Talk:Ninjago (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:Ninjago Season One Box.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ninjago Season One Box.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ninjago Season One Box.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Is IMDB really a good source?

Season 2 has all its episodes filled in based on their IMDB description. Is IMDB really a good source? After all, it did say they would be released in November.--User:Knowitall659 (talk to me!) 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, what other resource is there that Wikipedia would accept? Those small synopses are the only pieces of information available until the episodes actually air on Cartoon Network. So, I'm afraid we will just have to watch and wait, and stay content with IMDb until a better resource comes along, unless anyone can suggest one right now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Seperate article for Characters

I feel that this article is growing too large for its own good. If we had a separate article, or something linked to this article, for the characters in the series (of which there are several of note). Then we would have a proper amount of information on them and this article would be a sensible size. Of course, there is also the option that we leave any more detailed info about the characters for the wikis concerned with Lego Ninjago. Any other ideas? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article is unsourced. I would propose cutting the unsourced material down, not splitting it off into new articles. David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodbye, Ninjago

Oh, I give up on this article. Unregistered users are making a mockery of what a Wikipedia article should be. I've tried and failed to put things right, since those same users are instantly undoing all my work. Okay, let them ruin it, if that's what they want. I can't keep reverting bad edits and putting back the relevant info if people won't allow it to remain. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I unfortunately reached the same conclusion as you. The edits aren't vandalism, though, just bad edits, so the article won't be semi-protected. David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Season Three and Four

Whoever is constantly adding information about Season three and Season Four, please stop. If you don't have any official sources that a third and fourth season will be provided by Lego, do not add the episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.90.89 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I agree and the person who put up season 4 and wrote "book the rock" doesn't tell a dicription of this episode that they say is to happen. People should put more sources at the bottom. 99.123.20.247 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have searched extensively and have found only evidence of the story involving the two rival Pirate clans and the 'Stone Army'. There was something somewhere that Lloyd would have to face his father in this season, but I can't remember where, or if it is still a solid fact. Also, there are rumors about an old enemy thought to be dead returning. Pythor, perhaps..? There really need to be more references and reliable information. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now everyone knows some of that information is correct. Even though there is only one pirate team, which only show up in the episodes Pirates vs Ninja and Ninjaball Run. Also the Stone Army is now known. And old enemy thought to be dead, that must be the overlord, but the rest of the information posted before was just nonsense. I can't belive how in a short about of time you get to know what people are saying since the story goes on so fast, I wish Lego could've had Cartoon Network have it gone slower. 99.123.20.247 (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2013 Ending?

I have been hearing rumors and hints from across a lot of the internet and Lego-buying public that Lego Ninjago will be discontinued next year. But then they say that 'the sets will still be on the shelves net year'. What's that supposed to mean. The story has to end at some point, and it seems to me that to put in a little section about it being considered for discontinuation might well be advisable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since television ads say episode 26, The Ultimate Spinjitzu Master is the last episode, that would mean an early end in late this year, 2012. But with so many people, even people that talk to Lego themselves, like the youtube user BrickShowtv, saying Ninjago will end in 2013, I believe that even though there are no dates for another season to air, we might have an out of nowhere episode like episode 14 Darkness Shall Rise, some day. So 2013 would be probably the ending, there probably will be one more season with evil, free Garmadon and everything. Also, at the end of The Ultimate Spinjitzu Master (episode 26, which has aired on youtube) Kai is talking like there is a little more to come. So 2013 might be the time, or it might be now. 99.123.20.247 (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Help keep this article in order, please

Alright, so I'm back. I have just spent the best part of a day sorting out this article, as you can see in the edit history, to get it similar to other articles on animated series. I would ask anyone editing it to please help me keep it like this (and my that I mean not putting in nonsense info, info that can't be found anywhere else and thus can't be substantiated, and not writing reams and reams of detail into it as if this was your personal Ninjago Wiki) And by the way, Ninjago is ending in 2013 and being replaced with a theme called The Legends of Chima, so how could a third season possibly be coming? I will put in a reference when I can find a suitable one, but until then please treat this as sound info, since I have found it on a number of sites (and not the fan and community ones that simply rant and bluster). --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking, we should keep up the information that says a third season is possible since there is a while until 2013 and in a matter of days the last episode (maybe in all, and maybe in just the season) will air even though it is on youtube. And if you would like I can try my best to make sure to keep the page updated so the correct information is told.....Man I like talking smart on this. 99.123.20.247 (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds grand, just providing it is the correct info, not speculation, rumor and wishful thinking from conversation forums. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sentence Edit

Found a sentence missing clarfication, still using new account so can't edit yet. In the overview is this:

"While sporting several buildings and clothing, Ninjago is a modern setting incorporating large skyscraper cities, various vehicles, video games and exo-suits."

