Talk:List of Young Justice episodes

Drop Zone dates

The show messed up. People coming to this page should be given information about what was on-screen as well as Greg's "correct dates" post. Several people going in and "fixing" the dates is proof enough for me that the additional details are worth having there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer4Hire (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake that was addressed by Weisman. I have provided references that back-up the correct dates. It's unnecessary to mention the incorrect dates since it's trivial.-5- (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, I've added a note below the episode summary. I hope it's a good compromise.-5- (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Episode Air dates

If you are going to post the air dates.... actually double check them. Everyone knows episode 1 and 2 were shown in a full hour premiere back in November 2010, not January 2011. I watched them in November. Come on Who Erase I Air on Janaury 6, 2012 I am angry!!! 2:41 31 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1641384/episodes#year-2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mission vs. simulation

Due to a little back (1) and forth ([1]), we should probably discuss the matter at length. I thought it was clear that it was a simulation, not a mission. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

But the only evidence of that is that the background changes behind Batman at the mission's end, which is the same evidence for a cut scene. What is exclusively evidence of a cut scene and not a simulation, more than anything is the opening location/time tag identifying that they are, in fact, in Gotham. Now I know I'm assuming this, but if it were a simulator, the animators/producers would have left the tag out until the simulation ended to extend the illusion, then added the singular tag of "Mt. Justice (7:58 EDT)" to show they were, in fact, never in Gotham or any other part of the outside world. Plus there's accounting for the fact (evidenced by the separate location/time markers) that it took them an hour and forty-one minutes to get from Gotham to Mt. Justice after the mission's end. It seems unreasonable to assume it takes 1.67 hours to get out of a simulator located in their home, especially when, if it were a simulator, no time took place between then end of the mission and the end of the simulator run. It took an hour and forty-one minutes for Batman to throw a batarang, shut off the machine then say "I want to talk to Aqualad"??? No. And if you're at all confused or thrown off by the whirring noise made at the cutaway, that was not a simulator powering down, that was their transporter; the identical noise is made only moments later in the episode after the opening credits when Aqualad transports to Poseidonis. More evidence that they came from a location outside Mt. Justice. Not to mention the fact that they were standing in the middle of the command center when the "simulation" ended. Then you're saying that the whole mountain serves as a simulator, which only suggests it should have taken less time, not more, to end it since they were simply standing right there. Or the fact that they were all unconscious at the end of the fight, but aiding each other awake but aching at their arrival to the mountain. Pretty quick recovery, unless you account for that 1:41. It's an easy, even indistinguishable mistake to make when you look solely at the cutaway, but the rest of the evidence in the episode makes it abundantly clear; they fought the real Clayface in the real Gotham, and got home almost 2 hours later.

As far as citing it, the episode facts in an edit summary do not require a citation. WP:Verification states "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." The only reliable source for an episode summary is the episode itself, which is both impossible and redundant to cite. And an inline citation, in this case, would be just as required for your claim of a simulation, because it is the same moment from the episode disputed for a different interpretation. KnownAlias X 19:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a moment to re-read WP:V, KnownAlias; information can be left uncited until it is challenged, at which point a citation from a reliable source must be presented, or the statements in question must be removed. Your supposition is based upon - forgive my seeming vilification, but it is a cartoon series. I'd posit that we aren't meant to apply the same level of scrutiny that is applied to say, the Pentagon Papers or the October Surprise. It's a cartoon show about teenaged superheroes; logic. realism and the laws of physics have clearly left the building.

The point of this is that you need to present a reliable source in support of what are currently your deduced ideas. We cannot use them without it.

On a side note, I've reverted your reversion of the material. As per BRD, you reverted the initial removal, and I reinstated the removal. Therefore, its you that needs to come and make a case here before its reinstated. As you are asking for uncited info to be added to the article, I think it best that it remain out until such time as sources come forth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A fair point on BRD; I'm used to it happening within hours or a day, not within the calendar year, but you did revert someone else's work. But we come to the issue of the edit being challenged. Your previous post seems to intimate you feeling that the challenge is enough to have the edit removed outright, which I do not belive to be the spirit of the policy, but rather that it was meant to provide clarification of the information. Since the show itself is the only reliable source, interpretation of the episode events is all we have to go on. You have yet to address the points I have already made defending the previous edit, or to contradict them with evidence of your own to persuade the matter. You said yourself, you drew this conclusion based on a viewing of the episode, so I'm personally curious what it was about the episode that drew you to the conclusion, and what your reaction to the evidence I've already presented might be.

