Talk:Young Justice (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cartoon Network (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Animation / American / Television / Warner Bros. Animation (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Comics / DC Comics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the DC Comics work group.

Robin Secret Identity[edit]

Is it really a fact that the Robin used in this series is Dick Grayson? Concluding that Batman would not want Robin to give out his secret identidy to the rest of the team. Don't you think we should just wait until his secret identidy is revealed - just put the word "Robin (comics)"... Well you know how to write it. But until then I think the smartest thing to do is just wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Additioanlly, IF Robin's costume is more identifiable with Tim Drake -- which wuold also allow hime to eaily fit into YJ Team's make up. Since it could easily NOT be Grayson the article should refelct that Robin has not yet givin his identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Other than the fact that Greg Weisman has stated several times that the character is Dick Grayson, I think you might want to re-watch "Homefront", including the bits set in Gotham. Just sayin'. --Several Pending (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Edits by[edit]

To whom it may concern (including IP address, whose participation in this discussion given that his edits are the point of this discussion),

This is a discussion dedicated to correcting what someone who may have a conflict of interest in editing have said are errors about the show on this article while still following Wikipedian policies and guidelines., self-reportedly Greg Weisman, has been editing this article with the intention of correcting errors. However, because is drawing on personal knowledge without citing any verifiable, reliable sources, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, I have reverted these good-faith edits. While professional expertise is always welcomed on Wikipedia and citing oneself is allowed, the sources cited by the professional must be verifiable. I recommend that Greg Weisman either:

a) (IMHO, the better one) alerts the sources we have cited (i.e. reliable online news organizations) that the information they have is incorrect, thus allowing us to correct the errors while being able to cite verifiable/reliable sources
b) (more iffy* solution) edits his own website (i.e. Ask Greg) to clear up/correct errors he sees on the internet

  • Solution #b is considered a little more iffy, because the usage of self-published sources is generally not acceptable, with the exception that "the self-published material produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," which, I think, Ask Greg could qualify, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Ask Greg is a section whose words are penned by Weisman on a third-party site, which seems to similar to how an expert has his own column on a newspaper. —MirlenTalk 06:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also open to alternative proposals (as there is definitely a precedent for this sort of issue) suggested by other editors, hence this discussion. —MirlenTalk 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the verifiable or grammatical edits by For convenience, I have listed out the restored edits: Artemis's age, which is indeed 15 according to the official podcast (verified); per season --> throughout each season (grammar-related edit noted); and Jackson Hyde's background specifically originating from Brightest Day as stated in official DCU blog (verified). Other edits still remain unrestored, since they need to be cited by verifiable, reliable sources w/o drawing on personal knowledge from a shared IP address. —MirlenTalk 03:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Second-to-last sentence in Production/Conception and Development is grammatically incorrect. ("Although there were several characters the producers were not allowed to use in the first season (a list that has become shorter along the course of the development), they were usually in charge of the decisions determining which DC Universe character would or would not be used.[23]") Additionally, that particular cite does not back up claim. TAGregory (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


The sentence saying "Superboy, whose origins will be faithful to that of his comic book counterpart while the character in the show will be a new take by the producers" How can it be both faithful to his comic counterpart but be a new take? (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems very clear to me. The origin story is faithful to the comics, but the character's personality is a new take. (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Young Justice Wiki[edit]

There has yet to be a wiki for this program, there's a wealth of articles that could be done even from the first two episodes. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have skipped over Young Justice (TV series).-5- (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There isn't one on wikia. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, now I understand.-5- (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Superboy's Origins[edit]

Currently the article says "Superboy/Connor Kent departs from his normal comic book origins and has a new take in the show, created by the producers, as a sixteen-week-old clone of Superman who was made by Project Cadmus". This in fact is the origin of the modern Superboy character in the comics. -- (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the line.dstumme (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Well now with the New 52/Post-Flashpoint world of DC comics. Superboy of Earth-16 is very different from Superboy of New Earth. Does this change the wording of that sentence? - (Mrja84 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC))
No, it would not, as it would constitute synthesis. We need a source that connects the two events - we cannot do it, as we cannot be cited. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Episode 10[edit]

so what's the deal with episode 10? infobox says 10 episodes aired but I'm pretty sure it was only 9. List of episodes pages doesn't have a date on episode 10. Ramdomwolf (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The tenth episode, Targets, was put up on CN's website for like two seconds awhile back before it was taken down. That may be why it's listed as ten aired, though to my knowledge the episode has yet to appear on television. His royal majesty, Lord Holy Ono (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

David Sobolov in the series[edit]

I Managed to talk to voice artist David Sobolov via Facebook about a month ago, he had been cast for the second season of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Fennoy75 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Do you have a published reference that says that as well? We cannot add the info without it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What the 'L'? (cast stuff)[edit]

I am noticing L-1, and L-whatever appearing under the additional casting headings. Have these played out in series credits, or is this an article organizational thing? If its the former, lets get some cites for them. If the latter, it cannot remain in the article, as it is Original Research.
As well, I am not seeing any references for the different castings. These are needed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert out the references to "L-1" and the like until we have reliable citation (beyond observational Sherlocking and primary sources) that link these characters to The Light. When we have that, we can maybe include a section on The Light wherein each of the villains are detailed with citation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Additional cast" too long[edit]

Is there a way to pare this down? Wikipedia isn't a repository for this sort of info, though some of the more notable actors might be able to turned into prose. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To that end, I have moved to below most of the additional cast (mostly composed of one-offs and the like) to here. Additionally, I have removed the additional roles from the cast and additional cast list in the article. If there is a solid reason why they are vital to an understanding of the series, we can add them back on a case-by-case basis. Alternatively, a subsection on how voice talent typically performs more than just their primary role might be of encyclopedic interest.
More information that has been added to the cast list. Of course, references have been added to this information. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course if there are any big names in the cast list, we can do what they did in the Batman: The Brave and the Bold page and sort the Special Guest Stars from the Additional Voices. Otherwise, we should list them as what it was before it was trimmed with the cast member trivia in a sub-section. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree completely, which should be expected, since I am the one doing the trimming. Having the the editor determine who is a "big name" is - by definition - Original Research. Additionally, B:B&B is a different animal; virtually every episode is a self-enclosed vignette. Only Batman is the constant, and the cast otherwise changes; indeed, its the pull of the series. This series doesn't use 'special guest stars'; it has a regular cast, with often regularly recurring cast members and a few additional (and peripheral) cast members. As well, there is the issue of notability; just because someone played ChuckleBunny (or whatever), doesn't make them all that vital to an understanding of the subject of the article (ie, the series itself). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In my opinion, on the main page only keep the voice actors who voice main or recurring characters, but add any minor roles they also voice as well. If a main voice actor also voices several unnamed characters, just add "additional voices" instead of "random guy #1, man on street #2, etc". It might also be useful to create a character list as its own article. --JDDJS (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How About anyone could make a page like this. With All the cast and their Characters as well as their first appearences and Notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Fennoy75 (talkcontribs) 00:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That might also work. We could have an individual page like they did for any of the characters appearing in Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It might be time to start that page, as I've had to trim the Cast section once again from every Tom, Dick and Harry that contributors sought to add. The cast list should be for those characters which are secondary to the show; the main cast is the only ones this article should focus on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We should get it started soon. Especially when it comes to characters that were exclusive to this show. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:58, June 25 2012 (UTC)

