Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Despite steadily dropping ratings"

So I noticed that the article says "Despite steadily dropping ratings, critical response to the first season of Agent Carter was positive..."

But my question is, what is that based on? Looks to me that the ratings stabilized rather quickly and remained steady throughout the season and did not "steadily drop".

Episodes 1/2 (Jan 6): 1.9 [1]

Episode 3 (Jan 13): 1.5 [2]

Episode 4: (Jan 27): 1.3 [3]

Episode 5 (Feb 3): 1.3 [4]

Episode 6 (Feb 10): 1.4 [5]

Episode 7 (Feb 17): 1.4 [6]

Episode 8 (Feb 24): 1.3 [7]

- AnonWikiEditor (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The viewership decreased almost every week, which gives a more exact overview. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

But "viewers" is distinctly different from "ratings". It's the ratings that are the primary factor in determining whether a show gets canceled or renewed, not the total viewers, because it is the ratings that determine advertising rates. In the case of Agent Carter, ratings stayed steady. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence to be more accurate, but I have to disagree that "It's the ratings that are the primary factor in determining whether a show gets canceled or renewed", since ABC have said that it is the overall viewership, including DVR, that is keeping this and SHIELD alive. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The DVR factor (known as the C3 TV Rating for advertising rates) also accounts for the 18-49 demographic rating, not total # of viewers. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Home video release

I recently learnt through the Marvel Television panel at SDCC that Agent Carter and Agents of SHIELD would be released on DVD on September 18th 2015 for Region 1. Currently the only source I could find is a pre order link on Amazon. Now my edit on the AoS article has been accepted however my edit here was reverted. I understand Amazon isn't the greatest source however the site has been used to reference other home video releases on many different articles. Just wanted to see what others think about this? Mcs2050wiki (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The AoS edit was accepted because it was a reliable third party source that stated the info. We try not to use amazon for this info, as dates could possibly be placeholders and such. Now the source on AoS can't be used, even though it appears the date is the same for both, as that source only makes it seem that Loeb was talking about AoS, not Carter as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Australian broadcast

Hey Whats new?. I found this article saying Agent Carter would air on Channel 7. If I'm understanding quickly Australian broadcasters, does the article you just added about it being on 7flix supersede that article, since 7flix is a part of Channel 7? What I'm getting at is did Carter ever air on Seven Network, or is its debut on 7flix the first time it is airing in Australia? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Hi, yes you are largely correct. Keeping up with Australian broadcasters is quite complicated. The Seven Network did acquire the series long ago, originally to air on their primary network channel which is the Seven Network, however it never did air. It has now been announced in the article I added that it will premiere on a new digital subchannel called 7flix which launches in a week. 7flix is the sister channel of the Seven Network. American programming largely does not rate for Australian broadcasters as it once did, so most US series are being dumped onto the network's subchannels. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the info. Just wanted to make sure it didn't air on Seven Network, because I was going to add that source to the article, but realized it might have been incorrect. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: No problem, I understand your confusion - it is difficult to keep up with! -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the article specify that Atwell trumped the speculation?

@Favre1fan93: I don't quite understand your logic. Atwell specified that the other show would not lead to AC being cancelled, so we shouldn't say that she specified thus? So we should not give this information because it is true? Is your point that since the other show will not result in this one being cancelled, the addition is undue weight? That logic at least makes sense, but it still doesn't address the fact that several sources are still speculating. This makes her rebuttal noteworthy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My logic is that it would have been a potential piece of info to note, should Atwell and/or the producers not commented on it, and come May, Carter wasn't picked up. Something added along the lines of "Atwell's casting in an additional pilot for ABC put the future of the series in jeopardy." etc. However, Atwell had directly addressed that concern, saying that should the pilot be picked up, and Carter be renewed, ABC has assured her that there will be a way for her to do both. So at this time, it is a bit of undue weight because it has no bearing on the potential future of the series. Now, if Atwell had said the opposite, that she wasn't sure how it would be worked out, then that would be something to note, because the potential for scheduling conflicts would have been there with the two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

THR interview

Will this source be helpful? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In what way, particularly? I know most of the post series interview material has already been included here and on the main page, though each site represented it all in slightly different ways. So the same material might already be on these pages, just from different sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean, because season 2 ended on a cliffhanger, and Michele Fazekas seems to be teasing season 3, especially the fate of Jack Thompson. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do barely-active accounts keep randomly showing up and reverting me?