As I previously stated, the show itself serves as the source of record, so we're trapped in a condition of interpretation. With the exception the floor of Comic-Con, I doubt any third party sources are going to debate the issue of simulation vs mission like we are. And my supposition is based on a cartoon series, yes, not the Pentagon Papers, but for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, it is also based on a primary source which is equal to this article what the Pentagon Papers would be to an article about the Vietnam war. The fact that the subject matter doesn't bear the same weight in the real world that the Pentagon Papers would should have no bearing on how the information is treated for the purposes of this article. I cited the episode itself for evidence here on the talk page, because an inline citation from another source seems unlikely. And as I stated, your view of it as a simulation is just as disputed by myself and the original editor who posted it as a mission, not to mention just as uncited, so if you're not going to present evidence supporting your version or at least attempt to debunk mine, the conversation needs to turn to how to reword the sentence to remove reference to both mission and simulation. KnownAlias X 06:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You make fair points, KnownAlias, and I want you to know that my response wasn't (and isn't) a denigration of you or your suppositions regarding the happenings in the episode. Likewise, I agree that within Wikipedia, we must treat all articles equally; therefore, the Pentagon Papers and television episodes are given the same weight. In order to have that same weight, they must fulfill the criteria that all other articles must have to be included. This includes verifiable information. You (and the initial contributor) offered, by wording/instruction creep the information so as to shut down any dissent on the matter is not supported by external sources. Your suppositions regarding the nature of any given episode doesn't meet the litmus test for inclusion; we cannot cite your Sherlocking (ie. deductive reasoning). We can only cite a reliable source doing so. That's why I don't need to debunk your hypothesis; my rebuttal is no more useful (read: includable) than your deductions.

While ComicCon is an awesome place to see really good costumes (didja see the Batgirl running around there? o.m.g.!), it isn't a good place to obtain citations, unless they are in magazines for sale there. OF course there is info to be found on each episode, with evaluative commentary. So long as it is an actual cite with editorial oversight, it's usually good enough to cite. If you are having trouble finding citation, ask, and we can help you figure out what sources to use. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, 'till such a citation exists either way, I wrote out the nature of the battle, real or sim, and focused it simply on the fact they were beaten. If it needs to be tweaked further, feel free, but this is the right direction for now, given the contention on the perspective of it (then and now, frankly). KnownAlias X 17:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with your most recent revision. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Series overview colors

It's quite standard in episode pages for the series overview box next to a season to match it's respective season episode list. Also, it is also pretty standard to change that color to the color of the DVD box art once it is released. The reason is, a majority of pages include images of the DVD box art, and this provides a palette symmetry on the page; how that will work here when there are multiple volumes coming for season 1, I can't say, but it does mean that a lot of "pretty" colors inundate Wikipedia, rather than each page being starkly "encyclopedic". But because of this, the coloring of seasons is considered a pretty broad consensus. If you want to change the color, you need to change the season episode list to match it, and if you want a change in consensus to a more nuetral tone on Wikipedia, you may need to find a forum page, because it is pretty poular and accepted throughout. KnownAlias X 16:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't too much trouble, could you point out where discussion concluding in that consensus could be found? I kinda like the starkly encyclopedic look, but if there is a consensus wiki-wide to do things differently, I've never heard of it. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode list plots

Some stuff is being added to plots and season two about what happens in an ep that hasn't aired yet or a certain character is going to appear in season two. It's important to realize that we are not in a hurry here. There is no rush to be the first ones with this information; actually, it is bad to even try. We are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet; there is no need to "scoop" any other website, or to act as a clearinghouse for new information released. We watch and wait until a reliable source comes forth. Then we write. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An aside: we don't infringe on the copyright of the program by copying, verbatim, the plot lists from another website. There is a reason its called a summary, not "in-depth analysis or outright plagiarism of source material". I've had to revert a few anonymous contributions who keep adding that sort of stuff, and its growing tedious. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Harm

It would appear several people have tried to reference Young Justice's (TV series) Harm to Young Justice's (comic book) Harm and a single person takes issue with this. The while, Harm's sister is accepted as his sister for both mediums (namely, Secret). I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here. Peter David created Harm and then wrote him into his episode of YJ. I mean, why is this character so special to require specialized identification? Alucardbarnivous (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Harm issue is more the 'tip of an iceberg' -type issue. You will note that, in a great many of these episode summaries, the sourcing is either non-existent, entirely subjectively sourced to the episode itself or sourced in such a way that subsequent investigation of that source reveals that whoever added the summary completely plagiarized the source to create the summary. All three problems existed with the Harm reference material. I would submit that the connection that you noted ("Peter David created Harm and then wrote him into his episode of YJ") is far more important than the largely-plagiarized summary itself. Now, if only there were some way to cite that, so we could include it into the article... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For my own piece of mind, why is Secret allowed to remain linked to her main article and yet there's all this grief over her brother Harm? The TV series Harm has a similar appearance to his comic counterpart (sans costume), the same name (even his true identity with the surname Hayes), similar origins (slew his sister for power), and in both is the brother of Secret and battled Young Justice. For characters like Zatara, Ms. Martian, Green Arrow, et al, there has been no struggle to link them to their printed original. Why is such not the case for Harm? It strikes me as a fight for no reason but to fight. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you have that perception, Al. Secret is not linked within this article (and shouldn't be); the only way she - or anyone else - would be is if they fit a few criteria for inclusion. One would be citable via reliable, secondary references (ie, not using your own personal knowledge to identify a given character). Another would be notability. Black Canary, Ms. Martian and Zatara are all 'repeat customers'; noting them via wikilinkage (and recurring cast subsection) answers the "Whozzat?" likely to occur amongst readers. Thirdly, the question of episode summary versus plot summary is key; if you want to expand more on the plot, start an article about the episode and carry on about the plot for 600-800 words. It isn't necessary here, and we've both seen the blatant copyvio's happening with the word-for-word lifts from the source material.

