Talk:List of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episodes

Online Premiere Dates
Technically, all the episodes premiered September 20 online on Disney XD's YouTube profile. They're not all on the Disney XD website yet, but should we really keep it like this? Matty-chan (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Disney uploaded them to their YouTube site on September 20th, but they've only been making one public and viewable each day. The last one has still not yet been made public. So the online premiere dates listed are correct -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they weren't meant to be released to the public at the time.-5- (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summaries
I have readded the plot summaries to the micro-series section in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policy. See the difference. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Differences in theme song animation and others
I couldn't help but notice that Hawkeye, the Black Panther, and Capitan America was not in the theme song animation of Breakout part one and Breakout part two. They were in the first five episode however. Does anyone know where to put this? Also the differices of when the actual episode started. In the first five episodes, the episode started after the theme song. But Breakout Part 1 had a scene before the theme song. And in Blackout part 2 had "flashback" before the episode started.P3771 (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "I couldn't help but notice that Hawkeye, the Black Panther, and Capitan America"

Probably because they are not members of the Avengers yet.-5- (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So shouldn't that fact, the animation of the theme song not including Hawkeye, the Black Panther, and Capitan America, get included in the page?P3771 (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, it's a little trivial and not that notable.-5- (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Woops. My bad. P3771 (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it may useful, as it shows the viewer which Avengers are featured within an episode as being on the team. It seems to change from episod to episode. I've added a little note for it, if there are any major objections I suppose it can be removed -Fandraltastic (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with -5-, I see it as similar to couch gag or the chalkboard in The Simpsons opening, but we should get a consensus before it is removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

