Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I Will Face My Enemy

Currently the later is listed as an alternate title for the episode, however we do not have a source that specifies that. The source used merely lists the episode with this title, which could very well be a mistake. I think only the official title from Marvel.com should be used until we get a reliable source stating that "I Will Face My Enemy" is an alternate title for the episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Futon is reliable and is listing as such. When the episode gains a page on Futon, if it has changed or not, it can be adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand it is reliable, but it never states that this is an alternate title, so it could very well be a mistake. I think we should remove it until we have confirmation that this was the intended title, in which case it can be re-added as an alternate title. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is kind of a weird one, it could very well be an error, but who knows. Futon now has the press release, it says "Face My Enemy" everywhere except once. The press release on ABC Medianet is the same. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that since within each of these two release, plus Marvel's declassifying article, it is not an alternative title, just an error maybe. I think it can be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Is_the_Head_(Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D.) Episode 2 is up. However need assistance with some details. Wenjiekoh (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Stickee (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Obelisk's What?

In the episode list description for episode 5 "A Hen in the Wolf House", there are a couple of grammatical errors. It states "Hydra attempts to weaponize the Obelisk's, but cannot be completely successful until the Obelisk is in their possesion." The apostrophe S added to Obelisk should either be removed or a word added to describe what belongs to the Obelisk (e.g., power, effects). Also, the word possession is misspelled. It should contain another S.95gtscort (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Episode 6 summary

I will not revert the edit again, as I do not wish to start an edit war, but I will explain myself here for the benefit of others. We are in no rush, so there is no need to write this edit summary now. If someone wants to do it properly, then that is great. I have no intention of doing it right now myself, but I could get round to it eventually if no one else wants to do it. But there is a difference between being in no rush to write the edit summary and leaving it, or being in no rush to write the edit summary properly and just slapping together a poorly written paragraph. If the added paragraph was too long, it would also be removed, as explained in the hidden comments. What is on the page now has incorrect spelling and grammar, and is not a good summary of the episode, at all. It should be removed until such a time as it can be written properly. We do not allow shabby edits like this just because no one can do any better, that is why so many hastily and unnecessarily created articles are speedily deleted due to notability issues, and why poorly written IP edits are almost always immediately reverted, often without edit summaries. I appreciate that everyone is just trying to improve Wikipedia, but we have rules and guidelines, some of them unwritten, that must be followed to ensure the best possible encyclopedia. And for the record, WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply here. I never said "this should be removed because I don't like it" or "I think it looks bad", I said it should be removed because it is written poorly, which it clearly is. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ratings

The ratings section should be revised; Nielsen recently announced that the numbers they had been giving out had turned out to be too high. TV by the Numbers has the correct numbers. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also: in the "Total Viewers (Millions)" column, episode 2's number is correct... but the reference for that number is an article giving the number for episode 3. And vice versa with episode 3. (In other words: the links should be switched.) 85.81.82.15 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made the link swap, thank you for that correction. However, what do you mean they need to be revised? The citations are from TV by the Numbers and are exactly as they appear on there. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll use the first episode ("Shadows") as an example. In Wikipedia's article, the overnight number (Viewers (Millions)) is currently at 5.98. You got that number from TV by the Numbers (who got it from Nielsen) on September 24th 2014, and at the time everyone believed that number was correct. Since then, however, Nielsen have discovered a technical error in their data gathering and have therefore adjusted that number down to 5.654! (As seen at http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/12/gotham-has-biggest-adults-18-49-ratings-increase-gotham-red-band-society-top-percentage-gains-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-ending-september-28/313337/ .) That also explains why the overnight number plus the number of DVR viewers (4.00 million) total 9.66 million. Right now, Wikipedia has 5.98 + 4.00 = 9.66.