I hope that explains my position better. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up expanding the summary? I mean, I haven't expanded the summary and this is a discussion on Harm. If that's a separate issue you wish to raise, I suggest you make a separate section for it. And of course Secret is no longer linked since you've now removed it: [2]. As for Zatara as a recurring character, that's only a recent change with the addition of Zatanna. Considering Wikipedia's crystal ball policy, your claim of him as a recurring character would've made no sense earlier as he has been cited. And if you want to follow along this line of thinking, why is Mr. Twister linked? Blockbuster? Kobra? Bane? Mammoth? Amazo? Black Spider? And on and on and on. For some reason, you've drawn the line at Harm and now Secret because I raised the issue of her inclusion over Harm. I would rather I didn't have to bring this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry if something I said suggested something other than my intent. I wasn't sure how I stated that you were the one expanding on the summary; you aren't.

As for the wikilinking of Harm - give me an hour. I'm going to check on a few things, but I'll get back to you here by that time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient. I've re-watched the episode and looked at the article again. Iirc, I initially removed Harm being named as the episode had not aired as of yet, and the information hadn't been cited. Indeed, very little in the article was cited that well. That has since changed for the better. I guess Harm does belong in, but absolutely not the wikilinked pun of Secret. Indeed, unless someone reliable links the girl to the DC character (we as editors cannot do it), no mention of her can be made. In fact, many of the characters you noted that have been wikilinked shouldn't be - not without either explicit mention within the episode or by an secondary source making the identification, Feel free to cull as you wish. I do think that Bane, Blockbuster and Amazo should be mentioned: they were named explicitly, as I recall.

I added Zartara as a recurring character because he was added as a training replacement for RT; Zatanna wasn't an add-on until his following appearance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Secrets: Superboy costume and identities

I am noticing that various anon contributors keep adding in that the costume worn by Mal in Secrets is that of Superboy, c. 1994(±). As has been mentioned ad nauseum previously, our personal observations count for precisely squat in Wikipedia articles. To note anything about the Wonder Twins, Bumblebee, Mal or anything about the costume he was wearing without explicit secondary observation is original research. I say 'secondary' because primary sourcing (ie. our observations of the episode) does not allow us to make any interpretations of what we are seeing - merely the who, what, when and where - and can only cover the plot itself. Secondary (and reliable) sources can add depth to the primary material by expanding on that observed material. Find sources that explicitly connect any character to the character they are in the rest of the DCU, or correctly and explicitly identify the Superman/boy costume worn, or name Secret as the little girl int he episode. Our Sherlocking cannot be used. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon user 174.119.5.175 added a link to an image of the Superboy costume, adding the following edit summary: "With link to secondary source for an image. If this isn't good enough, I'll be on the talk page."

It isn't a satisfactory link to allow for the addition of the link, anon. As stated immediately above, you observational interpretation cannot be used. Find a secondary reliable source that - and this is vital - speaks about the costume while discussing the episode. We are not allowed to connect the dots here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

After witnessing the extended edit war, I've removed all references to what Mal is wearing, problem hopefully solved. But I will note that if that's not the early Superboy costume, it's certainly not a Superman costume, no matter what the character says (there is no secondary source confirming the Superman costume interpretation either, and the character's in-episode explanation of the costume is vague at best). There are multiple images linked to from various wikipedia articles that depict Superboy in that exact costume (see [[3]] or [[4]]), making the reference arguably self-evident. If self-evidence isn't enough, let's all just avoid mentioning it at all. 142.1.248.247 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but for Connor's visceral reaction to the costume. That makes mentioning the fact that its a Superman-style uniform worthwhile. the big red and gold 'S' identify it as such. As for self-evident facts, you are right, you interpretive comparison cannot be used. If you have a secondary source by someone mentioning it, that would solve the problem nicely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Young Justice: Invasion

Is not a second season. Geoff Johns stated it was more of a spin-off.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Cartoon-Network-DC-1031019.aspx --Logicalfoundationisdoubt (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone then get an accurate description of seasons? I'm seeing stuff on the TV Guide website that is showing that we're currently in season 2 of the show already. Especially given the long wait time between episodes 18 and 19, is this all still considered season 1? Let's get an update here. Jlooney888 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New dates?