Sentence could better read as:

"While featuring several historically designed buildings and traditional clothing, Ninjago is a modern setting incorporating large metropolises with skyscrapers, current-age (and futuristic) vehicles, modern electronics and semi-robotic exo-suits; among other temporal displacements." << That last part can probably be better, I forget the term for items of time period A. (classical) being in Time period B. (modern) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axslayer33 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Organizing

I propose we take the characters part of the page and split it into its own page, for example: List of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu characters. Once the article is created and content is moved, that the characters section should be shortened to only including the main characters, with a main article section as with the Episodes section in it.

This would be necessary for organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theawesome67 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The plot section isn't quite a MFWOT, but it's close. Subsections grouped into paragraphs?

Season 5:Posession

Lego NinjaGo: Masters of spinjitsu finally released episode 45 in Asia, the phillipines to be exact.

Episode 45: Winds of Change Summary (Opening)Opening starts At the Ninjago Museum, it was night that day, a police guard was inside gaurding it, he then noticed a shadow from behind and then he screamed as he got possesed by the new antagonist of the season,Morro voiced by(Andrew Francis).

After the events of of episode 44 "Corridor of Elders", The Ninjas are flying with dragons trying to catch a big fish requested by fisherman. after they caught it they headed to Sensei Wu's recently opened teashop. He asked the ninjas to advertise for customers until they got a mysterious call from the museum, asking for Lloyd. Lloyd goes to the museum and finds a police officer that was possesed during the previous night.Lloyd dosen't know the gaurd's possesed. Lloyd then asks him of what happened during the previus night.The possesed guard takes lloyd to the room the event happened. He then shows Lloyd the the missing armor that was stolen. Lloyd tries to figure it out when the guard almost hits him with a wrench. Lloyd dogdges the attack and knocks the guard unconcious, a shadowy figure appears from the unconcious guard and posseses lloyd. Meanwhile the ninjas were in the city trying to advertise customers,they use there powers to advertise more people to come to sensei wu's teashop. they suddenly lose there powers.they go back to Sensei Wu to tell him what's wrong. until Lloyd (Now possesed by morro) comes to the teashop. Fighting the ninja off and tries to take sensei wu's staff. Wu and the ninja escape with the bounty but the episode ends of Lloyd(Morro) following them with his own flying dragon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamearitis (talk • contribs) 10:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Better Organization

I think that the page should look something more like this page, which is about a series called LEGO Chima. I edited a lot of it. We should have a section for plot, characters, and most of all, a chart like the one shown there that lists all the episodes and some summaries. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_Chima

QuadPuff (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi QuadPuff, the character list that supports this series is here. It is far too detailed to be of any practical value at this main article, and if Legends of Chima is your example of how you feel the character list should be integrated, I'd have to strongly oppose that.

I would also strongly oppose the transclusion of the episode tables into this article because that's not consistent with the Manual of Style for television or normal editing practices at WikiProject Television. Once a character list and an episode list has grown too large for the main article, we move the content to new articles, we don't keep remnants lingering around or move the information back. The Episodes section of our main articles typically contain:

1. A link to the main list of episodes
2. A series overview (Season #, # of episodes in that season, start/end date) that is transcluded from the List of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu episodes article.

And that's it. See this for example. There is absolutely no reason to reincorporate the episode list into the main article, or a character list. Remember also that Wikipedia is not a fan website, it's an encyclopedia. We're here to provide a general overview of a notable subject, not to cram as much information about the series everywhere we can. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! So, should I try to redo the Legends of Chima page in accordance to the Manual Style of Television? QuadPuff (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

QuadPuff I think that would be ideal, yes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CyphoidBomb Quick question: How do I create a page (let's say, Legends of Chima Chracters) and make something say "Main Article: Legends of Chima Characters"? QuadPuff (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

QuadPuff I would hold off for a moment. We shouldn't just copy/paste to a new article, we need to properly attribute the content, which isn't a difficult thing, but is important. What you should do first is open a discussion on the article's talk page and propose a split. Basically, "The article is too long, and I propose splitting off character list into a new article and the episode list into a new article." Wait a bit after that, and then we can start the process. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Stylization

During October Teletoon marathoned a bunch of episodes. I noticed that on the 18 October 4:30pm EST taping of "Blackout" that the title was different, the series was stylized "NinjaGo: Masters of Spinjitzu: Rebooted". It was odd because normally they didn't include the season title, I had to manually tape it because the difference didn't show up in the manual follow.

Less than the season though, I am wondering about the capital G. Does this recur enough that we should also list the capital G as a stylization of the series title? It seems to match with the battle cry "Ninja...Go!" they sometimes do.

