Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 4

Third Pod Title

I don't believe it is Agents of Hydra, at least at this time. The EW source also isn't very convincing of the fact either, especially since they don't really use the word "pod" around the statement, nor do Whedon and Tancheron really answer in a way to indicate it could be the pod title. I think it would be best to hold off until the poster hopefully releases for confirmation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's what they used in the promo, and it makes sense since the whole point is the alternate reality thing. Also, this tweet from Marvel. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The tweet is more encouraging, and I know the promo logo used it, but given what it was covering with the Framework, solely calling it Agents of Hydra didn't seem correct. And is it Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Agents of Hydra, or just Agents of Hydra? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we will get more clarification if we get a new poster. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As I felt, it does appear that Agents of Hydra is not the pod title. The poster was revealed and it does not feature a subtitle as the other two have. This again may all change when the title card is revealed, but for now, I don't believe there is a title for the pod, or at least one known to us. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

But, the pod does have a title, if you watch the embedded Facebook video on the ET article. Chloe Bennet says around 1 minute in that she just learned the name of the final pod but does not go on to say it. So all in all, we should just wait a bit long I feel before definitively stating the pod name as Agents of Hydra. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I also think it would be prudent to wait-and-see on this elusive third title. Considering Jed Whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen have gone on record in interviews stating that some of the remaining season episodes will deal with/in the Framework/"Agents of Hydra", not all. So it would seem stifled to group every episode in the pod with a subtitle that was only relevant to some. LLArrow (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so the opening does not use a subtitle, rather the "glitching" to "Agents of Hydra" as some of the marketing has done. I would be okay to change it, but I do agree some with what LLArrow said above how it has been stated all of this pod will not be centered on the Framework. Maybe we change it now, and reevaluate each week as necessary? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur, Fan. LLArrow (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The EW recap for the episode does confirm it, for now, as being the Agents of Hydra pod. Will add it in with this source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Graphically, it seems reasonable to assume the title of the third pod is "Agents of Hydra" at this time. The only words appearing in the opening-titles animation besides "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." constituted the titles of the first two pods ("Ghost Rider" and "LMD"), and I read the glitching effect as a pod-specific animation effect, comparable to the flames on the "Ghost Rider" title animation and the moving parts/tiltback on the "LMD" title animation. Based on the titling of the other pods, it's less likely this third pod would go untitled in its early episodes than it is we're reading too much into the suggestion this third pod won't take place entirely within the Framework. There's no specific reason to believe "Agents of Hydra" refers only to the existence of Hydra agents within the Framework, so it seems our reluctance is drifting more into the speculative than the substantiated. We now have reasonable certainty about the title of this pod and can always roll back the titling in subsequent weeks. - Secret-HQ (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Break

So episode 421 did not have the Agents of Hydra logo, rather one that was either the S3 title card, or one really similar to it. Here's how I think we should handle noting this: Option 1: We keep the color for the third pod as is per the poster, but everywhere we state Agents of Hydra, we just make it "Third pod" (or the like). Additionally, where we are specifically talking about the Framework, we can mention the storyline "Agents of Hydra" (note double quotes used, not italics). Option 2: Stay as is, and just disregard the fact that the final 2 episodes do not have the Agents of Hydra logo, even though we have info from the EPs stating the whole pod would not take place in the Framework. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with either option. The logo on tonight's episode was the same as the rest of the pod, it just didn't flicker to Agents of Hydra. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say stay as is. They may be out of the Framework so it isn't flickering to Agents of HYDRA anymore. But they are still dealing with the immediate aftermath and consequences of having been Hydra and in the Framework. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, looks like we'll be back in the Framework with Yo Yo and Mack in the finale. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I'm fine leaving as is, though we should probably mention that this episode (and maybe the finale next week) did not have that title card, a change from the previous pods where all episodes within said pod had the same title card. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps wording along the lines of, "the title card for the third pod used a simple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. logo that changed onscreen to an Agents of Hydra logo for episodes primarily set in the Framework." - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I like that. Does the source we have now for the Hydra title card support that? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No. I'll have a look for something to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