What is the source for the dates of the remaining episodes of season 1? I couldn't find anything to confirm it.66.41.65.67 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Light"

Who are its members? Episode "Revelation" reveals who they are, but it doesn't list them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infodude575 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainly because a reliable source hasn't done so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is known thus far, from the show itself and from the show's co-creator Greg Weisman on his Ask Greg website, is a group thought up by Vandal Savage with a ruling council of seven where each council member has equal say in their operations (Weisman frequently answering claims Savage leads the group that he's instead a "first among equals"). When asked to clarify some background on the group of villains, Weisman is also frequent to say they may not necessarily observe themselves as villains. The group has been responsible for the brunt of the conflict in the series such as Project Cadmus, the Injustice League, Hugo Strange operating Belle Reve, trying to obtain Atlantis' "star-shaped artifact", obtaining Kobra Venom and applying it to plants and animals, etc. They also have a mysterious ally that has been supplying them with New God technology (from both New Genesis and Apokolips using "booming" transportation "tubes"). Though there is seven council members, the organization is massive as Ra's al Ghul's League of Shadows, Klarion's magically-inclined allies, and Strange's host of super-villains in Belle Reve provide a virtual army. As Batman pointed out when the JLA began putting the pieces together, some "secret society of super-villains" as it were. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, got any reliable sourcing on that? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For anything in particular? As far as I know, the only aspects of my paragraph that were not revealed in the series was Savage as the founder and council members are equal. A quick search turns up: [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As for its members: [9]. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See, adding that to the article before this discussion became necessary would have been the best thing to do. No citation = no inclusion. If you wish to add the information (with citations) to the main article about Young Justice, that would be swell. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about... I guess that's my reward for being helpful? Wikipedia. Wow. lol Alucardbarnivous (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Stolen item

What was stolen from S.T.A.R. Labs? Some folk keep adding that it was a piece of Starro. However, I am not seeing any cited references for that. Without such, we cannot include it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It definitely was Starro. The Wiki for the show cites it as such, not to mention it being referenced many times in the show itself. Also, starro's purple scales are unmistakeable. Jlooney888 (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the wikia is a hot mess of uncited information - we cannot use anything from there. Most wikias are for fans to congregate, celebrate their fannishness and Sherlock every little bit of each episode. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it has no place here in Wikipedia. We need neutral, reliable and verifiable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the most recent episode (auld acquaintance) they specifically say "starro tech". I hope that's enough proof for you Jack. We can, and should use the term Starro. Jlooney888 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't watched the ep as of yet, but if you say it has been explicitly called such, then I have no problem calling it thus. As an aside, I am not the obstacle course here; our policies and guidelines are. If its cited (for unaired episodes) or made explicit within current or past eps, I have no problem with inclusion. It's when the facts go off the reservation and start speculating that I draw the line. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It was called "Starro-tech" in Auld Acquaintence. And, yeah, you are the obstacle. If you haven't seen an episode or didn't know one aired maybe you shouldn't edit the entry. 65.204.124.130 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You will note that that term didn't occur until months after people sought to add it without references. that's pretty much the way we work here in Wikipedia, anonymous user. You might know that, were you to set up an actual account and make more of an effort to learn the rules and guidelines and less time seeking to (incorrectly) assign blame. As a matter of fact, I have seen all of the aired eps (even the illegally pirated - and therefore unusable by Wikipedia - ep later pulled by YouTube), so suggesting I don't know about the subject matter is a fairly poor deduction on your part.

If you are still convinced that I am in the wrong, go and ask an administrator or a noticeboard (there are plenty of each) about the rules you think I am applying incorrectly. Get their input. Until then, I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries

This is a problem that will sort itself out in time but the deletion of plot summaries confuses me. They shouldn't be removed on the basis of "no references" (although some have had references). Plot summaries are not analysis or interpretation, so primary sources are appropriate (ie. the episode itself is a reliable source of the episode's plot). I'm also somewhat suspicious of the insistence on the US airdate, regardless of whether it was first or not, but that's a minor issue for now. Neither are big deals but they are worth mentioning with regards to this article. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Myself, I don't give a hoot about the air date (though I am not dismissing the importance of such), but I think you are misinterpreting when to apply the guidelines regarding plot summaries. The aforementione guidelines refer to those plot summaries for existing media. As most of these episodes haven't aired as of yet, we need to know where they are coming from. What if they are just wish-fulfillment from some fanfic-style forum? Or (at worst) some douchebag vandal screwing with the article? Since they are in the future, we have no way of verifying the veracity or interpretation-free nature of the future ep plot. Therefore, we need citation from reliable, verifiable and notable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Young Justice already aired in Portuguese

