Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 4/Archive 1

Archive 1

New Time Slot

Is it worth mentioning the shift from 9 to 10 for this season? source - DinoSlider (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think on the season article, but I notice there is no mention of time shifts on the main article. I'll add it there for sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Move to mainspace

Hey Czar. If you get the chance, can you please move this draft to the mainspace? Production on the season has started today. Thank you as always! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, ✓ done czar 18:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

'Writing' section... Fantastic

This may be a bit unprecedented, but I just want to say how superbly this ever evolving writing section has been compiled by Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97. You guys deserve medals for the time and detail it's taken to successfully integrate all of this information into the article. It reads wonderfully and is oh-so informative. A true credit to Marvel and Wikipedia indeed. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to know its appreciated and you found it informative! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, we work hard to make the best articles possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I had already read everything you guys put into the article long before, I merely meant that I'm sure common readers will find it informative. It's also handy for people that aren't like us (sitting, just waiting for the next bit of info to leak out before we pounce on it:)). They can come here and everything is in its rightful place. LLArrow (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous user established rules called into question

So apparently there's is this unspoken user rule, that nobody is privy to except select users, that states that verifiably cited, multi episode guest stars cannot be added to the season that they will appear in. AKA the most ridiculous rule I've had the displeasure of encountering on Wikipedia. Please help gain consensus over this lunacy. LLArrow (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We can't list every guest star on every article, and nor should we. We had to come up with some criteria to manage who exactly goes where, and we have implemented that over all our TV series, season, episode, and list of characters articles, not to mention the MCU TV article and list of MCU TV actors. And these criteria aren't unspoken or only known to a few—they are literally stated in comments where you were making your edit.

As we do for all our season articles, we list the season's main cast, recurring guests, and then any other guests who are reprising their roles from elsewhere in the MCU (including previous seasons of S.H.I.E.L.D.). Then, at the list of characters, we list the series' main cast, recurring guests, and a more complete list of other notable guests. Nagra is not reprising her role from elsewhere in the universe, so she doesn't fit in the guest section here, but if her role ends up being a recurring one rather than just a multi-episode guest stint, then she can be added to the recurring column.

So, I'm pretty sure there are more ridiculous rules than our criteria for cutting down unnecessarily in-depth lists to manageable, encyclopaedic sizes. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I can't believe what I just read. You literally just stated that a select group of editors are judge, jury, and executioner for all guest stars on the season articles. Who died and made you the dictator. Last time I checked Wikipedia isn't run by a select few, but the majority. LLArrow (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that is just ridiculous. This was a group decision made over numerous discussions across multiple talk pages. That is how Wikipedia works, through the forming of consensus. You wanting us to change because you don't like that consensus is completely the opposite of how it is supposed to go. I could ask why you think you can dictate to us. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? How am I dictating to anyone? I'm the one attempting go the diplomatic route. I was not a part of any discussions held across any talk pages, so how in the hell am I supposed to just magically know that?. I have zero agenda, except to provide noteworthy info to perusers of Wikipedia, and this article. If I was a casual reader I would want to know about notable guest stars appearing in a given season, and I would want it contained to this article so I wouldn't have to dance around. You are completely twisting my words, and acting like I've done something wrong, when all I've done is been a proper Wikipedia stuard. Maybe you should have let me in on the whole "this was decided a long time ago, before you existed" aspect when you were reverting me. LLArrow (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you listing regular guest stars in the first place? You shouldn't pick and choose a "guest" star simply because you've attached your own personal notability to the role. That's placing undue weight on characters that "you" have stated to be important. You should stick to regulars and recurring. If you do guests, then you do guests...that means all. But the reason you say you pick and choose is the reason why you shouldn't do "guests", because there are a lot of minor guests and Wikipedia is not IMDb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. There is nothing wrong with listing series regulars, recurring guest stars, and any other notable guest, with much less weight given to the other guests than the more significant roles. This is the same as film articles, which list main characters, significant supporting roles, and other notable minor appearances and cameos. It is also pretty standard across the TV articles I have seen, not just MCU articles (yes, even the Arrowverse articles list guest stars, and they do it with a whole lot more trivial fancruft than we do). By the way, the Marvel release about Nagra clarifies that she will have a recurring role in the season, so she can be added back to this article now. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

