Talk:Ben 10 (2005 TV series)/Archive 2

Wikipedia is Evil
My son's innocence was lost because of the Ben 10 redirects of boobs and thongs! He is only 8! 66.232.153.101 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that edit was vandalism done by a vandal who will be blocked from editing. I'm not the vandal, just an editor undoing the vandalism but who's computer isn't fast enough. I'm sorry your son saw the work of a vandal but it's not wikipedia that is evil here, it's the vandal(He retaliated against my warnings by vandalising my userpage and is in the process of getting blocked).  AngelOfSadness  talk  17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben 10 redirection
I'm mad because every time now I type in Ben 10 I get some article on boobs.

I think a revert is needed here. This is obviously vandalism of Wikipedia, and an attempt by a sick individual to trick younger children into coming to the article on breasts. Let me know if anyone disagrees. --Gryphenix 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Much better.--Gryphenix 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Too soon? Pacific Coast Highway { The internet • runs on Rainbows! } 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * Yes. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think so. There's still some stuff that has to be done. Pacific Coast Highway { The internet • runs on Rainbows! } 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, now I feel stupid... I'm the one who nominated it for GA. Wish I could undoit. --PostScript 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I inserted the template above to keep track of things. It mostly passes, however, the only thing it fails on GA is the sourcelessness of the article. We used heatblast.net, but we have already agreed to not use it as a source, as it promotes advertizing. So? What now? I put it on hold for now, until this can be solved. And, every picture doesn't have captions. If you disagree with something on the list, please change it's icon! Thanks! --PostScript 04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Might introduce you to a little template called cite episode? The character sections look perfect for that.--Rmky87 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! However, I prefer someone else to fill in the templates, as when I do it, it produces disasterous results. Someguy0830, are you up to it? --PostScript 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! What sort of results would those be?--Rmky87 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Messing up the whole artcle. Poor Someguy0830 spent half of his life rving my edits. Well, as no one proposed to do the sources, I'll do it on Saturday, its getting urgent, as the hold period is ending.--PostScript 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for putting an example in Rmky87! I'll do everything this Saturday. --PostScript 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

DONE! 95% of the sources are now accounted for, with exceptions to a few facts, which are listed below. All we need to do now is vote. So tell me, how will we vote? What system of voting will we use? Furthermore, I've removed the hold, now that the sources are in. FYI, we need to decide for (see checklist above): 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2d. And of course, 7. --PostScript 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone out there? --PostScript 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben 13? (Or more)
I've been wondering, shouldn't the show be named "Ben 13" for now? Because Ben now has 13 aliens by his command inside the omnitrix... Just a thought.

Yay! My brain is elsewhere! (Probably Venus!)- -- Criminal9021 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For one its 14 now because of the mummy and no the name is just a play on words not the number of heroes Ben has. Ben is likely going to get more aliens so if they did the name like that they'd have to either a( stop giving Ben new forms or b( compleatly change the name to something the number of aliens would effect. Superx 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone forgotten about Ben's last name? "Ben Tennyson." Ben 10, get it? Sorry if I sound rude this way, because I'm not trying to be or anything. --Ben 10 09:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats what I was thinking. It just sounds better since it rhymes with his nameWild ste 12:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

- Suggestion - Maybe it is also referencing to Ben 10,000. it still has the number "10" in it.
 * Well thats what the writers call him, it was mentioned in one of those mini interveiws on cartoon networkWild ste 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actully, i think they named the show ben 10 becuase he starts with ten and becuase of his name. and his full name is benjamim (please correct my speling) so i think they gave him the surname tenyson so that they could give him more aliens without having to change the title--Jamesryanjcrjcr 08:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that was the retarded part of the show. Besides the invulnerable protagonists. Grey Master 06:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Main Enemies
Ghostfreak is supposed to be behind the werewolf and mummy aliens so would he count as a main enemy and be placed here or should we wait. If someone can prove that the current info is correct then I so we should because that would mean he is the main enemy of season three. Superx 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should definitely wait, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg)  (drop me a line) 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
I think this article is close to becoming a GA. Here are some things you could improve on to help it pass a future nomination.

Work on these things and I think you're well on your way to GA and even FA status. Nice work so far! --Masamage 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Image problems. This article has a lot of copyrighted images, and from what I saw, not one of them has a really solid fair use rationale. Some of them are much too large to be justifiably FU, and some of them have really insufficient image-page summaries (like "He is hot").
 * 2) Expand the lead. It can be a few paragraphs long.
 * 3) Talk more about the series' critical reception and general effect on the world.
 * 4) Give the article a thorough copy-edit and review the manual of style. One of the problems I see is that your headers are capitalized incorrectly; only the first word and proper nouns should be in caps, so as an example, "Main Protagonists" should become "Main protagonists" (although the phrasing is weird regardless).
 * 5) Work on organization. A lot of the info in your characters' sections is actually plot. And you might think about an overarching 'Characters' header.
 * 6) Add more references. You can cite the heck out of the plot and character sections just by putting


 * What's a GA? Does it stand for "Grand Article" or something?  --Ben 10 09:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * GA stands for Good Article. — May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg)  (drop me a line) 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. I was expecting something that would sound more dramatic, but Good Article works for me.  --Ben 10 10:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the Characters section seems rather lengthy. I recall there once being an article for Ben 10's primary characters, but that has since turned into a redirect due to too little information. Is there enough information to make that into its own article now?  You Can't See Me!  17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But then what will be left in the main article? No character section means halving it. Then if we try for GA again, we'll fail for insufficien lenght. — May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg)  (drop me a line) 17:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. It still seems rather lengthy, though. Perhpas instead of obliterating it off the face of the page completely, it can be shortened on this page and elaborated on the other? Or maybe that's redundant... Er, I don't know.  You Can't See Me!  17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
Anyone want a Ben 10 Userbox? I'll make more at some point (for greater variety) if anyone's interested! BTW, all my userboxes are available to anyone who wants them :) Enjoy!  --Ben 10 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the image will have to go, it isn't fair use, and there's a User_page against them on user pages. Otherwise, no problem. — May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg)  (drop me a line) 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. I will do my best to fix the problem, but I don't know of any other pictures of the Omnitrix on Wikipedia.  If someone would help me out here, I'd appreciate it.   --Ben 10 09:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this be a viable replacement? It's basically Ben's Userbox with different coloration, but the Omnitrix is done with ASCII.

