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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is there any point...

... On having this page yet? I don't even have to scroll down to read anything. Yes there is a nice amount of production information, but this page isn't really needed at the moment and seems like whoever created it created it just to be the 'first' person to create it. I suggest that someone, I don't know who, if they are interested in editing this page then they do it in their sandbox, and we delete this page until there is fully enough information to worthily grant it an actual page. Charlr6 (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the point of this article is that, as you put it, there is a nice amount of production information. It's a project that is currently being developed, and has received a significant amount of coverage from a number of reliable sources. As the project develops, the article will too. Whether or not you have to scroll down the page is not criteria for notability. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I know whether scrolling down or not isn't criteria for notability, haha. I was just saying that because it also shows there isn't a huge amount of information. It seems that you know about the coverage for this show, how often is there some information about it? If its every couple of weeks or so then that should be fine enough to leave this page here. It just at the moment, doesn't seem like it needs its own page, and we could just mention this all under a 'television' section on the Marvel Cinematic Universe page, until there is tons more information, like characters involved, actors who have been cast, any possibly cameos, etc. Charlr6 (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of this information is on the Marvel Cinematic Universe page already. Maybe you could put this in the incubator until there are some actors attached, a realse date annouced, or something of that kind. -Dracuns (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

UK?

Any info about the plans for it to air in the UK? Perhaps on Sky Movies Premiere like the Clone Wars (Star Wars) or was it the Clone Wars did.--79.69.96.179 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cast

Does anyone find it strange that Clark Gregg as Agent Phil Coulson is listed on the cast? His character was killed off in The Avengers. --24.23.143.90 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been confirmed in many articles and by many people that he is starring in the series. It's not uncommon for characters in Joss Whedon's work to come back from the dead. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is it confirmed that Phil Coulson actually died in The Avengers? There's a reference to him not being around in Item 47 but that could easily be explained by his being on medical leave. —Phil | Talk 22:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems believable to me: The UK release of The Avengers appears to have been edited to make it easier to believe he didn't die: [1] 65.13.226.101 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Useful sources

• http://collider.com/joss-whedon-avengers-2-shield-marvel/223414/

Bit of info about when they start filming and some concept. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work it in there. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've stumbled across some sort of promo site for the show: http://www.agentsofshield.com/footage-from-stark-expo-attacks/ I'm not in any way associated with the production or promotion of the series; I just happened across this site today. If it really is somehow connected to the show, I'd love to see confirmation of that. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If I'm looking at it right, it's a promotional website of sorts. Kinda like a viral site type thing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely part of the show. http://www.agentsofshield.com/ has been linked by verified cast and crew twitters as well as the @AgentsofSHIELD twitter that ABC set up. Erindizmo (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Move protection

I've move-protected the page for one month due to the recent undiscussed page moves. I suggest that you start a requested move discussion if you still want the page to be moved. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I second that request. It's disruptive to continually revert a change to the article, especially a name change. Both users are established; and should know how to interact more effectively. Now is the opportunity to make that happen. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comic Con 2013

Is it notable enough to include somewhere in the article that the whole pilot was screened at Comic Con, and garnered a very positive audience reaction? Source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is.--Max Tomos (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Episode 2

Apparently episode 2 will be directed by David Straiton and written by Jed Whedon, Maurissa Tancharoen and Jeff Bell.[2] But I'm not sure there's a strong enough source to add it to the article yet. --DocNox (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a fan site, and thus we can not use the info. So we can wait for a more reputable one for the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Before we start this again...