To the concerned editors, may I ask the series articles are based on any guideline or MOS? Sorry to ask since series articles are not something I edit regularly. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we have MOS:TV. It doesn't really address guests all that clearly, which has led to several different interpretations. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say go for a RFC and close this once and for all involving the Television and film editors also @Adamstom.97: and @LLArrow:, because both the interpretations are correct, and this is simply leading to silly edit wars, instead of setting up a precedence. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if that is necessary. Consensus among frequent editors is generally how these "interpretation" things are decided. If users such as LLArrow and Bignole disagree that this should be up to interpretation, for whatever reason, then that is an issue they should raise at the MOS and any RfC could much more usefully take place over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For all involved, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was determined to limit the inclusion of guest stars on the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season articles to those who have appeared previously in MCU films, One-Shots, or other TV series. This was done, because as Adamstom.97 pointed out, the MOS:TV does not give one way or another to handle guest stars, only that you should not include actors/characters such as "Man #1", "ER Doctor", etc. This will always haunt me, because this discussion did take place; however, each year when this comes up, I can never find where it did. The reason this was done, was to avoid having insane listings on the season articles of guest stars, when a more proper and indepth version can be found at the list of characters article, and by limiting as such, it helps further highlight the connectedness and shared universe aspect this series exists in. So, LLArrow, this is not a "ridiculous user established rule". We formed a consensus. And at the time of you initially adding the info on Nagra, the source said she would only be in one episode, which does not meet the criteria at this time. However, Marvel.com's release of the casting did indicate she would be recurring, which thus makes her inclusion fine under the "recurring" heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Ghost" link

I'm not sure what's the issue here? Standard practice should be followed over the entire article - either link both occurrences of the episode title, or neither. It doesn't link to a "different place", it's a redirect to this exact same page. Or, follow the standard practices over most series - use [[#ep67|The Ghost]] in the ratings table, and then when the episode article is an actual article, link to it in the episode table. That is what seems to be the standard practice over mostly all of WP:TV's projects. Don't constantly revert when multiple editors have attempted to put the correct view across. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

When I said standard practice, I meant what we have done on all the previous seasons: when we have an episode article, we will link to it from the episode table and the ratings table. Until then, the ratings table links to the episode table. This can be done with either an internal link, or a redirect, and if we just do it with a redirect now then it is all set for when we make the episode article. That is how we usually do it, so editors changing it to their "correct view" without discussion seems a bit off to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Adamstom.97 on this one. The link in the Ratings section will take the user to the Episodes section in the same page. Using that same link in the Episodes section doesn't make any sense because it is a link back to itself: the same page, same section, same anchor. Clicking on that link would literally take the user nowhere different. At least the other one moves the user to a different section. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Then if you want it to link to the particular row in the episodes table, use [[#ep67|The Ghost]], not a redirect. Realistically, the ratings table should always link directly to the row in the episodes table, and the episodes table should link to the episode article. This is the way I've seen it done (and done myself) on pretty much every TV article I've seen/edited, and this page/series should do the same, if there hasn't been discussion on this already. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Alex is correct. It's nearly an unspoken rule and the vast status quo for series/season articles. LLArrow (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If that is standard and everyone agrees, then I don't have any problem with changing to that format. The change will have to be made for previous S.H.I.E.L.D. seasons, and for Agent Carter. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether the link in the Ratings section is an achor or a redirect seems inconsequential to me. I was arguing against the link in the Episodes section that AlexTheWhovian added. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't get why the ratings section has priority over the episode list, where the link would appear first? It seems utterly ridiculous to me that this is a standard practice. It's not about users seeing it as a "correct view," I just don't see why the episode list is being flat out ignored, so the ratings system section can get the glory of the link (I don't have a tone saying "glory," but I do mean it in reference to the absurd high priority it's getting). And, also, linking it in the ratings section just so it can redirect to the episode list is not only unecessary, but intentionally misleading when you're on the exact same page, unlike if you were doing it through a search bar or another page. There's no need for it whatsoever. The episode(s) just be linked when somebody will make the page there and then. Having the redirect link isn't anymore helpful than not having it at all, because if people don't see a link, I would imagine in most cases, they're going to think the page simply doesn't exist, end of story. But, instead, you're using a link making readers think there is a page. That's where you're intentionally misleading your readers. Okay, I'm done. And thanks for reading. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The value of a link to another section on the same page can be debatable, but I don't think it is misleading. I personally have no opinion if the Ratings section should have a link to the episode or not, but I will reiterate that there is no point to a link in the Episode section as long as there is no page to link to. Such a link is the very definition of self-referential. I'll also point out that the majority of links on pages are NEVER clicked, so I don't think we can really be wrong here either way. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I should probably mention that when I made my initial revert, I was enforcing the logic put into place by Adamstom.97 in this edit. I don't actually have a position in this particular argument. DarkKnight2149 20:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to try and clear some things up so we can hopefully all get on the same page. When we bring up episodes, like we do in the episode table and the ratings table, we link to the place where readers can learn more about them just like any other article. If an episode article exists for it, then we link there. If not, we can link to the section in the episode table instead. For the MCU's network shows, we create an article for every episode, so we have been confidently creating these pages ahead of time and just redirecting them to the episode table section until we actually make the article.

