Jump to content

Talk:Young Justice (TV series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2
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 worldsfinestonline.com 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[2], which is also in the External Links section. The others are WorldsFinestOnline.com (broken link -- redirects to homepage which is not specific to YoungJustice... please fix), IMDb (from a standardized template), and TV.com (from a standardized template). I've never heard of WorldsFinestOnline.com, but it looks like the only possible competition for YoungJustice.Wikia.com -- 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. 74.192.84.101 (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.
WorldsFinestOnline.com 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. 74.192.84.101 (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- TV.com'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 [3][4], 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 [5] that the biographies are separated into separate pages [6]. --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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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. 74.192.84.101 (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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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, "youngjustice.wikia.com (primary fansite)" in the external link section, perhaps we can say "youngjustice.wikia.com (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? 74.192.84.101 (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 [7] mentions versus [8] behind the scenes BLP
overall#1 and overall#2 and Paula Nyguen versus [9] detailed in-universe BLP article
2010-12-30 in geopolitical real-world history versus [10] aka this day of the in-universe timeline
"Infiltrator" as episode #6 w/ 7 sentences + 0 screenshots versus [11] 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? 74.192.84.101 (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 youngjustice.wikia.com External Link? 74.192.84.101 (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.

  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. 74.192.84.101 (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.

These were added to the infobox by DarthCon,[12] but since a curly-brace was accidentally deleted, the change was partially reverted by DaHuzyBru at some later point.[13] 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. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cancellation Controversy

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. [1]T-Nuggett (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]

The real truth behind the show being cancelled

It is shocking that no one researches.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/12/16/paul-dini-on-cartoon-networks-programming-decisions-and-why-boy-viewers-are-valued-over-girls

http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2013/12/paul-dini-opens-up-on-how-networks-are-getting-animation-wrong/ Majinsnake (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul Dini and Kevin Smith

I think the text about the series' cancellation being the result of network executives not wanting girls to watch the show is a bit misleading. Some of what Dini said in the interview with Kevin Smith ([14] around 46:00) was hyperbole, and much was specifically about Tower Prep. But unless I'm missing something, he doesn't say specifically that Young Justice was cancelled because network executives didn't want girls watching the series, rather, he was expressing frustration that several times at different projects he was discouraged from deviating from boy-centric stories, because boys are the network's target demo. These deviations resulted in Tower Prep eventually being cancelled. That's not the same thing as 'Young Justice was cancelled because network executives did not want girls watching the programs.' It's part of a bigger story that requires extra context, whatever it is. Here's some of Dini's quote, hastily transcribed from the podcast referenced above:

They were having them date, and AquaLad was bad for a while. He was like a traitor. And the stories really were Buffy-style stories...very teen heavy. And now the trend has gone back. Like, superheroes are funny. And, 'cause, they're all for boys, we *do not* want the girls. I mean, I've heard executives say this, you know, not where I am, but in other places saying like, 'we do not want girls watching' these shows.

And actually, I just found this article although I'm not sure that the pieces from Jezebel would qualify as WP:RS, but it might provide some areas of context that could be sourced elsewhere. TL;DR: I don't think the podcast says explicitly why Young Justice was cancelled, and the podcast rant seemed focused on a different series, Tower Prep. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Regular member list?

Ok, so every time I read this I have an issue with the main team list. Red Arrow never officially joins the team-he more acts as a liaison member, utilizing the team as his POC since he believes the League to be infiltrated. Zatanna is the closest to being a main member, although by comparison to the other 6 she gets the least amount of plot/screen time...and Rocket was on the S1 team for a grand total of two episodes. When we next see her it's post time-skip with her in the League and engaged. None of the promotional material for the show feature her as a main-team member (the comics and I believe Legacy are a different story, but they seem to be treated as separate here).

Knowing this, shouldn't they be removed from that section? Speedy has the best argument to remain as he was central to the S1 plot, and both girls can certainly be mentioned in the opening paragraph...but sections devoted them should stay on the characters page.

Just my two cents.Axslayer33 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Young Justice (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Toonami?

I've heard rumors that Young Justice aired on Toonami on Adult Swim. Is that true?68.67.109.78 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Young Justice (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Young_Justice_(TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1198282692"