January 2011 revisit
I went ahead and removed this info per WP:TRIVIA, if anyone feels strongly for its inclusion go ahead and revert it and we'll resume debate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ymir
I cant say for certain, but the frost giant in the micro-episode "If This Be Doomsday!" appears to be Ymir. Can anybody confirm this?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Episode Order.
I edited this page yesterday to reflect the correct viewing order, and it got edited back. Footnote 5 links to the Toonzone post by the producer Josh Fine stating the correct viewing order, but the list of episodes still reflects Breakout first. The micro-compilation episodes need to be listed first, so new viewers watch in the correct order. See the Firefly episode list page, for an example of how the episodes are listed in viewing order and not air date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.54.166 (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between the production number and the episode number (which is determined by the air date). The article reflects the real world context not in-universe perspective.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this isn't a flashback or ret-con in-universe. It's the actual order of episodes. The micro episodes clearly aired first, both online and on Disney XD. The only way the air date works is if you are looking at the micro-compilations as new material, and they clearly weren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.54.166 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a separate listing for the micro episodes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I would motion to remove the micro-compilations from the episode guide. I would prefer to remove the listings of the individual micro-episodes because they clutter the page, and list the episodes in the viewing order, but I can also see the reasoning behind including the micro episodes and removing the micro-compilations, as they are glorified repeats. Including both, especially since it adds confusion for new viewers, is the worst of the three choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.54.166 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they have been reedited regardless of their content makes them a separate production and notable enough to be listed here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Something from the shows producer about the correct order should take precident over episodes being aired out of order. That's the way it works with most other pages. Breakout 1 is episode six, not one. We have confirmation on that. 75.110.141.94 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point remains that production order and airdate order are two different things. Actually, most pages I've seen go by airdate order.-5- (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes airdate order and production order are two different things but if you look on the pages for other shows you see they list the episodes in the production, the correct order, not the order they aired on Disney XD. This was even confiremed by a producer on the show and yes that should take precident over the airdate order. I move that Breakout Parts 1 & 2 should be listed as episodes 6 & 7 of this series. Magic-Man (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well List_of_Batman:_The_Brave_and_the_Bold_episodes Has them in air order, and so does List_of_Homicide:_Life_on_the_Street_episodes off the top of my head. List_of_Leverage_episodes is out of order too, even if the production order isn't posted on the wiki page (one of the show's producers has said so on his blog in response to fan questions).  As far as I know, there isn't any standard on wikipedia, and there isn't a "correct" order either - episodes can (and have been, I'm sure) be produced in one order with the intent they'll be shown in another.  As long as consistency exists within this article, it's fine. Darquis (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is all going about it the wrong way. The "micro-compilations" are not "glorified repeats". They are an essential component to the season, forming the first five episodes of the season. It is better to look at the micro-episodes as "glorified sections" if you will of the first five episodes. There is no need for an entire table on micro-episodes, but instead a small paragraph explaining that these sections of the episodes (or "micro-episodes") were released online before the rest of the season. Thus, if the "micro-compilations" used the air dates of the "micro-episodes", the table will say that they were aired before the "Breakout" episodes, meaning that both the production and air date order are correct. Having said this, I would prefer to go with the production order anyway, as that is how it was released everywhere but the US (keeping in mind that the last episodes of the season aired in Australia before they did anywhere else). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No? Noone thinks any different. Okay, so I'm assuming that because noone has any argument against this, that it is okay to go ahead with this. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a valid source we cannot assume anything is a "glorified repeat" it could be that the micro-episodes were simply cropped from the "micro-compilations" or were produced separately then spliced together. We should therefore treat them as they were released which was seperately. It should also be noted that even clip shows are treated as separate productions because of the editing that is involved.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Every site I've visited describes the micro-episodes as being made from the first five episodes. They may not be hugely reliable, but that is the way the episodes were presented. Each episode in season one has three sections where it "goes black", allowing for an advertisement break, or not, depending on the channel that uses it. This divides each episode into four sections. It just so happens that the micro episodes are exactly the same as the first five of these (creating 20 micro episodes) - no editing- they are exactly the same. From what I discovered, Joshua Fine is the man responsible for splitting the episodes into micro episodes, if that helps research. Otherwise, as we cannot assume anything, I still think it is more appropriate to remove the micro episodes table. I would also not refer to the "micro-compilations" as "clip shows" either. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to the "micro-compilations" as clip shows just pointing out that even simple editing whether it be chopping or splicing can result in being treated as a separate production. In the meantime I'll search for anything useful we can use. Others editors are welcomed to weigh in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * HERE! http://marvel.toonzone.net/avengersemh/backstage/interviews/fine.php Josh Fine, the show's supervising producer says, "I had the idea to take the first five episodes of the season, carve them up into little five and a half minute segments, and create a micro-series that would let us explore the individual members of the team in their own ongoing adventures." --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job! Now we have to find out if these micro-episodes count as separate productions and if not are the individual releases themselves are notable enough to be listed separately.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also this info might be useful in expanding the production section on the main page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we know that they aren't seperate productions, because they are exactly the same, just joined together. We also know that the producer said that the micro-episodes were made from the five episodes of season one, so it is not really a seperate season, anyway. I do believe that they are notable enough to be included, as a paragraph explaining the micro-episodes, but they do not count as another season requiring another table. Also, the micro episodes were never acknowledge outside America (except on the internet- at least in Australia...), and are not available seperately on DVD, but the "micro-compilations" are available on DVD as a part of the season, and in the correct order. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said before the simple act of editing can result in it being treated as a different production. Also if the micro-episodes are notable I am not sure if prose is preferable over the table.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But I'm saying, they are not edited, just simply sections of the episodes. No editing, no changes, just cut straight from the episodes. And as they are just cut straight from the episodes, I think it is more appropriate that they not be considered so much as a seperate series. They do require mention, but not in the form of their own series table. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Splicing is editing. Also we have RSs that refer to the collection of micro-episodes as a "micro-series". I think its either notable or not, if its is notable then the table is fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, but what I'm trying to say is, that the whole micro-whatever thing is confusing. No matter who you are, you've probably been confused by it at some point in time. I think that to make it clearer, it is better to remove the table. We know that it is not included as another 'proper' series, because it repeats the first five episodes, but we also know that they were actually made from those episodes (not the other way around), and so all of the details provided in the table, should be moved to the other table. (The director and writer of episodes 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d are the same, etc. And all the other details belong in the other table, if that is their actual origin - which probably also means adjusting the 'list of characters' page, as their first appearances list the micro-episodes). So if all of the details are removed from the micro episodes table, then there is no point in having a table. Just a list, or paragraph about them (a paragraph is certainly needed anyway to explain it better, as it is, ultimately, confusing). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's so confusing about it, it's self explanatory. However in the interest of compromise can you just add a sentence or two about it in the lead?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not going to comment on anything else I said? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't convinced me that the table needs to go so we can either work towards a compilable solution or wait for others to weigh in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works. I've given some reasons as to why it should be excluded, now you have to give reasons as to why it should be included if you want it to stay. If you don't do that (or you have no reasons), then you have no right to say I cannot go ahead with this. I have reliable, verifiable information, and you are providing nothing. For that reason you have no authority to say I cannot change this, unless you provide reason. Otherwise it's just your opinion, against my reliable, verifiable information. Besides, if you want to be some insanely stubborn rock that I have to push out of the way, It would still be useful for you to actually provide comments on what I had said, so that at least I can get an idea of why you are not convinced. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noone else has joined the discussion yet, so feel free to invite others to weigh in, or tell me where I could go to invite others. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Collaboration is the essence of Wikipedia. Your reasoning for removing the table is based on opinion not policy or guideline, because you feel the details of each micro-episode belong in th other table which I assume you are referring to the plot summary and first appearances. However the table is made up of so much more than those two things. The first five episodes do not include these elements but are still apart of that table. this discussion has grown tiresome but you are more than free to solicit other opinions. I suggest WT:TV or WT:COMICS.
 * I understand that collaboration is essential, and am trying to get other editors here. However, you were not collaborating, just simply saying no. At least I had a reason (which although rooted in opinion, was supported with verifiable evidence), that was not discouraged by any other real reason. Anyway, there are only eight components of the micro-series table: Micro-episode Title, Director, Writer, Original air date, Air order, Production code, Plot summary, and first appearances. As previously discussed, the Plot summary and first appearances belong in the first series table. However, the Director and Writer/s are already in the first series table, and if explained that the micro-series was created for publicity purposes from the first series, then it's a no-brainer as to who directed or wrote the episode. The production code currently only serves the purpose of trying to show readers which micro-episodes form micro-compilations. This would be better explained in a paragraph. Now, all that is left is the Title, Air date, and Air Order (with air order only being the numbering system on the left, also being obvious due to the dates provided). Two columns providing only names and dates isn't much of a table, and would be better laid out in an explanatory paragraph or list to accompany the paragraph. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The directors and writers are currently listed in both places, how is this harmful? The production code though similar is unique to each micro- episode should be included. Also the plot does not have to be in the other table, that is simply your preference, but if it is moved why can you not just replace it with an explanatory sentence like with what is currently written in the synopses for the first five episodes?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't harmful to repeat information, just clumsy. You don't need to say that the director of this micro-episode is the same as the director for the micro-compilation, if you explain that the micro-episodes do not form a "proper" season. The production code is not just similar, it is the same. The only reasoning behind the letters is to define the episode as the "c" part of episode 2, for example. And the only reasoning behind their use in the first place is because of the table. Otherwise, they are completely unnecessary. Also, the plot should be in the other table. That is my preference, but it also makes the article easier to understand, and it belongs there anyway. The plot originated in those episodes, so that is where it should be (shouldn't you apply the same principle as the one that even you stated: the show originated in America, so American air dates are used despite whether that was where it originally aired or not?). Just because the plot was aired in the micro-episodes first, it does not mean you should remove the plot from the origin. Besides, the way it looks now, is that the micro-episodes are another full season that precedes the first season. By removing that table, you remove this confusion. Perhaps, if you are desperate to keep the table, it should be moved under the table for the first season, so that it takes lesser importance. After all, it is not a seperate series, just a means for publicity, we have confirmation on that. Would you place publicity (such as trailers) for a film before its plot summary in an article? No. Applying that logic, you wouldn't place A:EMH's publicity (micro episodes) before the actual A:EMH show. And just in case you wish to bring up again the issue of the micro episodes being a seperate production due to the editing, trailers are edited more than micro episodes, and so have more of a right to be considered a seperate production that is aired prior to the movie than in this case. I still believe that the table is unnecessary, confusing, and clutters up the whole page, but if you so desperately wish to keep it, it cannot remain where it is. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gone on long enough please do not stretch it out further with straw man arguments (Guidelines on release dates do not apply to plot synopses, micro-episodes =/= film trailers). The micro-series does not appear to be full season, it is not numbered and it precedes Season 1. These are obvious clues. There is no confusion except on your behalf, moving it after the first season will no doubt cause confusion. The way it stands no is perfectly understandable the the descriptions of the first five episodes make it even clearer. However if you feel further clarification is needed, expanding the lead would resolve it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are so many descriptions of different arguing methods, that I could criticise your arguments with numerous terms (probably including the whole straw man one - speaking of which, why do they all have weird names?), if I knew my way around Wikipedia's guidelines. Point is, they are guidelines, not rules. Anyway, I do not say that all guidelines for release dates apply to plot synopses, but rather the logic behind the guidelines for release dates is the same logic that should be behind the guidelines of plot synopses in this specific example. Why should the fact that the plot originated in those five episodes be ignored, so it is moved to some publicity stunt? Whilst micro-episodes are not exactly the same as film trailers, they are the equivalent in this case. The micro-series is used for publicity, not as another season, so should not be treated that way. If indeed these equivalent examples are deemed as a "superficially similar postion", they should at least be considered. Why is it that the plot synopses do not belong in their origin? Why is it that publicity takes precedence over the actual episodes? What you say is obvious, is true (with the exeption of your comments on it not being numbered, as it is numbered). It is obvious from this article that the micro-series does not appear to be a full season (hence the micro), and it precedes Season 1. This is not correct. However, if this is what is obvious to the reader, then yes, it is confusing. These "obvious" assumptions are incorrect assumptions, because whilst the micro-series isn't a season at all, it is implied that it is a season... kinda. Also, it does not precede Season 1 because it is part of Season 1. These "obvious clues" are just one of the reasons behind the change. The other verifiable reasons that I have previously provided, you have simply deemed as "opinion", disregarding certain key points. In the end, the micro-episodes are not a "proper" season, and so should not be treated as so. Yes, this discussioin has gone on long enough, so please abandon your "If it ain't broke" philosophy, because it is "broke". All of the evidence says it is "broke". I say it is "broke" (and it should be noted that I have personal experience, having been introduced to the series from this wiki page, starting out saying, "What the heck is a micro-season?", and I know others who have been confused by it also). The only person who says it "ain't broke" is you. And the reasons you have provided for it being "ain't broke" prove otherwise. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You say its broke, I say its not, hence our impasse. So we can either work towards a mutual amicable solution or wait for others to offer their opinion. As of now there is no consensus to support your bold change, however I'll gladly accept whatever is decided amongst other editors but for now I'm done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

On second thought in the interest of fairness, go ahead a remove the table while we wait for a third-party since it seems you are more in favor of removing the table than I am in for keeping it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as to the episode order (what this is all supposed to be about), the individual components of the first five episodes had aired before the "Breakout" episodes, which was my argument for switching, but I guess that doesn't count because they weren't the full episodes. Just a note: the text for the micro episodes says that they were formed from the first five episodes, which is correct, but doesn't match the table... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm not very good with citations, so could you please fix the one that got messed up in the whole deletion business. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, though it may not be today. Also the plot descriptions need to be trimmed and at this point the bare title list of the micro-episodes seem trivial, so they can also be removed. For the record, I am still in preference of the table and I dont see how the current revision is an improvement but whatever.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the argument is about. TV episodes should be in airdate order. The TriiipleThreat version is correct. ProfessorKilroy, I'm sure out of a good-faith desire to improve the article, is nonetheless being contentious on a settled matter.