As I understand it, Nielsen's technical error has affected a lot of ratings, going back to March 2014 and continuing until October 9th. See http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/10/nielsen-admits-technical-error-has-impacted-broadcast-tv-ratings-since-march-revised-fall-season-ratings-to-be-issued/313040/ for details. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

Please add Tim DeKay to the guest role list as Senator Christian Ward. Source: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=123581

24.254.139.24 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The Guest column is for people who appeared in previous seasons or in other MCU media. DeKay has not even if Ward's brother has.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide the documentation stating that guest stars are only those who have appeared in previous seasons? Thanks. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That is just what we decided to do here. Obviously there are many more guest stars, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and so not all guest stars should be listed. We decided to include any character that appears four or more times (recurring) plus anyone else that reappears from previous MCU projects, including the first season of AoS. Because of this, I think Christian Ward could qualify, because even though DeKay didn't portray him last season, the character still appeared. But I don't know what everyone else thinks about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

He would definitely qualify as recurring. Granted, that's based on logic much more than a hardcore source. All we know is that he has a "commitment" towards this season, and given his role it would make sense no? And I honestly can't think of any seasonal commitments in ANY show that have less than four episodes in their contracts...--24.254.139.24 (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, we don't actually add characters to Recurring until they are either confirmed for 4 episodes or more or actually appear in more than 4 episodes.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And is there documentation on Wikipedia supporting this, or is this a rule that you've decided for yourself? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The rule was collectively decided by the editors who regularly edit this page--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Care to link me to this collective decision? Many thanks. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I was't actually a part of it, but it makes sense otherwise you just end up with a rather large list of guest characters, especially if you do every episode guest stars that ABC release Press Releases for.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Recurring characters are added if a source announcing a casting says it is such, or the character reaches 4 or more appearances. Guest cast should be limited, again because we are not an indiscriminate collection of information, to characters previously appearing in other MCU media (which includes past seasons), which is done to highlight the shared universe nature. At the end of the season, it can be reexamined if a guest (so far) only in this season was notable enough in the grand scope of the season to be included. That helps keep the list manageable and more in-depth info to the individual episode articles. So at the moment, DeKay has appeared once this season. If he appears 3 more times, he can be added to the recurring section. If he appears 2 or less, we can consider the notability at the end of the season. As for the location of this determination, as Ditto said, it was had and agreed upon with regular contributors to the page. I don't know the exact location of it at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. By that logic, Kyle MacLachlan as the Doctor shouldn't be listed either. He's only had two appearances portrayed by that actor, while one in the first season by an unknown actor. It's still 3 episodes. All the same, Christian Ward was portrayed by someone else in the first season. Sooo...either put Christian Ward in, or take the Doctor out. Can't have it both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.139.24 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The source announcing MacLachlan's casting specifically calls the role recurring. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So did DeKay's.... --24.254.139.24 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither the source we have used nor the official Marvel press release use the word recurring, so unless you can provide a new reliable source that does so, DeKay can't become recurring until he reaches four appearances. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Skye/Inhuman tie-in

Do we wait for the film to actually film/premiere or can we just put in that Skye was revealed to be an inhuman and is a tie-in with the upcoming movie?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not actively editing at the moment, but once I do come back, I think most definitely this can be included under the "MCU" heading we have. It is pretty significant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have started adding some stuff for this, but any input into how we handle this situation is definitely welcome. This all pretty crazy :) - adamstom97 (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I just came on now to clear out my watchlist. We are in a lot better shape than I thought. I dumped all the relevant links in my sandbox to use. I don't know, though how we should reference her in the cast listing here. I was thinking initially "Daisy Johnson / "Skye"", but we don't know how she is going to be referred to here on out. We still have a few months to worry about that. I'm going hopefully starting Tuesday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably still Skye first since most of the characters aren't going to change what they call her, and I can't see her correcting them since she isn't to fond of her dad.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Marvel just released this article, so I'd say it's official that Skye/Raina are Inhumans. Richiekim (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Known date for episode 11 should be shown

Okay so the director/writer info is missing. But how is showing when episode 11 will be screened (and hence the season continues) not useful info?