 You Can '  t See Me!  01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Anubiz 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hero Generation
I'm planning to make a page for the sequel Ben 10 series but first I wanna make sure if anyone made a page and it got deleted. --Naruto134 2:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already such a page, which currently redirects to Ben 10, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there still isn't enough concrete statements about the new series' releace. — May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg)  (drop me a line) 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Villain-of-the-week format?
What is it with this "villain-of-the-week" format I keep hearing about? --Naruto134 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Villain of the week. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review?
The article is looking pretty good; should we have a Peer Review or wait for future developments? --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like this? :

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg)  (drop me a line) 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): isn't, wasn't.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * OK, thanks! --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Characters
Can someone tell me why have the three main characters been located to another area? In every artical on a tv show on this site, they always have the basic information on the main page, with a link to the main artical.Wild ste 12:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it exceptionally logical that characters be moved to a character list.  You Can '  t See Me!  12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just find it more logical that the three main ones stay on the main page.Wild ste 07:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Naruto?
I apologize if any of the following is off, I only saw the end of the episode. I noticed, that by the end of the episode "Merry Christmas", the old man (I am sorry, I don't remember his name) was together with three children. Two boys and a girl. They looked like a direct reference to Konohamaru and his teammates,  Moegi and  Udon from the anime and manga series Naruto. Should this be added to the article?

I think it was just a conwinsdence and not likely to have been any reference at all.Wild ste 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually a reference has more of an impact than just a look-alike so I wouldn't read too much into it.


 * It was definitely more than a coincidence, that's for sure. Still, I don't think it's so especially noteworthy that it should be mentioned on the main series article. It wouldn't really fit in any of the sections, either.  You Can '  t See Me!  06:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection?
Anyone else think the page should be semiprotected? — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From whom? If you mean from vandals, then yes. I believe all articles should actually be protected from vandals if it done persistently(More than a few times a week.) -Little.Doggy 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seemed like a good idea, because of the last fifty edits, which were primarily reversions. Maybe the end of the term's getting to me, just wanted to check with the others to see what they thought. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 17:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should be protected since it is a popular show and people have their own ideas about what the show is like.-Wild_ste 16:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we've got full blown protection. Something I missed here? Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 18:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a dispute started over whether the Omnitrix header should instead be "Omnitrix/alien forms". The IP and Someguy0830 did revert each other a couple of times, it seems they were both blocked, but I'm sure this won't be that much of a problem. What do you think about it? The Omnitrix page does also include the descriptions of the aliens, but they are, essentially, part of it, so in conclusion…? — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the header "Omnitrix". It's pretty self explanatory and not clumsy like the suggestion. Anyone wanting more detail, could click the wikilink. I haven't been around so much, because I work now. Didn't know things blew up like that. If it was so much a issue, they could have done a poll, albeit it would be onesided. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not sure. You could say that the forms were part of the Omnitrix, or that they were characters, or part of Ben's character, or that they were something different altogether.  There's no reason to know which page to go to find them.Qvamp 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion?
Do any of you think that I should do what I did to Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!, To this Article?
 * — Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92)  (drop me a line) 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Action Movie
Just to point out that the title of the live action movie is not "And the Hands of Armageddon", BUT has been confirmed to be Ben 10: Race Against Time by the director. The plot has also been released as well so can someone edit it to change it.

http://www.ben-10.net/newsarchive.php?subaction=showfull&id=1185703110&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

Theres the link to prove it.Wild ste 10:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request. The source provided doesn't seem to qualify under WP:EL or WP:V. If there is a better source, please provide one and feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This one better? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing my comment was erased because it sounded sarcastic but in all honesty, toon zone is not the only reliable news sorce when it comes to animation.

Requesting Edit
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD the following sentence to the Omnitrix section the sentence is "However, the Omnitrix may be twisted without pushing the side button to view aliens without transforming."--Jamesryanjcrjcr 10:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One, when does it ever do that? Two, why is it the least bit important? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a trivia section should be added, noting Vilgax's striking resemblence to Cthulu (also an alien). Sgtdude 02:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Such a note already exists where there's information on Vilgax. 71.60.159.181 07:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

When ben got benwolf he twisted the omnitrix without pushing the button and it showed benwolf but it never popped up so he did not have to push it down so he never transformed.--Jamesryanjcrjcr 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the episode Dr. Animo and the Mutant Ray, when Ben is trying to pop the watch open, he is constantly twisting the faceplate without raising it, and this may be of some substantial evidence because of the possibility of the nearly infinite codes to input into the Omnitrix to unlock its master control (Ben accidentally unlocked the control in Back With a Vengeance, then resets it and explains this to Vilgax, who agrees but says it would be easy to solve). In all actuality, this may be how the creator fixed the Omnitrix, how Xylene activated Upchuck, and how to unlock the Master controls, merely because it multiplies the number of possibilities for inputting combinations. Any comments, let me know, thanks! Ziggaway 06:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New Movie
Ben 10: Race against Time is going to be set in November of 2007.