@Nciszdabest: Re this, why did you revert me again? Whigham was a main cast member in Agent Carter (season 1), but this article is about the series as a whole, and so if Whigham (who didn't even cameo in season 2) is included (and I don't think he should) then actors/characters like Cooper and Regan who appeared in both seasons probably have at least as much reason to be included. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, why did you not provide an edit summary when you were reverting an edit that was explained multiple times? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri, I also reverted your edit several times (and I gave some pretty thorough edit summaries) it just seems that someone bet me to it each time, so I guess that is just bad luck. The explanation that I gave in my (lost) summaries, was that per MOS:TVCAST actors are always listed as main cast members, in their original position, even if they are no longer so. Whigham was part of the main cast for this series during season one only, which means that in the scope of the season one article he is a main cast member, in the scope of the season two article he is not, and in the scope of the series as whole, he was at some point a main cast member and therefore should be listed. As for Cooper and Regan, yes they appear in both seasons, but just as guest stars, and we are only listing main cast members here, so that is why they are not listed. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: MOS:TVCAST doesn't mention anything about "main cast", and doesn't appear to mention anything about "main articles" on the entire series as opposed to articles on individual seasons, so nothing in the guideline you linked addresses anything about my rationale for removing Whigham. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's not true. It discusses separating the cast listing into main characters and (usually recurring) guest characters, and it explicitly says that a series main cast is "determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count)". It also explicitly says, "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." So really, the guideline addresses everything about your rationale. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Separating the cast into sections is not the same as only listing main cast (in fact it is the opposite), and it is also not the same as only listing main cast but for some reason maintaining someone who was a "main cast" member in the first season in the main article on the series as a whole after a second season in which he didn't appear has been produced. "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." is clearly based on the assumption that we are not excluding cast members who were recurring in all seasons.

You should provide a rationale for only including cast members who have at some point been "main" and not adding to this list cast members who appeared in both seasons. Firefly (TV series) and House (TV series) include separate sub-sections on "main" and "recurring" cast, and Thunderbirds (TV series) also lists non-main cast, and these are all FA-level articles.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason that we don't list the non-main cast here is because we split them off to a separate page that goes into the cast in much more detail (see the link at the top of the section). We just kept a brief paragraph for each main cast member here as an overview.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "based on the assumption that we are not excluding cast members who were recurring in all seasons", but I can assure you that "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series" was definitely written to avoid exactly what you are trying right now. This article is about the series, and we are listing the main cast members for that entire series. You are trying to remove one because they aren't in the main cast anymore, and that is a direct violation of the MOS. Whigham was a main cast member. The fact that he is not anymore does not, and will never, change that. We need to reflect the entire history of the series, not just its current state, and so Whigham stays. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

We just kept a brief paragraph for each main cast member here as an overview.

List of Agent Carter characters#Roger Dooley is 240 words long. The paragraph I removed is 156 words. That is not what I would call "brief". By contrast, because his role in the overall series is clearly much greater, List of Agent Carter characters#Howard Stark is 530 words; our summary in this article is 0 words. What's wrong with this picture?

but I can assure you that "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series" was definitely written to avoid exactly what you are trying right now.

How can you be so sure? Did you write it with that intention? Further, how can you be so sure of what "I am trying"? Because TVCAST clearly supports listing recurring cast alongside main cast, it clearly is in agreement with me that we should not be arbitrarily listing season 1 main cast but completely neglecting recurring cast from both seasons.

We need to reflect the entire history of the series

I agree entirely. That is why I am not in favour of arbitrarily removing recurring cast who appeared in multiple seasons but leaving in supposedly "main" cast who were only on the show for a single season.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: We do not get to second-guess the decision of the show's creators. A recurring character may be more significant than some main character, but they're still a recurring character. It's not really needed to list anything other than main cast when there is a separate article detailing all characters. On other articles I edit we usually just leave a simple listing of main cast without descriptions once the character list article is split. Anyway, MOS:TVCAST is pretty clear on this, and the fact that it doesn't prescribe what exactly to do in the main article after the character list is split into a separate article is irrelevant. That means that part is up to local consensus. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are not going to read what I wrote, the please refrain from pinging me in your response. I never said anything about second-guessing the creators. I said that recurring cast, particularly ones who appeared in both seasons, deserve at least as much mention as "main" cast members who only appeared in one season, and that MOS:TVCAST explicitly supports listing recurring cast as well as main cast. I could have also said that the involvement of said main cast members has almost certainly received less coverage in reliable secondary sources than the recurring cast member in question. MOS:TVCAST does not say anything about only listing main cast members after the character list is split off, so, despite what you and Adamstom.97 (and apparently the two random sleepers) seem to think, TVCAST does not support your position. Traditionally, the section in the main article should summarize the contents of the branched article, and if it did so accurately Cooper would receive more than twice as much coverage as Whigham, rather than no coverage. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