 * I'm also troubled by anonymous IPs commenting, since there's no way to know what kind of editing history they have (since multiple users can be on a particular IP address) or what relationship they may to a registered editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What about the micro-series section, should this information be tabled as it was previously or listed as it is currently.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll break this into two questions: First, should the micro-series and the series be listed separately? Yes, of course: They are two different entities and I believe both editors agree on that. Second, what is more useful, a bald laundry list or a table with full information, properly contextualized? To me, obviously, the latter. That looks like the TriiipleThreat version. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I am used to that version but I would concur with Tenebrae said. Either way seems harmless and I can see the point of both of the users but it seems if it ain't broke no need to fix it. Jhenderson 7 7 7  17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW as a third opinion: - J Greb (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Micro-series" or "Season 0" is a reasonable table to include. The episodes were broadcast - yes, internet distribution can be seen as a "broadcast" - over a 3 week period and a week prior to "Season 1".
 * Production numbers and episode numbers based on air date are both useful. But neither is a guarantee to reflect the show's internal continuity. And to be fair, it would be nice if the table lent itself to sorting on the two fields. But the structure break real bad if it's tried.
 * There is a serious problem with editor assigned production number. Unless a reliable source can be cited that these are indeed the production numbers that the production house used, it's original research - "We need this and it seems right. The micro production numbers are an extreme example of this. The seem to be derived from an assumption on the order "first five" episodes and where the micros fit into those.
 * Reliable sources...
 * I've dropped a question at WT:TV regarding ToonZone. IIRC, that site is in a grey area and I want to check if it is in the same category as IMDb, if there are specific sections that can or cannot be used, or if it's all good.
 * The Josh fine interview that is purported to support the production numbering of the first 7 episode is shaky for that. "The goal with the first five episodes,..." and then naming of 5 episodes does not inspire faith that he was putting them in production order.
 * YouTube video titles are going to be questionable, whether Marvel posts it or not.
 * The flags need to go as a breach of MOS:FLAG. There is no need for them to be here since the first airing is the first airing. It doesn't matter which country it was in. This is especially true of the micros since, IIUC, they were released with limited or no geo-locks.
 * Similarly, the Australian and American "first air date" is out of place. Australian airdates get added to the remaining 19 season 1 episode and the Canadian ones (since Canada is specifically mentioned in the lead) get added to the entire season. Otherwise, episodes 20 - 26 should be using the April dates and the discrepancy covered in the article for the show in the section covering "Release".


 * My reasoning for removing the table is listed above. In there, I discussed how a full table is less useful. While the micro-series is a separate "entity", they are actually just the first five episodes divided into quarters. Hence, a micro-series table makes it more difficult to comprehend. I also discussed how each component of the micro-series table was unneccesary, clumsy and causes confusion. In that way, it is "broke" - I have personal experience with this confusion, having looked the episodes up on wiki before I watched them. About the production numbers, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, J Greb. But I'm okay with removing Australian air dates that were after US ones, because "Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen your reasoning and frankly it smacks of OR - your interpretation of what is important or "part of the show".
 * I'll simplify the production numbers for you: Find a reliable source that uses 001, 002, 003, 004, 001a, 001c, 002b, etc. Other wise it is a construct of editors here and OR. And ATM, TZ and YouTube won't cut it as sources.
 * Actually I was pointing to using the first air dates, domestic or not.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think it smacks of OR, that's good for you, but if you are going to discard it completely, at least give me a detailed explanation as to what you are discarding, and which parts, because surely the whole argument isn't rubbish. Other editors have even mentioned that at least of my argument, above. And please refrain from immediately entering a state of vicious argument, by mocking me. And why does TZ not count when it is an interview with Josh Fine. Are you suggesting that TZ edit what he says? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Widow's Sting
Should "Widow's Sting" have "Introducing characters: The Skrull" in the description?

Characters in This Hostage Earth
I think Lilandra, or someone similar to her, made a small appearince in "This Hostage Earth". She was on the ship and got turned to stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3771 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing the Fenris Wolf entry
Watched it again to confirm and it is really Hoarfen (his son). Here's the appendix link if a footnote needs to be made (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/fenriswolf.htm). Thanks! Heavenstorm (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Air Dates
If you so wish to remove the most of the Canadian and Australian air dates in favour of first air dates, why should the U.S. air dates remain also? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the U.S. is the country of the production's origin. Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information and cannot list the release dates in every country so we limit it to the first release date and release date in the country of origin. The same guidelines are also used for film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It just seemed a little too US centred... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern but be assured that if this was a Canadian, Finnish or any other country's production, the article would reflect it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with ProfessorKilroy above. The only thing in your what "Wikipedia is not" link above that might apply to this is the part about excessive lists. My agruement is that it is not excessive because this is the English language Wikipedia page. As long as we limit the list to original English air dates in any given English language country, we are not being excessive. So we have the US, Canada, UK/Ireland, and Australia/New Zealand. That's only 4 or 5 which is not confusing, if you start throwing in the Netherlands or Central America then yes it gets to be too much Stick to English countries and we'll be OK. I put the UK and Ireland together because Disney XD serves both countries so the air dates would be the same, Australia and New Zealand tend to have the same airdates as well, but I don't really know if ABC3 does that, if it was Disney or Cartoon Network I'd be more confident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psion20 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 August 2011


 * I am beginning to have less and less patience with newcomers who can't be bothered to learn such basics as signing their posts, and who use take a quick glance at a guidelines or policy page, get a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" partial or misunderstanding, and then go on a lengthy soapbox about how a long-experienced editor is getting it wrong.


 * ProfessorKilroy, another new user, is doing the same as User:Psion20. All across Wikipedia, episodes of TV series are listed by airdate. The User:TriiipleThreat version of the page is the correct one. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * see Avengers Assemble, below --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Micro-Series
Why was this removed?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See episode order, above. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Avengers Assemble
There was 1.5 hour episode that aired on June 26, 2011 titled "Avengers Assemble" that was a compilation of "This Hostage Earth", "The Fall of Asgard" and "A Day Unlike Any Other". It had a different title than any of its parts so it seems like it should be listed. Related to this "A Day Unlike Any Other" did not air independently in the US until July 1, 2011. This is different than Gamma World that was aired as a 1 hour episode and then broken up into parts 1 and 2, since all three episodes have independent titles and the compilation has a unique title I believe all four should be listed with their respective air dates. I just want to put this idea out there and see what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psion20 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 August 2011
 * Considering the way we're treating micro-episodes and air order, I think that you're right, and we should go for the 1st July date on that episode, so long as you have a source. Where did "Avengers Assemble" air? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Psion20 has made very few edits to Wikipedia, including just a handful to Marvel animation articles, and he's giving comments that are exceedingly similar to those of fellow newish user ProfessorKilroy. From my long experience with Wikipedia, and the patterns I've seen time and again, I find this suspicious. I would take Psion20's comments only advisedly. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. There's a lot of hate coming from you, directed at newer users. Okay, first of all, as to me wanting to keep the Australian air dates as written above, I just wanted to know why they were removed, and received a valid reason, and said, "fair enough". I see no reason for you to discriminate against Psion20 or myself, particularly by placing us in the same category of being new, having red links, and giving suspicious comments. But, yes, for the record, I thought Psion20's comments here and above were suspicious, but I'm not about to go blaming every new user in the world for his mistakes. Just have another look at the way I've responded to him, and TriiipleThreat above. Also, I'm going to take this opportunity to stand up for the little guys and say that whilst we're newish, we still have valid opinions and sometimes, believe it or not, useful contributions. Your discriminative efforts just discourage new users from using wikipedia, which prevents it from becoming a thriving community, as all users must be new at some point in time. And I am open to the fact that I am often wrong, but it appears that you are not open to allowing new users to have their say. Besides, someone's intelligence or ability to understand guidlines do not depend on how long they have been editing wikipedia. Please stop discriminating unneccesarily against newer users or "red-links", and if you have something useful to say, then go ahead and contribute that. Just don't contibute a series of whines comparing me to Psion20 to illustrate that my comments mean nothing. And lastly, I do sign my posts, and always have, see, HERE: --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I expressed my legitimate concerns, based on experience on hundreds of talk pages, in politic, diplomatic language. Calling something like "I would take his comments advisedly" as "a lot of hate" is a little hyerbolic, don't you think? And I take exception to your characterizing my soft-spoken, carefully chosen words as "whines." You seem like an intelligent person, so I can't excuse your own choice of words &mdash; you deliberately chose to be insulting and exaggerating. I'm sure you'll agree that such language is unbecoming of a mature discussion.