In this interview with the EPs, Jeff Bell refers to the pod title as "Framework". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like he is just saying what each pod is, rather than what the actual title is. "Framework" hasn't been used as title in any other way, including marketing or anything, so I wouldn't really worry about that one. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We're assuming "pod" and "storyline" are the same thing. Given the reocurrence of plot elements from the first two pods (in addition to the third) and the absence of the Agents of Hydra logo and central plot of action taking place within the Framework, I'd suggestion an Option 3: listing a fourth, untitled color-coded header section for the final two episodes and explaining they were produced as part of the third pod, a pod which is not as synonymous with story arc as the first two. This seems more accurate to me and less like looking the other way to make the episodes fit a tidier organizational scheme than they really do. Secret-HQ (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the pods are based on the season's schedule—there was a pod of 8 episodes, then the winter break, then a pod of 7 episodes, then another break, and then a final pod of 7. Each of those pods were given subtitles and their own marketing and the like. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, each of these pods have been giving their own subtitles and their own marketing. But here is the catch: episode 421 and 422 nowhere use the branding of the 3rd pod. The teasers and trailers have their own graphical design and marketing and the "Agents of Hydra" title card was replaced with a new "Agents of SHIELD"-card (one we've never seen before either). the whole marketing and title from the "Agents of Hydra" pod disappeared in these final 2 episodes and that makes sense: the season final wasn't ment to be the final of the 3rd pod, it rounds up the 1st and 2nd pod as well.--YannickFran (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was still part of the pod of episodes. There was no break between last week's episode and this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the final two episodes weren't part of the third pod. As adamstom97 rightly points out, they clearly were. But we've been using "pod" and "storyline" interchangeably this season, and they just as clearly are not interchangeable, thanks to those final two episodes. "Agents of Hydra" is the name of the third arc, which constitutes most of the third pod -- but the third arc and the third pod aren't the same thing.

It's true there's no break between episode 20 and episode 21, but breaks in air date alone don't decide how shows are subdivided. Again, I think we're falling into the trap of forcing on the season an organizational neatness it doesn't actually display.Secret-HQ (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So what is it that you are suggesting, exactly? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should add a new color banner and header for the final two episodes -- labeling that section "season finale" (or nothing at all) and distinguishing in the lead-in to the episode titles that the season comprises three pods and four story arcs (or, rather, three story arcs and a two-part season finale). I could mark it up and see how people take to it ... . Secret-HQ (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As has been stated, the break up is by the pod headings, which does not necessarily correlate to the storylines told within those pods. No additional headings should be added to the episode table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Blaze

The production company never said this was Johnny Blaze. The episode never said it in dialog. The credits never said it. Wikipedia is not a place for fan theories, or WP:SYNTH based on an actor's WP:SPS tweet. The IGN citation is particularly egregious. Wikipedia is supposed to contain concrete facts, and so the contentious Johnny Blaze speculation should not be in the article until it's been thoroughly discussed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We have a source explicitly saying why the character was not named in the show or by the producers (there were legal issues, but they definitely intended the character to be Blaze). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There's an actor speculating that maybe it was legal issues. But an actor doesn't know and can't speak for the producers. And let's please talk about the IGN cite; it's nothing but speculation: "We never see his face or hear him speak, but given that he was wearing a leather jacket and riding a motorcycle, logic says it’s Blaze. Further proof it was Blaze was in the episode 'Lockup' where a Quentin Carnival poster and some stunt performer gear is seen in the basement where the Darkhold is found." Some outside fan theory is not up to encyclopedic standard, and I hope we can at least agree that this IGN cite is just speculation, not a definitive declaration, and should be removed.

In the meantime, I'm adding a tag for "better source needed." I know as a fellow responsible, longtime editor that you won't remove tags until the issues are settled. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I don't think it is appropriate to add tags like that when we are already discussing the issue, but I won't edit war over them. The IGN source isn't even being used to support this claim, it is there because of the interview with the producers, so removing it does not make sense. And the legal bit from Luna isn't speculation, it is a definitive statement. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It can't be definitive because he's not a producer. He's just a recurring-guest actor. Who knows where he got his information, or if he misinterpreted it? He's not a producer and not the production company and he's certainly not a lawyer, so his claim is just a primary-source opinion. The claim objectively is not a fact unless it comes from the show's creators. No journalist would claim it as fact — even IGN gives it as their own speculation — and an encyclopedia has an even higher standard than journalism, which is just "the first draft of history." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are going a bit over board with this. It really shouldn't be a big deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue either. I don't think there is any speculation being throw around. You have the series's Visual Effects supervisor naming the character, which we source, and I don't think there is anything far-fetched to believe Luna would not be privy to information regarding the Blaze character and not naming him for legal reasons. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We are also very clear that the character is never named onscreen, and there is further evidence supporting this statement (the easter eggs and design nods) beyond what we are actually using to source the info that help build the case for the statement (only up to the point where WP:V becomes an issue, of course). - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Further evidence" ... exactly. That's WP:SYNTH. The visual-effects supervisor has his opinion, but he is not the writer, not the producer. It's accurate to say that "the visual-effect supervisor believes the character is Johnny Blaze", but we can't as an encyclopedia definitively declare that the character is Johnny Blaze. So what do you think? Is that viable compromise phrasing? (And the IGN cite there really, really needs to be removed, since the IGN writer himself says he's speculating.)