Also, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Blacklist_episodes for an example of this being shown with only a date known (season 2, episode 10). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZunknown (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not enough info yet, wait for a title. We're in no rush, are we? And just because another article does it, doesn't mean it's right. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Here we keep episodes commented out until we know at least two fields (date and title, date and director, director and writer, etc.). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Role of cast member again overstated

Entertainment writers in primary sources write about the information available to them at the moment (where, esp. for entertainment articles, what is known at early points is both limited, markedly subjective, and amenable to hype, e.g., which minor character actor's press agent took initiative to contact the writer with a push). It is up to editors in encyclopedic writing to sift and apply discretion, providing balance, and avoiding overstating character/actor importance based on pre-season/early season entertainment writing.

In this vein, the elevation of the role of "Nick Blood as Lance Hunter" in the Cast and characters" section and later "Casting" subsection are uncalled for, even if preeminence to this one character appears in an early TV Guide source. Note, the persons summarizing each episode only mention this character in the first two episodes; while certainly recurring, his role is clearly not main. Hence, specifically, in this character's case, it is deemed very questionable that Blood should be elevated as "Main" over at least two others in the "Recurring" bulleted list. The "Lance Hunter leaves with his team" in the episode summary also serves to inaccurately elevate his leadership role over that of Agent Hartley in this episode. See comment on same overstatement issue at [1].

He's main cast per his billing. He's not credited as a guest star, but as starring alongside everyone else in the main cast. It's quite simple, really. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, Drove is correct. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, @Adamstom.97:, @Drovethrughosts:, the citations offered by Drove at [2] are persuasive, but see there for closing questions (and kudos for having further educated this too well-educated editor). 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Independent review of episode content requested

The fact that the central issue of character Fitz's impairment, nay periodic delusions, and the important plot development of Simmons departure are not mentioned in the opening episode description suggest that a review of the content of each episode for accuracy needs to take place (and so I request). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This information is available in separate episode articles, that exist to describe the entirety of one and each episode. These short summaries we have on this page, there's no need to list each and every single detail, given that the guidelines state an average maximum of 200 words. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thank you. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So,  Not done, but I maintain my objection. I stand by the critique, as the relative importance of the specific Fitz-Simmons plot element mentioned gives rise to significant further developments in this, and esp. later episodes (Hydra infiltration, episodes 3-5, etc.); hence, it is clearly as important as some other content included. But, it is your article and devotion, and if being accurate vis-a-vis key thematic and plot elements is unimportant to you, it cannot be for me either.

If Fitz's condition plays a significant role in the plot of an episode, then all of the summaries can be rethought to accomodate this, but so far it has only been significant to Fitz's character development, and so is more appropriate at the list of characters page, and in the much more expanded plot summaries in the individual episode summaries. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I maintain my objection. The report given me (distilling excited teenage description) is that the disability that this character experiences has altered the show markedly, interweaving as it does with the character development of an apparent love interest, and thrusting itself forward consistently in broader dialog and interactions. Critically, in the early-season published plot summaries (sources) I have turned to, to investigate my immaterial hunch, I see the Fitz pot element mentioned in all. So, absent published evidence from you that I have mis-sampled the literature, and that sources reporting episode plots most routinely omit mention of the Fitz plot element (though I cannot imagine this), I have to leave this one unpersuaded. (My watching all second season episodes is immaterial, because my OR and opinion do not matter.) But I won't waste further time in discussion, and leave this with the hunch that you are being knee-jerk overly protective of article content in this case. (If this seems pointed it is because of the three respondents to issues raised regarding this and a companion article, I note a pattern of you offering rapid personal opinion, but never reference to sources, which suggests you follow an OR/POV-based approach, rather than of citation-reporting, in your approach to editing and deciding issues. Perhaps that is acceptable in entertainment editing, but I am opposed to such in principle.) 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mockingbird

I know that she (as far as I can remember) has not been reffered to as such in-show, but the announcement video and several real-world publications have referred to Bobbi Morse as Mockingbird, so should we do so here? I just noticed that we were using both Bobbi Morse and Bobbi Morse / Mockingbird anyway, so maybe we could decide which to use now? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Any thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Slight colour change

I am being reverted for slight colour changes to match the art more accurately. I am using properly defined hues. I don't understand what the issue is. Please if you have a concern voice it. LLArrow (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, it was reverted with reasoning given, now lets discuss the issue before any further changes are made. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