Primetime Emmy Award[edit]

Brandon Vietti won the "Outstanding Work as Lead Character Designer" animation category for the series. It's definitely worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Where do you think it should go, new contributor? :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Megan Morse[edit]

I see there's a back and forth regarding Miss Martian's secret identity for the TV series. I googled it and it says she was revealed as Megan Morse in the episode Targets on a wikia. If someone could check that episode out, maybe this can be resolved one way or another. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I watched and can confirm that the character named herself as such, at 6:22 into the episode. I don't think its been used at any other point, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that just another pseudonym? I thought her real name was "M'gann M'orz" or somthing like that, and "Megan Morse" was picked as her "earth name" probably 'cause it sounds similar. --TiagoTiago (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Youngest member.[edit]

Robin is listed as the youngest member of the team at age 13. But Superboy was just 16 weeks old when he was discovered which would make him the youngest. Am I missing something? (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, a citation where someone notable made that observation. We cannot operation off of editorial deductions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, logic has no place on wikipedia. (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
A more accurate assessment would be that your logic and reasoning have no place in a Wikipedia article. You aren't notable. That sounds a lot harsher than is intended, but your views on a subject cannot be put into the article. Because its an encyclopedia, we use only cited sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
↑ case in point. Because you aren't a celecbrity, in the eyes of wikipedia, you are incapable of rational thought. (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point, but we aren't talking about celebrities here, and you should probably consider shifting your perspective and mood a little bit; the hostility and sarcasm is a bit off-putting, and certainly unwarranted here. No one is saying you aren't "capable of rational thought". We are saying that your rational thought is just that - yours. Citable sources could be writers and the sort of folk who are read by more than here in the article discussion pages. We have an entire policy page about that. On that page, it discusses this topic far more effectively than I can here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Question Are we actually compelled to state that Robin is the youngest member of the team? I know it's in his description at the official website, but it seems to me that we could simply tweak his profile in the article to read "though only 13, he is the most experienced member of the team" or something similar, without being guilty of original synthesis or whatnot. --Several Pending (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I could easily live with that, especially if it prevents the sme sorts of arguments that appeared above from recurring. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Captain Marvel is confirmed to be 10 as of season 1 episode 22 "Agendas" making him younger than Robin, technically. However the same episode does in fact confirm that Superboy is the youngest at 1 year old as of its airing. Also confirms Miss Martian to be in her 40s making her the oldest. (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)!

Since the edit was corrected to remove the quantitative of 'youngest' or 'oldest', this question is moot, and best suited in a fan forum. Next issue, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
((meanwhile, the following year...)) Hello, since I'm just swooping in here, rather than a regular, I won't upset the applecart of consensus. That said, 65 was correct on the merits of the case, though they did not know the policy that backs them up: WP:CALC absolutely permits wikipedia editors to state flat out that "Superboy is the youngest at age 16[source#1] weeks (however Robin is listed as 'youngest' officially[source#2]) " or whatever under the SuperBoy section, and then in the Robin section have the reversed formulation. If there were no *source* on either side, that would be different, of course. But removing reliably-sourced information is rarely Doing The Right Thing... when sources conflict, describe the conflict, never decide the conflict. Wikipedia should mirror the reliable sources; cf WP:UNDUE.
    Anyways, this use of WP:CALC is a very limited special case... in general, wikipedia *does* only permit logic, critical thinking, and the ever-popular WP:The_Truth done by some celebrity or politician ... or at least some 'published' grad student in a Proceedings Of The Second Annual Conference To Keep Them Tuition Fees Churning ... or in the *worst* case somebody that made the local paper's byline. This is, quite frankly, a stupid-sounding policy. It says that wikipedia is *INTENTIONALLY* ignoring the truth. It says that wikipedia would have, were it around back then, said Galileo was a fraudulent heretic that was proven incorrect, and use the annual writ of the vatican as the source! Which seems sick, right? But that is... exactly what an encyclopedia is. It is the sum of human knowledge. Galileo was *ahead* of the sum of human knowledge. Most people of his time were not smart enough to grok him, or in fact, to have even heard of him. He was, by definition, WP:FRINGE... in the sense of being 'questionable science'. There would have been a wikipedia article on 'Galileo (heretic)' and his ideas would have been summarized, but immediately it would be noted that mainstream sources refuted them.
    Wikipedia is for the ages, in other words. *Now* our article on Galileo is correct... at least, according to the mainstream sum-of-human-knowledge-which-may-still-be-flawed... but if it is flawed somehow, wikipedia editors will not be correcting that flaw, until some celebrity-politician goes on teevee and 'proves' it is a Notable flaw, or until some academian publishes a paper that Verifies the idea. Jack is fundamentally correct -- just because one editor shows something is logically true, does not mean that 'something' belongs in an encyclopedia! Nutty, eh? Point is, the rules about notability are here to protect wikipedia from various sort of scoundrels, which 65 obviously was not: spammers trying to WP:SPA and WP:SPIP the non-Notable products of their non-Notable clients and monetize the eyeballs of wikipedia readers, would-be celebrities/politicians/executives trying to WP:PEACOCK their way into a higher pay-grade, and all manner of pseudoscientific medical/scientific/cultish groups pushing an agenda. If you've ever seen how corrosive that sort of thing can get, in terms of corrupting wikipedia to the core, you will see the reason why wikipedians *must* reject 'truth', until and unless some celeb/scientist/journalist gives WP:PROVEIT. See also, truthiness.
    So, even though I believe 65 was correct, about the 'youngest' moniker, according to WP:CALC but more fundamentally according to WP:IAR aka pillar five, I simultaneously believe Jack was definitely not wrong in any way (though maybe could have given a little more in terms of the pillar four treatment if I might gently suggest some constructive criticism). Thanks for tuning in, your lecture today has been sponsored by User:Jimbo_Wales, who moonlights as a crime-fighter, a factoid *not* yet found in wikipedia... because no Lois Lane has yet uncovered Captain Jimbo's secret identity as the mild-mannered internet thousandaire behind the popular website. Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks, see you around. (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Chad Lowe credit[edit]

Being slow of wit, I've only just picked up on this: Chad Lowe has been credited as the voice of Captain Marvel for the character's more recent appearances ("Secrets" & "Misplaced"). Is it worth adding a separate listing for this or should it just be a note appended to Rob Lowe's bit? --Several Pending (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it should be added to Rob Lowe's bit; he was, after all, asked to do it at Rob's request when something came up and the older brother couldn't do the voice work. That they are related can be seen as notable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ask Greg[edit]