 * Below on this page, I've addressed your comments about new users. I don't think there's anything wrong or unusual about people who are new to any venture proceeding slowly and learning the ropes from more experienced people. It's not a matter of talent or new users not having anything to say &mdash; just look at the film Bull Durham, and you'll see what I mean. Also, I don't believe I said anything about you not signing your posts. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the compliment. And I apologise for coming out insulting. However, the reasoning behind "a lot of hate", is that I am simply quite offended by your comments on this page refering to newer users and IPs. And there are a lot of them. Just please ignore the red-link and the date I joined, and treat all users the same. It's not that hard. If you are going to take my words with more caution than others, by all means, do so. But do not ask me to step back without reason. This is the talk page about the article, not about those who edit it, so if you wish to contribute, then contribute your opinions to do with the article, rather than throwing my argument to one side, saying that it is from an inexperienced user. Tell me why my argument does not count. I respect the fact, that I must learn the ropes, which I am constantly doing, as is everyone else. I am not trying to suggest that I have superior knowledge to more experienced users. But I have my part to play, and wish to get my opinion out there. If anything, my lack of experience editing wikipedia should count for more in the sense that, as a new user, I bring the fresh opinion of the confused reader of the article. And we are all aiming to make this article better and less confusing. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see us reaching a more elevated plateau of discussion. I understand you want to make an exception to the convention of listing TV-show episodes by airdate. I don't think that would make the article less confusing. Even the explanations of the alternative are confusing.


 * But there's a larger issue, and I'm afraid this is, unavoidably, one that is more problematic with newer users than not. Simply: Editing Wikipedia means abiding by consensus. If the bulk of other editors on the talk page disagree with you, it's time to accept it and go on to another article. Endless arguing just wears everyone down. And heaven knows, there are a lot of Wikipedia articles that could use the help of dedicated, intelligent people like yourself. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou again, and I'm glad to see you're taking a more encouraging approach with newer users. Anyway, as I suggested, there's just so much stuff here (from both sides), all mixed up, under wrong headings, so I suggest we try and start again, to definitively state the reasons for both sides, so we can end this. I understand that we need a consensus (which was very hard with two people), and I also understand that I'm against the odds, but I feel that my point is valid, useful, and should be heard out. Who knows, if noone poses any valid reasons against mine, then the consensus may change... Besides, my biggest concern is with the micro-series table, rather than the air dates. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow I didn't realise my comment had created such controversy. Sorry I haven't been paying any attention to this site. As for the main subject, I don't have any web source to point to, all I have is actual observation of the show. My DVR is set to record all episodes on Disney XD in the US. On June 26, 2011 it recorded a single 1.5 hour episode entitled "Avenger Assemble". And then it recorded "A Day Unlike Any Other" for the first time on July 1, 2011. That may or may not have been Disney's original plan, but that's what they did. I still stand by my opinion that this is an english language wiki site, so air dates in other english language countries should be posted, because if I'm Australian I primarily care about the airdates in Australia (I'm not Australian by the way). But I don't control the site and don't really care that much. At least I came here to allow the debate before changing the site, that's something I learned by trial and error. So I'm getting better at this. Still don't understand the signing of post thing when my handle Psion20 shows up beside the post anyway, but I'll give it a try. This is the first time I've attempted signing.--Psion20 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Psion20

Found a reference that backs up my "Avengers Assemble" airing http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/the-avengers-earth's-mightiest-heroes!/ and this site says June 26, 2011. Of course it also says "A Day Unlike Any Other" on the same day, because it was part of the larger "Avengers Assemble" episode, but I think I explained my reasoning on that already.--Psion20 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)psion20

Air Date - Micro-series inconsistency
Sorry for bringing this up again, but there's a problem with the page, which I noted a while ago. The paragraph about the Micro-series states that "Its 20 episodes are essentially small segments from the first five episodes". However, this does not reflect the table which shows the episodes in air order, rather than the actual order. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just reword or clarify the paragraph. Breakout is the pilot episode.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think he only says that "Breakout" is essentially the pilot in his own opinion, but he actually says the words "first five episodes". So, there's nothing wrong with the paragraph. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not his opinion, it is fact as it was the first episode to air. When he said "first five episodes" he was referring to the production number.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He does not refer to "Breakout" as a pilot because it aired first, but rather because it is a better "test" for the rest of the season to come, as it is the first episode where the "Avengers Assemble", hence the opinion thing. Besides, a pilot episode does not mean it is the first episode of the season. And when he referred to the "first five" episodes he was referring to the actual order. He also says "first five" that many times, that it shouldn't be ignored from the micro-series paragraph. I propose that the table be ordered by production code, so as to better reflect the paragraph. And also, because it makes more sense. Just because the channel that gets to air it first jumbles up the order, doesn't mean wikipedia should. Besides, the "first five" episodes did air before "Breakout", but in smaller segments. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A few things, episode lists are presented in the order they are aired regardless of the order they are produced. Breakout is the first episode of Season 1 there are many sources stating stating as such. The paragraph can easily be reworded to reflect the actual order the episodes were presented. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no guideline for TV episode order. However, whilst the convention is air order. I am proposing to make this an exception to the convention (not guideline), because the first five episodes are called just that. Not "micro-compilations", the "first five" episodes. So to avoid confusion, I reccomend production code be used as the order of episodes, rather than air order, but just in this case. Also, when you say "Production Code", it loses its true meaning. The production code IS the episode order - the order in which the episodes were meant to be shown. Then TV channels air things differently and we like to order it the way we saw it. So, after all of this, "Breakout" IS the sixth episode of Season 1. Many sources state that, and the paragraph should not be reworded as they reflect verifiable information (being that the "first five" episodes are just that - the "first five" episodes). To me, production code makes more sense all around anyway, as it is a page about the product, not a page about the different ways in which the product can be ordered. And the air order changes from country to country, but the production code never changes (a very rough analogy would be a list of the elements in the periodic table: If you listed them, you would order them in their actual order (atomic mass), rather than the order in which they were discovered (first viewed by the public)). Besides, the first five episodes aired before "Breakout", although this was in separated form. Also, for your information, if you desperately desire the usage of air order over proper order, you might want to look at episode 19. And yes, I understand that this conversation should take place on the talk page, but we had already started here. Do you mind if this conversation is copied to the talk page, so that others can contribute (which I doubt they would - there hasn't been an overwhelming number of interested editors)? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Production codes are not the same thing as episode numbers, companies often shoot television episodes out of order due locations and budgetary reasons. Which is why we routinely list episodes by air date rather than production code or in-universe chronological order. Furthermore channels do not arbitrarily choose the order episodes are aired. If you have sources that an episode aired in a different country before the date that is currently listed then we will change the order. Also do not say such things as "actual order" or "proper order" as these terms are subject to opinion. Thank you pointing out the mistake in the current table, I will change it accordingly. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it would be nice if you could reply to everything I've said. That way, you're actually giving reasons that oppose my reasons, rather than just letting my reasons stand there unopposed while you say "no". Also, it means that I won't keep repeating myself as much, and my paragraphs will not grow so much as they just did. Anyway, in this case Production codes are the same as the episode numbers - they are the order in which they aired everywhere else (besides it's animated, not shot, so there's no changes of locations, etc.), it's also the in-universe chronological, and as a watcher of the show, there are points in the "Breakout" where they are nodding to previous events in the first five episodes, meaning that they should be viewed first. There's nothing else really to call it that sums it up better than "actual order". Anyway, it's fair enough that we usually list the episodes by air dates, for your reasons, but I am suggesting that we make this an exception to that convention. And I'm refering to the micro-episodes when I say they where aired before "Breakout", although in separated form - and they aired in the US and are sourced. I apologise for using "actual order" and "proper order", but could you also instead of "mistake", use something like "inconsistency", because that is subject to opinion as well. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As an editor uninvolved with this article itself, but one who values collaboration and collegiality, I feel I need to respectfully ask User:ProfessorKilroy to take a step back, stop his reverting in the face of multi-editor consensus, and stop these long, soapboxing arguments that for some reason new editors love to make at length. You have been editing on Wikipedia only since April &mdash; I'm not sure that such a short period of time and a relatively small number of edits gives anyone to right to start asking for exceptions to established convention. Maybe it might not be wrong to say, "Y'know, these other editors have been here a long time and have experience and know the ropes. Maybe while I'm apprenticing, I could see how things are and learn from them." That's how the rest of life works, whether you're in a new job or a new school or a new club. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a person, I feel I need to respectfully ask you to read what I wrote in the "Avengers Assemble" section, above. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please summarize it succinctly -- I've skimmed it, and t rambles and is excessively wordy. It's not fair to expect other editors to wade through an ocean of text. I'm not saying that you're doing it, but in my experience, there have been editors who try to win arguments by bludgeoning others with long, long, argumentative posts. Good writing is short writing -- simple declarative sentences and bullet points go a long way. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's the way I write. Perhaps with experience, my arguments will shorten, but in my experience, short replies to long arguments do not tend to cut it, as it does not cover everything covered in the long paragraph. Which part do you wish me to summarise? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Which part? "[W[hat I wrote in the 'Avengers Assemble' section, above," as you yourself said.