It's not something I could search for easily to find sources to support though considering that google isn't usually casing-sensitive in its searches. Ranze (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I wish that I had seen this article sooner as I've done a fair amount of work on the other article, and this one has most things that are good, although it still needs cleaning up, as can be seen in the list of characters section. So I propose that the intro, the episodes, and the cast of 'my article' be integrated into this article's sections, and the other article deleted. I'll start transferring as long as people agree. Mike44456 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also belive that the articles should be merged into one, it is silly to have two articles about the exact same topic with the exact same information. Also, one is lacking information that the other one has. 99.123.20.247 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've declined a speedy deletion request at Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu because content may have been merged so we need to keep attribution, and it is valid redirect anyways. Feel free to check for more mergeable content where not done already.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt anyone will thank whoever merges the Ninjago page about the LEGO sets and the page about the series based on it. I vote that we keep the two pages seperate. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should just copy the tv show plots into this article. The other article is about the LEGO sets, so technically, the plots should be here in the tv show article. QuadPuff (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

QuadPuff Hi there, you're responding to a 3 year old conversation. It's also unclear specifically what you are proposing. The List of episodes article is too large to be merged back into this article, if that's what you were suggesting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Are either of the two merge proposals mentioned here still relevant? If not, this discussion should probably be archived for out-of-date content, to prevent confusion. If the merge proposals are still relevant, what exactly do they mean?

For the first merge proposal: Mike44456, 99.123.20.247, Tikiwont, ProtoDrake, if this discussion is still relevant, which two pages are you talking about?

For the second merge proposal: QuadPuff, if your proposal is still relevant, what exactly were you proposing?

Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Content Reversion: 5/25/17 UTC

Hi, 146.199.119.203! Thank you for editing Wikipedia!

I just reverted some of your edits to this page. These edits stated similarities between Season 4 of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu and the Mortal Kombat film. The edits were reverted because the alleged similarities were not supported by a reliable source, and so were a violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research and synthesis.

If you can find a reliable source that states these similarities, you can re-add the material, followed by the source, so that the material is attributable. Please note that it should be preceded by "(person stating similarities) (states/points out/reasonable alternative) that", as statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution (and I'm pretty sure that "X and Y are similar" is a statement of opinion).

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect positioning of infobox

Hi! I noticed that, in mobile web viewing, the lede for this page appears above the infobox, not below. However, I think that the lede should appear below the infobox. I tried to move the infobox above the lede (in this edit), but the infobox remained below the lede. If anyone can figure out a way to move the infobox above the lede, please let me know! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that this occurs for me on all mobile Wikipedia pages, so it is likely something about my device rather than the page, and, as such, does not need fixing. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lego Ninjago group deletion?

Hi! A discussion as to what should be done with a group of Lego Ninjago-related articles (including this one) is going on at Talk:Lego Ninjago#Lego Ninjago group deletion?. If you can, please check out the discussion and let me know what you think there. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Content Reversion: 11/28/17 UTC

Hi, Phineas53, 2600:1700:f930:7040:1c40:8136:114b:1db5, and 2607:fea8:4fa0:51:5899:6a58:51ad:f987! Thank you for editing Wikipedia!

I just reverted 5 edits, 3 made by 2607:fea8:4fa0:51:5899:6a58:51ad:f987, 1 made by 2600:1700:f930:7040:1c40:8136:114b:1db5, and 1 made by Phineas53. (The edit reversion was done in this edit.) Here's why I reverted these edits:

• 2607:fea8:4fa0:51:5899:6a58:51ad:f987's edits (1, 2, and 3) were reverted for the following reasons:

• Edit 1 added a seemingly unnecessarily large amount of information about the characters to the lede. How much information should be written about the characters is open for debate, but as such a discussion has not yet occurred, the information in the Cast and characters section should probably be sufficient.
• Edits 1 and 2 added information about The Lego Ninjago Movie. However, high-level information about the Lego Ninjago Movie is already on the Lego Ninjago page, so it probably does not need to be here as well.
• Edit 3 expanded on the information about The Lego Ninjago Movie, which was removed because of problems with the information being there in the first place (as stated in the previous bullet point).

• 2600:1700:f930:7040:1c40:8136:114b:1db5's edit (4) was reverted because it was in-between other edits that I wanted to revert. I am not sure whether or not I should manually restore the edit, however, as the changes that it made seem to be part of a silent edit war as to whether or not those changes should be there.
• Phineas53's edit (5) was reverted because it restored a change which I previously reverted in this edit, for reasons explained in the edit summary of that edit. Since Phineas53's edit restored that change without providing a reason for doing so, I reverted the change again. Phineas53, could we discuss whether or not your change should go through, and why?

If anyone has any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Title of this article

I notice that Heating172's recent edit resurfaces a potential accuracy disagreement about the title of this article.

The titles for this article (and the corresponding list of episodes) were changed fairly recently (to omit the word 'Lego'), on the basis that it is rare for the title of the TV series to contain the word 'Lego'. (e.g. IMDb — https://imdb.com/title/tt1871731/, Cartoon Network — https://m.cartoonnetwork.co.uk/show/ninjago, itv — https://www.itv.com/hub/ninjago/2a4217). Also, by not including the word 'Lego' in this article's title, it helps to avoid confusion between it, and the seperate article on the toy theme, Lego Ninjago.

