 10-episode second season of Fast Forward meant to air in Fall 2007. During production, one of the parties involved pulled the plug, and production was cancelled. The season was storyboarded but animation was not completed. This would have been Season 7 of the show, meant to air in the fall and then followed by Season 5 the following February; however, they instead held over the last six episodes of Season 6 and aired them in the fall, and then Season 5 as planned. After this, the three parties pitched ideas for what direction that season would go, and eventually Back to the Sewer was born, and you know the rest. That's why Back to the Sewer's production code is S08EXX, as demonstrated here: http://www.4kids.tv/show/tmnt-back-to-the-sewer/episodes, and that's why at the 4Kids panel at Comic-Con, the people kept saying that they had produced eight seasons of the show. Back to the Sewer is officially the eighth season, since the seventh season was shelved. I tried to change the production codes at least to reflect this, but my edits were reversed, and I just let it slide.

However, now, 4Kids has released an animatic of the first episode of the lost Season 7 on their website. It's Episode 144 - Master Fighter 2105, seen here: http://www.4kids.tv/show/tmnt/blog/tmnt-fast-forward-lost-episode-master-fighter (it costs 50,000 4Kids reward points to unlock the full video).

So what should we do? Should we start inserting the lost episodes into the list as information on them comes? Should we include this lost season as "Season 7" and thus make Back to the Sewer Season 8? Should we change the overall episode numbers to reflect this? What should we do? Mumbo230 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

no Back to the sewer is the seventhe season. see here. Gman124 ^talk 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the episode numbers should be changed. Just list them as unaired or unproduced episodes, and do you have a reliable source rather than a forum? Gman124 ^talk 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the Sewers is listed as Season 8 here though: http://www.4kids.tv/show/tmnt-back-to-the-sewer/episodes , and besides that, we count "Nightmares Recycled" toward the official episode count, which was also unproduced and decanonized, so why not the ten unproduced Fast Forward episodes?

That poster on the forum is the same person who runs the official TMNT blogs on the 4Kids website, so yes, he's reliable. Mumbo230 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know here are the episode titles of Fast Forward season 2

144 - "Master Fighter 2105"

145 - "Something Wicked"

146 - "Bounty Huntin'"

147 - "Turtles Turtles Everywhere"

148 - "Law and Disorder"

149 - "The Devil and Dr. Stockman"

150 - "The Incredible Shrinking Serling"

151 - "Space Usagi"

152 - "City under Siege"

153 - "Homeward Bound"

http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showpost.php?p=699715&postcount=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.83.45 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(Morden Love:) The Return of Nano

The list says the 11th episode in season 2 is namned Morden Love: The Return of Nano, in the beginning of the episode it only says The Return of Nano. Do any one have any source that say Morden Love: The Return of Nano?

193.150.222.25 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Wedding Bells and Bytes" double listing

For some reason, the episode 156 "Wedding Bells and Bytes" lists twice on the public readout, yet only once in editing mode. How comes? And how can this be rectified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.224.98 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Kirby Tribute Citation

"The King" S01E16 is listed as being dedicated to Jack Kirby along with a citation needed tag. The episode specifically states this so the citation should be as obvious as any of the rest of the episodes (and obviously it doesn't add much to cite every episode as the source for every episode description). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.125.14 (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)