 * And meaning this in as good and collegial and sincere a way as possible, "Sorry, but that's the way I write" is a copout. You're an intelligent person. You could write succinctly if you wished to. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be a copout, but it's true. That's not really my style. I just blabber on until I think I've covered everything I wanted to say. You might know how it is, you know, studying english, you write essays, so you blabber on until you've filled up your word count. And I'm not that good a writer anyway. Perhaps that would come with some time "learning the ropes" as you say. As to summarising that part, it's not really important, but the gist of it was that I was just blabbering on about how you should ignore the red signature and just listen to what I have to say, and then if you have something to say, you should argue your point against mine using proper reasons, other than I'm inexperienced. Anyway as this whole discussion has gone for about 7,500 words (about 4,000 of those are mine) it would be much easier and cleaner to start again with a new section, so that we can see clearly where everyone stands and why. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

REFACTORING MARGIN Prof, if I may call you that: "I just blabber on until I think I've covered everything I wanted to say" is not really an acceptable stance. You're saying, in effect, you don't care about other editors' time. We're all volunteers, taking time here and there where we can in order to help build this encyclopedia. It's possible to not blabber. It is physically, intellectually possible ... if you want to. If you don't, that's not fair to others. RE: "you write essays, so you blabber on until you've filled up your word count." Swear to god, I don't do that. I wouldn't do it here. There's no use wasting words. Just say what needs said. Honest. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, you can call me Prof. I don't want to waste your time, or anyone's time. There may be a lot of words in what I say, but there's a lot things I'm actually saying in that. I apologise if I've wasted your time, and I'll try to be more precise and concise, but I really don't think this is the place to be complaining about my writing style. You can do that on my talk page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize if it were taken as complaining. Only meant to be gentle constructive criticism. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the table, as opposed to airdates, as you mentioned above. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Micro-series table/episode order, etc.
Okay, here goes: What I believe needs to happen to improve this article is to remove the micro-series table, replacing it with an explanatory paragraph (and possibly a list of the micro-episodes). Here's why:


 * First of all, to newcomers, the concept is confusing at first, so the page needs to be very clear and to the point.


 * The micro-series is not an "actual series" as such, but rather a means for setting up and introducing the first series as a publicity-type thing.


 * The micro-series episodes all have exactly the same content as the first five episodes, and it has been confirmed by Josh Fine that the first five episodes are the origin for the micro-series.

Hence, because it adds confusion, clutters up the page, draws attention away from the first season, is not an "actual series", and is simply a spliced form of the first five episodes of the first season, the micro-series table should be removed.


 * Also if it turns out that everyone wishes to keep the micro-series table, then I suggest moving all of the details such as plot synopses, first appearances, etc. to the first five episodes as that is their origin.


 * Also, the explanatory paragraph should be kept, because the way it is now, it is just a table suggesting that a whole other series was produced (This is also the case for several minor edits since the big revert, which should be returned).

Another possible option that could be considered is moving the micro-series table below the first season, as it is essentially a publicity stunt, rather than a series.

Also, I propose that the production code be used as the episode order for the Season 1 table, despite this not being the generally used format. My reasons are as following:


 * There is no specific rule stating that air order should be used.


 * Air order is generally used, because production code refers to the order in which the episodes are produced, which can differ to the "actual order" due to filming in different locations, etc. However, it is animated, so it is created in the one place, so there is no reason for the production order to differ to the "actual order".


 * The episodes are in fact aired out of order, as confirmed by Josh Fine every time he refers to the "first five episodes".


 * In the case of "Breakout" it is due to the first five episodes already being aired in the form of micro-episodes (this means that the first five episodes had already aired anyway, just not in full form).


 * Whereas, in the case of "Widow's Sting", it is simply moved forward to make the series 13 episodes in length (a standard season length- 13 is a quarter of 52, the amount of weeks in a year, hence, 13 being the number of weeks in a season).


 * In other countries, the episodes are aired in a differnt order (the production code- which also happens to be the chronological order of the story).

Hence, because there is no specific rule, production code is also the chronological, proper viewing, and "actual order" of episodes, episodes are only aired in that way in the US, etc., the production code should be used for the episode order of the season table.

Any thoughts? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, there are a lot of points here and I applaud ProfessorKilroy for making them succinct, bulleted and easy to follow.


 * The first thing I would say is that the opening paragraph needs to define what "microseries" and "micro-episodes" are. Are these seven-minute segments as in the 1960s The Marvel Super Heroes, or something else?


 * RE "The microseries episodes all have exactly the same content as the first five episodes". One could look at this two ways: The micro-series episodes are edited adaptations of a TV series' episodes. Or, given that the microseries episodes ran first, the TV series' episodes could be considered a compilation of microseries episodes. Since to the general public editing and other post-production details don't matter (in that viewers only experience the end product), I would say the microseries table comes first since the microseries aired first. (Both of these appear to have been telecast on a TV channel, Disney HD, and not, as with [[Web Therapy] online first.)


 * RE "[animation is] created in the one place, so there is no reason for the production order to differ to the 'actual order'". There are many reasons why an animated series would air in a different order than production order. Aside from production issues (computer rendering for a visually complicated episode might take longer than for a simpler episode), there are creative reasons: The producers may decide that a particular episode/arc is stronger than others and should air earlier. I'm afraid with all respect I don't believe PK makes compelling case for going with other than airdate &mdash; which may not be a "rule", per se, but is the de facto standard across hundreds of TV series articles.


 * RE PK's points about Josh Fine. Fine in his cited post states re: production/airdate order, "The truth is that everyone has been sort of right." He gives a production-order list for those who are "curious", but he does not state a preference for one type of list over another, and indeed says both are "right". Therefore, the order in the Wikipedia article should be the order that makes the most sense to a consensus of editors.


 * RE airdate order in other countries. Assuming this is true (it's uncited), this would not matter since, with virtually every other TV show, Wikipedia articles use the airdate order of the originating country. The Rockford Files, I Love Lucy and every other show may not run in the original airdate order overseas &mdash; nor even in US syndication &mdash; but that does not affect their Wikipedia articles ... nor books on those subjects, which list episodes by airdate order.