LLArrow's explanation was "changing colour shade to more reflective of marketing material", which matches WP:TVOVERVIEW's declaration of "colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork, or for other reasons" (which was the policy you gave in your explanation). It also goes on to state, and I believe that this was the reasoning behind your revert, that "once established, colors should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion"; however, LLArrow's edits were agreed with by policy, and were far from arbitrary. I see no reason for discussion nor reverting. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The change was arbitrary in that LLArrow decided that the current colour does not match the marketing material and then proceeded to choose a new hue from a random spot on the poster with which to replace it (the key words here being "decided" and "random"). I feel like something out of the blue like this should be discussed, even if it is a short discussion (such as "Hey, I think this is a better colour because..." and either "Yes, let's change it" or "No, it is better as is"), and I also feel that the new orange colour that was chosen reflects the marketing less. The poster clearly has a red background, but the way the lighting works in the middle changes the actual hue to more of an orangey colour. LLArrow wants to change the colour we are using here to said orangey colour, but I believe that we are being more reflective of the poster by sticking with the red. If a different, better red is proposed, then perhaps we could change it (I myself was originally going to use #CC1517, which isn't really much different from the current hue), if that was consensus. I think it should also be noted that due to Wikipedia guidelines the image of the poster that we are using in the infobox is not the greatest in terms of quality - I am looking at an HD version of it on Google Images now that looks far more red than the version we have here. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 I could not disagree more. I am not randomly selecting a colour on the DVD/poster, I'm running a complex analysis, finding the predominant colour hue and matching it to the closest acceptable hex. LLArrow (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I stand corrected, and appreciate the effort, but as I stated above, if you look at the real poster, the background is red. The colour you wanted to change to is not red. This is most likely because of several factors (image quality, lighting, etc.) and is no fault of yours, but the fact remains that the poster and general marketing is red and so the colour here should also be red, which it is now (though as I stated, I got #CC1517 as a more appropriate hue, I just didn't change it because of how close it is to what we already have). - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue attempting to get a better match, but I do agree with Adam, that the color you were changing to was not red. It was more of an orange. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

While I understand that peoples monitors can display vastly different colours, the analysis I ran for determining the "average overall hue" was the one added. Frankly I see the current shade in use as being grossly off point, but again, monitor subjectivity. LLArrow (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As an unbiased party, I can honestly say that the red colour that adamstom97 keeps selecting looks closer to the marketing material than the orange (at least in my opinion and on my particular computer monitor). Deciding what colour to use is going to be tricky, as every individual human being experiences colour differently.Darkknight2149 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC) - Darkknight2149

I also believe the new color looked a bit too orange, to my eyes. But yeah, it does depend on your computer monitor and the angle you look at it. The current color is fine given the clear redness of the poster. However, this version of the poster looks a bit more orange. But since the version of the poster that appears on Marvel website is red, best we stick with that version. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Links for episodes "Aftershocks", "What You Really Are", ect

Can we get page links created and fleshed out for the episodes that have aired like the other ones, "The Things We Bury", "What They Become", ect? I see that it hasn't been done for the past 3-4 episodes that have already aired and was wondering if there was one person who does those? Thanks! Npamusic (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made the majority of the pages, and am working on some stuff for some of the newer ones, but have been quite busy recently. I will continue to work on stuff, but if somebody wants to go ahead and make episode articles for these themselves then they should feel free to do so. I will merge what I have with anything that anyone else makes, and myself and many other editors will always be around to fix/change/improve anything that is created. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There Is An Easter Egg Link That Needs To Be Removed