Links: Ben10.com

Voice Actors
Ya know, I don't think that the heading is necessary. It should be merged with the Omnitrix article. --Dylan Damien 15:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? It's not directly related to the Omnitrix. Kidcorona 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The aliens' voice actors. That should be a better view. Besides, the original is at the END of the page. Who would notice that? --Dylan Damien 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I could see the VA's being mentioned in their respective aliens section(s), but I'd wait until a more senior editor agrees... Kidcorona 08:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Omnitrix: Does it malfunction or does Ben not know how to use it?
I have noticed that there is back and forth on the Omnitrix entry.

Claims have been made that the Omnitrix is either malfunctioning, as Ben claims, or that Ben just doesn't know how to use it as based on his request to the Omnitrix creator to teach him how to use it.

Which is it, broken or lack of training?

Well more likely is that Ben does not know how to use it correctly since there have been many examples of Ben asking how to use it correctly, like the creator and his future self.Wild ste 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends. The Omnitrix from what I see from the TV is Limited of Use unless the Master Code is unlocked which he did once that he did not need to become Ben again if he doesn't want to only to deactivate it due to him being trapped with Kevin 11 and Vilgax. It will Malfunction or act in a strange manner as if it has a mind of its own like the time Ben wants to go for the Water Slide only he is not tall enough that he went stuck as Grey Matter for a long while as long as it is in Limited of Use Mode. Well, that's just me. Night Leon 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have a mind of its own, sort of. It won't let Ben use one alien to much. And maybe even chooses an alien different than the one Ben chooses to train him on the variety of aliens he has on hand. ````MoBannon