Honestly — and I know your good work, and I know you're a responsible editor of good faith — I don't think it's going overboard to want an encyclopedia to be scrupulously accurate.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of a reasonable, logical, non-Wikipedia onlooker, there is no good reason to not say this is Johnny Blaze. But, Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and so we need to make sure that the sources we are using support our claim and meet our standards. All of the sources in the article accurately support the claims made – that the character is Blaze, that there were legal concerns, etc. – so now the only concern left is whether we feel the sources meet our standards. The three sources being questioned are: a statement from the actor who was in the scene with this character, calling him Johnny Blaze; a statement from the man responsible for designing and creating the character with visual effects, saying that he got to create Johnny Blaze; and a statement from the actor again, explaining that they were unable to say the character's name onscreen due to legal reasons. Taking all of that into account, if we were to adjust the wording in the article at all then I think The character was not named onscreen for legal reasons, but was intended to be the Johnny Blaze version of Ghost Rider would still be accurate without us implying something we do not know, like Kolpack's statement being only an opinion that means less than the words of a writer on the show, which is a bit silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm reasonable and logical, and while I'm not sure what "non-Wikipedia onlooker" means, I can tell you that as a professional journalist I could never say in my newspaper that the character is absolutely, definitively, unquestionably Johnny Blaze. Yet that's what we're saying in this encyclopedia, which is supposed to have a higher standard than deadline journalism.

The citations are problematic for numerous reasons. First, Visual Effects Supervisor Mark Kolpack, in a since deleted tweet, says, "Nothing like getting to create a Johnny Blaze Ghost Rider." So that is not even a statement he stands by any longer.

The Luna cite is a mis-citing. We need to go to the original article — not the cited copycat article that, rightly, attributes and links to the original story. The reporter at Phoenix Comicon writes that Luna is addressing speculation about whether the character is Blaze: "He does, however, mention that in S.HI.E.L.D they never called the mysterious Ghost Rider who gave Robbie his powers as specifically Johnny Blaze because of some legal issues." An actor, particularly a recurring guest, isn't privy to the show's legal mechanisms. Without giving a source for his claim, it is simply his own private speculation. Using the phrase "which Luna attributes to" is misleading, since Luna is in no position to factually attribute anything. It's solely his opinion or "something he thinks he heard around the set," i.e. here-say.

Finally, the Luna tweet has also been deleted. And it does not support the specific phrase "[A] new MCU version of Johnny Blaze does briefly appear as part of the series' take on Reyes' origin story," since the only reference to Blaze is "#johnnyblaze." That can mean anything, and it's a disallowed POV interpretation of a primary source to claim that a simple hashtag confirms absolutely and concretely without a doubt that the character is Blaze.

There is phrasing we can use to address this. Because what is in the article — based on two deleted tweets and an actor's claim on a non-notable website — literally would not be publishable in a newspaper or any other reputable journalistic outlet. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been a few days, which is understandable given the big events in the U.S. this past weekend, since there has been comment here. I'd like to continue this discussion, since we're making an encyclopedic claim based on statements that two people have since retracted. I'm wondering how their retractions affect the discussion? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the deleted tweets to mean retractions necessarily. I think Adam's proposed wording is a good adjustment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that we don't know for a fact the name wasn't used for legal reasons. That's only the opinion of or here-say by an actor. The only people who can claim that for a fact are the producers or their lawyers.