It should be noted that any pressing questions we can't find anywhere else can be answered in Greg Weisman's "Ask Greg" section of his website, being that he's a co-creator/writer of the show. Here's the link. There's also an archive of questions should anyone want to look around. Jlooney888 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That just feels wrong to me; its like asking leading questions to get the answers you want, instead of what a reliable source gleans or interviews out. This is not a wikia, We do not add material from wikias, blogs or forums (in virtually every case). Either do the work, find the sources, or sit back and wait until a source emerges. We are not - and should not be - in a hurry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a slippery slope. Wikipedia is adamantly against OR and yet Ask Greg often fills gaps left by being unable to make leaps in content for Wiki (as leaps in judgement are not scholarly and therefore have no place on Wiki). To Greg's credit, he doesn't spoil plot so it avoids the crystal ball aspect that goes against Wikipedia's rules and often uses his forum to clarify details. Thin line, to be sure. I should add, it takes somewhere between one to three months to get questions answered so if someone is curious about something, I wouldn't expect a speedy answer. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
WEll, that makes sense. You might want to consider iron-plating any idea of using references from there by asking the good folk over at RSN, and get their feedback. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I was re-reading this answer, Alucardbarnivous, and I completely missed something you said:
  • as leaps in judgement are not scholarly and therefore have no place on Wiki). To Greg's credit, he doesn't spoil plot so it avoids the crystal ball aspect that goes against Wikipedia's rules and often uses his forum to clarify details
I think you are operating from a misapprehension of how (and why) Wikipedia operates the way it does. We don't discount leaps in judgment or non-scholarly commentary. In order to stay neutral (and, more practically, out of legal troubles), Wikipedia insists that any commentary that isn't obvious and clearly noted by anyone needs to connected to an outside source. In short, it isn't Wikipedia - or Wikipedia's editors - evaluating a movie or tv series or person as "utter garbage"; instead, its a secondary source. It is also for that reason that we don't get to speculate/connect the dots or otherwise Sherlock out any information. What if Greg's Big Reveal was that the stolen item was a piece of Starro? We'd be interfering with his livelihood in revealing what some clever monkey in a fan forum blurted out one day or bad pizza and pepsi. We'd be held responsible, not the monkey.
Secondly, you should read WP:CRYSTAL more completely. It doesn't prevent Greg from spilling the beans about the plot. It prevents us from doing it, especially without the support of citation.
I think you can be a pretty good editor, and you need to understand these aspects of Wikipedia and its policies far more clearly than I am worried that you do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Season 2 characters[edit]

This comfirms at least blue beetle and wondre girl and I think lagoona boy.NTC TNT (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, what confirms this? You need citation for that, and it needs to be from a reliable, notable source that Wikipedia recognizes. There are far too many blogs, fan forums and rumor-mill websites to be sloppy about this. We are not in a hurry to get the information out there; we are an encyclopedia, not a news organ. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to update the character lists[edit]

It's time to update those character lists. Doctor Fate effectively replaced Zatara as a member of the Justice League while Plastic Man, Atom, Icon and Red Arrow were inducted simultaneously. Zatanna and Rocket are now members of the Justice League after the Season 2 premiere while Black Lightning was also shown as a member as well. Red Arrow seems to have left the Justice League although that is in no way confirmed. If you pay attention to designation numbers, there are two empty spots which means there are or were two members of the Justice League who have yet to be announced or hinted on television.
As for The Team, Aqualad, Kid Flash and [{Artemis (comics)|Artemis]] have disappeared, but haven't been formally removed from the team. Bumblebee, Herald, Wonder Girl, Batgirl, Beast Boy, Lagoon Boy, Blue Beetle and Tim Drake have been formally added to the team while Rocket and Zatanna have left the team for the JLA. Counting the designation numbers again, that leaves a whopping 5 unaccounted spots. Maybe Sphere and Wolf have their own designation numbers, but that still leaves 3 open spots. Hopefully, we get some answers soon, but until then, we must update the lists with what we got. Feedback 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the smart money would be to separate the cast list by season. If YJ is a revolving door for young DC heroes, then I imagine we'll be seeing a lot of them as the seasons roll on. Integrating them, based upon a single episode seems too soon and prone to speculation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to order them based off their List number? The following are from the Young Justice wikia, with srouces based off the episode; B01 – Robin/Nightwing[2] B02 – Aqualad[11] B03 – Kid Flash[2] B04 – Superboy[12] B05 – Miss Martian[13] B06 – Speedy/Red Arrow[3] B07 – Artemis[14] B17 - Bumblebee[10] B19 - Beast Boy[10] B20 - Robin II[10] B22 - Blue Beetle[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Differnt sub teams - are they assigned arbitrarily?[edit]

(this belongs here, and not on my usertalk page - Jack Sebastian)
I'm not the guy who updates the Young Justice page, but I just thought I should point out that it's not confirmed that the members are automatically Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Zeta squad members. During the episode it's implied that the team members are assigned to different squads. So where as Batgirl and Wonder Girl first stated as Beta Squad later Cassie is part of Alpha with Dick and Batgirl & Bumblebee are assigned to Beta. So it differs...might want to fix that. Smako26 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to say tha tI concur with this assessment. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Miss Martian[edit]

The article reads: "There are differences in the line-up of this Young Justice team as compared to the team in the comic series of the same name. Miss Martian, who was originally a White Martian in the comics, was added because the date of her arrival to Earth could still fit in the early DC Universe concept." How is that a difference? She's a white martian in the show too. The DIFFERENCE is that Miss Martian wasn't in young justice comics at all. She was in Teen Titans. (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Additional cast" too long - take 2[edit]

I am noticing that everyone and their little brother is ending up in the characters sections again. Split the characters off into another articles, but - and I feel pretty strongly about this - we should not be listing any character who is a one- or two-off, episode-wise. We should not list any character who doesn't have a real-world description as to how the actor got the role or how the actor portrays the character; this specifically prevents in-universe nonsense from intruding into the article. For example, Shimmer, Mammoth and Black Spider do not warrant inclusion, any more than Ojo, Sensei or Mister Twister do. I'ds urge anyone wanting any character to remain that does not fulfill the aforementioned criteria dig up some information about their preferred character and start posting. I will wait a short time before removing many of the entries to here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammarxx' efforts aside (which seems a lot like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking, overcrowded ship), I am placing number of the little-used or inconsequential characters mentioned in the article.
  • The Atom - He was inducted into the Justice League on December 30, 2010.[citation needed]
  • Black Lightning - He became a member of the Justice League during the five year gap as seen at the beginning of Season Two.
  • Hawkman - Member of the Justice League and husband of Hawkwoman.
  • Plastic Man - He was inducted into the Justice League on December 30, 2010.
    • Mammoth - A super-stong agent of the Light. He is the twin brother of Shimmer and was a member of The Cult of Kobra. After being injected with a hybrid strain of the Venom Drug and the Blockbuster Formula, he developed super strength and became very deformed.
    • Amazo (voiced by Peter MacNicol) - An android created by Professor Ivo. He has the ability to copy the powers of the Justice League.
    • M.O.N.Q.I.s (vocal effects provided by Peter MacNicol) - Short for Mobile Optimal Neural Quotient Infiltrators, the M.O.N.Q.I.s are robotic monkeys that serve as the foot soldiers for Professor Ivo. Professor Ivo mentioned that it took him ages to figure out an acronym for "monkey."
    • Shimmer - The twin sister of Mammoth and a recurring agent of The Light. She originally debuted as a member of The Cult of Kobra. While Shimmer has not displayed any powers, she is shown to be an expert fighter and tech savvy.
    • Mister Twister / Bromwell Stikk (voiced by John de Lancie) - The first villain the original six of the Team fought. Mister Twister wore a robotic suit that alowed him to generate tornados and thunderstorms. Bromwell Stikk is later shown to be working with T.O. Morrow where he used a robot version of himself to operate the Mister Twister armor on The Light's behalf.
  • League of Shadows – A group of assassins that are led by Ra's al Ghul and carry out the bidding of The Light.
  • Snapper Carr (voiced by Greg Weisman) – A teacher at Happy Harbor High School. Carr privately teaches at the cave.
  • Cat Grant (voiced by Masasa Moyo) – A female reporter who reports on the various battles of the Justice League.
  • Catherine Cobert (voiced by Stephanie Lemelin) – A woman who is a public relations liaison to the Justice League.
  • Nabu (voiced by Kevin Michael Richardson) - The entity behind the powers of Doctor Fate.