At this point, we want to send readers to the episode table section, since there is no episode article yet, from two places: the episode table, and the ratings table. In the episode table, the reader is already in the right place, so we shouldn't be linking there until that changes (i.e. the episode article is created). In the ratings table, we want to send the reader up to the episode table section (for now), and this can be done by linking to it directly, or redirecting to it through the episode article. Doing the latter means that we don't have to change the link once we have created the separate article.

However, Alex has suggested we instead just have a direct link from the ratings table to the episode table, and that we not use the episode article link until that article is actually created. In that case, we would only link to the separate article from the episode table, and keep the direct link up in the ratings table. If others agree with this plan, then I am happy to implement it here and at our other articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Season 4 subtitle

Remember how Season 1 had the Uprising event and how Season 3 had the Fallen Agent event? Well, this promo seems to suggest that Season 4 will have Ghost Rider as its subtitle. DarkKnight2149 18:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

These have always just been for marketing though, so we can only say that until we get confirmation of anything different. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. DarkKnight2149 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

New poster

is this poster suitable enough to replace the current one? --HamedH94 (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that was a Comic-Con exclusive I think. The current one is the actual poster. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Season colour

Guys, can I get a consensus on the colour theme for the season now the official poster is out. The burnt orange works, as before, to match the fire, and adds much needed seasonal contrast. This hideous dull purple is non-contrasting and aesthetically displeasing. Let's get this sorted out, make you preference known. LLArrow (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The first poster is partly S.H.I.E.L.D. grey, partly stand out orange. So we chose orange. The second poster is red, so we chose red. The third poster is (a non-S.H.I.E.L.D.) grey, so we chose grey. The fourth poster is brown ... so you want the orange from a different poster? If you look at all the posters with the colours beside them (for this series and pretty much every other), you will see that it is the main or standout colour that is chosen, which creates a logical flow from the poster to the rest of the article. You may think it is aesthetically displeasing, but I find your completely different colour from the poster to be aesthetically displeasing. Therefore, aesthetics will not decide the outcome of this. We should be using the primary, identifying colour of the poster, not something that is barely on this one but you like because it is from a different poster. And stop saying "non-contrasting". The white text is perfectly readable against the brown, and we can adjust it to be slightly darker if needs be anyway. Also, please refrain from asserting your preferred version of an article as the status quo before a discussion like this when the only visible consensus at the time is against you. WP:BRD only applies when one person wants to make a bold change. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, stop telling me exactly what to do, in the words of the transcendent Lesley Gore, "you don't own me." Secondly, you must be unfamiliar with the definition of "status quo": "the existing state of affairs". What is this articles existing state of affairs? The burnt orange. Therefore it is the status quo, which is what it will remain until consensus can be reached here. All I could glean from your scrabble above is that your vote is for purple; which could've been summarized much more efficiently. Next. LLArrow (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You are going to get nowhere with that attitude. I never told you to do anything, I asked you to stop doing something because you are wrong. The status quo with the old poster was the orange colour. The poster changed, and the colour was changed with it, and several editors were supportive of that change. Therefore, the status quo was changed. You decided that you prefer the old status quo because you think the new one is "hideous", and have gone around asserting that opinion on several articles. And all you have to say is that you don't want to read my comment rather than trying to blame your disinterest on my writing skills. I have clearly laid out why we logically should use the correct colour for this poster rather than the correct colour from another poster, and you have only said that you don't like it and you don't want to read my explanation. I think it is pretty clear what the outcome of this discussion will be, unless you want to get serious and actually take part (this isn't about votes, its about rationale). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis on the origin of previous season colour choices is flawed, which is why I made no mention of it in my retort; as is your contrived logic as to what the status quo is/was. I had to twist the interpretation of the phrase so many times to fit into your version I'm practically a pretzel now. Let us stop this needless bickering and tomfoolery and await others' say. LLArrow (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually thought the orange was a bit garish at first (sorry LLArrow), and I presumably already had seen it for past week or so now, and I only think it was garish because it was pointed at to me (which is why I'm here). I can see why the tone of purple was chosen, but I don't think that looked exactly great either. I think I could go with the orange after seeing it for a few minutes, but I could probably say the same about the purple. So, basically I'm not much help here. Sorry. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That's alright. This is why I'm not trying to claim that either colour is beautiful or anything, we just have to look past that to logic for now. You may be able to find a little bit of that orange colour in the little bit of fire on the poster, but when you step back and look at the poster as a whole, the overall colour that you see is not that orange colour, but the brownish background colour—even the actors and Ghost Rider's skull have been tinted to match that colour better. It is the clear choice for a colour that accurately represents the poster as a whole, and it is further disambiguation from the other seasons colours (the previous orange was similar to the orange for season 1). I actually thought this change was a no-brainer, so I was pleasantly surprised when I found that the IP had added this colour (a good change, rather than the usual ones they make), and I made the change at other appropriate pages as well. That's why I find it so confusing that you want to keep it as the orange, which completely clashes with the poster and is not representative of it at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I offended one of you. I was just updating the section so that it closely matches the poster. The orange is basically shown on Ghost Rider's head, not the S.H.I.E.L.D. logo. Can we just please reverted back to where it was.47.203.75.226 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, you did the right thing in updating the colour to match the poster. Once we have sorted out this discussion, we will be able to move forward with the better colour. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Or go back to the color I picked first.47.203.75.226 (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is there always such a fuss over something as cosmetic as colours? Was the new colour valid, present on the posted, and conforming with WP:COLOR? Yes? Then there's no need to change it back. And, by the way? "The two against one argument doesn't work here Adam, considering one is an IP"? IP's are just as valid an editor as registered editors. Shame on you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The orange and the dark brownish purple color are both valid but which one are you talking about?47.203.75.226 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edit. It was a valid change that did not need to be reverted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree cause there's already an orange for S1.47.203.75.226 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the current colour is fine as it matches with the poster. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Kailash29792, the problem is that the orange doesn't match the poster, and the brown does. Like what I and Alex have been saying, it was a valid change that matches the changed poster and conforms with WP:COLOR, but LLArrow thought the new colour was hideous and has made this big fuss about it. This shouldn't be a big deal, the colour should match the poster, and if anyone doesn't like it then that is too bad. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Alex, I did not mean that the IP's opinion is/was invalid, I simply was implying that an IP's whims are subject to tighter scrutiny due to their precarious nature. Withhold your testy judgmental finger from pointing until you know the facts please. Adam, if Wikipedia was run on your "this is tedious, I'm right, you're wrong, get over it." attitude, we'd still be in the interweb dark ages. Furthermore, this argument/discussion is not about my opinion on the colour, it's about formulating consistency and rooting out hypocrisy within a flawed system. The selection process is utterly subjective, which is why this kerfuffle is happening in the first place. There needs to be firm guidelines concerning WP:COLOR usage put into place, removing any and all subjectivity from the table. LLArrow (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It's about colour, so the process will always be subjective. All we can do is try and follow common sense and look for some consensus. The consensus for the first season poster is that the orange stands out from the generic S.H.I.E.L.D. grey and is identifiable. So far, the consensus for this poster is that it is predominantly brown (or whatever), and we should reflect that. Any hypocrisy you see likely comes from misunderstanding this process. However, if you do take issue with the vague guidelines, you should take it up at MOS:TV. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Again this logic of "the yellow in the first season poster stands out from the gray, therefore making it contrastable" is such bull. That is precisely my argument concerning the burnt orange here. Again with the hurled, holier-than-though, word bombs. The only thing I "misunderstand", is the totality of indistinguishable arguments on this matter from article to article, day after day. And if I didn't have a life, I'd be more than pleased to initiate a referendum movement at MOS:TV, but c'est la vie. If one of you, being that your completely wrought with the situation, would like to take the bull by the horns, I'd certainly be happy to stretch into my uniform and dust off my pompoms. LLArrow (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning this cheeky summary, there is only one editor arguing against the change. That indicates a consensus (Wikipedia:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity"), as every minus the one person agrees that the change was acceptable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you know "cheeky" is my middlename ;). LLArrow (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Should stay the color it is(the brown) as the poster is predominantly that color. Also in discussion of the first season, I think the orange looks odd and out of place and I would have went a honey-yellow or black. Kelege (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

