Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2

Wormquake release date
I was wondering if should be worth adding the early relealse date like they did with Korra.TMNT 2012 series episode wormquake "I am an otaku and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The early release date is only useful as long as the information is verifiable, which it likely won't be down the line. Unrelated, your signature is distracting. Please see WP:SIGLEN. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2014
Jesusfreak792 (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ No question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wormquake isn't, never was, and never will be the title of an episode in second season!!!!
The episode formerly called "Wormquake" on this page needs to stay "The Manhattan Project". There is not, never was, and never will be an episode titled "Wormquake". Wormquake was never anything but an advertizing campaign for the episode. I am looking at the episode title on my DVR as I am typing this message, and just watched the marathon on NickToons on 5-26-2014 containing this episode as "The Manhattan Project Parts 1 & 2". This myth that the episode was ever called "Wormquake" just needs to be put to rest once and for all. For Wikipedia to use a source like Zap2It as a reliable source is foolish at best as more than 50% of the time the site is completely off on new titles for most cartoons and anime. Seriously, just recently they made the entire site unusable for more than a week. How competent can that make them.Aragorn8354 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit war is ridiculous and needs to be stopped. I don't know who needs to step in and resolve this but it will determine the validity of wikipedia as a source of information. Aragorn8354 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure i remember the title as "Wormquake" when i watched it. The Manhattan Project may have been used as a title outside the US. Koala15 (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, as I am a US citizen and have the original broadcast on DVR and it has always been "The Manhattan Project". What you are remembering is the commercial blurb right before returning to the show after the various commercial breaks. Wormquake is not and never has been an episode title, it was nothing more than an advertizing gimmick. Nothing more, nothing less. I have not made these changes without good reason, I have the actual title sitting right in front of me as I typed the change. Aragorn8354 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * imdb.com, epguides.com, and tvrage.com all confirm this title on thier sites and George Fergus of epguides.com has already made mention of this to this site previously. If Wikipedia has devolved to being a site more concerned with sources cited than actual facts it truely is a sad day in the history of the site. Aragorn8354 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