Look, I was reading Ghost Rider in Marvel Premiere when it was new. I know how much a Marvel fan like myself would like to believe this. But we don't know this as a concrete, definitive, unassailable fact — we just have a couple of deleted tweets from two people who are not the producers. No responsible newspaper would say definitively it was Johnny Blaze. So in all sincerity, how can an encyclopedia say it? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

But we aren't a newspaper. We're a user generated encyclopedia with potentially different standards and MOS guidelines than some newspapers. And by our standards, reliable sources like the actor playing the character directly related to this, and the visual effects supervisor responsible for creating this character, pass muster, even if their tweets have since been deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe an encyclopedia should have lower standards than a newspaper. The actor and the VFX supervisor are not the producers; they are only giving their opinions, and have since taken those opinions down. I think perhaps this needs to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'll post a link here when I put something there.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, it's at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Deleted tweets. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard are Wikipedia's standards. It is nice to aim higher, but in the end we can't fault articles that follow the rules. And this has nothing to do with being Marvel fans, it is about trying to be full and complete and I for one do not want to remove this information because I believe it to be true (not just because I want it to be). This article has further evidence, with Clark Gregg (the series' star who works closely with the producers and writers) confirming that the character is Blaze. And I still am not okay with these assumptions that Luna and Kolpack are only giving their "opinions" when we have no evidence to support that. For two separate people so closely involved with the production, I don't understand why we shouldn't take them at their word. Especially Kolpack, who is very articular about what he can and cannot say online. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and he and Luna both erased their claims from Twitter, which tells me something. The only people who can say authoritatively are the producers. Anything else is secondhand, and secondhand claims are unconfirmed, i.e. rumors.

If Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, then it's saying it has the standards of an encyclopedia. If it's got lower standards, then it shouldn't claim to be an encyclopedia.

Plus, there's a logical thing. If the character isn't called Johnny Blaze onscreen, well, it's a fictional character. Nothing about the character exists offscreen (or outside ancillary media, like, say, a novelization). So I'm hard put to understand where exactly he's Johnny Blaze.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like you are bending over backwards to come up with reasons not to include the info. I still feel that my proposed compromise wording is less definite on things that you think we don't actually know while not leaving out things that we do.

And I still don't like how you are interpreting these sources. If an actor on the show says they weren't allowed to do something for legal reasons, then we can reasonably assume that he would have been told that by the show's legal team and/or producers, whereas assuming that he doesn't know what he is talking about is a bit of a weird step to take. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

i note noticeboard suggest both is unreliable. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I know you're a responsible editor and a good-faith editor. I'd like to think you don't really believe I'm "bending over backwards", i.e. being capricious. I ask you to think about this you said in your post just above: "...then we can reasonably assume that he would have been told that by the show's legal team and/or producers."

Assume. Honest to God, this is what I'm getting at. We can't "assume" something and call it a definitive, concrete fact. I'm an intelligent, college-educated, professional journalist and author, and I can't assume anything like. In fact, from what I know from having been on numerous movie and TV-show sets, those places A) are rumor mills, and B) producers and writers don't generally talk to the actors, certainly not to guests and recurring guests, and if they did, they wouldn't talk about how they're trying to break or to skirt intellectual-property law. And the legal team wouldn't even be anywhere near the set.

We don't know that he talked to the producers about their trying to get around IP law. It's more reasonable to assume it was something he heard on the set. The VFX supervisor is more likely to have spoken with the producers — but we can't make assumptions either way. The only thing we know is that the actor and the VFX supervisor believe the producers intended the character to be Johnny Blaze. Neither ever said the producers told them that, or that they were in the room when the producers said it. And each took his tweet down. We're not doing Wikipedia or the show any favors by claiming as fact that the producers were trying to skirt IP law. So can't we tweak the wording to reflect it's opinion, not fact? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

When I said we could "reasonably assume", I meant that in response to the unreasonable assumptions that it looks like you are making (you are assuming that they do not know what they are talking about). Clearly you have more experience in this area than me, and I am not really trying to discredit your intentions or talk down to you, but you are twisting what we actually know based on personal experience and it just seems SYNTHy to me. I am solely acting on the sources we have, which is why it is coming across to me like you are going out of your way to interpret this information in a confusing way since I, not having your personal background, would not be jumping to the conclusions that you are. Either way, neither of us are going to convince the other of their position, which is why I suggested the compromise wording. Would you at least consider it? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. So you just said your assumptions are reasonable, and mine are unreasonable. That's insulting, first of all, and secondly, I don't think anyone who says "My assumptions are infallible and must be taken as fact" is operating in good faith.

For the record, I am not making assumptions. I'm stating only what we know: An actor and a VFX supervisor posted since-deleted tweets making a claim about third parties that the third parties never confirmed. Those are facts.