I watched the ones with english subtitles. I'm writing up a summary for episode 26 right now. Here's the link to the Porteguese version of episode 26. The other episodes have also been aired, although I haven't had time to edit them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vD14HCq4i4

Sorry, YouTube isn't a source that we can use. Find a reliable source that notes any of the plot, and all is fine. PLOT only covers episodes that have aired to the general viewing public. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of a stupid argument. I looked at the other reliable sources that these other summaries used, and the summaries aren't anywhere in the link that they posted. By posting that youtube link, I have shown that THERE IS AN EPISODE THAT HAS BEEN AIRED TO THE GENERAL VIEWING PUBLIC (albeit only to people who speak Portuguese), and therefore I am justified in posting a plot summary of the episode that has already been aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roflplex (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use YouTube as a source. You can't swing a dead cat without encountering one discussion or another about it. In short, it doesn't meet our reliability criteria. And since videos often vanish without warning, either because the uploader removed them or - as is very likely in this case - YouTube pulls it as a copyright violation. This therefore runs afoul of our verifiability policy. You should really be asking why this video is airing in Brazil(?) before it airs in the US - the program's home country. There have been no press releases or reviews anywhere. This makes me think that someone pirated it and is likely skirting if not dangling over the line of legality. Wikipedia doesn't use that sort of source.

I would like to encourage you to seek out a reliable, verifiable source that details the content of the episode. Until it airs, we cannot afford it the protection provided by PLOT. If you are concerned that our policies are "stupid", I would like to point you to the Village Pump. Get some feedback. Maybe you can affect change, making our policies and guidelines less 'stupid'. I wish you speedy travel. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is what I mean by being BITE-y. You are not assuming good faith and you are misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. YouTube is more than enough proof of the simple existence of something. It's right there, you can see it; you don't need a secondary source to say that water is wet. Again, the plot of the episode is citation enough for the plot of the episode (and even if you don't speak Portuguese, it's easy enough to get the gist and confirm a few sentences of summary). Sometimes different countries run ahead of each other due to scheduling differences (I don't think Batman: The Brave and the Bold's "The Mask of Matches Malone" has ever been shown in the US, but it and other episodes were broadcast first in Australia). Insisting something doesn't exist despite evidence to the contrary is just odd and your actions risk running afoul of the edit warring policy. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong on at least three counts, Adam. Firstly, we do NOT use YouTube, as it fails the verifiability criterion for inclusion. We have no idea of the source of the video, or if it isn't going to get pulled for copyright infringement (something which has been happening at an increasing rate in youTube); it certainly wasn't released on Cartoon Network - it's primary outlet. We cannot cite it knowing full well it might be gone 15 minutes afterwards. There are other issues with the video, but that is the primary one. You should feel free to verify this with virtually any noticeboard or administrator.

Secondly, it is not BITEy to refer someone on who feels our policies are "stupid" to that place where policies can be challenged/changed/etc. I didn't call them a 'stupiud poopy-head' or suggest that the user's parents were closely-related cousins. I simply pointed out where their concerns would be better addressed, and did so after explaining our policy - the correct interpretation of the policy, I might add.

Thirdly, we don't get to add uncited content. Period. Full stop. It gets removed if it gets added. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

"00:47, 15 April 2012‎ Jack Sebastian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,428 bytes) (-1,034)‎ . . (please see previous two edit summaries. When it airs, then we can post a SUMMARY, (not a blow by blow of each scene). Until then, no uncited addition) (undo) "

It AIRED this morning! BEFORE this entry was made! Are we on our period today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.124.130 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, don't be rude, or I'll simply deem you a troll and ignore you. Secondly, I wasn't aware that it aired this morning. Thanks for letting me know. I will leave the edit in place. Again, you are going to find that being polite will save you loads of time and headaches. I am noticing that you seem to be having trouble accepting our editing practices in Wikipedia (ie., edits in Black Spider, etc.). If you need help or don't understand something, ask. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Arrow