in the new poster, ghost rider is shining, making you blind to see the other six characters. it doesn't matter what color is most prominent in the poster. ghost rider and fire are the focus of this season and the color should show THAT, not just what is the majority in the poster. i think the orange should remain. --HamedH94 (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've labored finding a middle ground shade, and I think the one I found speaks to the purple and orange shown in the art. This is the best solution my eyes, bringing the two argued colours together. If you don't agree revert and we can continue spinning our tires here... LLArrow (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

But the new colour you chose isn't even on the poster, so it's even less appropriate than your orange. The colour should be the main colour of the poster, the colour that you see when you look at it; the Game of Thrones season articles, especially the latter ones, are good examples of finding the overall colour of the poster, and that is the principal we are following here. The first season Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. poster is a different situation entirely, as it does not have one overall colour or tone, it has two main colours and we chose the less generic and hopefully more distinguishable one of the two. But for the second, third, and now fourth season there is a very obvious overall scheme to each poster, and it shouldn't be difficult for you to see that. If you still can't, then I'm not sure what more we can say or do, but Alex is right in that there already seems to be come consensus against you, and this isn't really such a major issue as needs to be dragged out for much longer. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Adam, you seriously need to check yourself. Do you realize that literally every single one of your posts read exactly the same, with slight word change. You and I need to bow out of this and let others input. LLArrow (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Do not tell someone that they need to leave the discussion because you disagree with what they're saying. Might I also note that you've violated WP:3RR, a firm policy, which would allow you to be put under report at WP:AN3. Keep an eye on it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not tell anyone to leave, I suggested. You've been just as guilty as I have in the past of violating WP:3RR, I'm not worried in the least. You'll find I don't scare easily Alex. LLArrow (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In the past, yes, but you'll notice that I haven't violated it at all since I got certain template editor rights and made a deal concerning these two. You, however, have no such cares, and are happy to violate policies. I'm not attempting to scare you, I'm just making sure you know your place. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

All bark, no bite. LLArrow (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

guys, you should remain civil during discussions. and stop reverting until we reach a consensus. if we can't get to one, i suggest we start an rfc. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Civility tends to be tossed aside when gears are locked as tightly as they are here. It's unfortunate, but comes with the territory. LLArrow (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEW, WP:DEW, WP:DEW. Seriously. Why is there ALWAYS an issue with the colors? That said, here are two options that I think work: a color pulled from the eagle head of the SHIELD logo   492C24, and a color pulled from the lighter section above the eagle's head   663F38. Either of those fit in my eyes and are good options. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for these two. The whole argument of "Ghost Rider is standing out", well having the base color as the overall color helps the character stand out even more, and isn't that the point of the poster apparently, to make Ghost Rider shine? Far as I'm concerned, anything other than the brown makes Ghost rider lose the main focus because your eyes then compete to see Ghost rider and the color on the page. Kelege (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ghost Rider is only a small part of the poster and shouldn't be the season color. Again, either of the two I put above would work well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I know and I agree. As I said earlier on, the poster is prominently brown so the color should be too. I was just addressing the argument of "Ghost Rider is the main focus of the poster" and why the brown in fact compliments that point. Kelege (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how pointing out that there's always an issue with colour themes will somehow nullify the arguments/opinions. Like it or not, this is, and will continue to be a constant issue, due to the nonspecificity of WP:COLOR selection. That being said,   663F38 works wonders for my liking. LLArrow (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, AlexTheWhovian, and Kailash29792: are you all fine with 663F38? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