Problably in A Small Problem, his Omnitrix got rusty after his battle with Jonah Melville in The Krakken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.23.41 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the show depicts it more as a matter of a lack of knowledge. Essentially, unexpected outcomes put up because he doesn't know.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirby style
Why has this been removed? It is demonstratably correct, is ecyclopedic and adds to the article. MartinSFSA 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it has no source. Without a source, it's just a similarity that may or may not be true. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not sourcable (unless you can interview the designer) but self proving, as much encyclopedic text is. If it does not use Kirby fields or resemble his style then it is wrong, if it does it is right. Do you require a source for "Ben 10 has a wide array of characters and villains..."? MartinSFSA 08:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally, yes. Fortunately, extremely general and obvious statements like those can be placed without a source because of the sheer vagueness; give an exact numerical value and it cannot be placed without one. A comparison - any comparison - does not qualify as a general and obvious statement; it is a specific, logical conclusion brought about through an examination of two items.  You Can '  t See Me!  19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's parse this. It's two claims; one that it resembles his designs (contentious by specific comparison in these terms), two that it uses Kirby fields. This is not debatable unless you can either demonstrate they're not Kirby fields or that his creation of these images isn't really his. As they are a constant throughout all episodes I've seen it's relevant and goes back in. MartinSFSA 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know very little about comic/animation art style, so forgive me if I'm missing something crucial, but according to the Kirby Dots article, the dots themselves are commonly used in sci-fi and comics and that they are only named after Mr. Kirby because he established the technique.  You Can '  t See Me!  06:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be fair to describe the other sytlistic techinques in Ben 10 as being established by Kirby, but in the case of Kirby fields it is clearly derivitive of his work. All other uses of the technique over the last 40 years are correctly termed "Kirbyesque". Additionally it is so heavily used by the cartoon that the link was adjacent to an image of the title displaying a Kirby field! Kirby is worth your study, there is no more influential (or if you wish stolen from) comic artist. MartinSFSA 08:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm... Perhaps I'm not the best person to debate this point since I know so little about Kirby's art style. Do what you shall for now, or perhaps wait for Someguy to come back and explain his point.  You Can '  t See Me!  23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your honesty, and I'm willing to leave it while I call for Kirby heads' input. MartinSFSA 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * David Johnson's just confirmed it; with Joe Kelly pointing to him as the designer that's confirmation and it's going back in. If anyone has advice on citing personal correspondence feel free to advise. MartinSFSA 05:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable source. Published material is a reliable source. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The first person source of the designer himself is not acceptible? OK, instead of you taking down this relevant, encyclopedic, self proving and now verifiable addition to the entry, put in the effort to replace it to your satisfaction. It should reflect the debt the cartoon owes to Kirby, a link to both his page and the one on Kirby dots, and be of such quality that it pases the highest standards. Considering the effort you put into the entry anything less would be anticlimactic. MartinSFSA 05:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Personal correspondence is not a reliable source. Maybe you're lying. This is just for the sake of argument, mind you, I do believe you took the effort to contact him. That said, it cannot be verified without each and every reader talking to this guy, which is not how things are sourced. However, lucky for you your persistence has reminded me of something: . With this you could say "drawn comparisons" or something of the like, but my main point is that this is a reliable source. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point that first person is always superior to third; if I submitted this to a print publication (as opposed to vanity press) by your flawed reading of the citation system this would somehow make the Chinese Whispers of third person verifiable. I submit that placing the Johnson quote in context within the entry would be the greatest level of proof currently available as presumably he or an agent would remove it if it were incorrect, in a fashion he would not be able to with print. This should never have been questioned, as the image of Kirby dots directly next to the quote is sufficient proof, and this request is akin to requesting citation that the show "revolves around" Ben. However, it's up to you to make the change. And you don't have to take my word for it--I'll forward the corrrespondence if you wish. MartinSFSA 07:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of bitching about the system, read WP:RS. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I do enjoy the faculty of reading, and it's not "the system" I'm having a problem with. You've taken this down so many times it's now your turn to construct an edit-proof statement which refelcts this important and relevant addition to the entry. MartinSFSA 07:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why I should. I don't see how it's all that relevant, any more than the Naruto parody in the Christmas episode. Kirby-inspired style would be relevant. Why you're so hell-bent on the dots is beyond me, but it's not so important that is needs to be in the lead. A "Production" section, maybe, but that would require additional reliable sources about oter aspects of the show. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They'd be a good questions, if they were explicit rather than implied. Take the Naruto comparision, it's like that but several orders of magnitude more relevant. Say Ben 10 was an English dub of Naruto. More like that. This isn't one episode which has some reference to some other show, but an entire style of design based upon one of the most influential, and stolen from, artists. But it dosn't have to be in the lead, it can be anywhere you want in the entry. As to why it should be you doing the change, if it really needs to be asked, it's your criteria it has to pass. Everyone elses, Wikipedia included, is secondary. No that's not a bad thing, it just means you are the primary factor in including such ihnformation in this entry. MartinSFSA 07:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Break indent. My criteria is Wiki criteria, please understand that. I honestly don't mind the information, but there is really no reason to add it. Furthermore, there's no enough supporting similar information to warrant its inclusion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm repeating myslef: the claim it uses Kirby dots is not requiring any more proof. The claim it is of Kirby's style is qualified by the word "reminiscent", and as you've sourced yourself could be termed "Kirbyesque" to your satisfaction. That it's derivitive of his style is not part of the claim, but is why it should feature a link. Your criteria is not identical to Wiki's, you have your own interpretation and enforcemnet regime--the statement was here for weeks before you removed it. Which you'll keep doing, unless you yourself are its author. So take the time, investigate the claim, do the leg work. I have and unless I now go on to publish it's only going to keep continuing. MartinSFSA 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * People on other pages have told you the same thing I'm telling you now, so please start listening. No reliable source, no inclusion. End of story. Read WP:RS and stop pointlessly campaigning here. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You read it--it conforms. It's not original research as per your research. The proof is appropriate to the claim made. As exceptional claims require exceptional proof, mundane ones require only mundane proof. The article is full of such mundane claims with mundane proof. The problem is not that it dosn't conform with policy rather that you don't care to make the addition yourself, as you've said. As you've put this effort into removing it multiple times despite this proof, the onus is on you to make an informed decision. Read the Kirby dots article, and secondary sources. Write to the creators. Care. MartinSFSA 07:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another thing: WP:V. I believe you when you say that you contacted David Johnson or Joe Kelly or whoever, but how are we supposed to verify this? I really don't know anything about "Kirby dots" (in fact, I've never even heard of Jack Kirby before now; when I saw the title I immediately thought of Nintendo's Kirby), but I felt I should bring this up now while I have the chance. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I offered SomeGuy the correspondence, fine for him if not for the general audience. He in turn has found a secondary source which has made such a claim. We could include the quotes proving this, which I supect he would remove, and is why he shoudl auhor the addition. With no such other sources other articles have quoted the primary source within the text. MartinSFSA 07:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My source doesn't mention dots, and as I've repeatedly stated I don't see the need to add it unless it were in a section to which it were pertinant. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, add the section then. MartinSFSA 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A section with only one sentence would be pointless, and I don't have the DVDs to collect other information for it. Why are you so obsessed with the dots? Honestly, is it worth this much trouble just to link to it? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This I have gone over--Kirby is the source and deserves the credit. He has been stolen from in both style and physical art. More in line with Wikipedia's policy, it's an important and relevant addition to the article. While the Ben 10 designs are based upon Kirby's, I don't expect to be able to simply say this without a verifiable secondary source. The use of Kirby dots, however, is so explicit and mundane that such a link is no more exceptional than any number of such exisitng article claims. This link is required because it's right. MartinSFSA 07:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because it's true doesn't mean it's relevant, and for such a longstanding artist to be copied is neither surprising nor so obvious that it must be included at all costs. Just drop this crusade. It's clear now that you're not doing this to improve the page, only to rectify what you see as "theft" through Wiki somehow. I repeat again, find other information about the production, the influences, and the like, and then Kirby will be relevant. As it stands, it doesn't require inclusion, the dots especially. In th ecaseof the latter, it's just you trying to insert your opinion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not relevant because it's true, or because of my honest expression of my motivation. It's relevant because it's relevant. An opinion would be "Wikipedia should be good", not something you'll find it any policy. Wikis are unique in user added information online because of the context they can add. If I was on a crusade I'd be adding directly to the Kirby entry, which I don't think is appropriate. There is no other information, and no one better placed to make such an addition than you. The problem isn't that I care too much, but that you don't care enough. If you want it to qualify for good article, add this. MartinSFSA 07:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Enough. I'm tired of this. Stop complaining about my lack of interest. You want it added, find information to go with it. If you don't want to, then let it go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and done, however to satisfy you I'd have to interview then submit and wait until it was printed in a reputable publication. This is manifestly unfair, and is likely one of the reasons Wikipedia II has been floated. I too am tired, but of argueing with decared non-experts. There are some things a set of protocols can't be expected to cover. MartinSFSA 08:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that eventually the show's creators will publish something describing the production of the show, the things which influenced them, the artistic decisions they've made, etc. If it hasn't been published already then it surely will come eventually. Once that happens we will have more than adequate sources for this sort of thing.