The only characters that can remain are those with information about their voice talent (helping to prevent an in-universe slant to the article) and those characters who have appeared in multiple episodes. The very few exceptions to this rule are, for example Hawkwoman and Black Adam, who haven't ahad a single line of dialogue but are intrinsic to the storyline.
I don't mind if someone wants to create an article that discusses the various characters of the YJ universe, but this is not the place to do it. They are not vital to a concise understanding of the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Members of the League (Hawkman, Atom and Plastic Man) are "inconsequential"? Not following that logic. (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
They haven't had any lines in the series, nor any significant participation in any of the series' plots. Hawkwoman does, as she was one of the missing Leaguers. Until they have one of those things (and preferably both), we cannot incude them, as the article isn't about them, but about Young Justice. The others are just window dressing until they become part of the story. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to agree here, until these characters start making bigger appearances (and for some of them their 2nd), they're irrelevant. We're not going to add extras and walker by's to the character list, so we should keep the list neat with only regular and major characters. (talk) 5:56: 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Shimmer should be added to the article again as she's made more appearances now. -XapApp (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Substantial structural changes[edit]

I am noticing that a number of new users and SPAs are coming to the article and changing substantial parts of the article without referencing those changes. I think that once reverted, discussion becomes necessary in order to prevent edit-warring. Please, someone - explain why we are describing the member of the Kult of Kobra and whatnot when they have made no appearance or mention within the series. That's the one that sticks out the most to me, but there are plenty of others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Query. What is the magic number of appearances a character has to make before they deserve to be included? I see that non-speaking characters (Hawkman, The Atom) are "window dressing" (apparently) if they do not speak, no matter how many times they appear. Characters that have never appeared aside, it seems that there is some confusion when it comes to who has appeared and should be included on this page. Also, if these are truly "new users" and "SPA"s making these changes... they're probably not going to bother reading the talk page. Klarion L-7 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but that would be their loss, and they will have only themselves to blame for not following the simple instructions. clicking a tab and joining a discussion. I've little time for people like that anyway.
Now, for your question, Klarion: the short answer is that there is no "magic number". The article is about YOUNG JUSTICE. That may seem obvous, but there are folk that think that, for the article to be better, it must be as stuffed with flavor as possible. An article is not a burrito. If there are contributors who think that these minor appearances are important - and I suspect there are a good number of them - then start an article and list those who are notable. This article is about the series focusing on The Team. Anything or anyone who isn't a major part of the plot of the episodes or only has a bit part has no place in this article. It's too in-universe as it is.
What do you think, Klarion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
IMO, if a character (given the source material) is likely to be a major player in the series (The League, for instance) they probably deserve to be mentioned in the body of the article. Listing Hawkwoman because she's spoken a line or 2 but not Hawkman (because he has not spoken) feels a little awkward. If Cassandra Cain, for instance, joins the team... she's mute. Is she omitted for the same reason Hawkman is? The League are background characters in the Young Justice cartoon. But in the DC Universe the sidekicks are background characters for The League. I mean, really, in terms of DC mythology it seems we should be leaving out half of the team for the same reason. "Not a burrito", etc., okay sure. But a simple name on the page should suffice. We don't need a bio or a listing of everyone's age, favorite color, etc. I completely understand not listing "Manta Trooper 31" or "Belle Reve inmate 14" but leaving out The Atom seems a little strange. Yes, the show is about Young Justice. But the team would not exist without The League and most of the stories revolve around The League, The Light (which is listed, in it's entirety) and the interactions between the 2. I don't see a problem with fleshing out the article (or any article) to make it worth reading. After all, isn't that the point? If no one is reading wikipedia because every article has become "yep, according to google, it happened (citation needed)" and "no image available" then why bother? Klarion L-7 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yours is a very common frustration for some Wikipedia editors. We cannot add what seems obvious (w/out citation) and that is infuriating - at least it was to me, when i started editing Way Back When™. the thing is, Wikipedia is considered helpful because the opinions it has in the articles always belong to someone else. Wikipedia, as a whole, should not be offering any original insight into any of its articles. We already have the clowns over at Conservapedia thinking we are all leftist commies or whatever because of our supposed liberal slant. I think that making sure we are keeping our own opinions as to what's important enough to write about within the rules of objective neutrality.
Regarding the points you mentioned: I didn't include Hawkwoman because of any line she might have said. I included her because she is one of the six heroes who were mind-controlled into tearing up a planet - that is a fairly large plot point that advances the series along. As for the JLA being background characters in the show but not in the fictional universe in which they exist, I say so what? The series' characters are sidekicks (or former sidekicks), but where they came from matters not as much as who they are during the series and where they are going. If the Atom or whoever isn't doing something to advance the plot of the series along, anything we right about him moves the focus off the Young Justice grouping. This article is about Young Justice; anything that doesn't immediately affect it doesn't belong in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe, just as a rule of thumb, characters shouldn't be included until they have like three lines, or they have a major impact on the show ex. Hawkwoman was one of the 6, so she's in; Icon left with the 6 and introduced Rocket, so he's in; Black lightning hasn't done anything of value, so he's out. Also, along the lines of villains, they will come and go,they are continually introduced, so until they become regulars they should be kept out. We should not divide the League by time of induction, attempting organization is actually just cluttering the page up. On another note, viewers will come here and keep editing it until they feel their favorites are detailed enough, so I will be requesting page protection. Grammarxxx (talk) 1:05, July 4 2012 (UTC)


I suggest that Young Justice: Invasion be given its own article. (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

Why? The series is the same, with the exception of the addendum to the title. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jack, there is no reason. The second season merely has a subtitle to reflect a them of the season. Similarly Heroes had chapters that wind up splitting a season between one theme and another. No reason for those to be split. - (Mrja84 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

When is a Roy Harper not Roy Harper?[edit]

So the next new episode on September 29th seems to focus on Roy Harper. I do not know if that is Red Arrow or original Roy. But it prompted a question I will keep my eye on. Whenever original Roy is on the show and has a voice actor, I wonder how they will differentiate Roy Harper from Red Arrow. Given that Red Arrow's name is not legally Roy Harper.