I'd welcome some discussion to come to a consensus on how we should refer to this TV series, in the context of Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Victonter (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Victonter but it should be Lego because that’s the full titlename Cartoon Network stated. In case you have not noticed, I am Tommy Anderson so I confirmed that it is Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu is the titlename. H172 Feel free to leave a message! 19:49, 24 August 2018

@Heating172:, I was wondering if you had an up-to-date reference to support that assumption - I find it far more common that the word 'Lego' is omitted when describing the TV series? What about omitting it on the grounds that it helps avoid confusion between this article, and Lego Ninjago (about the physical toy line)? Victonter (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Victonter at the moment unless some strong evidence to the contrary is presented. 173.79.132.205 (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this disagreement of whether the show should be titled Ninjago or Lego Ninjago has gone on long enough. Keep it as Ninjago, drop the Lego. The show does not use lego in the title, Cartoon Network's website makes no mention of the word Lego, and even Lego's official website does not use Lego when describing the series. Heating172, I find it very unlikely that you are indeed Tommy Andreasen as you claimed earlier as you misspelled his name. Drop the Lego and lets leave it at that.

Thanks, 108.28.173.142 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A request

I have, for the final time I hope, renamed the article so that it does not contain the word 'Lego' (discussions about the rationale behind this can be found above).

In future, if you would like to move a page, please make sure that you FIRST consult Wikipedia:Moving a page, and ensure that there's a good enough reason for the move (that is clearly identified in the box). It can also be really helpful if a discussion is started on the article's talk page.

Cheers,

Victonter (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

New Character Page Proposal

Hello, I'm proposing that a new Ninjago Character Page should be created. The cast and character section is getting quite extensive on the main page and several major characters and antagonists have not even been added yet. A new page would allow for more expansive character descriptions and even allow for information on the movie counterparts. Several "Ninjago character" links are also redirected to the main Ninjago Masters of Spinjitzu page so a new Ninjago character page would better organize the information and make it easier to access. I don't have an account so I cannot create the page but simply transferring the information under "Characters" onto the new Character page would be an excellent start. We can expand the page from there, maybe even add inboxes and images of individual characters.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.126.222 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. This section is getting quite a mess, and it would be great to have a well-organised list of all noteworthy characters from this story canon. Probably best not to include movie characters, though, as this is a separate story canon. Victonter (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Victonter Sounds good! (Also, this is the same person who started this discussion, I'm just using a different IP address). Let's do what you said and confine the page to the TV show cannon. Do you want to create the article? I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's editing system and procedures and also don't have an account but I can at least add information.

I was thinking that the main character summaries should be divided into 4 parts:

1. Brief character info (name, voice actor, powers, relations, etc)

2. Summary of character's role in the story

3. Personality and characterization of character

4. Behind the scenes info from the show creators (such as inspiration, conception, and evolution). This final part will avoid "in-universe" style but will also be the hardest to write and cite. We would need to use tweets, interviews, or behind the scenes videos for this part.

These are essentially the parts included under Lloyd Garmadon's character description minus behind the scenes info (because that part is harder to write). We can deal with the rest of the side character and minor character once the main character bios are properly hammered out. The page will start out small and be a work in progress, but will eventually turn into a proper character page. I have been mainly looking at the RWBY character page and Gumball Character page for inspiration (that's where I got the idea for info boxes and character pictures). Thanks for the response, any thoughts?

Thanks, 173.79.132.205 (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Love the Gumball-style infoboxes — they are absolutely perfect for the Ninjago universe.

With the information from Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu (TV series) I've got a very rough mock-up of the new page on one of my sandboxes with a new infobox for Lloyd — look good to you?

If you're happy with how it looks, I'll start to add them for all characters (and generally tidy it up a little, e.g. removing duplication of voice actor names). Once it's all a bit more well-structured then I'll submit the article for creation?

Cheers,

Victonter (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Victonter Wow, you work fast! It looks really, really good, love the info boxes! Just a few things I would change. First, I'm not sure if you should put "Protagonists" and "Antagonists" as the primary heading considering that many characters have switched sides and also that several good guys are not necessarily protagonists. It would probably be better if you made the primary headings what the current secondary heading are. The new secondary heading can thus become the character names, similar to the Gumbull character page.

Second, you should probably make the Ninja the first characters on the page. They are the main characters and should go first. "The First Line of Decent" is a cool idea and The First Spinjitzu Master is important as a historical figure, but not important enough to be the first character on the page. I would move Garmadon and Wu under "Main Characters" (comprised of the Ninja and their sensei) and the First Spinjutzu Master to a new category titled "Others".

Third, I don't think it's a good idea to put the season # in parenthesis next to the character groups. While it does clarify to reader what season those characters are villains from, there are several problems with including them. Firstly, many of the characters in earlier seasons reappear in later season. The Overlord and Golden Master, for example, are same character and should thus not be put in separate categories. Secondly, some characters do not really belong under the current headings. Acronix and Krux, for example do appear in season 7 and do lead the Vermillion, however, they are clearly not members of the Vermillion species themselves. If we want to clarify what season characters are major antagonists of, we can do in the character descriptions themselves. Example: Acronix, along with his brother Krux, was the major antagonist of season 7. Thirdly, some characters are part of the factions but do not appear until a later season. General Acturus, for example, is certainly a serpentine but does not make his appearance until season 4. Next to the current Serpentine heading, however, is season 2. It would be inaccurate to place General Acturus under "Serpentine" in the current page layout as he does not appear in season 2.