Wikipedia guidelines completely go against Easter Egg links, per WP:EASTEREGG. What Wikipedia considers an "Easter Egg," was nothing to do with the Easter Eggs you spot in movies, so if you don't know what an Easter Egg Link is, be sure to read the guidelines. There is an Easter Egg link in the article to Captain America: The Winter Soldier, yet when I tried to remove it (click here to see it in revision history), my edit was reverted. I went back and even tried to mention The Winter Soldier outside of the link but I was reverted again. Per Wikipedia guidelines, we cannot have it in this article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's is not a violation of WP:EGG. The purpose of WP:EGG is to prevent editors from creating piped links that end up taking a reader somewhere they would not expect. As in the example there, a reader would not be expecting to go to Thomas Bowdler with a pipe link that says [[Thomas Bowdler|exceptions]]. In this instance, a reader is expecting to learn more about SHIELD falling, which happened in Cap: TWS, and that is specifically mentioned in the plot section of that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Favre is correct, a user clicking on the "when S.H.I.E.L.D. fell" link will be taken exactly where they would expect: the place in Wikipedia detailing the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotta side with Adamstom and Favre1fan93 on whether it's an example of an easter egg. The goal, as I understand it, is to prevent people from being spammed with irrelevant pages. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is not an irrelevant page, and it does not seem as if anyone here disputes that. But at the same time, is there any other reason not to keep Darkknight's change "This organization was formed when S.H.I.E.L.D. fell during the events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier" ? It seems to flow better and it's more precise. "when S.H.I.E.L.D. fell" by itself is somewhat vague, and providing this explanation takes only a few extra words. ― Padenton|✉   02:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The point of the link is so that we don't have to explain this - we try to keep these summaries as simple as possible, and it is preferable to not have to use references in them, which we would have to considering the episode never says "during the events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier" obviously. Basically, making that change is just an unnecessary complication. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Per your proposed change Padenton, I agree with Adam. The episode never explicitly states that; it is implied/known by us the viewers. The current linking is the most acceptable in terms of what the episode tells us, and being in compliance with WP:EGG. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for recurring cast / guest cast

So, per the last few edit summaries, I'm starting this discussion on the inclusion of a few of these.

1. On the topic of Lucy Lawless: I'm still a little unhappy about this. I feel given that she received her own announcement from the series, she should be notable enough for an inclusion in the guest stars at a minimum. 4 or more seems a bit arbitrary to me. 2, I can understand is a bit low. 3 is what I'd probably go with myself for recurring characters. Lawless has been in 2 episodes now, and I believe is expected to come back for at least 1 more episode. Can't remember the source right now. I don't mind waiting on that rationale. I also feel that any actor given an individual announcement, as per the source I provided, is likely notable enough to be listed in Guest stars/Recurring. Despite the comment currently in the Guest star section, she is also listed at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters as a guest star, which I believe is also frequently edited by the same people as this article. Whatever is decided, I believe these 2 should be consistent on that front.
2. Edward James Olmos: I forget where I saw it but during this edit dispute I saw that we should only count episodes that have occurred. Now, Admiral Adama is expected to be in most of the episodes for the rest of the season, (going off IMDb for convenience [3] there's probably a better source if someone wants to look, but with the storyline this season I'm not gonna bother doubting it) but he's only appeared in episodes 14 and 15 so far. Should he be included now? Should he be commented out until he's been in 4 episodes? I don't feel strongly either way.
3. Blair Underwood: I removed him from the list. He appeared in 2 episodes as best I can tell, and unlike Olmos, it doesn't seem plausible to assume he'll be in more. The character (Andrew Garner) does not appear to be elsewhere in the MCU, but I wouldn't dispute adding him to Guest cast.

Onto the Guest cast list.

1. Tim DeKay as Christian Ward: Appeared in S2E6 and S2E8. No appearances in S1, no appearances outside agents of shield. I don't particularly mind having him be here, but if we're going by this guideline, he should be removed. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see a reason for Lawless to not be here as well.