In as much as pointing out that Cadmus clones don't age so it is more likely that Red Arrow is not the clone and the body taken from Cadmus is may be POV... Would it not also be POV or speculation that Red Arrow is, in fact, a clone? The source of this information was presumably Vandal Savage or Klarion the Witchboy. The League was under their control when this information came to light (no pun intended) and they have no reason to tell the League the truth and every reason to mislead them. With there being a possibility that Red Arrow being the clone is all just a ruse, should this be worded differently in the body of the article? As in, instead of saying "The Light storm the Cadmus facility and apprehend Match and the real Roy Harper", "The Light storm the Cadmus facility and apprehend Match and A Roy Harper", etc. Not to make this sound too "in universe" or anything, but our "source", here, is The Light. Trustworthy? Who's to say that Red Arrow isn't the original and the body that was at Cadmus isn't the clone?65.204.124.130 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't Sherlock the plot. If, 10 years from now, we discover - via a reviewer, creator's blog or episode - that what you say is true, then we can include it. Until then, it isn't speculation. It's what is being presented to us. We are not allowed to speculate as to the veracity of the plot or its characters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, but no one (Greg Weisman, for instance) has directly said "Red Arrow is a clone". We're being led to believe that, so far. When the viewer hears "Red Arrow is a clone" we're also hearing "the real Roy Harper isn't at Cadmus and is presumed dead", "Red Arrow is a fugitive", that Batman had already deduced that Red Arrow was a clone and Vandal Savage had been apprehended. Which is all untrue. If we can't state, on the main page, that Superboy is a clone of Superman and Lex Luthor until it becomes YJ/Earth 16 canon I'm wondering if we should be corroborating The Light's account of who's a clone and who isn't when this may all just be a deception. I guess what I'm saying is "do we have proof of this claim?" or do we need it?65.204.124.130 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your initial assumption is incorrect, anon; by creating the episode, he did state that Red Arrow is a clone - the character says as much in their dialogue. We cannot gainsay the plot itself. Is there a possibility/likelihood that its all manipulation? Sure, but our deductions/suspicions cannot be utilized in the article. The reason plot sections are not cited is that they are created via first person consensus; that is to say, all the users watch the same ep and weigh in on what they thought they saw. Some people see more and some see less. Neither extreme can be used, and so we aim for the middle ground.

If at some point you find a reviewer that feels the same suspicions and voices them in a verifiable way through a notable, reliable source, we can use it Until then, we cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may: The fact that Superboy does not age may be unique to Superboy, due to his half-Kryptonian physiology, and may not apply to Red Arrow (who could thus still be a clone). In the comics (pre-New 52), Superboy was a clone--the genetic offspring of Luthor and Superman, as in the series--and eventually learned that he did not age (in order to explain why the character could seemingly remain a perpetual 16). Red Arrow was never a clone, was always the same person as Speedy, married Cheshire and had a daughter with her, joined the JLA (under the name of "Red Arrow"), and lost an arm shortly before the New 52 reboot (in the same story in which his daughter Lian was killed). The cartoon seems to be following the comics with regard to Superboy, but not to Roy. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.187.211 (talk • contribs)

I personally see your reasoning, Dawud, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, we cannot consider what "may" be the case; we function solely upon what is clear to a consensus of contributors and can be referenced to an external source (we ourselves cannot be cited). If you can find a reliable source that says what you do, we might very well be able to use it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree to be guided by whatever the characters are listed as in the credits. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.175.8 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Character absences

I've reverted a number of edits that added these, both at the beginning of S1 as well as a bunch of notes that seem to be more trivial than anything else. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why have these been added to the first several episodes of the first season? Characters such as Zatanna or Rocket weren't even part of the team yet, they had not joined. And Speedy/Red Arrow had left the team. Some of these should be edited, in my opinion. I've watched this show from start to finish and know all of the in's and outs. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In-universe dates

What's with the date breakdowns in the episode summaries? In my opinion they're distracting and makes it less easy to find information. Plenty of other shows whose episodes have datestamps (eg X-Files) don't use that sort of breakdown in their episode summaries, and while I'm aware of the WP:otherstuffexists policy I feel that these should follow suit.Euchrid (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, these are meant to be short summaries, not this in-depth. I believe this should be reverted as soon as we have more input. Grammarxxx talk 1:07, July 20 2012 (UTC)

Grammarxxx has brought me up to speed, and I am in agreement with both of you. I'll be reverting the bold changes out back to the last stable edit, allowing the people wanting to change the episodes' format ample time to come on over here to talk and sort out a solution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs citation