Forth, I see you are adding in info boxes for several of the characters. I don't think we need them for more minor characters (like the elemental masters) secondary villains (like Kruncha and Nuckal), and minor Ninja allies. At the moment, I think that only the Main characters and major antagonists (like Pythor, Morro, or Harumi) should have info boxes. Perhaps some major supporting allies can get some later but we should only focus on Main characters and major antagonists for now.

Overall, still a really well put together article! Would it be alright if I edited it too? Don't worry, I won't make any major or organizational changes without your permission. I just wanted to add some more text for each of the characters (they are looking pretty bare right now) and put some more info into the inboxes. 173.79.132.205 (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback! Completely agree with you about the subheadings and you're bang on about the unnecessary infoboxes.

However, I would be keen to keep it quite divided by season. I'd say that the article should be written for a more general audience (unlike, say, Ninjago Wikia) and from this perspective it's more useful to consider each season's faction of villains seperately (e.g. the Time Twins firstly as the leaders of the Vermillion Warriors rather than Elemental Masters). It shouldn't, I think, attempt to go into the intricate details of the story universe (again, this is what Ninjago Wikia is perfect for).

Also, with that in mind, would it be better to class the Overlord and the Golden Master as two seperate entities? Yes, they're technically the same character, but the Golden Master is only the physical embodiment of a digital Overlord remnant, and they have completely different names and physical appearances.

These are kind of what led me to give season numbers in parentheses. I have taken them out for neatness, but they can of course be re-added.

Thanks again for your help and advice! You are more than welcome to contribute as you see fit.

Victonter (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@VictonterThanks for allowing me to edit! I have already added in a few things since you gave me the permission.

On the Overlord specifically, I would definitely keep them as the same character. Even though they have different names and physical appearances, they are still fundamentally the same character in terms of goals, motivations, memories, and even voice. Also, and I might be could be wrong about this, I believe that the Overlord was still called "the Overlord" by the other characters in season 3 even when he acquired the Golden Armor. In this situation, I would refer to how Wikipedia treats Anakin and Darth Vader. Even though they have different names, different physical characteristics, and different morals, they are still considered to be the same character and accordingly have the same wikipedia page. The case should be the same for the Overlord, he should probably only have one section on the page devoted to him.

On the question of labeling the seasons, I can understand where you are coming from. It would certainly help people who are unfamiliar with the show to look up characters if they are organized chronologically. I fear, however, that using the season to organize the characters would lead to more confusion and inaccuracy overall. Using my example from earlier, where would be put Gneral Acturus? Under the season organizing system, putting him under Season Four with the cultists would be inaccurate even though that is his first appearance. Putting him under the Season 2 with the Serpentine would also be inaccurate because he did not appear in that season. I fear that new readers would take away inaccurate information under a season labeling system. I think the character page should be organized by faction (without season labels) because character pages are not really meant to give information about chronology. If a reader want to get that information they should go the the main page or on the episode page, not the character page. Ideally, we can use the inboxes to clear up any misconceptions. In Krux and Acronix's cases, they will listed to be affiliated with the Vermillion in the info box while still being categorized as an elemental master. Also, the mere presence of a character having an info box will hopefully clue all new readers into the fact that this character is important.

That is my opinion on the heading labeling matter. Thanks for the communication, it's really helping the process go by smoother. On my end I have been adding more information to the info boxes and reformatting the main character heading. I think I will add and "Other" section soon (for people like the First Spinjitzu Master and the Mailman). Would it be alright if I deleted the info boxes for some of the side characters? I don't think Karloff, Mistake Kruncha, Nuckal, Wyplash, the Sons of Garmadon underlings are important enough to have them. I'll definitely keep them for the head villains though. Misako and Skylor I can't really decide for or against at the moment...

Thanks, 173.79.132.205 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll come to the talk page after that last reversion.

Character list pages unsupported by independent reliable sources should not be separate articles, and lists of characters on other pages unsupported by independent reliable sources should not be treated on Wikipedia. Our job is to report what other sources have reported, not to be a comprehensive listing of everything under the sun related to a work. Please, cease adding this content to this page unless you can provide some independent reliable sources to establish these characters's importance. --Izno (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The content deleted included a wealth of information such as voice actors for many the major character (most of which appeared across multiple seasons or had a significant impact on the singular season they were in) and as well as brief summaries. This is not out of line with the information presented about characters of other prominent animated shows. Most animated shows have brief character descriptions, not just tables for the main characters. The solution to the un-cited material is not to delete all the information but to instead input references. Deleting all this previously written information does more harm that good. It is far easier to add in citations to preexisting text than to work from the ground up. Rest assured that unreferenced sources (such as the episodes or character descriptions on official websites) exist, they have just yet to be added.