John Hannah regular

We all (or at least those who saw the season 4 premiere) know that John Hannah is now a regular on the show as seen in the intro credits, but the only truly credible text source I found to prove this is ABC's cast list. Can it be used without violating WP:PRIMARY? It also lists Gabriel Luna as a regular (though he is not credited onscreen as such), but I think it means... Kailash29792 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that for Hannah we can use it as he is credited as such in the opening credits as well, as for Luna, I'd say we wait until he actually shows up in the credits on screen before adding him to the series regular (although have a hidden note explaining why he is absent despite being in the same source as Hannah)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done: I've added that source. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: User:Adamstom.97 has found and used a secondary source for this claim. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Another Episode Title

There is an Episode Five titled, Lockout, and I'm having trouble trying to add it, because it's so hard, [1]

173.189.8.121 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, AlexTheWhovian! 173.189.8.121 (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ghost Rider's car

Don't know where this could maybe be used, but it looks like his car is named "Hell Charger". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is the Hell Charger in the comics. Luna calls it Lucy (as in Lucifer) but I don't know if that applies to the show or just the real world car they use to make the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Inhumans (TV series)

I don't know if the top editors of these Agents of SHIELD articles are already on the case, but an Inhumans television series was just confirmed to air on ABC this fall. According to THR, they also abandoned the plans for the feature film. ([2]) DarkKnight2149 03:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Darkknight2149 for this source. Working on it as I type.... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"AIDA" or "Aida"

Just wanted to note, I was watching an episode with the closed captions on and Jensen's character was stylized as "Aida". Just for comparison, Life Model Decoy was "LMD" and SHIELD was "S.H.I.E.L.D." So I think the lowercase version should be the one we use, despite how it appeared at the end of season 3 in all caps and an apparent acronym (which hasn't been revealed, yes? I'm not forgetting that am I?) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps AIDA was the interface, but when Radcliffe put her in a body and tried to pass her off as human he changed it to the human name Aida? The press releases have been listing her as "Aida" as well, so I think we can change her to that. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Pods in episode table

I think we should be reflecting these three pods in the episode table using the part templates that I added before. AlexTheWhovian removed these because we didn't do it for other marketing subtitles like Fallen Agent last season, but I think that this is a different situation. The producers have split the show's content into three pods that they want to feel different from one another, based on ABC's airing schedule, and they're using these subtitles as a name for the storyline rather than a marketing "event" like the previous subtitles were. Since we are dividing the writing section as we are, and we have a new poster for the new pod, I think we should reflect the split in the episode table as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. Sort of like a Heroes (season 3) situation. I think what separates this season from all previous, is only like 3-5 episodes were marketed with the subtitle as an "event". But this season, all of the promos and such have called the show AoS: Ghost Rider and presumably for the second pod, it will all be called AoS: LMD (probably spoken AoS: Life Model Decoy) and the third will be treated the same. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I've added the parts back in. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Why AoS stopped using Ghost Rider already

As told to TVLine. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Some cast questions

Ava Acres only received co-starring credit in 411. Should she still be listed in the "Notable guests" section per the general guidelines we've established. Also, I believe Blair Underwood's voice as Andrew there at the end was archival, as he was not credited. Should this be noted here and at the list of characters page as such? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, Acres should just be mentioned down in the casting section. As for Underwood, if we get a source for it being archival (which it does seem to be) then I think we could say that in the casting section here and in Andrew's section at the LoC. As long as we don't imply anywhere that Underwood returned or guest starred or something. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dayal

This article from Deadline refers to Manish Dayal as currently recurring on S.H.I.E.L.D. It does seem likely that he will be back due to the way we last saw him, so should we use this to say that he is recurring now? We can remove him later on if he doesn't end up making 4+ appearances. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd just wait until we get the remaining 2 appearances he needs from press releases. Trades can use "recurring" sometimes when it is only 2 appearances. So they could be commenting on already filmed episodes, not potentially upcoming ones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Phil Coulson in the framework