― Padenton|✉   22:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tagging relevant editors: @Favre1fan93: @Adamstom.97:. I also see that Favre1Fan93 has now rv'd my removal of Blair Underwood. The thing is that (and I think we can agree on this) that 'recurring cast' is an "official" term used by many television series to refer to such characters. It's also frequently used informally for any character/actor that appears more than once. The problem is as you said, '4 or more episodes' is a guideline that you have come to and been using for years. So, what shall we do here? ― Padenton|✉   23:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Frequent editors of the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. articles came to the local consensus that recurring for the series would be defined as any character making 4 or more appearances in the season, or has been reliably sourced as a recurring character in the series. Since there are an abundance of guest characters in each season, the ones we list on the season articles, are defined as characters that have appeared in a previous MCU medium. This consensus was created to help control the amount of characters we are listing on the article. That purpose is for the List of characters page. So you can feel unhappy all you want about Lawless, but she has not met any criteria editors have defined for these pages, except to be mentioned at the list of characters page, which she is. If she happens to appear in two more episodes this season, she can be added to the "recurring" column. Olmos and Underwood have both been sourced as recurring roles. As they are currently the only two on the list not to meet the 4 episode guideline, if by the end of the season that holds true, their placement on the list can be reevaluated. Finally, Tim DeKay is in the guest list as Christian Ward did appear in the first season (previous MCU medium) albeit portrayed by a younger actor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Favre is correct, and I would like to point out that everybody listed here is discussed further in the casting section, where DeKay's inclusion is explained with sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if we should add Blair Underwood in the recurring list. He said on Twitter that he'll only be on the season for 3 episodes, which is one episode short of our criteria. [4] Jal11497 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that info @Jal11497:. I still think we should wait until the end of the season (because if I am correct, we have not gotten the press release for his second appearance), but if it is indeed only 3, then I fully support removing him. And moving forward, we can use reliable sources to give us a basis for recurring characters, but if at the end of the season they don't meet the 4 eps, they can be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Favre, he will be in next weeks episode, but I agree that we should wait until the end of the season before making any decisions on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. I wasn't sure. But I think it makes more sense to stick more to the 4 eps, as reliable sources saying "recurring" could just mean it in the "more than one appearance" sense. And that obviously can be evaluated once all episodes have aired (and I say aired, not with press releases, given that Deathlok appeared in "Afterlife" and wasn't initially credited). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

So if my calculations are correct, it appears that Jal11497 was correct and Underwood will only be in three eps, One of Us, Melinda and SOS P2. I'm going to remove him from the recurring section and other locations in the article that that applies too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

surname vs firstname

This was changed and then reverted back earlier, and while I understand calling Mike Peterson, Lincoln has barely been called by his last name while mike has repeatedly been called by his last name. I think to avoid confusion he should be called Lincoln in the episode descriptions as that will be how people know him.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

When did he ever have a last name? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to Lincoln, I'm not sure if it's been said on-screen, but his full name is in the press releases. I understand using last names for consistency, but since we use first names for some characters like Skye, Bobbi, or Raina, we should use what name they're most frequently referred to as. Referring to people by surnames is for real-life subjects, I don't think it applies to fictional characters, as there's several TV series articles where characters are referred to by their first names–it just depends on what they're referred to as most commonly in the series itself. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Until Lincoln is actually called "Campbell" on the show, I think we should use his first name. He has been exclusively referred to as "Lincoln" in the actual show itself.Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that unless the character is a commonly recurring or well-known character, their first name should be used, otherwise many unfamiliar readers would not be able to recognize the them. For example, we (those who often watch Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) are probably very acquainted with Coulson and May (first name), but Kara is more unfamiliar (especially since her name was unveiled towards the end of Season 2), so her first name should be used. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Who then gets to decide who is "well-known", or who may be unfamiliar to readers? The plot summaries are written assuming that the reader hasn't seen any of the episodes anyway, and the cast section below gives the characters' full names. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if they are "well-known" or not. What should matter is what they are called on the show, so for Mike, it can be Deathlock, Peterson or Mike, with Lincoln, it can only be Lincoln because he is not called anything else.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But when both names are presented, the one used in the episode listing should be the one that most of the audience would be familiar with. 12:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The episode plot summaries aren't supposed to help the users, they are supposed to summarise the episode's plot. So if a character is only referred to by their first name in the episodes, we can't use their last name, even if we do know it and can use it in the rest of the article. If their last name is used in the plot, then it is most appropriate to use that, since this is a formal encyclopaedia, not some fan wiki. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's stick with this order. By the way, there was no rule stating that we can't identify a character using both their first and last names if we know them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)