In addition to the character section, many other sections such as the plot summaries are also not cited. Again, the issue here is to unreliable information but unreferenced information. Those sections should also not be deleted but have references added. I am personally not at all familiar with referencing information on wikipedia but I'm willing to give it a shot. I added a test reference the the Lloyd character summary. Did I do that right?

Thanks, 173.79.103.127 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The solution to the un-cited material is not to delete all the information but to instead input references. Which you will not find in independent reliable sources, which are required to establish the appropriate weight for inclusion of the content.

many other sections such as the plot summaries are also not cited. I am most bothered by the characters section as these are most likely to regurgitate the plot. I have similar issues with the others, but some of those are trivially sourced.

I added a test reference This edit? Yes, that's how we reference content, but as above, targets a non-independent source. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate, redundant, and non-canon information in the character section

There are a several inaccuracies in the character bios, namely that the Ninja are masters of elemental powers that do not exist. For example, Lloyd is currently listed in the article as the "Elemental Master of Energy Green Power Green Light Power Twilight Balance Friendship Dragon Flame Dragon's Flame Dragon Fire and Dragon's Fire and Former Elemental Master of Golden Power and Light." Most of those are made up. He has never been the master of "Green Light Power Twilight Balance Friendship Dragon Flame Dragon's Flame Dragon Fire and Dragon's Fire and Former Elemental Master of Golden Power and Light". Those are not even concepts in the series. The other Ninja also have inaccurate elements titles.

Other inaccuracies exist with regards to the Ninjas' families. Cole for example is currently listed as "the son of Lou and his mother descendant and grandson of Previous Master of Earth and love interest and boyfriend of Seliel." The sentence is redundant, irrelevant, and cites non-canon information all at the same time. Why do you needs to say he is "the son of his mother?" Seliel is also non-canon and was never even the Cole's girlfriend. Similar inaccuracies exist in all of the other Ninjas' bios.

I corrected all these problems a while ago but someone just edited them back so I'm going to have to manually fix it again. Whoever is adding these inaccuracies and redundancies please refrain from doing so.

Thank You! 108.18.225.63 (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"Season 11" is a different show

I've already talked about this way too many times on individuals' talk pages. I'm just going to post my source here: https://www.lego.com/en-us/campaigns/kids/ninjago/discover-the-secrets.

BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

And where does it actually say that? Dorsetonian (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you scroll down a bit it says: "Watch the first official teaser for the new LEGO Ninjago TV series!" BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm don't think that is conclusive, but there is room for doubt. I don't know if you are a US or British English speaker, but if you are a US English speaker be aware that in British English "series" is used where US English uses "season". So, to announce a new series of something does not imply a whole new show, just a new run of episodes. However, what you quoted was new tv series, which could be interpreted differently. Ultimately, the question is what makes for the better way of presenting the information? Is there enough to sustain a separate article? Would a separate article just be a content fork? I don't have an opinion - you need to establish consensus here on the talk page rather than edit war over it, as you were doing. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the link says /en-us/ it's most likely US english. Since the new show has only aired one season it's still debatable if it has enough content or not to make its own page. However, a second season is set to come out this year and a thinrd one is already in developement. If they continue with the route of airing two seasons each year like they did with the previous show, it will at one point have enough content to be its own page. Alternatively, can't the information of both shows be stored in one page? Isn't it possible to re-name it to Ninjago (Franchise) or something like that? Either way, I just want it to be acknowledged that the shows are different. It doesn't really matter if they are on the same page or not as long as it is made clear. I will revert the changes of this page one last time and then I'll be glad to discuss with anyone who has a different opinion on this talk page.BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The same content is at https://www.lego.com/en-gb/campaigns/kids/ninjago/discover-the-secrets (/en-gb/) and Lego is a European company. Please do not revert again without agreement - you are edit warring. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, you said I just want it to be acknowledged that the shows are different but at least one other editor has argued that they are not ([1], [2]) and I assert that you have not demonstrated that they are. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, in this link the trailer of the new season is called "S1 Trailer":https://www.lego.com/en-us/kids/videos/ninjago/secrets-of-the-forbidden-spinjitzu-s1-action-trailer-0333c2fc7b61494d8d261b078e211bec and it is also listed as a new show in Prime Video: https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Ninjago/0PURB5PRRPWJYLHHBZQ5KKWQIQ. The point is, since other editors don't really have any evidence, why should their preffered version of the page be the current one untill this is sorted out? BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Because (a) the WP:BURDEN to provide sources to justify changes lies with the person making them, and (b) because multiple users have so far disagreed with you. I don't have a great deal of interest in the subject itself (I first came here reviewing recent page changes) but I do note from a poll of other articles that if a TV programme changes format it rarely seems to warrants a separate article or even much of a division within it, so I am yet to be convinced by your arguments. But I suggest you start a new discussion on this page and make your point. If you can find agreement, then (but only then) go ahead. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not only the format that's different. It's made by an entirely different company. Why didn't the people who said that it isn't a new season need to post sources? As you can see they just citated two tweets that don't really prove anything. Because it takes place in the same continuity it doesn't necessarily mean it's the same show. Also, the reason I reverted the edit was so people who disagree with me would see it and then we could talk on this page until we come to terms with one another. As you can see no one is interested in that subject. We just keep unwillingly continuing this conversation and I think we should put an end to this. I hope I'm wrong but I feel the only reason you are not accepting my edit is because others edited the page before me. This way it looks like I'm adding wrong information while the information on the page was wrong to begin with. Since it's getting really tiresome, is there any way we can check the validity of the sources? I posted some more links when you said that you are not convinced but you didn't pay much attention to them. What has convinced you that it is not a different show though? The other editors did the exact same thing I was doing. So basically what I want to say is that can we somehow check who is right through the sources? I believe that's the most fair way to see who's right and who's wrong. I just want to put an end to this, it consumes way too much time. BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We do have evidence. Again, the Youtube trailer calls it a new season, not a new series.85.187.109.81 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just saying that you have evidence doesn't prove anything. You also need to post the evidence. Also when did I mention the YouTube trailer? BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The link to said Youtube trailer is already on your talk page.85.187.109.81 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what the YouTube trailer has to do with all this. Just show evidence to support your claim. 2A02:587:DC1E:E100:9CC1:E1FA:392:2254 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The trailer calling it a new season and not a new series is evidence. We have already shown you other evidence as well (the writers calling it Season 11 and not Season 1).85.187.109.81 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, what do you mean by "we"? Please do not speak on other people's behalf. If they agree with you and they have evidence to shoe they should do it by themselves. Secondly, because the trailer says "new season" instead of "new series" doesn't really prove anything. Even if it is the first season of a new series, it still is a "new season". As for the writers, only Bragi Schut has called it Season 11 on an unofficial tweet. LEGO themselves have officialy reffered to it as a new series here: https://www.lego.com/en-us/campaigns/kids/ninjago/discover-the-secrets. Even if this is in British English as the other guys suggested, it is still called "S1" here: https://www.lego.com/en-us/kids/videos/ninjago/secrets-of-the-forbidden-spinjitzu-s1-action-trailer 0333c2fc7b61494d8d261b078e211bec. Why should we even care about what Bragi said when LEGO themselves have called it a new series? Bragi has literally no power on the show. Additionaly, distirbutors like Google Play and Amazon Prime both list it as a new series: https://play.google.com/store/tv/show?id=1DBB96B70E1A30FDSH&cdid=tvseason-BD72FEA8E0D15AE2SE&gdid=tvepisode-CBC1AC4CCBEBAD37EP&hl=en_US https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Ninjago/0PURB5PRRPWJYLHHBZQ5KKWQIQ. Now that I have proven that your evidence isn't reliable, you wither have to show counter-evidence or support your claim with additional evidence. Alternatively you can just let me correct the page since you appear to be lacking evidence. BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