@Adamstom.97: I am accepting your invitation to discuss the description of Coulson in the framework. My edit was both thanked and reverted, so it seems like a discussion is in order. I see nothing particularly anti-Inhuman, but I am curious about your interpretation. There is no dialog in the scene and the only thing written is "Inhumans, why we fear them." If you replace Inhumans with another subject, say "Spiders, why we fear them" or "Clowns, why we fear them," it would not mean that he were anti-spider or anti-clown, so I it feels like WP:OR to assume this statement is anti-Inhuman. He very well could be, but I see nothing to definitively state that yet. My preference is to simply state what we saw: he is teaching about Inhumans. - DinoSlider (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. A classroom discussion topic of societal Inhuman fear does not necessarily mean that Coulson himself is hateful or anti-Inhuman. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Dino's interpretation. Upcoming episodes could shed more light on Coulson's stance, but just from that glimpse, we only know he is teaching about them, not what his opinion on the matter is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, as I would say that those other examples are "anti-spider or anti-clown" Dino, but I am fine with waiting for more episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that because Coulson is teaching about it necessarily means we should call him anti-Inhuman until we know more. Giving another example, a history teacher could use the same phrasing when talking about the American Revolution, writing "The British, why we fear them" which then leads to the discussion of the US colonies mentality in the 1770s that forced them to get out from British control. So I wouldn't say the teacher in that instance is "anti-British". If I'm going along with this train of my own thoughts, Coulson could then continue after writing that discussing various events that happened in the MCU world that were Inhuman related and how that made the public fear them. But that phrase itself, at least in the context of all that we've seen thus far, does not clearly paint Coulson as an anti-Inhuman person. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, when I said "anti-Inhuman" I wasn't assuming Coulson's own feelings (though I do think that may have been the intention of the shot), I was merely saying it along the lines of "Coulson is a history teacher" or "Coulson is an English teacher". - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I understood it (and read it) as you thinking those were Coulson's feeling, not necessarily as a subject he was teaching. In any regard, the wording of "Coulson is teaching about Inhumans" is clearer and removes that confusion, and will be expanded upon in future episode summaries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The latest poster (it can be seen here) is much clearer in the anti-inhuman tone. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Madame Hydra

So since this was announced, I've been trying to wrap my head around how to present this. I think we should definitely look to the season 3 article with the Ward/Hive situation to give us a baseline. At the moment, the EW (unless I'm missing it) did not tell us if Madame Hydra is Aida or Agnes in the Framework, or a completely different, third character. If the latter, then I don't think it should be formatted as you did Adamstom.97, instead we should start Madame Hydra's own episode count to see if she also will hit four episodes. If not, then I think she could be listed under "Notable guests" given she is portrayed by Jansen (and I guess Agnes could be too). We may need to wait until the episode airs, but at the moment, I'm leaning towards Aida and Madame Hydra being two separate character. Also, I guess we have to keep "Madame" in the name, even though we try to avoid titles, because without it, that'd be kind of weird, yes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I was iffy on how to present this as well, but I did assume that this was Agnes's consciousness since we saw her being uploaded to the Framework whereas Aida is outside protecting it. If that is the case, then we have the two characters (Aida and Agnes / Madame Hydra) which I suppose is a Ward/Hive situation. So, I would hide the Agnes / Madame Hydra credit from the list, and wait for the 4 episodes (including the previous Agnes episode) to unhide it. If she is a third character then she would need 4 episodes separate from the Agnes episode, and if she turns out to be Aida in some way, then we should list her as Aida / Madame Hydra. I feel that "Madame Hydra" is a thing, rather than "Madame" Hydra, but I may be wrong about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely forgot about Agnes going into the Framework, so I didn't think it could have been her. I thought it would have been Aida making a manifestation of herself or something. We'll know more on Tuesday. But if what you are saying is true, I think we should do this: list "Mallory Jansen as Agnes Kitsworth / Madame Hydra" under notable guests after Patton Oswalt and start an episode counter for them (including 413 that Agnes debuted in and the known 416 appearance). Then at the List of characters section, format similar to Ward's cells, and make "Agnes Kitsworth / Madame Hydra" a subsection of Aida. That's how I see this working out the best, and how it will be the most clear. And then if Agnes / Madame Hydra appears two more times, she could move over to the "Recurring" section here as a separate listing from Aida. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just not sure about listing Jansen in both columns. I would rather keep the Agnes / Madame Hydra references to the prose casting section, and only add them back to the cast list if they become recurring. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