Currently, it lists Speedy/Red Arrow/Roy Harper for the character of Red Arrow. But when original Roy starts appearing in the show we will need a way to differentiate them on the page and I just wonder how that will turn out. -- (Mrja84 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

Real Roy Harper apparently adopts the title Arsenal. He should be put in the subsequent members part since he technically never joined the team five years prior. (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

But Arsenal hasn't joined the team yet. XapApp (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

List of characters in Young Justice (TV series)[edit]

The characters list is way too long to be included in the article... Secondary and tertiary characters are also included... In my opinion, this main article should only include the main VOICE cast... The rest of the characters should be moved to List of characters in Young Justice (TV series)... I shall do it myself in a week if no one objects... :) FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 08:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I proceeded with the creation of the article since no one was objecting to my proposal... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 12:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind the additional article (indeed, I am one of those who recommended it), but I think that the resulting edit in the article reads like an indiscriminate list. I would suggest that only those characters who are actual members of the team or have specific storylines (ie. Speedy and Arsenal) remain in the character section. I will wait a bit and then edit accordingly. This will be far easier to do, now that there is an article with a more comprehensive listing of those characters appearing in the series, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree with you one this. I thought of listing them according to main cast and guest cast but I don't have much information on these yet. We can list the actual members of the team and a few other important characters like Cheshire and Speedy. But I too will wait a little before further editing. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this. It shows how many episodes each voice cast member has appeared in. This could work here too. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be fine if the title of that page be List of characters in Young Justice instead of List of characters in Young Justice (TV series) or should that be created as a redirect? XapApp (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be okay either way though... List of characters in Young Justice sounds more fitting... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 08:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think its important to distinguish that these are characters that appear int he television series, and not the comic (ergo the parenthetical descriptor). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That could be done in the lead section or in a hatnote. XapApp (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cruft, yet again[edit]

I've had to edit out a significant amount of cruft over the past two days, and most of it appears to be coming from an anon. I've advised them to come on over here to initiate discussion, but it looks like I am having to do that, instead. We do not need all the various little character voices, as Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. As well, there is a subsidiary article that more appropriately addresses this matter. It doesn't belong here. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that Voice cast section be deleted unless we find right sources for the main/regular cast... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 18:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I went back to the version with the real-world citation. That is the template that we should be using, anyway. We can add to it, but with cited content about the character's voice development, etc. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the villains section in this article. Joker and Poison Ivy appeared in single episode with hardly any development. Shouldn't we only mention recurring villains (who are important to the plot line) on this article i.e. The Light, Cheshire, Sportsmaster, The REACH, the Kroloteans. Other villains can be mentioned in List of characters in Young Justice (TV series). FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 23:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Only those characters specific to the development of the plot should be listed here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I propose these villains to be included. Some villains like Psimon, Riddler, Professor Ivo and a few more helped in the starro-tech plot but are only side-villains on the show. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 12:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Light – The primary antagonists of the Season 1 who plotted and engineered various events throughout the series. The group was conceived by Vandal Savage who isn't the leader, but rather the first among equals.[1] The identities of the leaders are known only to a very select group of individuals that work with them.[2]
    • Vandal Savage (voiced by Miguel Ferrer) – An immortal member of the Light. As mentioned above, he was the one who conceived the Light.
    • Ra's al Ghul (voiced by Oded Fehr) – Member of the Light and leader of the League of Shadows.
    • Lex Luthor (voiced by Mark Rolston) – Member of the Light, CEO of LexCorp, and archenemy of Superman. He played a part in the creation of Superboy by donating his DNA. Lex Luthor was also responsible for the real Roy Harper missing half of his right arm in order to further the cloning projects.
    • Queen Bee (voiced by Marina Sirtis) – Member of the Light and dictator of Bialya. In this show, Queen Bee possesses the ability of persuasion over most men.
    • Ocean Master (voiced by Roger Craig Smith) – Member of the Light and the half-brother of Aquaman. Sometime after the events of Season 1, he was somehow disgraced and was replaced with Black Manta.
    • Brain (voiced by Nolan North in the first unofficial appearance, Corey Burton in the first official appearance) – Member of the Light. He was originally a man whose brain was put in a special mobile container. He and Klarion the Witch Boy worked with Professor Ivo to weaponize a fragment of Starro in order to create Starro-Tech. Monsieur Mallah (vocal effects provided by Dee Bradley Baker) is Brain's gorilla sidekick.
    • Klarion the Witch Boy (voiced by Thom Adcox-Hernandez) – Member of the Light and an associate of the Lords of Chaos. He and Brain worked with Professor Ivo to weaponize a fragment of Starro in order to create Starro-Tech. According to Greg Weisman, Klarion joined the Light mostly because it seemed like fun.[3] Teekl (vocal effects provided by Dee Bradley Baker) is a cat who is Klarion the Witch Boy's familiar spirit.
    • Black Manta (voiced by Khary Payton) – An associate of the Light and Aqualad's father. In Season 2, Black Manta has replaced Ocean Master on the Light.
  • Cheshire (voiced by Kelly Hu) – Member of the League of Shadows, the sister of Artemis, and the daughter of Sportsmaster and the Huntress. Despite the family feud, Cheshire is shown to have a soft spot for Artemis and admits that she doesn't "actually want her dead." In Season 2, Cheshire is shown to be married to Red Arrow with whom they have a child and has left the services of the League of Shadows. She informs Red Arrow on where the real Roy Harper is located, and together they rescue him.
  • Kroloteans – An alien race that are recurring enemies in Season Two. One used a special suit to masquerade as U.N. Secretary-General Tseng only to be exposed and taken away by Lobo. Another one tried to masquerade as Bibbo Bibbowski only to be stopped by Blue Beetle, Bumblebee, and the real Bibbo.
  • The Reach - An imperial race of aliens that are also known as "the Partner" to the Light and "the Competitor" to the Kroloteans. They have sinister plans for Earth, and are abducting teens with latent meta-genes to study their powers so they can more effectively fight the planet's superheroes. In Impulse's future, the Reach, with the help of Jaime Reyes, have enslaved the human race in what is called "the Reach Apocalypse."
    • Black Beetle (voiced by Kevin Grevioux) - Member of the Reach who was first seen in silhouette. When the Team first confronted the Reach, he wasn't referred to by name and was called Black Beetle by Wonder Girl.

Mal Duncan/Guardian[edit]

Wasn't that just temporary? (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As seen on episode "War" he operates as a member of the team as Guardian. XapApp (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


A recent Press release omitted Young Justice and Green Lantern: The Animated Series from its returning show roster, leading to speculation the shows had been cancelled. Now, we have official confirmation that both shows will not return after their current seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

News To Report: Cancellation.....Cancelled?[edit]

Rather than update the article with this information, I thought I would post this here. I read online that after an online uproar of the cancellation of Young Justice (along with the Green Lantern series), an online group is entering negotiations with WB to keep the shows on the air. Here is the link to the story:

Granted this still needs to be investigated & confirmed before updating the main YJ article. But that is why I am posting it here so its on notice. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Last DVD[edit]

I can't seem to add it right, but here's a link to the last DVD set: (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included?[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. WP:ELNO points 11 & 12 were the relevant guidelines in this discussion. I'll also note that WP:ELNO #12 does not require that the applicable wiki have a specific or even general number of active editors, and given that the series has ended, the number of active editors is likely to be minimal. I don't see strong evidence offered in this RfC that the wiki is "substantially stable," but they do have a number of policies listed (albeit they are all created by a single sysop there and there is little discussion of them on their talk pages). In fairness, no evidence was offered to show instability. As of my closing, YJW has 1175 articles and 800+ editors with at least 5 edits, and many discussants here have argued that it contains relatively comprehensive in-universe detail not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. The wiki was started on 10 August 2010, and is nearly 3-1/2 years old. While it is no Memory Alpha, I'll contend that this is a sufficient level of engagement and history, particularly since the relevant guideline is subjective.