 * I would ask, since ProfessorKilroy has made his points, that other editors be allowed to respond to his points before he gives rebuttal, if any. This would allow everyone to address all his initial points before we get bogged down in followup for the first few.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, and understanding PK did it in good will without understanding or being aware of the cited policy, TriiipleThreat is absolutely correct in that we do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To simplify, the concept of the micro-series is not complicated to me but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't be to others. My only suggestion that I can think of is to rely on one particular source on how it is done. Some sources might use the concept differently so consensus on which source you prefer should be in order. There is not much I can tell you on how it is done because both ways aren't really the wrong way just a different way to do it. That's when it's most tough to decide what's better for Wikipedia when there's differing ways on how to do it. And the only key answer I can think of we should rely on is source. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, to newcomers, the concept is confusing at first, so the page needs to be very clear and to the point. Do not speak in such generalities not all newcomers have complained.


 * The micro-series is not an "actual series" as such, but rather a means for setting up and introducing the first series as a publicity-type thing. Not an "actual series", this is complete WP:POV. The fact is the series was broadcast on both internet and television.


 * The micro-series episodes all have exactly the same content as the first five episodes, and it has been confirmed by Josh Fine that the first five episodes are the origin for the micro-series. As Tenebrae stated this makes no difference, only the end result.


 * Also if it turns out that everyone wishes to keep the micro-series table, then I suggest moving all of the details such as plot synopses, first appearances, etc. to the first five episodes as that is their origin. Again their origin makes no difference only the end presentation, Micro series aired first therefore the plots and character were introduced in those episodes.


 * Also, the explanatory paragraph should be kept, because the way it is now, it is just a table suggesting that a whole other series was produced (This is also the case for several minor edits since the big revert, which should be returned). As I stated before I have no problem with a well written, well sourced paragraph. As such a paragraph would most likely be overview I suggest adding it to the lead.


 * There is no specific rule stating that air order should be used. Yes, but there is community wide consensus that should not be taken lightly and so far I have not seen enough evidence to ignore it.


 * Air order is generally used, because production code refers to the order in which the episodes are produced, which can differ to the "actual order" due to filming in different locations, etc. However, it is animated, so it is created in the one place, so there is no reason for the production order to differ to the "actual order". Again refrain from such WP:POV terms like "actual order" and making WP:OR claims.


 * The episodes are in fact aired out of order, as confirmed by Josh Fine every time he refers to the "first five episodes". He was referring to production order by the fact he later states that Breakout is the pilot episode. Besides what matter here is the actual turn of events that occurred in real life. Breakout aired before the complication episodes.


 * In other countries, the episodes are aired in a different order (the production code- which also happens to be the chronological order of the story). Again agreeing with Tenebrae, we go by first airing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thankyou all for replying.


 * As to Confusing concepts: Hey, I'm a newcomer, and I'm complaining because I was confused. But yeah, there certainly needs to be an opening paragraph, which I would prefer in the micro-series section rather than the lead. And no, apparently they go for about 5 minutes.


 * "Actual" series vs Introductory: Well, it's not entirely POV. Fine never says that it is not an "actual series", but he does refer to it as a means for setting up and introducing the first series.


 * Origin of content in Micro-series: The first five can look as though they come from the micro-series, however, there is a source that says something along the lines of: 'We took the first five episodes and carved them up into small segments'- something like that. But I guess you're right in that what the general public saw is what matters, however, that doesn't change the fact that the micro-series was derived from the actual series, which is the main focus of the article.


 * What about moving all of the details to the first five? What about moving the micro-series table below the first season? Any thoughts on those?


 * No rule for air dates: Yeah, there's a consensus that states that air order should be used, but that doesn't mean that we should close the door and just say "no". If you all think that I didn't make a compelling case on this point, then I'm okay that we go by air order, but I think you should at least consider my suggestions.


 * Production code vs Air Order vs "Truth": Yeah, there are many reasons why an animated series would air in a different order to the production order. And it did. However, why would the production order be different to the 'actual order'? By this I mean the order that the directors wanted, creatively, a truth almost, that we strive to represent, but may only represent what is verifiable. We have been offered a source that says, here's the episode order, and to me it seems like we are throwing it away for a TV channel's first interpretation. Tenebrae, which source was that? The one with Fine saying "The truth is that everyone has been sort of right".


 * Air dates in other countries: I understand that this is the country of its origin, and where most of the episodes first aired, but the fact that it aired according to Production Code everywhere else has got to prove something about the episode order.


 * Also, I'm quite happy to base all of this mostly on one source, if such a source could be found.


 * On a side note, thanks for the warning about that policy. I'm sorry about reverting it again, but I received no response for about 12 hours, and as soon as I changed it, I was getting responses. It's not the best way to encourage me to kick that habit of getting attention that way, but I don't wish to start any edit wars. And the only point I was trying to "prove" as such, was that people need to discuss this, which noone was. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Actual" series vs Introductory: As you noted, the public only sees the end product. They saw the microseries first.


 * What about moving the micro-series table below the first season? If the microseries aired first, I would list it first.


 * No rule for air dates...I think you should at least consider my suggestions: Wow. I thought we did. At least two editors in this section made the time and effort to state exactly why we felt airdate order was proper. I don't think it was fair to suggest other editors did not consider that suggestion.


 * Production code vs Air Order vs "Truth": With all due respect, this was WP:SOAPBOXING, and in point of fact, Josh Fine said neither way of looking at it was wrong: "everyone has been sort of right". The source of this was Footnote 5 in the article itself:.


 * Also, RE reverting after only 12 hours: Even aside from time-zone differences that would affect edits between a user in London and a user in Los Angeles, say, 12 hours is not a long time. People have lives and jobs, and aren't on Wikipedia consistently or even every day necessarily. Waiting at least day or two for a response is not unusual. I understand you might not have realized that. No harm done. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, firstly, I'm assuming that the confusion point is being solved by an introductory paragraph, perhaps the one that was already there.


 * Also, whether it aired first doesn't affect whether it is an actual series or not. I guess I'm okay with the micro-series table being there, so long as it is treated with caution.


 * However, what about the origin of content in micro-series point? And what about putting all of the details in the first five episodes (as that is the origin of those details)? Also, any thoughts on the "one source to rule them all... and in the darkness, bind them"? Excuse the Tolkien.


 * As to the rules for air dates, I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. What I was trying to say was more along the lines of, "this shouldn't be a case of 'this is the rule, it's what we always do', but rather, 'Josh fine says these are the first episodes, but they didn't originally air that way, so perhaps we could take that into consideration somehow...'"


 * And how was the prodction code point "Soapboxing"?


 * I completely understand that people aren't on wikipedia all the time, and relatively, 12 hours isn't a hugely substantial amount of time. However, I had no responses throughout those twelve hours, but as soon as I changed the article, responses began rushing in... You can see why I kept reverting it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, firstly, I'm assuming that the confusion point is being solved by an introductory paragraph, perhaps the one that was already there. No offense, but the one that was already there was poorly written and since it was just a couple of sentences of overview I think it can housed nicely in the lead section per WP:LEAD, which by the way should be expanded with season 1 info as well as info about the upcoming season 2.


 * Also, whether it aired first doesn't affect whether it is an actual series or not. I guess I'm okay with the micro-series table being there, so long as it is treated with caution. What does this mean? Should we not treat entire article with the same amount of caution.


 * However, what about the origin of content in micro-series point? And what about putting all of the details in the first five episodes (as that is the origin of those details)? As I stated above, The micro-series aired first therefore audiences were introduced to those detail in the micro-episodes.


 * As to the rules for air dates, I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. What I was trying to say was more along the lines of, "this shouldn't be a case of 'this is the rule, it's what we always do', but rather, 'Josh fine says these are the first episodes, but they didn't originally air that way, so perhaps we could take that into consideration somehow...'" Josh Fine can say whatever he wants, what matters are the events that actually occured i.e. Air dates. Besides he seems to be referring to continuity order/production order not air date order by that fact he also calls Breakout the pilot episode.


 * People rushed in because it was a disruption and disrupting Wikipedia to bring attention to an ongoing discussion is consider vandalism, a banable offense. Please be patient, there is no deadline. Wikipedia is made up of editors who volunteer their time throughout the project and frankly a list of episodes for a children's cartoon series might not be on their list of priorities. Also leaving me 3 messages in the span of 14 minutes isn't going to speed things up either.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Introductory paragraph: What if I were to say, "No offense, but you're a bastard". Notice how it's still offensive... So, if you're going to offend me, just do it straight out, and don't beat around the bush. If it was poorly written, write it yourself. And I fail to see how it is better in the lead of the article. Besides, many other episode pages have introductory paragraphs for a season.