A reputable source is needed that cites the name of the episode after "Depths." Nothing is going to be allowed int here without it. If it sounds like I'm being a bit absolutist, its because I've reverted out about a dozen edits that seem content to spitball their original research out. We don't use forum chat and fandrool as sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I remind editors that removing unsourced information is not listed as exempt from the three-revert rule. Unfortunately, I had to block two users yesterday for edit warring, which could have been avoided. I'm pleased to see discussion going on here; that is the best way to resolve the issue. There may be cases where editors add unsourced information that needds to be removed - in these cases, talk to the users and don't revert them more than three times (there are steps you can take if the editors are editing disruptively. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I've recently edited out some copy-vio's in the article (1) and they keep getting re-added by an other user (2, 3, 4), nosing up on not only WP:3RR, but copy violation as well as WP:OWN. Let me get some fresh perspective. I sought to handle this through the back channel of the user's talk page, but that seems to be going nowhere fast. I've brought it a wider audience for evaluation. Which edit seems better? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What you claim to be a copyright violation is not a copyright violation. You're doing nothing but protecting your own work: WP:OWN

LoveWaffle (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's an opinion. Strikingly incorrect, but an opinion, nonetheless. What LW fails to note that most of my edits to the article were to trim it down, not to protect any specific version. Y'all can tell me which version is more concise and not approaching a copy violation:

The source material: "Black Manta seeks vengeance against Miss Martian."

Jack Sebastian's version: "Black Manta targets Miss Martian,"

LoveWaffle's version: "Miss Martian becomes the target of a vengeful Black Manta."

The wording needs to vary more than it has, while preserving intent and be brief. Thoughts from others? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying the wording needs to vary more from the source material, than yours' is not the one to go with. The version of the synopsis you provide is closer to a word-for-word reproduction from the source material, as you just sub in "targets" for "seeks vengeance against". The one I provide, on the other hand, has a completely different structure to it, swapping the subject and direct object from the source material, while preserving the intent of the synopsis from the source material. It's not the only way to do it, we could replace "Miss Martian" with "M'gann" or "Megan", or take out "a vengeful", or go full-on passive voice with "M'gann is targeted by Black Manta." But the fact remains that what you provide is much closer to a word-for-word reproduction of what is in the source material.

And, since you've consistently reverted any edits made to the page since the article in question was published other than ones you have made, all of which you have claimed as "BLATANT" copyright violations (which all but one of them are), I have no choice but to believe you are protecting your own work. You cite three instances that where I re-added content you removed because it was a copyright violation, yet you fail to mention that none of the material you removed from the page is actually a copyright violation. The only edits you do not revert are your own, even when it would be better to simply fix a user's mistake (as indicated by your reversion of Bat-mite26's edit), clearly indicating WP:OWN as well as problems with Assume good faith. Whether you are consciously doing this or not is a different matter.

As for the other synopsis in question, that of the episode "Cornered", you just make a grammatical error. You replace the capital "T" in "the Team" with a lower-case "t". Since "the Team" is the name for the organization that in the DC comic books is called "Young Justice", "Team" is a proper noun, and reverting the edit that replaced it with "team" is business as usual. This also comes into play with one edit you've made for the episode "Fix", where added "The" back into the title of the episode, blatantly disregarding more recent source material. LoveWaffle (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where I was soliciting opinions from others, Waffle? You've previously made your opinion abundantly clear. Maybe take a step back and allow others to weigh in. And, the next time you assume bad faith on my part, you and I are going to hash out some issues an AN/I.

Sorry, everyone. Could we get some feedback from someone who has no hamster spinning its wheel? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I will have to ask you to either strike or re-word your preceding comment. The comments you have directed at me here, in edit summaries for your comments here, in edits summaries for the article itself, and on my talk page (including our previous dispute) have been perceived as increasingly hostile and uncivil. However, the content of your previous comment takes it too far.

Secondly, I had not made my opinion known here, and, as a user who's under scrutiny here, I have every reason to explain my position to other editors. LoveWaffle (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What about my previous comment was hostile or uncivil? I'm a bit surprised at your comment here; I'm the one who's a little tired of the bad faith characterizations of my intentions and edits. I think your rewrite of an episode summary that hasn't aired yet is a little too close to the source for copy-writing comfort. I wanted input from someone who wasn't fighting for a pet version of the phrase. I was seeking input; I didn't need yours. I am sorry if that was at all unclear. This isn't a batlteground, and you aren't "under scrutiny" - your edits were. Don't make it more than it is (Do take the warning about AGF seriously though, as I fully meant that). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Namely, the constant threats to escalate the situation and the line about "someone who has no hamster spinning its wheel." (No Personal Attacks)

Secondly, I am as surprised by your comment as you seem to be by mine. And, from my point of view, you have done everything you accuse me of. Since this is going nowhere, I've made a request for a dispute resolution.
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Having had a look at the issue and the concerns of the editors involved the first thought that comes to mind is why are there any plot descriptions at all for episodes that have not yet aired? It seems to brush against WP:CBALL and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --Falcadore (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I could answer that. First off, both of those guidelines seem to be more concerned with entire pages, and this information doesn't make up the bulk of this article. As for WP:CBALL, the information is verifiable, concerns something in the immediate future, and notable if you use similar guidelines here as the ones for upcoming animated movies, would count as notable. Furthermore, they also serve as placeholders for plot synopses if they don't get expanded on once the episode airs (not so much a problem here, but definitely applies for similar pages). And the last point would have to be practicality and precedent. This type of information can be found on episode listings for other television shows, so I figure this discussion has been had somewhere before. Since the information finds its way onto the page from both registered and non-registered editors (the two of us had to remove this information several times prior to this for being unsourced), the only way to keep it off would be to protect the page and all pages that list episodes of television shows currently airing, and even then I'm not entirely certain it would work.