User Spshu is claiming that this info is not valid because "Twitter is a blog & they no longer run their verified program". Firstly, Twitter is perfectly acceptable to use here in the context that it is. And Twitter still has their verified program, hence the blue "check" next to Tancharoen name. Other editors, I would greatly appreciate your input on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Twitter is not a Blog (its a social media site) and it is a perfectly acceptable source providing the authenticity of the writer is established. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney, for your information (and others), Maurissa Tancharoen is one of the creators and EPs on the show. The link is her verified account. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I am saying...its fine to use it as a source. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. To Spshu's claim that "Twitter is a blog". It's not. It's a social media site, that uses microblogging to allow users to present updates to their friends/followers etc. This is Tancharoen's official account. No harm there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This has come up before. Twitter has ended it verified program as I pointed out in the edit summary which you both ignored. Re: Blog. "It's not.", said Favre1fan93, "..that uses microblogging..", so twitter is a blog per Favre1fan93. Guess what that is no more than a blog that put out a RSS feed. Yes, it has the hash (#) and at(@) tags. The various features of blog software or site doesn't make any more or less a blog. Twitter is a microblog that just has some social media features. Spshu (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Where has this come up before, and where are sources to support the verified program being removed? Your word isn't good enough. If the verified program went away, Tancharoen's account would not have the blue check next to it. I believe that consensus was formed saying that it is fine to use Twitter per the points listed at WP:SELFSOURCE, which this passes. Also, don't twist my words. I said it's a social media site, which it is first and for most, that uses the process of microblogging to produce its content. All social media site are very much like this. That doesn't make it an out right blog. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is proof that the verified accounts are still active. I don't know where you got that disagreement from. https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/111-features/articles/119135-about-verified-accounts - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I just looked up the WP page on Twitter, it says "Twitter is an online social networking service and microblogging service" and I looked up the page on Microblogging, it says "Microblogging is a broadcast medium in the form of blogging". So, in a way, Twitter is pretty much a blogging site. And I'm looking at [this page], so technically, it's sort of a source. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Twitter is most certainly not a blog in the sense that WP:RS means, though; they're largely talking about self-published opinions being used a supposedly neutral sources. Here, Twitter is being used by an individual with intimate knowledge of the show (and whose identity is verified, regardless of spurious claims that Twitter doesn't verify accounts anymore) to break news, which is certainly something we can cite as a reference (especially when we're specifically saying that Tancharoen was saying it on Twitter; even if it turns out to be not true, we're reporting that she said it, which she did say). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELPEREN#Twitter, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:SELFPUB all lead me say that Twitter can be used as a primary source for these kind of things, as the content originates from a verified account of a writer/producer/showrunner of the show. || Tako (bother me) || 23:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but did Favre1fan93 say that Twitter no longer verifies accounts? Is there a weblink about that? If so, we have to adjust how we treat twitter tweets, since the verifiability falls a little short of true. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Spshu said it, not Favre1fan93, and it was summarily refuted. No need to adjust anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I had followed up on it and found this and this. So long as there is a badge there, its the real deal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Guest cast in each episode

How does this info want to be handled? Do we want to add this at all in the episode table a la The Big Bang Theory, in the casting section, somewhere else? Maybe only if it is a notable guest appearance, by either a famous actor or character from the MCU? I don't believe there is anything in the TV MOS that states how to handle this, but if there is, direction to it would be great to have for future reference. As far as I've known, editors that work on each show, build a consensus on what to do with this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Technical assistance

Does anybody know how to fix the bullets in the cast section? They are appearing over the image.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

They are not doing that for me. How are you viewing the page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

IE 10.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Chrome, Safari and Firefox on my Mac are all fine. Maybe it's an IE thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

When isn't a technical glitch not an IE thing? lol - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Shown episodes in the table

I would like other's opinions on this matter. It is being questioned if future episodes, such as episode 4 now, that only has an air date, should be visible in the table as it currently is. I have stated that as we do not have any other production info (the title, director, writers or preview summary), it does not warrant its inclusion in the table. We are not a TV guide. We list info on the episodes as they are received. User Wikipedical brought in Homeland (season 3) as a similar example to their stance, but I believe this page is in error as well. A quick search of some other current network TV series, did not show them to be formatted in this way. Only episodes that had at least one additional production field were shown. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedical is using Homeland eps as a guide for this, and anytime someone uses an example that isn't a GA or FA level article, I find it a lot easier to dismiss the comparison. We are aiming to make all of our articles GA or FA, so it is better to aim in that direction, instead of somewhere less than that.

If we have solid references for the air dates, I say we use them, adding more information as it becomes available. No citation = no inclusion. It's a pretty simple formula, really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you direct my attention to any current or forth-coming season's article which is GA or FA that you wouldn't ignore a comparison to? That being said, certain channels have rather easily predictable schedules that don't get interrupted by a presidential address or much of anything short of the source transmitter being bombed. They also often give the season finale date too. Showtime is one of those channels. ABC is not one of those channels. It would be more confusing to skip-number the episode list because you only have the director or writer or title for 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13
And since i am just a bit in the mood for it, Wikipedia IS a tv guide. Wikipedia is often more comprehensive than the actual TV Guide i remember seeing in my youth. If it wasn't there would be no season articles and no episode lists. Wikipedia is about as much not a tv guide as the futon critic isn't an extremely comprehensive guide to American tv (though it claims to be the best it doesn't cover anything until it gets on a schedule in the USA so it really sucks for Canadian, British, Irish, and Australian shows). delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How to handle episodes