 * Actual series: It means that I've given up on getting rid of the table, as the consensus suggests that we keep it, even though you have provided no reasons for it to stay, and just argued against mine, and then your reply to that would be that it ain't broke, or something along those lines... Anyway, I'm blabbering, but no, you SHOULD treat the whole article with caution, but you should treat this section with MORE.


 * Origin of content: Perhaps you could still have the plot description, etc. in the first five as well, or something. I don't see why it should be removed.


 * Air dates: How about the event that actually occurred, i.e. they Produced this series? And of course he's not referring to air order, because that's not the order he intended for them. He's referring to the continuity order/production order/actual order, so I'm suggesting you take that into consideration somehow.


 * See, but one person's trash is another person's treasure, and to be honest, I didn't know about the technicalities or whatever... And I am being patient aren't I? I've been following this discussion through for I while now. So much that I can see that it's getting to your head, and you're coming out a little harsh. I'm not rushed by any deadline, but I want to see this article the best it can possibly be. But all of that doesn't matter. I've been told about this one "vandalism" by three people now, and while it's nice to know you care, I really don't need you to continue shoving the point in my face. Yes, what I did was wrong, and I realised that a few posts ago. So save your lecture on editors' priorities for someone else... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * PK, I just need to ask you to please watch what you say. I don't really see that TriiipleThreat used harsh language, and certainly he said nothing to warrant the kind of response you posted above. All of us here have been, I thought, polite and respectful up till your last comments. Two other editors, giving rationales that you may not agree with but which I'm sure you'll agree are well-thought-out and reasonable interpretations, have a different view than you. Please pull back on the emotional response.


 * No one is saying that one side is right and that other is wrong &mdash; simply that the majority of editors commenting here have seen the evidence and come to a different conclusion. U.S. federal courts do this all the time &mdash; there will be similar cases, and one district court will rule one way, and another will rule another. But once you have two federal courts ruling the same way, that takes on a certain meaning. Does that make sense?


 * Ultimately, perhaps, I can offer something of a compromise solution. I think we all agree that the lead should be expanded and the definition of "micro-episodes" and "microseries" clarified. I'll bet working together we could come up with language that would not only do that but also, in a sentence or two, address the issues of your concern &mdash; maybe something like: "The microseries episodes, while airing earlier, were reedited excerpts from the full series episodes, which aired later." There. What does everyone thing? Is this a workable compromise? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologise for taking such a defensive or "emotional" stance, but I didn't actually call TriiipleThreat a "bastard", and don't think he is one either. I was just stating an example, to allow him to understand that I was offended by his comments. And if they had enough force to be offensive, I think "harsh" is an apt description. I appreciate the two of you taking out time to state well-thought-out and reasonable interpretations, although different to mine, and I would definitely like to work towards a compromise. But yes, ultimately, clarification is what I'm after, as I have stated in my point about the article being confusing. An expanded definition on the micro-series would be good, and your example is brilliant. However, I reccomend placing it in a separate introductory paragraph for the micro-series table, rather than in the lead. Many other "list of episodes..." pages do this also. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That works for me: Let's define "microseries" in the article lead, and then maybe describe "micro-epsides" in a short into the the microseries/micro-episodes table, which comes before the series table. Does this sound workable? Will this let everyone get their say and make their reasonable, clarifying points. We all want this to be as clear as possible. What do we all think? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was working on an overall expansion of the lead including a well defined explanation of the micro series. Also it might help if PK posted some examples of good episode list articles with introductory paragraphs to the tables so I can see what he is talking about. One of the things I am concerned about however is redundancy and unbalanced weight given to some sections over others. Perhaps an intro to the other sections might remedy this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, the idea seems very workable. Triiplethreat, I don't know about "good" examples, but off the top of my head (whilst keeping things marvel-related), the 90s X-men show does it mainly to talk about major plot points and basic storylines covered, but also notes changes in the way it was aired, and a change in animation style, Iron Man: Armored Adventures does it mainly to talk about the specifics in how the episodes were aired, and Spectacular Spider-Man mentions air date specifics, but goes into the conventions used in naming episodes. There are probably better examples out there, but there's a few. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The examples you posted seem acceptable. I'll see if I can come up with something that we can all agree upon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at writing the introductory paragraphs, you can see them in my sandbox. Let me know what you think.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks great, man. Fantastic. Just a couple of things: I think you should mention that the micro-episodes were spliced from the "first five" in the paragraph for the micro-series as well. And in the Season 1 paragraph, where you say, "returned first in Australia" or something like that, it makes it sound like it took a break in Australia as well. Just a rewording thing there. Perhaps you could also use that place to mention that outside the US, episodes aired according to production code, then go on to say that it continued to air in Australia or something along those lines... Otherwise, good job. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Moments like these, with people working together to reach solutions that address disparate concerns, make me honest-to-God so proud to be a part of this encyclopedia. In all seriousness, I got chills reading the above couple of posts. I've been through some odd experiences with gutter-mouthed, immature Wikipedians lately, so seeing us at our best, as you both are showing, gives me such a sense of relief and hope. For that fresh wind in my sails, I thank you both immensely. With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliments, a little civility goes a long way. Regarding ProfessorKilroy's suggestions, I specifically left out the term "first five". Although Fine did use the term, the episodes did not actually become the "first five". I did remove the "returned first in Australia" part as he suggested. Also I have no source stating the US was only country to air the episodes in a different order than by production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean for you to use the words "first five", that's just what I call them. I just think you need to mention that they were spliced from five episodes in the first season. Perhaps instead, you could state that they are set chronologically before. I don't know, just I think it needs some kind of mention in the micro-series paragraph. Well, I don't know about other countries, but I would imagine they would air them in order. However, you can at least say it for Australia: . The show came on ABC3, around 7:15 AM. Then if you go backwards, you'll find each episode and notice the production code. It's probably not the best way of citing it, but I'm sure you'll figure something out. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hows that? I still don't think I can do anything with overseas air order or know if it is even notable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks great, but I think you should still include the overseas air order. Surely it's notable enough that it aired differently in the place in which the finale first aired at least... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tenebrae, what are your thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Tenebrae hasn't said anything yet so I'll just say, I really don't see any harm in it being there. I mean, the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone film aired with a different title in the US (and India I think...) and that's mentioned in bold in the lead of the article. So surely, although it's a bit different, the fact that it aired in a different order in another place is notable enough to at least include in the article somewhere... Keeping in mind, it's not just any other place- it's Australia, so it's awesome, and it's where the final episodes premiered worldwide. So the place bears some importance, but the order also matches up with the production code, providing an alternative order for viewing (the intended order, but we've been through that). Have they done reruns in the US? Because it would be interesting to see if they repeated their original air order, or kept to the production code. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, both &mdash; thought we'd reach middle ground. If I can help, I'll go take a look now and see if I can suggest anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I made some minor editors to make the text a little less wordy, and tried to phrase a couple of things in a way I thought was clearer, without making any material content changes.


 * I'm afraid I'm unclear on what the unresolved issue(s) is/are. Both the preface to the micro-series list and the preface to the series list state the the micro-episodes used footage taken from the episodes. The airdates for each micro-episode and regular episode are given, for anyone to see.


 * I don't believe airdates for any country but the country of origin is necessary, unless, as with movie release dates, something was released overseas first (as with, apparently, a micro-series finale that ran in Australia before the U.S.). Otherwise, we certainly don't list the airdates for when, say, I Love Lucy first ran in each individual country. I don't believe it's necessary here.


