Is it worth to include the script or just the link? ― Thailog 00:28, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Link, and maybe an abbreviated summary.  Otherwise we're just referencing ourselves (giving primary information). - Edited by Zergrinch - 01:20, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
Don't know... Greg says it's not formatted for AG, and it's kinda hard to follow with the green background and capital letters... ― Thailog 11:30, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
Looking for a resolution here, people... ― Thailog 01:14, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
My sentiments are clear on this matter.  I believe that the interpretation of Wikipedia with regards to original "research" should be adopted.  I do admit that our use of Gweisman's primary sources (which we do as "CIT") is a problematic exception to the Wikipedia interpretation.  I still feel, however, that Station 8 Ask Greg is the original place of publication, and we should just link to it.  - Edited by Zergrinch - 01:48, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia's NOR applies here. That is meant to disallow material that has no source. This is not the case. Using the entire script here is no different than using the official loglines and solicitations. ― Thailog 10:14, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

We don't include episode scripts or videos, or concept art which this essentially is. Don't see why it should be treated too differently.Regulus22 01:27, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any scripts of episodes on the web, are there? Transcripts are not scripts. And it's not like readers can get this in many other places. You're comparing oranges with apples. This is a script, not an episode script, video or concept art. Let's call a cow a cow. And as it stands, this article only offers half of the information, and visitors need to go to an external site to get the whole thing, and honestly, the overall aspect of the script there is not that appealing. ― Thailog 01:36, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
If it wasn't formatted for Ask Greg, then it practically has the same issue. Concept Art from Phil or Jerome was a better comparison, it's YJ related material material, unproduced and released by it's creator, but they don't get on wiki at all. Regulus22 02:17, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
That makes no sense. "It wasn't formatted for Ask Greg" means either AG doesn't have the interface to format the text as intended or that Greg doesn't know how to do that: make it look like a script. Concept art is not unproduced material released by it's creator. And we decided not to accept it because it was being abused and thrown in randomly. Regardless, this is not concept art. It's an unused script. ― Thailog 10:14, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should include the script - if you're looking for an analogy it would be like hosting a video of a complete episode, since the script is now pretty much the final product. And if we reformat the script for the wiki, it'd be like hosting a colour-corrected video. A link is fine, though the synopsis should be a bit fuller and, y'know, describe what actually happens. – Psypher 20:25, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
That's a fallacious analogy, since there's no episode done from this script. That would be the final product; the script, in the absence of the episode, is an incomplete project. And it would not be "reformatted for the wiki" — it would be formatted as intended: a standard script. ― Thailog 20:56, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
But we don't have the proper script format, as you say. We have it as it was for Ask Greg which was not the actual script as it wasn't able to be in that format entirely on Ask Greg.Regulus22 23:47, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had made it clearer before: I will get the proper format. Just not before favorable consensus. ― Thailog 00:12, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that you're very passionate about this.  I drop my objections, but with a hope that this won't be the start of a slippery slope towards hosting original content.  - Edited by Zergrinch - 00:33, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to capitulate unless you've changed your mind. I won't nor want to do this if I'm alone in it, which seems to be the case thus far. I simply can't see why you guys think this is such a bad idea. This is not an episode, a transcript of one, or fanon. ― Thailog 01:31, January 6, 2013 (UTC)


At Ask Greg and on this page it speaks of it being a spin-off as if it were a legitimate one, but due to the fact that this was pitched as a comedic short to DC Nation I don't how it's supposed to be one? The fact that there are characters being used from the show, the people involved? All of this makes it sound like a spin-off, but not in the traditonal sense. Are we supposed to take this as something Black Manta would do in an alternate universe of YJ? The fact that all of his guests are blown up at the end I would think that this is a superficial spin-off. Maybe he does this once the world has been taken over? :p If the world is taken over... [Spoiler request. No comment.] Maybe I'm over thinking this and perhaps it's best for Ask Greg, but then again it's not that hard to figure. This is IMHO my take: Is this legitimate DC? Yes. Is this a legitimate spin-off? No. But again it depends on how you view it. All I know is is that we've made a whole page for this when it doesn't sound it's really connected to YJ execpt for the aformentioned connetions which are purely superficial. It would be like having a page for DC Showcase: Green Arrow for having a similar plot or if G.W. does another pitch attempt with a familiar character with an identical voice actor. (Sorry if my direct bluntness offends anyone.) -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:56, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Shrug. He calls it spin-off, the article merely reflects his claims. ― Thailog 01:14, January 5, 2013 (UTC)