I was wondering how others wanted to handle each episode. Other TV series create individual pages for each episode, to expand plot, add reactions/reviews, etc, while others just expand the plot from the preview one, just to display in the episode table. Regardless of what method is chosen (I personally am fine with either, as I feel there will be enough coverage of each episode to warrant individual page, but we may not need them), I believe the Pilot could get its own page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on coverage by reliable sources per WP:GNG. If you have sources to provide enough content to create a comprehensive article on the episode, then sure. Keep in mind the new article should not be a mirror of information contained here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the established process is to just add summaries until more information becomes available. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:PLOTONLY.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe MisterShiney was referring to expanding the plot in the table as it is now on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I just meant here on this page. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Villainous Overlap

• http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/09/agents-of-shield-rising-tide/

The antagonists of the series are a group of hacktivists that go by the name The Rising Tide, which happens to be the same name of a group of climate activists.75.2.243.121 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Villainous Overlap

• http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/09/agents-of-shield-rising-tide/

The antagonists of the series are a group of hacktivists that go by the name The Rising Tide, which happens to be the same name of a group of climate activists.75.2.243.121 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request October 3rd 2013

Agent Fitz is listed as "An agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. who specializes in engineering, especially weapons technology" and Agent Simmons is listed as "An agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. who specializes in life sciences (both human and alien) and is the close partner of Agent Leo Fitz". They should either be listed with the information that they're partners in both of the lines (ie add 'and is the close partner of Agent Jenna Simmons') or not at all - mentioning it only in the woman's description is a demeaning microagression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.51.179 (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Having them one after the other is an unneeded redundancy. Having it for one character implies it for the other. The order may need to be tweaked, as in that statement going with Fitz, but it is not needed twice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You could also reword it in Simmons' description as "Agents Fitz and Simmons are close partners" or smthing, but the way it is (still) listed on the page makes her sound like his sidekick/accessory.

 Done - That can work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Page Title

The title of the show is Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., not Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. It's that way in all the official sites, TV magazines, and sites of TV reviews. While it's acceptable to refer to it in the shortened form when discussing it for brevity's sake (just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer can be called just Buffy), that shouldn't be the main title of the page. 37.117.61.119 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The common name of the series is simply Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. We do not generally use official names (i.e. Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton, or Dr. Strangelove not Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but is this really the common name? | see the fuller Marvel name popping up quite often. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean people in comments saying "Marvel's..." or in titles/other official things? Because "common" means what people say as opposed to any official use.––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 23:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

UK Ratings

I noticed that there are UK ratings from BARB, and was curious for my own purposes if I could get the source data; looking at the reference cited, there are some figures available on the BARB site. However, when I looked at the references for Journalists (as citation on the web would be covered by that), I see "It is unacceptable to print data / information from the BARB website without the appropriate BARB publishing licence" and I'm directed to a PDF detailing how much it costs to reproduce the BARB data (BARB Tariffs) - section 4 details a bunch of reproduction fees. The sub-section 4.4 statement about "One-off Licence Fee to publish a small amount of BARB information for academic consumption only" for £50 would seem to be applicable for a small use such as this.

Is use of the BARB data within Wikipedia exempt from this charge? It seems to be a violation of the BARB usage which I cited to publish this data on Wikipedia.

-- Gerph 2001:470:1F09:1DAE:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost every British TV series ratings in Wikipedia articles come from BARB, it's where all the ratings come from in the UK. Frogkermit (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that license is for news agencies that wish to publish more in depth info beyond what is readily available from the BARB site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of episodes

The article should state how many episodes have been ordered for the season one. And the infobox should be changed from episodes=2 to episodes total number and/or have the word ongoing added... or indicate in some way that the show is currently airing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You can see at Template:Infobox television that the number of episodes in the infobox represents how many episodes have been broadcast, not ordered or produced. This number is updated each week after a new episode has aired. That the series is currently airing is self-evident in other parts of the infobox or on the episode list and doesn't need any additional explanation. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Plus, just because X number of episodes are ordered doesn't mean X number of episodes are actually made. Bionic Woman (2007 TV series), for example, got either a 9 or 13 episode order, but only 7 were ever made. Even if all X episodes have been made, that also doesn't mean they'll all see the light of day should cancellation occur. Hence, Wikipedia uses the current number of episodes that have seen broadcast. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

FitzSimmons

The character section should acknowledge the fact Fitz and Simmons work so closely together that they are almost always (in the first 3 episodes shown thus far, at any rate) referred to as FitzSimmons. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It does. "Agents Fitz and Simmons are close partners." under Simmons' entry in the "Cast and characters" section.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Early screenings

Should it be noted at all in "Pilot" and "Eye Spy" on this page, that both were screened before airing at Comic Cons? (Pilot for San Diego, Eye Spy for New York) I know when episodes premiere elsewhere before the US it is noted, and for films, it is noted if they are shown at festivals. All it would have to be is a simple note as follows:

Note: This episode was screen (or premiered) at X Comic Con on X, 2013.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't put it in the episode summary, it doesn't belong there. It could go in the production section easily enough. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

DVR Ratings, Live + 3 or Live+7?