 * As it is, we are not allowed to make inferences from primary sources. Even if we are qualified to identify Kirby dots as distinct from other dots, that would be an inference. To make inferences we need to cite a secondary source that has made them for us. We are certainly not supposed to say that something is reminiscent of something else. Reminiscent means evoking memories of something and that is a personal thing which is not universal to all people. For some poor soul has never heard of Jack Kirby, the style is particularly not reminiscent of Jack Kirby. Therefore, being reminiscent is a personal opinion and not encyclopedic. -- Lilwik 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an excellant point--there are no such other dots. As it features Kirby dots, it deserves a link. As the designer says, there is no such other source. Reminiscent is irrelevant through qualification, I care not if it is replaced with "Kirbyesque" or nothing. MartinSFSA 07:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Vandalism
Hey, has anyone reported the recent Vandalism of this Article to the Wiki authorities? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Thanks for your concern, but this page isn't being frequently and heavily vandalized. It can be quickly fixed after each instance. Should it get worse, we could lock the page, but we haven't gotten to that point yet.  You Can '  t See Me!  06:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Single Episode Hyperlinks
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that under the hyperlink to all the episodes, all you find is a paragraph or two describing the episode? Is this to save bandwidth and space in Wikipedia, or to lessen the vastness of the article, because I personally enjoyed the synopses of each episode having its own multi-paragraphed hyperlink, and I remember personally writing many of the summaries, or at least changing quotes from the show, myself, and wish that to return. If possible, I'm wondering of Someguy or You Can't See Me could inform me of these protocols, no offense to anyone, or any pressure to them, I'm just fairly new, albeit a fast learner, to Wiki-based websites. Thanks, let me know of any comments you have! Ziggaway 06:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I enjoyed being able to look through the summaries as well; however, they do not hold up against Wikipedia policies. The full discussion about the articles' removal can be found here. Most importantly is the fact that separate pages are entirely plot summaries and trivia. Plot summaries should not appear as their own separate articles; they are typically only acceptable as parts of an article covering a larger topic. Trivia does not count since they are, as the word implies, trivial details. Despite being used frequently as filler content, trivia sections are frowned upon in Wikipedia because those details are so minor that they are unencyclopedic. There are several other reasons as well. I'll post a list of relevant policies on your talk page.  You Can '  t See Me!  07:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Images
Per User:Durin's explanation, I intend to clear out the images on Ben 10's "List of..." articles and Omnitrix. This is not an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia nor to interfere with its informativeness, but rather an attempt to uphold Wikipedia's Fair-Use regulations. A full explanation can be found here, as written by the now-retired Durin.

Unlike Durin, however, I do not intend to eliminate all of the images, just those which are frivolously placed and serve no purpose other than to show what something/someone looks like. So, if you feel as though a particular image should be kept, please mention that image here and explain why it should not be removed. I'll keep an open mind, so long as the argument is not WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT. At about this time tomorrow, I will orphan the uncontested images (without deleting them yet, in case something comes up). Please do not take this to be a hostile act, as many users did when Durin was removing images from everywhere else. Regards,  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh, I think only the principal characters and villains should have images, so go ahead. Any other thoughts? — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Omnitrix? After all, it does have its own article (at least for a little while more it will). The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since when is showing what something looks like not a good enough justification for fair-use? So long as that thing is important to the article, I see no reason why we cannot fairly use a non-free image to show what it looks like. -- Lilwik 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's fair use policy, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." Most of these characters can be described in prose. The description does not need to be excessive in order to be effective. For example, Fourarms might be described as "A tall, red, humanoid being with four arms and four eyes." The 57 bytes it took to describe Fourarms proove that omitting Fourarms' image would not damage the article. That's one less necessary image. I'm not saying this is the case for all of the images; for instance, Ghostfreak's true form looks rather difficult to describe in text, which is why that is one of the five images that I am not planning to remove.
 * Also consider the amount of images. I cannot possibly describe this aspect of it better than what is written here.  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are interpreting the fair-use policy in a deliberately restrictive and destructive way. Another interpretation might allow more images. For example, I feel that Fourarms is not perfectly described by your prose and the presence of the image of Fourarms significantly increases the readers' understanding of Fourarms, even if with your prose included. That is my opinion. Why are you trying to apply a policy to make these articles worse when it isn't absolutely necessary? -- Lilwik 09:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use overuse explanation#Q: This is just your interpretation of policy. Pairadox 09:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That really doesn't even begin to explain it. All that says is that a large number of people support this removal of images. I highly doubt that any general FAQ can be so universally applicable that it applies perfectly to this case, and so I doubt that this removal has broad support, but even if it does, that doesn't answer the question. This isn't a fight with winners and losers where the winner wins by having the most support; all I'm interested in is an answer to the question: why reduce the quality and usefulness of these articles by applying a policy in a grey area where it may not need to be applied? Even if I'm the only one who thinks there is good fair-use for almost all of these images, that does not answer the question. Support for a position is not a reason for that position.


 * In some cases, some characters/aliens have more than one image showing different versions of that character/alien. I think this is the case where fair-use is in the most doubt and least useful image might need to be removed. However, all over Wikipedia articles include images of the subject of the article, even many many unchallenged cases of nonfree images for that purpose. We are not dealing with a screen-shot of an episode for an episode list, we are talking about images that clearly and meaningfully illustrate and allow identification of the characters in question. -- Lilwik 11:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, that is as well as I can explain my case. I don't know much about it aside from the fact that it was so supported by policy and administrators that the opposition did not even get the chance to compromise in many scenarios, along with what Durin wrote.
 * In order to provide a better explanation, I'm going to seek out another porponent of this movement. This is not canvassing or meatpuppetry, but more along the lines of requesting an explanation.  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But, if you don't understand the reasons yourself, then why are you doing it? Why enforce a ruling that you don't understand? If you don't understand it, then you can't be sure that it applies to our case or that our case isn't a borderline that may go either way when looked upon by someone more familiar with the reasons behind this. What is your personal motivation? -- Lilwik 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It does have support, actually. Please read through this Foundation page detailing the fair use policy. It has been poorly enforced until recently. This is an actual policy, not a guideline or an essay.
 * I really don't know how else to explain this. So, rather than orphaning images as I said I would do at around this time, I'll find someone more knowledgeable than I on this subject so that he or she may better explain this policy. Sorry for any confusion. Regards,  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for my lack of understanding, one thing that I am certain about is that "List of..." articles are particularly targets of this movement. Personally, I'm going about this with a conflict of interest. I'd prefer that the images stay, but I can also see that some of these images may be frivolously placed, which is why I'm more willing to compromise and why I'm rather hesitant to do this (Trust me, if I actually wanted to do this, I would have done so before even starting this discussion).  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Doing something like that without a discussion is the kind of behaviour that leads to conflict and edit wars. I recommend always having at least a little discussion first, even when you have no interest in preserving the quality of articles.