Good point, though.

LoveWaffle (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, first of all I am a new editor on this topic so I won't be very knowledgeable on this topic, but I have come across articles where all parties are quite passionate about the subject. This is particularly true for TV serials and some editors might have watched them from the first episode. However some thoughts for all editors

1. (WP:OWN) - Verbatim - No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article. It elaborates Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it's just your hobby. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.
2. (WP:DISENGAGE} - namely Most situations are not urgent. Give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! Because there are no deadlines, you can always fix the problem later.

I can empathise with the feeling of that's like giving up but most of the time its not worth the effort to escalate and carry the dispute further, it only deviates you from productive work. There is frankly a lot of good that can be done on Wikipedia and even a project like television would have a lot to do. Giving it time also allows other editors to feel the sting of distruptive editing and incivility of an editor when the issue gets escalated to WP:AN. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparing to other wiki pages isn't usually a good idea as the problem can be that those pages are exhibiting poor behaviors as well. Leaving the line blank with a <!- hidden note saying, do not add until episode has aired -> could well fix both the argument as well as the potential of other editors. Advanced episode synopis is not essential to understanding the topic of the article. Coverage of forthcoming episodes could easily considered to be Wikinews content rather than Wikipedia and therefore beyond the scope of this article. It has not ever been Wikipedias role to act as either a preview of coming attractions of episodic TV shows, or to function as a fan page. Wikinews (although doubtless well below the notability threshhold) and the DC wikia operate in these roles and perhaps editors should be directed to those web sites rather than to edit that detail it here. --Falcadore (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but I see these edits made on many more episode list pages for scripted television shows currently airing than I don't. Maybe someone involved in the Episode Coverage Taskforce[10] could answer it better?

LoveWaffle (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, what happens on other pages has not ever been an acceptable justification. Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, it just potentially means there are LOTS of pages needing to be fixed. Reasons need to be stronger than that, like an actual policy guideline. --Falcadore (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But like I said, it's just about every other applicable page. I understand other stuff exists, but it's the only stuff that exists. There has to be some reason the information is added to the page, one that I can't answer but one that someone at the Episode Coverage Taskforce can.

That being said, I removed the all the synopses for upcoming episodes from this page a few days ago as a solution to the issue at hand (the potential for a copyright violation) and nothing else. Also added in the message you stated above where those synopses were for other editors. - LoveWaffle (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been talking with people pretty well in tune with the copyright violations aspect of this, and there appears to be a slim consensus of opinion that we are essentially violating the copyright of a press release. I came to a sudden realization that plot summaries in articles are consensus things; they are the common view of what was seen. We cannot say that of un-aired episodes; therefore, I am completely in favor of excising any and all as-yet unaired episode summaries. As someone else mentioned, it seems the quickest way through the Gordian Knot of frustration between at least two editors, and enacting such a practice could spread to other articles. That can only be considered a good thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy/Paste

I think I took care of all the potential Copy/Paste material.[11]. Here's the full report - [12] Some just can't be done:

• The seventh possible occurrence of a copy/paste listed in the report is actually in the copy/paste tag
• The ninth possible occurrence is the phrase "Young Justice Invasion", which is the name for the second season of the show
• The tenth possible occurrence refers to a reference listed at the bottom of the page. The repeated phrase is simply "2011 Young Justice", and you will notice the two lines have nothing in common.
• The twelfth possible occurrence is simply the phrase "of Young Justice".

Other than that, I think I was able to remove and/or appropriately re-phrase all the potential occurrences of a copy/paste violation.
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

new episodes??

it has been so long since i have seen any new episodes of young justice !! can any one say when are the new episodes gonna come ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.202.65.251 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No new episodes are coming. The series was cancelled. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's back in the game so can I know when season 4 episode 4&5 are coming out? SSK The Vibe (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Season 2 Episode 20

I have added a short summary for Season 2 Episode 20. I am aware that Young Justice: Outsiders has its own article so the short summaries go there. Just wanted to check that it is okay to keep the short summaries for the first two seasons? Andykatib 09:10, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Build guide with no titles?

We have airdates for the entire first half of season four. Do we build the guides without 3-13's titles or wait for them?--141.157.254.24 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

References