imdb.com is not a reliable source. I don't know about the other websites you mentioned, but I'm going to assume that they're not reliable sources since imdb.com isn't. XXX8906 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this needs to stop. You have a history of this kind of behavior and it just needs to stop. Read the note in the article which even states the actual onscreen title is "The Manhattan Project". Seriously this just needs to stop.Aragorn8354 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Though Zap2It and TVGuide.com are typically considered reliable sources (even with all their flaws) by the WikiProject Television community, we are allowed to use the primary source (the aired episode) for uncontroversial information such as the episode's title, credits, etc. Without getting into whether or not Wormquake was previously a working title, or just some promotional nonsense cooked up by the promo zombies at Nickelodeon, it seems fairly obvious that the title is "The Manhattan Project" because that's what appears on the published, locked version of the episode on Nick's own website. Title card appears around 3:00. Unfortunately the episode hasn't been registered at the US Copyright office yet, but you could also keep your eyes peeled there.  Though the episode title appears as "Wormquake!" in my DVR's listing, the title card again reads "The Manhattan Project". This seems to be a case of Nickelodeon releasing episode information too soon, as opposed to changing the episode title after the episode was locked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources list both episode titles then both should be listed, with references, one using the Title and RTitle fields with the other listed using the AltTitle and RAltTitle fields. Wikipedia editors can't discount reliable sources in favour of other reliable sources. That's editing based on original research, which is not permitted. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with that reasoning is the episode was never at any time post production titled Wormquake. These supposed reliable sources Wikipedia uses are actually complete trash and rarely get anything right unless it's forcefed to them. I am a huge tv/movie freak and use all of these sites daily and honestly have a much better feel for what site is reliable or not than apparently Wikipedia does. That being said, what little needs to be said about the nontitle Wormquake is in the note below the episode summary which explains it all in a nutshell. No further documentation is needed for an episode title that never in reality existed. Do I really need to contact Peter Laird and get his testimonial. On a side note I knew Peter before he was famous and ran a comic book shop in a basement on Main Street, Northampton, MA. Fond memories of sitting and talking comics and drawing with him. Aragorn8354 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "I am a huge tv/movie freak and use all of these sites daily and honestly have a much better feel for what site is reliable or not than apparently Wikipedia does" - That is the very essence of original research. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that was more a commentary on the use of sources by this site. There are banned sources that are banned not for thier content or accuracy but the fact that you got trolls and other things from fan members of the site. That sir is bias at it's worst. Aragorn8354 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources that you claim are "complete trash" have been determined to be reliable sources in accordance with Identifying reliable sources. To avoid confusion over the most often seen sources we have WikiProject Television/FAQ listing both reliable and unreliable sources. I don't know which sources you're referring to as "banned", but if they are banned, there's always a good reason. When editing have to comply with our polices, procedures, guidelines and consensus, whether we like it or not. We cannot rely on the opinions of Wikipedia editors, because we are not considered to be reliable sources, and there's good reason for that. As an example, "the episode was never at any time post production titled Wormquake". That clearly is not correct when we examine reliable sources. The Futon Critic does not base episode title on its opinion. Instead it relies on press releases issued by networks. Its listing shows the episode title as "Wormquake!". Since the press releases are generated post-production, the network clearly has identifid the episode as "Wormquake!" post-production. TV Guide, another reliable source, also lists "Wormquake!" as the episode title, as does MSN, and Zap2It. We cannot disregard so many reliable sources based on an editor's belief. On the other hand, epguides, which is used as a reference for "The Manhattan Project", is a fan generated site that relies on imdb and tv.com, neither of which are regarded as reliable, making epguides unreliable. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then Wikipedia is a useless pile of false information and isn't worth the electrons supporting it. What you just did is disseminate false information based on erroneous information from your so-called "reliable" source and makes Wikipedia look foolish and stupid. This is intellectual eliteism at its worst and I will be no further part of it. The simple fact that Wikipedia accepts incorrect information from a "reliable" source over actual factual information renders it completely useless as an Encyclopedia reference Aragorn8354 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarises reliable sources. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth". As editors we can make no judgements as to which reliable sources we will choose to summarise and which reliable sources we will choose to ignore. Instead we have to maintain a neutral point of view and reflect what the majority of reliable sources say. You cannot argue that the information provided by reliable sources is incorrect unless you can provide evidence that the sources are not correct. Simply providing sources that demonstrate an alternative name does not do that. All it does is demonstrate that there are two names used for an episode. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Parroting false, misleading, or misinformation doesn't make you an editor, it makes you a fool. Aragorn8354 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please consider the tone of what you write before you write it. Wikipedia has rules about civility and personal attacks. Now that's out of the way, please provide a source that confirms your claim that "Wormquake isn't, never was, and never will be the title of an episode in second season!!!!". You have not done so yet. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm pretty much in alignment with what has stated variously above. His suggestion to include both titles is a good one, because yes, they're both sourced, and yes, if we have sources for both, we should include both even if we suspect that the two titles amount to yet another Nickelodeon boner. If we find out down the road that it was a mistake, perhaps we can make an adjustment. , though I can understand you are frustrated, especially with all the other 3RR issues hanging over your head, disputes of this type are fairly common and aren't worth the anger. This is a collaborative project and sometimes we need to find smart compromises. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all you know that a negative can never be proven. Second you all needn't worry your arrogant little heads about it as I no longer will edit this completely bogus and unreliable site. I don't want to confuse anyone with the facts. Make sure to revert all my edits as they are facts not rumors or press releases. Go right on believeing Zap2It is a reliable source (on just one single program I watch it has 8 incorrect titles for episodes listed in just the next 14 days). This is my final post and word on this or any other subject here on WikiRumoria. Aragorn8354 (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Deliberately ignoring your incivil comments, which add nothing to the discussion, I'd like to suggest that you are missing the big picture. I personally believe that the episode is correctly named "The Manhattan Project", and that Nickelodeon probably fucked up when they reported that information to TVGuide.com, Zap2It, etc.  But what I personally believe to be a fact is irrelevant.  Our duty as editors is to add content that is supported by sources, not to inject our opinions and beliefs into articles, even if those opinions and beliefs are inconsistent with "truth".  You wouldn't believe how many times people have written at the Help Desk, "My dad is So-and-So, and the article about him is totally wrong," only to be told to provide reliable references. To use this person's view of "truth" constitutes original research, which isn't permissible.  Now, we can ignore some sourced content if the sources are not considered reliable by the community (like nickalive.blogspot.com), but as it relates to this matter, Zap2It is not the only reference that calls the episode Wormquake, Nick.com uses that title too.  And one way to demonstrate reliably that it was a mistake, would be if, as part of a published news article, or book, the discrepancy was clarified.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

One final comment concerning your "reliable sources". Today, in looking for the schedule of programs I want to watch, amongst the dozens of other listing, title and summary errors, Zap2It states "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" airs on 7/17/14 at 10:00PM to 11:35PM which in reality makes it run 1/2 hour into the time slot for "Dominion" at 11:05 further showing you use completely unreliable sources and wouldn't know a real "source" if it jumped up and bit you in the posterior. Week after week I find dozens of errors on Zap2It. As I stated previously this site isn't worth the electrons suppoting it. Encyclopedia Brittannica was spot on in their evaluation of this site. What you all sadly don't seem to fathom is every single thing on your site at one time or another had to be "original research". Sad, just sad that your arrogance can't allow you to see that.Aragorn8354 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

About the early release of Into Dimension X! on Nick.com
Hey guys I am not sure if you know but apparently there was another early release this week. I am not sure when it was put up. Just thought I should tell you guys. Into Dimension X! early release link on Nick.com --"I am an otaku and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems
It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * - In this edit. Brought colors to WCAG 2 AAA compliance. Darker purple background, white text. Contrast ratio: 7.3 Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)