Therefore, consensus was in favor of including the Young Justice Wiki under external links, with the stipulation that if evidence of instability is demonstrated, the website should be removed. I'd also recommend removing the website on the basis that there is no evidence it is a "major" fansite, and because of the "one major fansite" guideline in WP:ELNO #11. I will replace it with a link for YJW for the time being. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "External links" section include a link to the wiki? MorrowStravis (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This question, or related issues, has actually been discussed in various places.
  1. back in 2010, external wikis were briefly mentioned as existing Talk:Young_Justice_(TV_series)#Young_Justice_Wiki
  2. talking about what is encyclopedic and what belongs on fansites, Talk:Young_Justice_(TV_series)#Cruft.2C_yet_again as well as Talk:Young_Justice_(TV_series)#Youngest_member.
  3. unrelated-but-illuminatingly similar situation, which explains why links to external wiki fansites is *rarely* a good idea User_talk:Nikkimaria#Louis_Ferreira.27s_page
  4. significant discussion among three uninvolved editors, including 74 aka myself, conclusion to-be-determined, over here Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Young_Justice_Wiki
As was pointed out by User:Jack_Sebastian in link#2A and #2B above, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and some kinds of Perfectly True And Verifiable information simply do not belong here. See specifically WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#FANSITE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There is a place for such info... just not here, in wikipedia herself.
    In particular: "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." which is from WP:LINKFARM, emphasis added. MorrowStravis originally was making the case that the "substantial history" exception of WP:ELNO applied to the external wiki in question, and says that *some* of the external wiki is written by Notable authorities on the series. I disagree that the external wiki in question meets the criteria that MorrowStravis is using (but if other regulars here on this article think I'm wrong then don't let me stop you from using MorrowStravis's logic). However, I agree with MorrowStravis that the external wiki belongs in the list of external links, albeit arriving to that conclusion via different reasons.
    The key criteria is this methinks: if the Young Justice (TV series) article were improved to the point where it was a Featured Article, fully fleshed out and polished... would we *still* link to the external fansite, from that hypothetical super-article? Does the EL-target truly provide a Unique Resource, beyond what wikipedia-the-repository-of-encyclopedic-content is ever going to contain? Jack is asserting that the article should *not* contain fan-cruft, and while I disagree with the term (as not following pillar four), I wholeheartedly agree with the underlying sentiment. Wikipedia should cover the impact of the series, and the place the series has in relation to wider culture, and the art-history aspects, and the Notable people who worked on the series, and so on. Wikipedia should *not* cover, blow by blow, every episode and every character and every factoid, because that's not wikipedia, that is a fansite. Both are unique resources, with particular purposes -- they complement each other.
    So my question is, for the regulars here on this article... *is* the external wiki in questionwiki actually a Unique Resource which offers data that is non-encyclopedic (and thus which wikipedia ought *never* include)? If so, is the external wiki in question the "*one* major fansite" that ought to be linked?
    Currently, the infobox links to the CartoonNetwork homepage[1], which is also in the External Links section. The others are (broken link -- redirects to homepage which is not specific to YoungJustice... please fix), IMDb (from a standardized template), and (from a standardized template). I've never heard of, but it looks like the only possible competition for -- are they both fansites? If so, which is the "one major fansite" that is the ideal Unique Resource to which wikipedia should link? Hope this helps. Thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Does this page qualify as something "which wikipedia ought *never* include"? There are also hundreds of detailed summaries that i think wikipedian would call cruft. is a fansite about all dc shows and all it has on Young justice is six char bios, reviews and images. No episode summaries, no char summaries, no trivia, etc. Wikia's page has 1,143 pages and covers everything to a detail. Episodes, comics and the game. --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, the detailed timeline would not belong in wikipedia, as-is... but it would be cool to have a condensed version, maybe a chart which showed the iconic faces of heros and villians, or a dot-plot, giving the overall story-arc in a condensed easy-to-grok format. But no, the episode-by-episode summaries are what (some) wikipedians call cruft... but it's more WP:NICE to refer to it as statistics... if there are Particularly Notable episodes, where a new innovation was introduced (is Superboy the first 0-year-old hero in the history of the genre?) or something, then those would qualify as WP:NOTEWORTHY, in this article, but not *all* of the episodes, right? Sometimes wikipedia has very detailed info, for instance, over at Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, there are blow-by-blow guest-lists... but that's because, almost every single episode, some Notable Person with their own wikipedia WP:BLP is on the show. Anyhoo, I think the case for YoungJusticeWikia being qualified under the one-major-fansite exception to WP:LINKFARM has been fairly made. If somebody wants to discuss *removal* of WorldsFinestOnline, as opposed to *addition* of YoungJusticeWikia, please open a new talkpage-section. Any folks want to comment here? Jack, at one point back in 2012 it looks like you yanked both YoungJusticeWikia as well as WorldsFinestOnline from the external links section, but at the moment WorldsFinestOnline is back, and YoungJusticeWikia is out. Can you fill me in on the rationale please? Danke. (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
One of the criteria we use to determine whether a reference is suitable for use is whether it is maintained by professional writers in the field (ie. reviewers and journalists doing their thing with editorial oversight and so on) or a collection of folks signing up and adding their viewpoints and opinions, without substantiation and oversight enough to keep the more, shall we say, fanciful notions at bay. The YoungJustice wikia is absolutely of this second group. I could go there and keep adding that Martian Manhunter is a metaphor for illegal immigration, or an imperfect retelling of the Superman story until it was reverted out or I was blocked. But there'd be a point where a journalist on deadline would check it out and see some weird stuff and report on it as if it were real. All because I wanted to push a personal or a 'ship fantasy. That's the damage, right there. That's what Wikipedia seeks to avoid, especially with the scrutiny of several other websites who boo-boo their trousers every time Wikipedia screws up.
WorldsFinest appears to be an actual media outlet of ToonZone. I could be wrong; its worth checking out. Towards that end, I've initiated a question there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jack Sebastian. What you said applies to every wiki, even the notable ones like Memory Alpha. So basically there could never be any links to any links at all. That's not what WP:EL say. An external link to the wiki is not a reference, it's an external link. They are supposed to give the readers more info about the subject that Wikipedia will never have like summaries for the comics that complement the show. --MorrowStravis (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, MorrowStravis. I hadn't commented on the viability of fan wikis in the external links section. I was pointing out why they cannot be used to cite anything in the article. I happen to agree with your thoughts on the matter. So long as we are able to verify that the wiki in question is in fact the biggest source of information about the topic outside of the wiki article here, then we can use it as an external link. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
How do we do that, Jack Sebastian? Comparing it with the other sites? --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Check out the wiki/fansite/etc. Does it look stable and professionally maintained? We don't want to send the reader to some craptastic display of someone who uses too many sparklies or whatever. Use your best judgment. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I did a little research and:
1- this wikia shows up on third place in Google search for "Young Justice" in English
2- WorldsFinestOnline doesn't show up on the first page of results, and as I said before, all it has on Young justice is six char bios, reviews and images.
3-'s page also appears on the first page, but all it has is episode summaries and cast & crew stuff. The Wikia also has that and more.
4- The wiki has 335 character profiles, episodes [2][3], comics, equipment , a timeline and lists. It also has plenty of policies and no sparklies. Like I said, Greg Weisman even edits there. I can't find any other site with half this information. --MorrowStravis (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Excellent research work, MS; you won't find any complaints from me over adding it in the external links. Of course, because it is a user-editied wiki, we cannot use YJW as a source, but an external link is just dandy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:ELNO#12 open wikis such as this are allowed only if it has substantial history and substantial amount of editors. In which i don't see Young Justice Wikia meeting the criteria. Most of the time they dont meet the criteria, so most people don't bother. Obvious exceptions are Final Fantasy wiki and Wookiepedia. as they have extensive coverage and ammount of editors.Lucia Black (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it could effectively be argued that it does not violate ELNO#12, as it is a stable wiki, and has a sizable number of contributors. In any case, MS has satisfied the point about this being the most significant source of information about the article's subject apart from Wikipedia. As long as we don;t cite from it, its fine. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the articles get 3 editors max in recent edits. Simply saying theres substantial ammount of editors doesn't really make it so. But then again, this series is technically over. Not much expansion and history will be shown here. Whether it shows up third or first on google isn't the point either.Lucia Black (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I was making the point that it's one of the first sites about the show that show up on Google. (Doesn't that mean "content richness, page authority, keyword density, back links, exit links, traffic, and search demand"?). About the number of editors: you just explained it: the show is over, most pages seem to be complete. It looks natural that there aren't a lot of editors in their recent edits... --MorrowStravis (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
And your point doesn't seem relevant enough according to WP:ELNO#12. And since its over, and not much is covered or maintained. it shouldn't be relevant to have a wiki. many aren't covered in wikipedia, so why fight for this one?Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the point of external links to direct visitors to a place where they can read more about a topic because the article on Wikipedia doesn't cover everything? This wiki has more info than the current external links put together... So I ask you, why fight to keep it out? "And since its over, and not much is covered or maintained." There's nothing to cover doesn't mean that everything isn't covered. --MorrowStravis (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I know what the point is, doesn't mean we should ignore the criteria for external links. It just seems like a pointless battle.Lucia Black (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, WP:ELNO#12 doesn't say what is a "substantial number of editors". 796 made at least 5 or more there. Isn't 796 editors substantial number of editors? What is? If we're going to accept only wikis with more than 3.000 editors then just change WP:ELNO#12 to "Open wikis, except for Wookipedia and Memory Alpha". Wookipedia has 10.882 editors that made at least 5 or more on 107.273 pages. Memory Alpha has 3.719 to 36.460 pages. This means that YJWiki would need to have 117 editors for its 1.143 pages to have the same ratio ((10.882*1.143)/107.273=116 and (3.719*1.143)/36.460=117). They have 769. Ratio speaking, they have 6.8x more editors than Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha. If WP:ELNO#12 isn't clear about this, then we need to see all the factors. 796 isn't a lot for 10.882 or 3.719 pages, but its plenty for 1.143 pages. --MorrowStravis (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And how many are active? The activity log doesn't show much its usually looked at case by case. but to me, that number is incredibly small compared to other wikis such as Final Fantasy, wookiepedia (star wars), and legend of zelda. i casted my vote. nothing more to itLucia Black (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying make you change your vote. I'm showing the illogic of your justification. You say "its usually looked at case by case", then you can't compare every wiki to Wookiepedia or others that have thousands of editors and thousands of pages. The YJWikia has a proportional number of pages to editors ratio. Case by case, right? Also, WP:EL#12 doesn't say anything about the editors having to be active. --MorrowStravis (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