 * There's a more important issue, though: As far as I can tell, and if I'm wrong, please let me know, there is no way of knowing that that is really Josh Fine on that forum post. Forum postings are disallowed for this very reason. A good hoaxer will do everything in his power to make a hoax look absolutely believable. People do it on forums all the time (and on Twitter, and on Facebook). Unless there is some third-party verification &mdash; say, by the editors of Toonzone.net specifically confirming that it's him, and not just, "Well, of course, it must be him" &mdash; then we can't use this material. If nothing else, we cannot start a slippery slope of saying, "Well, obviously this forum post is from the show's producer/star/creator." There's nothing obvious about it, as Wikipedia's hoax-riddled history will tell you. We can't say, "Well, this forum post looks real, but that one doesn't." Why? Because we just don't know.


 * I can't argue strongly enough that forum posts cannot be used unless there is verifiable confirmation from a third-party source. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to notice; I was concentrating on trying to mediate. Thoughts?--Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * About the remaining unresolved issue: I want to put a comment in the season one paragraph (not the micro-series one- I don't think the micro-series aired in Australia, just in the US and online) that the episodes aired in a different order overseas (at least in Australia- I have provided a source for that). Triiiplethreat thinks it is not notable enough to be included in the article. However, I do believe it is notable enough, if it's something as drastic as a change in the viewing order, and I can't see how it would hurt the article either. Also, it just happens to be that the different order used overseas is the same as the production code, which in a way, helps solidify that code. I'm also curious to know whether or not reruns in the US went according to production code as well.


 * As to the source, well, that's a good point. However, on some articles over the internet there is no way of knowing that it is really Josh Fine, for example, that they interviewed. I mean, anyone can pretend that they interviewed him, or pretend to be him, although that would be unlikely, and I see no reason for them to do so. But that's a good point. If we can find another source for that, it would be better. Having said that, the production code mentioned in the forum makes a lot of sense. It runs everything chronologically, and as I said, it is the same as the overseas air order. The micro-episodes are given codes that group them into the episodes they were derived from. It all fits into place and makes sense. And I see no reason for some random person to go on a forum pretending to be Josh Fine, if they're just going to act as he would and give a sensible and logical response... Even if another source isn't found, I believe that we should keep this one, if only because it is the last hope of anyone reading this article to know the "true" order of episodes. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'd have to disagree about including Australian airdates. It seems arbitrary: Why not UK airdates, or Canadian airdates, or French airdates, etc.? Again, if an episode aired first in another country, that's different, same as with American movies that are released theatrically first in another country.


 * RE: "on some articles over the internet there is no way of knowing that it is really Josh Fine, for example, that they interviewed. I mean, anyone can pretend that they interviewed him, or pretend to be him...." That's true, which is why we look to reliable sources such as journalistic newspapers and magazines. If Entertainment Weekly or Animation magazine runs a Josh Fine interview, we have full confidence that editorial staff have applied journalistic standards. It's trickier with web sites not affiliated with magazines/newspapers; there we tend to show that the interviewer has a reputation as an authority in the field; we can have confidence that a known entity like Mark Evanier or Tom Spurgeon, etc. will adhere to their reputation and not discredit themselves. But forums are specifically prohibited, since there is no mechanism for editorial oversight and verification.


 * Or maybe there is at toonzone.net. I'm not familiar with the site, and for all I know it may be as reputable and reliable as Comic Book Resources or other web-only publications. The point is that when we pick up the Encyclopedia Brittanica, we feel assured that the information in there is solid enough to take to the bank. We're an encyclopedia, too. We can't be any less sure that what we're saying is confirmably, verifiably correct.


 * Twitter has something called "Verified accounts," to help prevent hoaxes. Maybe toonzone has something like that to confirm it's Josh Fine. It's worth investigating. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Moot point above; someone very nicely subbed in a cite from the media conglomerate IGN. As Emily Litella used to say, "Never mind!"  :)  --Tenebrae (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's good, but I'm not wanting to do something as drastic as mention all of the Australian air dates. Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information and all that... What I'm saying is, I think the paragraph should mention that in Australia at least, the order the episodes ran in was the same as the production code. I think that alone is notable enough, but at a guess, all other countries would have run the episodes in production order. I see no reason for them not to. And finally, I'm wondering if US reruns of the show have been in production order as well... If all of these happen to be the case, then the paragraph should definitely include a statement saying this. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to step back for a bit and let other editors weigh in. It should be more than just the two of us on this. Thank God there's no deadline! --Tenebrae (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're telling me... But hey, if you have any spare time, do you want to look for a source that says the order of reruns in the US or something? I've given it a bit of a look, but I can't find anything... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, PK, I just want to stay as much on the periphery as possible!  : )   Just want to help mediate. But if I have time I will! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * TriiipleThreat, I wasn't going to undo your revert, but we do have a source. The problem as you said, is consensus. I've got a hunch that reruns of the series in the US would have aired in the production code order, and I think that in other countries, production code order would have been used also. However, I haven't been able to find any sources, and frankly, I don't have the time to search more thoroughly, which is why I only mentioned Australia in the paragraph. If the others are true, then this is a very significant thing and should be mentioned undoubtedly. However, I'm guessing the consensus on the matter has shifted anyway for you to change it back. If you could find any sources about US reruns and other countries, that would be great. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus hasn't shifted, I just wish not to get bogged down in another lengthy discussion with you. Also the reruns in the US like most reruns have not aired in any particular order at all. Also what source are you referring to that states the episodes aired per production in Australia? If you have it please add it to the article or that statement will have to be removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But, really? They usually air reruns in no particular order? That's weird... Anyway, the source is not very tidy, in that it doesn't straight out say, "it follows the production code order". It's the |ABC TV Guide, so you can see that the episodes fall in the production code order if you work your way back from that date. It came on around 7:15 in the morning if you want to find it. As I said, it's not a tidy source, but it's valid and reliable all the same. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something should be said about the DVD release order going by the production code. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair, I went ahead and added the info without any POV.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The "note" under the information for the episode Secret Invasion. Can I request it's deletion, given it is a spoiler to say they very least and that it's information is entirely irrelevant to the plot of the episode? 50.4.35.246 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

These episodes....
Hello ! I'm writing to tell you that some new episodes have already been you can watch them here → http://www.animeflavor.com/index.php?q=node/25133 62.133.146.116 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Alias a different character?
This seems to be something that changes every now and then... For a while now, some editors have added the alias or codename of a character that has already been introduced as an introduced character. Other editors have sometimes removed them. Often we are left with an inconsistent system, so I think a descision should be made. I believe the characters this applies for are Mockingbird (Bobbi Morse), War Machine (James Rhodes), Wolverine (James Howlett), Red Skull (Dell Rusk), Red Hulk (Thunderbolt Ross), Yellowjacket (Ant-Man), Ms Marvel (Carol Danvers, who all currently have two separate entries in the introducing characters sections. I believe that they should only have one entry each for the first appearance of the character, as the characters have already been introduced when the alias or codename is introduced. It is just a development of the characters. Opinions? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"Powerless"
This episode appears out of the airing order. So either, this changes to be consistent with the rest of the page, or the page changes to match the DVD release order. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note characters were referenced
That is a thing that Wolverine and the X-men page just like this does which I like. The also say Intorducing characters none so why are you reverting theses edits? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF: just because something is done on another page doesn't make it right. A reference to character that isn't actually in the show is hardly notable. Also stating that no characters were introduced in an episode is just silly. If it doesn't list any introductory characters, then it's obvious that no characters were introduced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Season 1 Episode numbers/Production codes
"The series was broadcast around the world and released on DVD in the correct chronological story order (production order)." This is the opening sentence of the second paragraph under "Season 1 (2010-11)". Besides being a weird note in and of itself, the list of episodes following it contradicts it. Saying it was "broadcast in the production order" means the episodes aired in the same sequenced they were produced, yet "Window's Sting" is listed as the 16th episode despite having the production code 019. As a result, the episode numbers and production codes are off for the next three episodes. There is a source noted next to "Window's Sting"'s production code, but it goes to a private YouTube video. Is the sentence stating they were aired in the production order wrong, or are the episode numbers/production codes wrong? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:D413:E680:4F19:6325 (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)