How can you be so sure? Did you write it with that intention? Adamstom.97 was involved in a discussion late last year, as was I, where we discussed WP:TVCAST at length. There is a long-standing consensus that we list cast in original credit order, with new cast added to the end of the list, and that main cast are not removed from the list even after they leave the series. During the discussion last year, consensus was that we expand WP:TVCAST so that it applies to all cast. It only takes a single appearance credited as main cast to put an actor in the main cast list so the people who have been reverting you have been quite correctly following the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)~

So what you're saying is you too did not read my comments and are arguing with a strawman that thinks we should list Cooper and not Whigham because of screen time and apparently thinks this is about ... listing order!? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: What the hell are you talking about? You are the one who thinks we should list Cooper and not Whigham. And your reasoning is flawed as it has been explained already. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This edit specifically removed a main cast member because that cast member had only appeared in one season while arguing that a recurring character should be listed when no recurring characters are listed in this article. Screen time is irrelevant to how main cast are listed, as explained in WP:TVCAST. Listing only one of the recurring characters here makes no sense. All of the recurring characters are listed in the characters article, which is normally the case. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Please provide a diff of me saying we "should list Cooper and not Whigham". I never said that.

@AussieLegend: Yes, you provided a link to me removing a main cast member because he had only appeared in one season and this is not the article on that season. Now please find the diff where I removed the main cast member and added the recurring cast member. You cannot. Because it's only the strawman version of me who said that.

I give up. Editing these articles is just such an unbearable pain, because none of you seem to be remotely capable of engagin me and what I actually say in discussion.

Goodbye.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of me saying we "should list Cooper and not Whigham". I never said that. You said as much when you removed Whigham because Cooper was not listed.

it's only the strawman version of me who said that. I thought there was only one version of you. How many of you are there? I'm sorry, but what you've said doesn't make a lot of sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I was going to write Yes, because saying "We should do either X or Y" is the same as saying "We should do both X and Y". but then I realized that sarcasm is almost as bad as putting words in people's mouths. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST is pretty obvious on the fact that we should include Whigham in the list (emphasis mine):

Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series.

That means removing Whigham is not an option, and I don't see why you insist on including recurring characters when they are all listed on the character list page which is linked at the top of the section. I'm not going to bother with you anymore, though. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I can play the emphasis game too:

Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series.

The "entire history of the series" includes numerous actors who are not mentioned in the section at the moment. The latter part of the sentence clearly assumes we have not cut several cast members because they are discussed in a separate article. Once we start cutting actors because there is a separate article, the rules change, as the spirit of the whole sentence is very clearly against cutting certain actors who have remained on the series for multiple seasons while maintaining others who were only in one season because of the somewhat nebulous concept of "main vs. recurring".