Indeed, one tweet claimed the third parties were trying to break or skirt IP law by using a character that is owned by a different studio. That sounds like it violates WP:BLPCRIME.

Finally, other editors are concerned about the reliability of those tweets. Please see the 22:59, 28 March 2018 comment by User:Only in death and the 06:32, 29 March 2018 comment by User:Arnoutf at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Deleted tweets. I had suggested a compromise as well, which I believe you rejected, but now there doesn't appear to be support for including these non-verified tweets at all. Maybe we just have to go an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a third party source, which recounts the material Luna said regarding all of this. It was during his appearance at Phoenix Comic Con, where he noted Johnny Blaze was not named because of legal issues. I'm trying to see if any video was recorded of the panel to corroborate the reporting from the site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So we're removing the reverted tweets, as seems the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240? That's fine. But we're still making an unconfirmed allegation that the producers were attempting to engage in intellectual-property theft. Anyone can allege anything without evidence; Luna doesn't say he was in the room to observe this or that the producer told him this. This seems a violation of WP:BLPCRIME --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You're making quite the leap/allegation that IP theft occurred and are really hanging onto the fact that this could only be confirmed as something that happened if the producers said it. That's just not the case, nor one to bring out WP:BLPCRIME for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm harping, especially with two good and longtime editors whom I consider great colleagues. Here is the issue: If the character is Johnny Blaze, as the article now says, then that is stealing intellectual property, since Disney does not own the rights to Johnny Blaze. We can agree that this is a Columbia Pictures property, yes? So that character cannot be Johnny Blaze unless the producers are committing IP theft. Yet we're saying it is him. So we are saying the producers are committing IP fraud. This needs to be addressed.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't know that Johnny Blaze particularly is off limits. We know that the "Ghost Rider" rights did revert back to Marvel, and one can make a logical assumption that included the Blaze version as well since that was what was used in the films. It is possible that the "legal reasons" could stem from the creator side of the character or something else entirely that we just don't know. I think the most or best we can say on the matter is the following: "During the series' take on Reyes' origin story, another Ghost Rider appears, implied to be Johnny Blaze;SourceSource this Ghost Rider was not named onscreen, which Luna attributed to legal issues.SourceSource." This rewording takes away the "100% definitive nature" of the previous wording, conveying that it is not fully known who or which Ghost Rider it was supposed to be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying I am not a lawyer (in the words of JayZ, "I ain't passed the bar, but I know a little bit"), but here is how I see it. Marvel is the owner of all of their IP and they license the rights to other filmmakers. Breach of contract would be a civil dispute, not a criminal one. I have only read the contracts (or sections of) the ones that are publicly available, but in those they split up the television and film rights. In this case, there is an awful lot that we don't know, but we should be carefully about throwing around words like "crime". - DinoSlider (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Favre1fan93 has put forth a highly constructive suggestion. (While I don't think we should be making assumptions, whether we think they're "logical" or not, that's not the burning issue at the moment.) Thank you for that, Fave.

If I might tweak it a bit to find an alternate to "implied," which is one of those words we can almost never use:

During the series' take on Reyes' origin story, another Ghost Rider appears. While unnamed onscreen, Source Luna believes it is meant to be Johnny Blaze and that legal issues prevented this from being made explicit.Source.

(The ComicBook.com cite just reiterates OmegaUnderground, so we can just keep OmegaUnderground to avoid overciting.)

Fave, fellow colleagues ... what do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with this, but the Luna part should be in the past tense I believe. Adamstom.97 your thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Might I make a similar, but tweaked suggestion? How does this sound: During the series' take on Reyes' origin story, another Ghost Rider appears. Luna believed that this character was meant to be Johnny Blaze, and IGN's Joshua Yehl felt that the character's appearance strongly supported this, but the character was not named onscreen. Luna later attributed the lack of onscreen identification to unspecified legal issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry; I've been away for awhile with work deadlines. I'm in favor of Favre1fan93's tweaked version, with "believed" in past tense. I also support adamstom97's addition of "unspecified" since that word clarifies Luna didn't go into what "legal issues". Favre1fan93, you OK with adding "unspecified"?

RE: the other addition in adamstom97's version: The first sentence in each version is the same, so we've consensus on that, at least: During the series' take on Reyes' origin story, another Ghost Rider appears.

I think "the lack of onscreen identification" is a wordier way of saying "unnamed onscreen", and generally, less wordy is the way to go. I also think the part about IGN's Joshua Yehl's is superfluous, since it's just one outside person's POV speculation. It's also WP:SYNTH to add that speculation to Luna's claim of fact.