 * The Foundation page that you linked to says, "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works," where EDP stands for Exemption Doctrine Policy. It does not say exactly what the narrow limits are, and I think the exact size of those limits is the only issue here. We are mostly using these images to usefully and appropriately identify the characters we are talking about, so I think we fall within the limits of what is allowed.


 * On the other hand, the more I read about this the more I think we should get rid of the images of old-version Ben and Gwen. Seriously, let's get rid of them now in deference to the fair-use policy. The older Ben and Gwen is the viewers reward for watching that particular episode and not something that the creators of Ben 10 would be happy with giving away for free. Let's do the same with the exposed Ghostfreak for the same reason. -- Lilwik 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing about future Ben and Gwen, but we should probably keep the exposed Ghostfreak. I don't think a written description really gives people a good understanding of what the true Ghostfreak looks like. Maybe we can remove it from the Omnitrix article, but it should be kept on the Villains page at least. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't really want to see any of them go either. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I love the exposed Ghostfreak image, but it's a guilty love. Understanding the fair-use policy is all about guilt. These images are not ours to use however we see fit; they belong to someone else and we are using them without permission. The exposed Ghostfreak image makes me feel guilty because it is not really important to understanding the omnitrix or Ben 10. To understand that, we want the covered version. The exposed version is just a single episode thing. Or is that two episodes? I haven't seen the second one with the exposed Ghostfreak. Even so, that form of Ghostfreak is of lesser importance to understanding the series. On the other hand, maybe it does belong in the villians article, if we can convince ourselves that he's an important villian. -- Lilwik 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Main villains are by definition important, as much so as any main character. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Older Ben and Gwen have to go definitely, one timers, no prospect of them playing any larger roles for now. What about the Megawhatt, Sixsix, the Circus Freaks, and don't forget Ghostfreak's minnions, they already have a "group photo", I don't see why the mummy and werewolf should get their own pics, plus, I think Vilgax's old and new image don't differ that much, so he can do with one pic, preferably his current self. I'm not touching Omnitrix images, the article's pretty much become a discussion on what's notable enough and what's not, what with the whole AfD, and the merger, and the "In-univerce" tag, and so on. I end my rant. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll go through the articles right now; I'll keep one image per major character. As was mentioned, however, I don't think I want to go through Omnitrix, even though that's our most problematic one. We'll leave that for another day once the article's other issues are worked out.  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Older Ben and Gwen have to go definitely, one timers, no prospect of them playing any larger roles for now."

I can't agree with that; these are the future versions of the 'present-day' characters. Why remove them; wouldn't it be easier to simply merge them into the current characters' sections? They are, after all, technically the same characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glazios (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some things are a bit too trivial to include in Wikipedia. The future versions of Ben and Gwen are not important in general. They could possibly be important enough to mention, but they certainly aren't important enough to include nonfree images. -- Lilwik 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The explanation I promised
I did a bit more research. Here's the removal rationale in my own words: According to Wikipedia's fair use policy, nonfree images must, in addition to being minimally used, be used for a significant purpose. This refers to images such as graphs, diagrams, and so forth. Occasionally, it may justify a portrait if the object's appearance is significant to that particular article or section. This is not the case for most portraits, however. Character images are almost exclusively used to illustrate what a character looks like. That character's important features, however, can usually be described in text, providing a free alternative to a nonfree image. The character's less important features do not necessarily need to be described to such an extent that the prose will weigh down the article. This following part is something that I still have trouble understanding at times; this is now my interpretation of replies from Durin and so forth This is particularly a point of discussion on list articles. While on a single-character article, a nonfree portrait of that character is reasonable - or almost expected. That is becuase the character is notable enough (?) to get its own article (I suppose this has something to do with lead images for each article, a recommendation which is buried somewhere within the manual of style). Nonfree images are more acceptable on non-list articles because of that. On a list, the object of importance is no longer any individual character on that list but rather the collective subject of that list. Hence, aside from perhaps a lead image as described, images that deal with a single object on the list are less important overall. Okay, that's seriously my best attempt. I hope you can get my point, because I doubt I can do any better in trying to elaborate this :). Regards,  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 00:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. I think I agree with that. It's certainly true that things which are in a list rather than having their own articles are less important that those which have their own articles, and therefore an image associated with a list item is less useful than an image associated with an article item. In the case of a list of episodes this is even worse because no screenshot can illustrate an episode in any really useful way, certainly not in comparison with the way a character image illustrates a character.