By "we", I mean me and the other person who commented on your talk page. Also, Bragi is the lead writer of the show, how does he have no power?85.187.109.81 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you are not associated with the other person so please do not involve him. Who told you that Bragi is the lead writer? Even if he is, what he makes is for LEGO, he has zero power over it. LEGO can fire him any time if they feel like it. Since LEGO has never officially refferred to it as Season 11 why should we? Please take in consideration the links I posted as well. BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact that no writer has ever referred to it as Season 1 is certainly saying something. Look at this for example https://twitter.com/TommyAndreasen/status/1196898611386372097 Someone asks Tommy if Season 12 will be done by WILFilm or DHX Media. Tommy answers it will be done by WildBrain (which is the new name of DHX Media). He does not deny it is Season 12. And as the other person that commented on your talk page linked a LEGO video which calls the recent season Season 11 (different region or not, it is still the LEGO Youtube channel. As for Bragi being the lead writer, it was announced back when the Hagemans left that he is their successor https://twitter.com/brothershageman/status/1072268188644036608 (although they have mixed up successor with predecessor). All in all, there are conflicting sources, but them never calling it Season 1 goes against the direction of it being a new show. They most likely would have clarified it by now if that was the case. And before you say again that they are just LEGO employees, do you seriously think the people who are creating the storyline we see on-screen do not know at which season they are on?85.187.109.81 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course the writers know what season they are on but it doesn't really matter for them. Tommy Andreasen has said that "March of the Oni" is not a season but a 4-episode special. Why do you have it listed as a season then? Or does Bragi's opinion matter while Tommy's not? With that in mind you can't actually say that the writers are reliable sources. Also (different region or not, it is still the LEGO Youtube channel makes no sense. The LEGO YouTube channel is being operated by different people in each region and they do frequently make mistakes. For example, the Prime Empire Original Shorts were mixed up and had wrong numbering in the Chinese version. Considering that the US channel had also changed the trailer's name three times, it can be considered an unreliable source as well. Do you have any evidence that comes from reliable sources? Because the official LEGO Website which is by far the most valid source we got calls the SotFS trailer "S1 trailer". Also google play and prime video who are official distributors have listed it as season 1 as well. I will ask you to stop this conversation, if possible since you have zero evidence.BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