It also does not address the problem that we have a separate article on season 1, with a section on the cast of season 1, so that the main article should focus on the entire history of the series.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were "giv[ing] up" with this discussion, yet here you are continuing it. Now to your most recent response: "The "entire history of the series" includes numerous actors who are not mentioned in the section at the moment." And for good reason as multiple editors (and now myself) have been trying to explain to you why. Main series articles for television shows that have multiple seasons can't list every single character that appears. That's why we have list of character pages to direct readers to this information and confine the listing on the main series to just the main characters (which is not a "nebulous concept}), since that is the easiest to present and be determined (as in, by the producers of the show, and receiving credit in the opening before any "Guest starring" or the like credits). If we didn't do this, the lists become unruly and would require a split anyways (hence the LoC pages) and by containing it to just the main characters (who, when describing the series as a whole in a glance, are the ones you want to mention), we take all opinion-based inclusions out of the matter to remain neutral. And all the reasons you've presented for changing this really seems to boil down to not being neutral, but rather choosing to include the characters that have appeared in more seasons (Stark and Underwood) than ones who have only appeared in one (Dooley), despite the former two only being recurring status character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you stalking my edits? I have a right to change my mind, and your quoting something I said before you even joined the discussion is not good. I never said anything about "every single character that appears" -- you are, like your five friends above, putting words in my mouth. I said that if we are going to list so-called "main" cast who only appeared in one season, then we should also list prominent "recurring" cast who appeared in both seasons, because this article "should reflect the entire history of a series", not just the first season. All of seem to have a somewhat dubious interpretation of MOS:TVCAST that has it saying something like "Once a series' cast has been split off into its own article, only main cast should be covered in the main series article, even if said main cast only appeared in one season and that season also has its own article". MOS:TVCAST, while I admit I have never edited it, does not appear to me to say this, and in fact doesn't mention anything about what to do with the main article once the cast and all of the several seasons each have their own spin-out article. Whether MOS:TVCAST should provide some guidance on this issue is a conversation for another page, but as far as I am concerned this article's "cast" section should provide an accurate and balanced summary of what is in the separate "cast" article, which would solve my concern that a "main" cast member from the first season receives infinitely more coverage than prominent recurring cast from both seasons. WP:DUE, a core content policy that trumps all guidelines, also supports me here, as obviously a much larger number of external reliable sources have provided significantly more coverage of Cooper's involvement in the show (and the Blu-Ray featurette that inspired it) over the past three years than Whigham's. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We aren't using MOS:TVCAST to defend the lack of recurring characters here, so sorry if it is coming across like that. The reason there are no recurring characters here, is that we used to have the full series cast here, and it got way too big, so we split that information off to its own article and decided to just keep the main cast (along with a short paragraph each) here as an overview. We also do this with every other MCU series, with the idea being that the season articles go into the most depth (and so all recurring actors are definitely discussed at season articles) and the series articles be comparatively bare-bones and overviewy. And that seems to be working fine for most people at the moment, so I don't think that's going change any time soon.

So then comes the issue of Whigham. We have established that only the series' main cast members are going to be listed here, and it turns out that every single actor who has ever been billed as a main cast member for this series is: Atwell, D'Arcy, Murray, Gjokaj, and Whigham. So those five are listed. Someone (like you) could then point out that Whigham isn't a main cast member any longer, but that doesn't matter since MOS:TVCAST literally says "actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series", so Whigham stays. Your other thoughts, that Whigham is within the scope of season one but not season two for example, are actually valid, and you will see that Whigham is indeed listed as main cast at the season one article but not the season two article. But in the scope of this series as a whole, Whigham was at one point a member of the main cast, and it is our policy to continue to list him as such, forever. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Continuity with Agent Carter (film)?

Did the show ret-con the One-Shot out of continuity? The first season ended with Carter in a much more respected position at the SSR than she was in the film, and yet the film showed Carter being recruit as a S.H.I.E.L.D. director. The guy running the S.S.R. also appears to have been played by someone other than Whigham, but were they supposed to be different characters or was he re-cast? I don't recall the film naming this character...

I'm sure some external sources have covered this, so should we try to locate them so the article can comment on it? All we have at the moment is the very early (March 2014) statement that they planned to have the show occurring in the middle of the timeline established in the One-Shot, which is weird in itself because nothing in the One-Shot itself implies it took place over more than a day or two.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The current stance, as we discuss briefly in the tie-in section, is that series takes place during the One-Shot, and that the longer the series continues, the more difficult it will be for the two to stay in-continuity with each other. And, for now, it kind of works, just not in a simple way (I can come up with a rather fan-ish explanation that is definitely not very encyclopaedic, but satisfies me). Once the series ends, whether it gets cancelled in the next couple of weeks or not, I'm sure this issue will come up again and we will be able to update the article accordingly. But for now I don't think we need to worry about it. P.S. Her boss in the short is a different character, Agent Flynn portrayed by Brad Whitford. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My personal view is that the One-Shot is the abbrieviated version of the series. Having the series happening, where Carter has gained respect from her fellow agents (as much as she can), and then go back to the One-Shot, where she's disrespected again doesn't make sense. The One-Shot is no longer valid to me; it's superseded by the TV show. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA push

Now that the series has been cancelled (please see this tweet to know how I feel about this [minor Civil War spoilers]), I definitely think we can get this, and some of the episode articles ready for good article nomination, and then we'd have a good shot of completing the Agent Carter Good Topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I already think this article is close after some of my recent edits. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)