 * However, everything we have seen so far still leaves the real issue in question: How important and useful are the images in this case in our lists? Just because some list items in some articles are not important enough to merit images does not necessarily mean that is the case for all list items. Some list items in certain lists are more important than list items in other lists, and some images are more useful than others. I think we may be in the position of having to remove every image that represents a character or alien that only appears in a single episode. Those characters and aliens are certainly far less important that recurring characters and aliens. Plus, if we need to trim down the text we should start there. -- Lilwik 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Among the images droped were the following:


 * 1) Image:Enoch image.jpg
 * 2) Image:Ep22 screenshot.jpg
 * 3) Image:Ep27 screenshot.jpg
 * 4) Image:Thumbskull image.jpg
 * 5) Image:Vilgax image.jpg

I don't agree with you. You cite the letter of the policy, but I feel you are ignoring the spirit of it. I belive the images you droped and deleted from the system were within guidelines. -- Jason Palpatine 00:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)  This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)


 * If Image:Vilgax image.jpg refers to Vilgax's younger self, then it was rightfully deleted, there wasn't really that much difference between the two, and we're supposed to use non-free images sparingly. Although I'm not sure about the Enoch image, if it was his only one, he was a quite frequent villain by the show's standart. And the Circus Freaks, well, they only made two appearances as lackeys, no more, so I think they weren't really necessary. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Vilgax image.jpg refered to Vilgax without his face-mask. Image:Enoch image.jpg was the only image of him.  -- Jason Palpatine 04:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC) [[Image:confused-tpvgames.gif]] This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

Well, it looks like Betacommand got to the remaining images.  You Can '  t See Me!  03:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know of a group picture of the main ten alien forms? That would allow us to identify the alien forms and at the same time have much reduced fair use content. If ten images is an abuse of fair use, then we will just have to use fewer images, and I'm confident that a single image illustrating all ten aliens would be highly fair use. -- Lilwik 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That could potentially work.  You Can '  t See Me!  02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is somewhat similar. But, mine differs in that "List of X" is an article about X. Thus you include pictures of X. In these cases it would be the characters. Obviously, including a picture of every character no matter how minor would not be acceptable. But, The manual of Style would seem to require at least a few of the more significant characters.--Marhawkman 05:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another possibility would be trying to find free images for the aliens. For human characters it can be very difficult to capture their likeness by hand, but the aliens are far less subtle. For example, how hard do you imagine it would be to create a reasonable representation of Fourarms in MS Paint? It's probably harder than it sounds, but if there is any Ben 10 editor who has an drawing skills or knowledge of anatomy, we may be able to leave the fair-use issue behind us forever and at the same time we could have an image of every single alien, no matter how minor. There is no reason to want a complex pose; a head-on image of each alien standing at attention would serve this purpose nicely. -- Lilwik 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Omnitrix
Per the recent AfD, I have suggested merging the descriptions of the Omnitrix from the article on the Omnitrix to this article. Please share your thoughts on this at Talk:Omnitrix. Thanks, --Phirazo 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IS IT
is this ben 10 movie is it a real movie or is it still animated?? cause the commercials show the flame guy not annimated and real???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.16.213 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask, but if it's about Ben 10: Race Against Time, you can probably find your answer by reading the main article. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Character pages
What's the point in listing every character in the series? More than half the characters on both pages are one-timers, they could simply be mentioned briefly in the episode summaries. I just don't see the point. PS:I know wiki isn't paper, that we have a broader perspective, yet still fail to see how one-timers deserve mentioning beyond episode summaries. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 01:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar sentiments here. A good load of the characters on the lists barely did anything that was important to the overall goal/theme of the episode (Gilbert, anyone?), but some one-timers did something prominent (Azmuth, Xylene, etc). There should be some sort of precedent over who deserves mention and who does not; single-episode character exclusion is a good start, but I don't think it's the exact solution.  You Can '  t See Me!  01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see, List of characters in Ben 10:

Obviously these three are notable. Abel, Andy and Mandy, Camille, Captain Shaw, Donovan and Edwin Grand Smith, Gaterboy and Porcupine, Gilbert, Hector, Joel, the Krakken, Laurence Wainright, Lt. Steel, Technorg, Kai and Wes Green, don't seem notable at all, well, Kai appears to have remained Ben's crush, evident in "Perfect Day", but that is just speculation, Ishiyama has to go, not only a minor character in a TV series, but a character in a video game, from said series. Also, exclusive characters from the movies should be moved to those articles. Can't really see a reason to keep the rest of Ben's family, namely aunt Vera and future Ben's son. He should get a mention in Ben's section, though, same as Devlin should be merged with Kevin's section. The Galactic Enforcers do seem like more prominent allies, yet they were featured prominently in one episode, and only made cameo appearances in another. Xylene did put into motion the events that led to the beginning of Season 1, so she should remain, I think. Tetrax is appearing in one of the movies, so I guess we should keep him too. Ah Puch, Councilwoman Liang, Howell Wayneright, Joan Maplewood and her son, Todd, Lucy, the mayor of Sparksville, Mr. Jingles, Mrs. Fang, The President of the United States, Tiffany, Tim Dean, and Vance Vetteroy also look too unnotable. JT and Cash may deserve a section, seeing as they are becoming recurring characters, with Ben returning to school and all, the Hero Buddies - I have no idea what to do with them. Boy, that was a lot of writing. :) Well, these are my thoughts, tell me if you agree. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Main characters
 * 2) Ben Tennyson
 * 3) Gwen Tennyson
 * 4) Max Tennyson
 * 1) Secondary characters
 * 2) Abel North
 * 3) Andy and Mandy
 * 4) Aunt Vera
 * 5) Azmuth
 * 6) Camille
 * 7) Captain Shaw
 * 8) Devlin
 * 9) Donovan Grand Smith
 * 10) Edwin Grand Smith
 * 11) The Galactic Enforcers
 * 12) Gaterboy and Porcupine
 * 13) Gilbert
 * 14) Gluto
 * 15) Hector
 * 16) Ishiyama
 * 17) Joel
 * 18) Kai Green
 * 19) Ken Tennyson
 * 20) Krakken
 * 21) Laurence Wainright
 * 22) Lt. Steel
 * 23) Myaxx
 * 24) Sandra Tennyson
 * 25) Technorg
 * 26) Tetrax
 * 27) Wes Green
 * 28) Xylene
 * 1) Other characters
 * 2) Ah Puch
 * 3) Councilwoman Liang
 * 4) Howell Wayneright
 * 5) Joan Maplewood
 * 6) JT and Cash
 * 7) Lucy
 * 8) Mayor of Sparksville
 * 9) Mr. Jingles
 * 10) Mrs. Fang
 * 11) The President of the United States
 * 12) Tiffany
 * 13) Todd Maplewood
 * 14) Tim Dean
 * 15) Super Alien Hero Buddies
 * 16) Vance Vetteroy
 * Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When I wrote "tell me", I meant a non-verbal reply, in the form of text, preferably. ;) — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tsch... You've just got to be so picky. I was trying to convey my thoughts through verbal dialogue, and you just wouldn't reply :)
 * In any case, I can agree with most of that. I'd say to keep the Enforcers for now, that's a rather weak keep. Tetrax can probably stay on this page because he appeared in an episode rather than just the movie, but moving the other movie characters to the movie article would be a great idea. That article could use a lot of work, though. Perhaps Vera, Ken, and Devlin could be merged into a "The Tennyson Family" subsection or something. As for the miscellaneous characters, do with them as you will. If anything needs to be salvaged later, it will still be in the page history.  You Can '  t See Me!  03:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If this all goes alright, we could end up merging the villains article into the characters, seeing as the situation there is similar. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I believe we'll be getting more discussion on this pretty soon, see here. :) — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * *thinks about it* *wakes up two hours later* I'd keep characters who were the focus of an episode. Even if they're not mentioned later.--Marhawkman 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? We're not an indiscriminate amount of information, an we don't really need such descriptions if the characters are that insignificant. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... Define "insignificant". Having a character show up throughout an episode fits IMO. Granted it's still a relatively minor character in terms of the series as a whole, but if it was an important character(if only for a single episode) then it's worth adding to the list.--Marhawkman 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) That's why I didn't act out and started deleting stuff. :) Well, I think we should follow the Notability of fiction guideline. Someone know what it sais? — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 00:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * well, yes. :p Notability (fiction) But Note this: "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." (from Notability)--Marhawkman 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but still. Concidering real world context, we can't say 80% of the characters are notable enough, I mean we don't see any of them in the news, now, do we? Main characters obviusly deserve mentioning because of their overall significanse, but minor characters don't always. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 03:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They DON'T need to fulfill the requirements of Notability unless you're going to write a seperate article for them. However there is the issue of whether they're important within the context of the show. That's a bit more hazy, but I explained my stance on that already.--Marhawkman 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability certainly only applies to article topics, not to article contents, but it's also not appropriate to include every minor little detail of everything ever in a Ben 10 episode. We need to exercise judgment about what is important enough to mention and what is wasting the reader's time. When someone looks up Ben 10 on Wikipedia, it is probably because he wants to know what the show is about in general. We should focus on the big things, the important points that give a perspective across the series. Anything that is important to only one episode is a distraction from the purpose of this article and related articles. Things that are important in only two episodes are iffy. Things that appear in three episodes or more have become true features of the series. (And things that connect the series to real life are most important of all.) -- Lilwik 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm not saying we should have every character ever seen in the series. I'm just saying that characters central to the plot of at least one episode should be included.--Marhawkman 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Characters who haven't even appeared in more than a single episode seem a little bit too trivial to me, but it's a judgment call. There's no right or wrong. -- Lilwik 05:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section divider

 * That's why the list is divided by importance. Main Characters, recurring characters(more than one episode), otherwise significant characters(those with a special, but limited importance). Of course the entire debate is about what would go in category three. Ah Puch would be a good example since an entire episode was centered around him and his temple. "Tiffany" wouldn't really count, she was kinda just there. Also Jt and cash have been in several episodes but never in a significant way.--Marhawkman 06:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have to disagree about Jt and Cash, the first episode wasn't realy importent for them but their other two appearence the had a little more bareing on the story. Anyone I'm kind of sugesting, that is if this is getting too long, we put the main villains and the main heroes on a main character page and ether leave the character and villian pages as they are or if you want to merge them. Superx 10:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we can try deciding character by character, if all else fails. :) But I still think a brief description of a character, not notable enough (that is, they appeared in one episode, as a plot devise), to appear in the characters list, in the summary of their respective episode will be sufficient. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I was suggesting. :) There's already been several occurences of that. But we should be careful, as too much will make the summaries unnecessarily long. That's why we have a character list. :)--Marhawkman 07:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This thread isn't dead yet, you know. Here's the reason we should delete atleast most of the onetime characters and villains: no coverage by secondary sources. Not saying I know there is on the main characters, but atleast they're needed to understand the topic as a whole. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... no. Coverage in secondary sources is needed for having a seperate article. Inclusion in a list does not require it.--Marhawkman 12:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't? — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 13:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the list has to meet those criteria for it to exist. But the individual items on a list don't. See: WP:CLS and WP:NOTE--Marhawkman (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not sure, but if it isn't against the guidelines, then I guess we should keep the characters. Thanks for pointing out those guidelines. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 12:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, now we must decide what, if anything, needs changed. If you look up, you'll note an attempt to categorize characters by appearances, and motion to remove a few that weren't important to any story and only seen once.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look up what where? I didn't see anything on the talk page, or in the page history. Could you provide a link? — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:Ben 10 :p It's the same discussion that you joined.... I meant "scroll up" when I said "look up".--Marhawkman (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think others should comment on this before anything is decided. Why is nobody else discussing this? Is it my breath? :) — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Others DID discuss it. but they seem to have forgotten about it.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)