So what do we think of this version, which really is something to which all of us contributed in an effort at polishing (and, may I say, in a wonderfully collegial and mutually respectful way; this is Wikipedia at its best):

During the series' take on Reyes' origin story, another Ghost Rider appears. While unnamed onscreen, Source Luna believed it is meant to be Johnny Blaze and that unspecified legal issues prevented this from being made explicit.Source.

--Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Added - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've mostly been off Wikipedia for a week. I just want to applaud my colleagues. Despite significant differences, we continued working collegially and found a middle ground. I see so often at WikiProject Comics this kind of sincere, good-faith, and eminently rational and reasonable discussion toward reaching a compromise. I'm very proud to be among such colleagues as you and other of the editors whose names we see frequently at WPC. Thank you both for being the good editors and good people you are.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Today

We agreed on wording that says, accurately, that it is Luna's opinion that the unnamed entity is Johnny Blaze. We can't then, in another part of the article, make a claim about what the producers were "implying." We can't use a third party, an IGN writer giving his POV speculation, to state what the producers were thinking — only the producers can do that. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The "suggestions" are from the producers: "There is a tradition within the comics that there's been many Ghost Riders and our take on that was they're not simultaneously a tribe of Ghost Riders but that it's passed. The Spirit of Vengeance is passed from person to person. In that respect, at least our intention was that the Spirit of Vengeance was passed from one person to another," said Bell. "And who passed that on, there are suggestions within the storytelling ... That's as far as we're going to take that part." That's all Bell's quote right there. So this: The producers made multiple "suggestions" to the identity of the first Ghost Rider, implied to by the Johnny Blaze version of the character, but did not intend to feature or explore that character further. is all correct in what it states. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

All the Bell stuff, about multiple GRs in the comics, is all in the article; I'd inadvertently removed that part, you put it back it, and I never touched it after that.

As for Blaze: Bell at http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/01/17/johnny-blaze-ghost-rider-not-likely-to-return-in-agents-of-shield never once utters the word. That is only the supposition of Joshua Yehl, the writer of the article. He can put any speculation he wants to in the headline for clickbait reasons and put his own personal speculation about what what being "implied," but that is only Yehl's personal speculation. Bell himself does not say it ... and frankly it can't be Blaze, since Disney doesn't own the rights to Blaze.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Promotional links

After an editor was reverted for adding purely commercial links when journalistic sources presumably could be found, he began edit-warring by re-reverting, rather than discussing the issue her as per WP:BRD. I post this in the hope of discussion. Or, preferably, that an editor adding content provide appropriate citations.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? MyNameIsASDF added the information here and I reverted you once when you deleted the references here. I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to edit warring or re-reverting. BRD is exactly what happened: you made a bold edit, I reverted it, and now a discussion is happening; except you reverted again, when in fact, the article should stay as is until a consensus is reached. Like I said in my edit summary, Amazon links are used in thousands upon thousands of articles throughout Wikipedia and in my almost 10 years here, I've never seen an editor object to them. Per WP:AMAZON, using it as a reference is not prohibited. I've searched for other sources, and it's mainly just vendor links. The best non-Amazon link I can find is probably at Blu-ray.com Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize; I mistakenly thought it was the same person who made both edits. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in terms of commercial links in other articles, and as a fellow longtime editor, I have seen commercial link removed time and again in favor of journalistic links. But now that you've uncovered a Blu-ray.com cite, everything works out. Again, my apologies for my own inadvertent re-revert. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait. That's also a link that sells the DVD — and in fact, this whole issue is moot since the DVD is not even scheduled for release until over a month from now. It's WP:CRYSTAL till then. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how CRYSTAL applies. If something is scheduled and is supported by a reliable source, it can be added. If we use that logic, then we'd never be able to report on release dates for upcoming TV series or episodes until the date has happened. Again, I mentioned WP:AMAZON, which says using them as a reliable source is not prohibited. The only other good source I can find is from the official Twitter account from Marvel UK here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