its done at a case by case because there's hardly ever a time when one attempts to bring a wiki over as an EL. Also, a thousand editors sounds like a reasonable substantial number of editors for a wiki. anything under (especially since the activity log shows less) in my book isn't enough. Also note the reason for "substantial number of editors" isn't just so that it can be well-proportioned to the number of articles. It has to do with how long and accurate their information is and how quick they react to vandalism. It doesn't say how many have to be active, but that's the point of it. I've been in this discussion before several times, many whine and make a fit over the wiki they participate in. I admit EP:ELNO is vague on it, but the idea is to have enough members keeping watch over vandalism to be deemed relevant enough.

Don't call other peoples vote "illogic". it's rude. i'm done here, you can say whatever you want.Lucia Black (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not every wiki has 1000 editors. Case by case. We can't say the information is not accurate because we don't see many edits on the recent activity. That can mean that there's nothing else to be done and there's no vandalism to watch over. That wiki is shut down to anonymous editors, so less chances of vandalism. Test it yourself. "Vandalize" a page and see how long they take to revert it. Unless you do that, you can't say no ones watching over the wiki. and I don't participate in it. This all started because the link was removed and I restored and it was removed again because of wikipedia's policies and I was told to do this instead of edit warring. --MorrowStravis (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
i know not every wiki has a 1000 editors, not every wiki makes it pass WP:ELNO. case by case, because not every case makes it in, most of the time they don't. what makes this wiki better than the others that have been rejected? Lucia Black (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what wikis have been rejected. We would need to compare them. Just look at how big and detailed the pages are. They are so big [4] that the biographies are separated into separate pages [5]. --MorrowStravis (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikia should be carved out as an automatic allowance. The applicable guidelines are vague on this point, and I don't think another external link threatens creating a link farm. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Question If someone is reading about this show, is this link good enough that said reader will probably get something really rewarding by visiting it? Please use {{Ping|Koavf}} if you respond to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
@Koavf: Theres plenty of trivia and "inside" info that you can't find anywhere else. There's also stuff that the creators revealed behind the scenes, so readers can have all the information without making research. --MorrowStravis (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Lucia and Koavf, from what I have seen, the reader will get something rewarding... and that something will never be in wikipedia, because it is quite simply non-encyclopedic content. MorrowStravis is trying to argue with Lucia over ELNO#12. But that is not the only argument, or methinks, the important argument. The correct exception is the "truly provides a Unique Resource beyond what Wikipedia would ever contain even if this article was GA/FA-level". There is no rule that says *every* wiki placed into the External Links must be justified on the basis of ELNO#12. There is an explicit exception which says one fansite -- if that fansite provides material that none of the Official Sites provide and furthermore provides information that wikipedia will itself never provide -- is quite appropriate. (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Response Thanks. I saw your ping from before but didn't come back. Simply put, high-quality wikis are an excellent external resource for precisely this reason (e.g. Memory Alpha). Fans will like trivia and tidbits that are wholly inappropriate for a proper encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, there isn't much information other than the timeline (in which isn't needed as the series is linear).Lucia Black (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