So in the episode, Jansen was using her American accent, signaling to me that she is not Agnes (as she used her natural Australian accent there). I still think that she is a separate character from Aida, so we should give her her own episode count to see how many she is in as Madame Hydra. Definitely confirmed for 416 and for 417 via the preview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been confirmed Madame Hydra is Aida, so maybe it would be best to list it as "Mallory Jansen as Aida and Madame Hydra"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Should it be "Aida and Madame Hydra" or "Aida / Madame Hydra", since it is just Aida taking on another name in the Framework? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Pure OR here, but Madame Hydra seems more like a title than a name, so I would go with "Aida / Madame Hydra". - DinoSlider (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I went with "and" over the / was because Madame Hydra (as far as we know) only exists in the Framework, but I'm fine with either. If it isn't on the article already, the EW postmortem clarifies that Madame Hydra is indeed Aida. For over at the List of characters, should we format it like Ward and Hive with the line separating the two, or should it be "normal" formatting with characters and their hero names? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it as "and" for now. Hopefully we will have a clearer idea after the next few episodes. As for the LoC, I think it should just be a normal section, and we can discuss the Madame Hydra stuff in the prose there. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

417 notes

• Continuing from this discussion, in the episode Jansen say that Aida is an acroynm, so should we change back to referring to her as "AIDA"?
• In the cast list, should we use s2 notation for Johnson since she is going by "Skye" in the Framework, and as such, should we include "/ The Doctor" + source for Fitz? ("416AVClub" source can cite both if decided they should be added)

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about changing back to "AIDA", but this is more evidence to support that argument. With the other names in the Framework, I feel like it may be a bit much to list them all out like that. Perhaps a note in the casting section, and then at the various character sections at the LoC, would be better, and just leave the cast list for their "real" names. The only exception I would make is Madame Hydra, because I think that is a slightly different situation and one I would like to discuss a bit more. From this episode, it seems that Aida (or AIDA) has entered the Framework to essentially live as a "real person", and chose the name Ophelia. She is also known as Madame Hydra. Because of that, I don't think she should have the multi-section Hive thing at the LoC, since she is the same person and has just decided to go by another name. As for how to list her, Aida / Ophelia would be correct per our past listings, as would Ophelia / Madame Hydra. In the table at the LoC that could be Aida / Ophelia {small: Madame Hydra}, but here I am not so sure about "Mallory Jansen as Aida / Ophelia / Madame Hydra". I'm not really sure what else we would do though. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I like only including the Framework names in the Casting section. I'll make that addition. Aida and Madame Hydra is presenting an interesting issue. I agree with your assessment, but I also think we should break it up, at the LoC, into an Aida section and a Madame Hydra subsection (or if not, a better way to present the two characters being portrayed by the one actress). What if we reformat the overview table like this, with the two characters next to each other? That might be helpful. And here, maybe in the Cast section we could do either: 1) "Mallory Jansen as Aida and Ophelia / Madame Hydra" or 2) "[*] Mallory Jansen as Aida [**] Mallory Jansen as Ophelia / Madame Hydra". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added what I was initially thinking for Aida in the LoC overview table to your sandbox. The thing with having the two separate sections for Aida and then Ophelia is that they are the same character, with the same story arc and development. I think this is a similar situation to Skye becoming Daisy Johnson / Quake, in that we suddenly had three different names for one character. Perhaps we can follow that model - Aida "Ophelia" / Madame Hydra, with Aida being her "birth name", "Ophelia" being the name she has chosen to take, and Madame Hydra her super-name (for lack of a better term). I still think the way to go is AIDA as the AI vs Aida as the AI inside the replica of Agnes's body. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I can get behind both of those, for the LoC overview and how to list here. And Aida still instead of AIDA. Let's see if anyone else chooses to comment and then we can implement these both. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)