To correct myself, it was actually an IP editor who originally added the content; MyNameIsASDF altered the citations. You brought up WP:BRD, but it was actually you who violated it. The content was originally added on May 11, and no one had an issue with it until you made a bold edit on May 23 by deleting the references, I then reverted you, and now a discussion shall take place. However, in the mean time, you reverted again, which is a violation as it states you should not revert again. I suggest self-reverting, per BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Waiting on a response. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: Hi. I've been off Wikipedia for a few days due to a heavy spate of work. If I mistook who added the edit, I do apologize. Still, status quo doesn't apply to inappropriate edits, and from what I can see, the only reason to add this future-claim information, which so far only seems citable to places taking orders for the DVD, is to promote sales of the DVD. When the only places confirming the claim are places selling the object, then promotional and advertising is the only reason to include it. That's clearly impermissible. WP:NOTADVERTISING. We're not here to help drive sales. Unless that's the purpose, then there is no reason not to wait a month and cite it to a journalistic source.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You still violated WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and I'll say this for the third time, WP:AMAZON does not state that using Amazon is prohibited. There's a differece between using Amazon as a reliable source to cite something and spamming links in articles for advertising purposes. So unless you're accusing editors here for spamming/advertising, I suggest you self-revert. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

First, thanks for fixing that duplication that a redlink editor had entered. I thought something was wrong but I didn't see that there was duplication.

Secondly, again, status quo doesn't apply to inappropriate edits. Whether any one editor personally believes it's not a commercial advertising link doesn't change the fact of what it is: A link that specifically drives users to a site where they can pre-order the video. Since there is no rush to add this future-release information, I'm not sure why the insistence in adding a link to drive traffic to Amazon rather than waiting for the release date when some journalistic source will list it or review it. We're not supposed to use commercial links unless there is no other possible way for the information to be cited, and since the DVD isn't yet out and will likely have a journalistic cite when it is, this insistence on pushing sales is inappropriate.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree that the edits are "inappropriate". Especially considering Amazon is widely used as a source across Wikipedia and is not prohibited. Point to a guideline that says Amazon.com cannot, with no exceptions, be used as a reliable source; then I would agree with you. No one here is trying to push sales. The intent/purpose is what matters. The intent is to add a reliable source to support content in the article. Spamming/advertising is when some random IP or new user adds external links into the body text with "BUY NOW!!". Obviously that's not what is happening here. While a journalist source is definitely preferred, there simply isn't one at the moment. I've said all I can, so I will ping other known active editors in these parts to see if they have an opinion on the matter. @Favre1fan93: @Adamstom.97: @AlexTheWhovian: @MyNameIsASDF: Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I will say that the whole point of BRD and STATUSQUO is to try restrict disagreements to the talk page; you may think an edit is inappropriate, but if other editors do not also believe that then you are just going to be wasting time trying to argue that point. Instead of continuously claiming that the edit is inappropriate and so STATUSQUO doesn't apply, just accept that there is a difference of opinion, leave the page alone, and discuss the actual problem. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, the home media release date claim is currently unsourced and needs verification. What I will say, and as I have pointed out in the past, Amazon isn't very reliable when it comes to release dates that haven't been announced, because they like to use placeholders when they aren't given an exact date. If Amazon or other retailers are ever used as a source for a release date, it should immediately be followed by a "Better Source Needed" template. DarkKnight2149 21:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a placeholder date in this instance, as it was announced by Marvel via Twitter. Can we come to an agreement to, at the very least, reinsert the Amazon references or use the Marvel Twitter source and then tag it with "better source needed"? It's better than leaving the content there with a "citation needed" tag, when in fact, we have reliable sources. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a verified Twitter page. I think we should just link to that. DarkKnight2149 15:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Found a link from Blu-ray.com about the season 4 DVD release. Check it out. Would it be a suitable citation? http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Marvels-Agents-of-SHIELD-The-Complete-Fourth-Season-Blu-ray/205270/ MyNameIsASDF (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with that site, but I have seen it cited in other articles. If it checks out, I don't see why not. DarkKnight2149 22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the easiest resolution to this problem is just using that verified tweet from Marvel UK. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, adamstom97. Yes, that is exactly right. Why push traffic to Amazon or others when this official news tweet was available all along. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's nice to have this finally settled, but I'd like to remind you that I provided that Marvel Twitter source 10 days ago and you even reverted MyNameIsASDF when they added the Twitter reference. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That was inadvertent, precipitated by MyNameIsASDF having added a commercial link here and my erroneous thinking it was the same link. In any event, I apologize for the inadvertent removal of a proper cited source. I wish the discussion had centered on that removal and the fact that it had been a proper cited source. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's all good, I just felt I had to point it out. Glad we reached a consensus. Have a good day! Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)