if you say that then you didn't look too deep or didn't even look into all the links I posted before. Something like that must be supported with proof. 1,152 pages of characters, episodes, comics, equipment, places, and even relationships with trivia, quotes and behind the scenes info is everything that can't be included on Wikipedia. How that "isn't much information"? --MorrowStravis (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I did. i just don't find them as significant. for example every single relationship in the series can be covered "briefly". Not only that, but I've seen all the links, but quite frankly, a list of characters can do the job done much more effectively. Have you seen the little amount of information they have?Lucia Black (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Little? Youre having a go right? The main characters have the history broken into different pages by month! On what world is that little information? Nightwing is 65,392 bytes long and is also broken into monthly pages. 58 pages are over 20 bytes of size. Everything is covered to much detail. --MorrowStravis (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Whoa there, MorrowStravis, settle down. WP:NICE, please. Lucia is acting in good faith here -- and as I understand it, she is speaking of the world of the future. Specifically, whether or not the *current* content in the EL website, which is no longer being as actively edited as it once was, will in the future still be significantly a Unique Resource when compared to the *future* version of this wikipedia article.
  There is room for polishing and expansion of the wikipedia article we have here now, and that means the comparison Lucia is making is to that theoretically-perfectly-finished future wikipedia article. For this specific question, I've looked at a couple pages on the EL, and she's looked at more of them. Perhaps we can discuss things nicely, and convince each other that the EL offers something significant-yet-non-encyclopedic that the reader will never be able to get here, or that it does not.
  I also suggest we see if there are any "disclaimers" that ought to be attached to the EL, should we decide it is reasonable to add it today, yet worry that someday that may no longer *remain* appropriate, for one reason or another. WP:CRYSTAL says we cannot predict the future, of course, but that doesn't mean we cannot specify what we know now, with connotations the readership will grok. Instead of just saying, " (primary fansite)" in the external link section, perhaps we can say " (major fansite -- less actively edited following series cancellation)" or something along those lines. Lucia, am I understanding your objection, and do you like the link-with-helpful-context idea? (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is what I was able to find out. At first, I tried to ask on the ask-your-question page of the YJW (which *does* permit anons unlike editing mainspace) what the top/best/maxDetail pages were, but either my questions are stuck in a moderation-inbox of some sort, or the site does not support my browser and OS versions perhaps. Instead, I then tried clicking the "random page" button four times, and comparing what YJW offered on four topics, versus what wikipedia currently offers on those same four topics. Results:
Jay_Bastian currently-empty BLP plus several [6] mentions versus [7] behind the scenes BLP
overall#1 and overall#2 and Paula Nyguen versus [8] detailed in-universe BLP article
2010-12-30 in geopolitical real-world history versus [9] aka this day of the in-universe timeline
"Infiltrator" as episode #6 w/ 7 sentences + 0 screenshots versus [10] w/ ~183 sentences + 21 screenshots.
This is a PRNG-sampling, and only a very tiny sample at that. Still, it looks like there is more detail there, than here, at present. The question remains, is it more detail than wikipedia ever ought to contain, even if theoretically our YJW-related articles were perfect (and completely finished/polished/fleshed-out), a century from now? (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't mad at Lucia. Only confused because shes saying the wiki has little information when it's so the opposite. I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive. it was not my intention. --MorrowStravis (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks, MorrowStravis. ... and ... from what I can see, the discussion seems to be mostly over. Is there anybody else who is still unconvinced of the validity of inserting the External Link? (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From my counting, we have a couple of folks on the fence, Qwyrxian leans against but "wouldn't fight about it" if others disagree, Liz leans in favor but at the time (pre-RfC) was not sure policy backs that up, plus Lucia who is objecting based on (if I understand her position properly) the idea that the additional info found there is not significantly more unique than what a future fully-expanded version of wikipedia would hold. Also, Lucia was worried that at some point the site might suffer from porkrinds/visigoths/etc... and I agree there is a risk down the road, but at the moment it looks peachy to me -- though we should keep our eyes open, should things change someday, and the YJW folks fail to turn on WP:FLAGGED or somesuch and become spammy.

  In general, the existing policy-consensus is unchanged, that most external wikis and in particular most fansites are not *usually* a good idea. However, methinks enough folks have come around to this particular YJW as being an exception, that it can be inserted now? Folks who were convinced that YJW is an exception to the usual rule -- mostly because it is the One Major Fansite that embodies a Unique Resource that even a fully-expanded wikipedia will never match because of the interestingly-detailed-yet-non-encyclopedic contents -- are myself, Jack_Sebastian, Chris Troutman, and Justin-aka-Koavf, plus of course MorrowStravis the originator of the RfC. Here is the policy-question in detail, with tricksy areas bolded.

Links Normally To Be Avoided[edit]

  1. must provide unique resource beyond-future-FA (check ... but I believe Lucia disagrees with me on this)
  2. no misleading (check)
  3. no malware (check)
  4. no petitions/promotional (check)
  5. no stores/objectionably-spam-advert-filled (check... actually, this was never explicitly discussed, does anybody find the top-banner and the side-banner particularly objectionable?)
  6. no paywall (check)
  7. no MSIE-only-sites/similar (check)
  8. no flash-reqd-sites/similar (check)
  9. no search-hits (check)
  10. no facebook/similar (check)
  11. no blog/homepage, except those written by Notable recognized authorities, and not "most" fansites. (check ... based on One Major Fansite exception in WP:LINKFARM ... plus as a bonus, some-though-not-all of the YJW editors are Notable)
  12. no open wikis "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (*partially* checked ... active-editor-count *today* is small ... but teevee series is cancelled which mitigates that worry somewhat ... and seems to be enough active folks to prevent vandalism/spam/etc without trouble)
  13. must be directly related to subject of article, at same level of specificity -- use deeplinking when necessary (check -- this is the toplevel wikipedia page for YoungJustice so a toplevel EL to the YJW is correct)
  14. no mfg-list / store-list / customer-list / similar (check)
  15. no shopping-comparisons/similar (check)
  16. no temp-sites (check)
  17. no affiliate-scheme / tracking-links / similar (check)
  18. only mainspace articles can have EL section, not disambig-pages / similar (check)
  19. just being mentioned in article, alone, never is enough to justify an EL (check)

WP:CONSENSUS is not based on votes, so I'd prefer to convince Lucia with my random-page-sampling argument that the EL has stuff wikipedia ought never have, but she is of course not WP:REQUIRED to hang around listening to this talkpage forever, and she already hinted a month ago (see 01:27, 5 November) that she was unlikely to change her position against the EL. Therefore, I suggest we bring in somebody uninvolved to close out the RfC, and determine if we have enough of a consensus, or not. (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

question about ScienceFictionDotCom as a source[edit]

Is this a reliable source?[11] I added some sentences based on one of their news-reports.[12] Thanks. (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

clarification that WFO (and YJW) cannot be used as Reliable Sources for inline cites[edit]

See discussion here.[13]

User:Mark_Miller looked into WorldsFinestOnlineDotCom and found that the editors were unpaid volunteers, and that at least some fan-generated material is allowed in the contents. Therefore, WFO cannot be used as an inline citation, to justify inclusion of some sentence in mainspace, because it is not an Official Site in the strict sense, but is rather a type of well-produced fansite. (Of course, as an open wiki, YoungJusticeDotWikiaDotCom also cannot used for be inline-cites... though that does not necessary prevent one of YJW or WFO from being in the EL section as the One Major Fansite, with an appropriate disclaimer added that they are non-official.) HTH. — (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Cancellation Controversy[edit]

I believe Paul Dini said in an interview with Kevin Smith that the show was canceled because girls watched the show more than boys. The network executives cried "Girls don't buy toys!" and canceled the show even though it was successful. Ambiesushi (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are Correct. [4]T-Nuggett (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

alt name, related shows... are the factual?[edit]

These were added to the infobox by DarthCon,[14] but since a curly-brace was accidentally deleted, the change was partially reverted by DaHuzyBru at some later point.[15] Are these bits actually incorrect information, or can they be re-added to the article now? I've fixed up the wiki-syntax.

  | show_name_2 = Young Justice Invasion (name only applies to the 2nd season)
  | followed_by = Beware the Batman
  | related = Teen Titans Go, Green Lantern: The Animated Series

Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The real truth behind the show being cancelled[edit]

It is shocking that no one researches.

Majinsnake (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Weisman, Greg (January 20, 2012). Question #14038. Ask Greg. Retrieved 2012-01-20.
  2. ^ Weisman, Greg (December 9, 2011). Question #13759. Ask Greg. Retrieved 2012-01-24.
  3. ^ Greg Weisman (February 14, 2012). "Question #14379". Ask Greg. Retrieved 2012-02-17.
  4. ^ [16]