On Season 10, Tommy actually said he "does not consider it a season", he did not directly say it is not. There is a difference. Just like how he has never directly said it is a new series. Also, I did not know about the Prime Empire Original Shorts mix-up. But on the US channel, just because it changed its name three times, does not make it unreliable. Final title matters more than previous titles.85.187.109.81 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The same way Tommy doesn't consider it a season Bragi could consider SotFS as season 11. He never directly said that it is season 11 he just called it like that. Even if the YouTube channel is reliable, it never called SotFS season 11. Since it has been called like that in the official LEGO website and distributors, can't we just find the middle solution and keep one page but seperate the series? We can either call it "Ninjago (TV franchise)" or something or we can just put a heading "By Wildbrain Studios" over the seasons that have been created by them. Then just call seasons after season 10 only with their names, without numbers. BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I guess there is enough room for debate, so I am fine with the subheading and removal of the numbers.85.187.109.81 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for compromising! I am glad that we could solve this in a way where we are both happy!BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Season 11 summary way too long

Comparing it with the other plot synopses, it is much longer and unnecessarily so. I would make the edit myself but I haven't watched season 11 yet and am not confident in my ability to properly condense the plot. Of course, if the summaries are pulled from some official source, it should stand, but otherwise, a condensation would do the article some good. (P.S. why aren't there any citations in the entire synopsis section? Seems like a bit of a problem.) --K Stormblessed (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Video game section is way too long and detailed

In my opinion the video game section has too much detailed content. It should only be a reference to the video games that the Ninjago characters have appeared in and shouldn't include detailed background information about the games themselves. All detailed game information should appear on the page for each individual game. I plan to remove this content and replace with a few lines listing the games that the characters appear in with links to the individual pages. Any comments welcome. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we even need that huge section about the rides, the movie, and video games? This page is specifically about the Ninjago TV show. Any other Ninjago content should not be on this page, it should be be on the main Ninjago brand page. I say we cut all this non-tv show related content and paste it to the Ninjago brand page. The show's page is already super long, cutting this irrelevant content will increase the quality of both the TV show page and the main Ninjago brand page. Thanks, 173.79.117.81 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it would be best to just give the games their own articles.79.100.210.106 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it probably makes more sense to have this section in the brand page. It might be worth just leaving a few short sentences about the characters appearing in other media. Fieryninja (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

10th anniversary updates

Any information regarding the upcoming 10th anniversary is welcome. Can contributors please add citations to any claims on the page? This is easily done by clicking the cite button at the top of the edit window. It really helps to verify the information. As with Season 14 and 15 updates, I will remove any unverified claims within 3 days as it is not possible to know if the information is correct without these sources. Please avoid adding information that is expected to be happening in the future as this is not published content. If you have sources but don’t know how to add them, please drop a note on my talk page and I can add them myself. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:106.68.162.104 I wanted you to know that I removed your content about the 10 year anniversary documentary because you didn't cite a verifiable source. Perhaps a citation can be added once the documentary has been published? Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Kai/Nya surname

Just a minor point, but the inclusion of Kai and Nya's surname (Smith) is debatable, as it is not mentioned within the show itself (non canon). I have only found one minor reference to it on the internet. Would anyone like to offer opinions/evidence as to whether the surname should be included? Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Further to this issue and following research, I have taken the decision to remove the surnames for Kai, Nya, Ray and Maya (Smith) and also Libber Gordon as this information does not appear in the show itself. (It was mentioned unofficially by the production team). It is therefore unofficial, non-canon, and unverifiable information. Any unofficial references should not be included in the page, as we only make reference to published content.Fieryninja (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Cole

Can I suggest that respectfully we remove any references to seasons relating to Cole in the character section until the next two seasons have been released. It will avoid speculation and repeated editing on this subject. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Season 14 updates

Can contributors include verifiable citations for Season 14 updates. This avoids misinformation. If no verifiable sources are added within 3 days then I will remove the update. Happy to discuss.Fieryninja (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The source of the title for season 14 i.e. "The Island" has been removed (NZ catalogue). I therefore suggest that this is not a reliable source and not an official confirmation of the season title. Please refrain from adding a title for season 14 until the title has been officially announced and include a citation so it can be verified.Fieryninja (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to significantly reduce and restructure character list

The character list is too long and unwieldy. With the addition of new characters in the upcoming seasons, this list will inevitably continue to grow. The majority of the characters in this list are not notable and could be removed. The list could be reduced to the main recurring characters and major villains with a very short description. The navigation also needs to be simplified. I propose a major reduction of this section in preparation for the next season. Any comments please post here. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

For future reference - the current character list has been limited to 1) Main characters, 2) Family members (occasionally recurring), 3) Recurring allies (limited to those who play major role in plot), 4) Elemental Masters (past recurring), 5) Major villains (main antagonists per season and recurring minor villains who play major role in plot). Character summaries (except main) will be limited to a couple of sentences summarising character, their season appearances, army. Any extraneous character trivia will most likely be trimmed to keep the list concise. Fieryninja (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)