I noticed on quite a few Wiki pages people are adding Live + 3 numbers in Live + 7 areas, on this page even the Live + 3 numbers were reported on the table. Today TVbythenumbers have released the Live + 7 numbers for the show here http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/10/13/live7-dvr-ratings-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-leads-adults-18-49-ratings-increase-sleepy-hollow-tops-total-viewership-gains-the-blacklist-earns-biggest-percentage-increase-in-prem/208745/ will someone add to the table? 82.9.222.144 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2013

Change from "Fitz is playing blackjack with Ward" to "Fitz is playing poker with Ward" 177.32.50.5 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 October 2013

The character section for Coulson needs some updating, as the series has established (in most all of the episodes broadcast to date) that the mystery of Coulson's apparent resurrection is one of the show's ongoing arcs. The current version of the character section doesn't seem to have been updated since the series started airing. Somewhere in the article it should probably also be noted that Agents of SHIELD is the first ongoing live-action series set in the Marvel Universe to be produced since the late-1970s/early-1980s series The Incredible Hulk. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to your second point, as much as I'd like The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series) mentioned in the article, The Incredible Hulk was not actually, technically in the Marvel Universe, and it wasn't even in association with Marvel Comics (besides having Stan Lee as consultant). --Musdan77 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about a rephrase - it's the first live-action mainstream network series based upon a Marvel Comics property since The Incredible Hulk? (Note I said mainstream network - I am aware there was a series based upon Blade produced for a cable network.) 68.146.70.124 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't say "mainstream" b/c a network has affiliates: ABC, CBS, etc. This doesn't apply to cable channels.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2013

A grassroots climate justice group in North America called Rising Tide is decrying the usage of their name "Rising Tide" in the pilot of Agents of Shield -- especially since their fictional alter-ego is being cast as a shadowy, bad group that is undermining the "established order."

Is this a coincidence? Look, it is no secret that corporations and governments are increasingly resisting challenges to their legitimacy, and are resisting calls to rein in economic growth at the expense of social justice and environmental sustainability -- especially in the past 10 years with ecological and financial crises multiplying like gremlins. To add insult to injury, they are beginning to label community grassroots activists as terrorists and extremists. Truly, it is unfortunate that Hollywood is contributing to this misinformation campaign -- they wield lots of power to shape the imaginations and opinions of North Americans. In that light, it seems a small correction to add a section labelled "Controversy" at the end of the wikipedia page, with links to the petition and the real Rising Tide's webpage.

http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/disney-climate-activists-aren-t-cyber-terrorists http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/2013/09/no-actually-we-are-the-rising-tide/

What do you think? Thanks!

Kristian.gareau (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure This is mentioned on the Pilot (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) in the production section, but I'm not sure if it should be mentioned here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rising Tide is a very common phrase, and has also been a movie studio, a record label, and various other things. There is no evidence - at all - that the name was chosen with any relationship to this group. It was almost certainly one of the Whedon clan themselves, who came up with the name for Skye's group, and they would NEVER have used the name in the way they're being accused of. In fact, given the nature of both Joss' work, and his political and social activism, it's A LOT more likely that this group is trying to increase their name-recognition, by making this spurious charge, than it being likely that the Rising Tide on S.H.I.E.L.D is meant to be defaming this group, who Joss is more likely to support than to make fun of. Either that, or they just don't know the difference between a coincidence and a conspiracy.

They're even claiming that they created a logo for the TV version of the group, that's similar to theirs, on purpose - except if you do a search for "rising tide logo", you'll find that of the dozens of companies and other uses of that phrase in logos, they almost all use the same hard block lettering font, and feature an image of either a wave of some other sea-based image (there is a fishing magazine called Rising Tide, that uses a shark). Again, coincidence, that people who make a logo with the words "Rising Tide," find that block lettering and ocean waves gives, them the visual they're going for.

This is the same arguments they tried to make, about Joss ripping off Cowboy Bebop, because Firefly featured a naked young girl in a crate - Joss had never seen Cowboy Bebop, and the fact that he envisioned transporting a rescued government experimentee in a padded crate, was mere coincidence.

This is a non-story, a non-issue, and nothing which belongs in this article. There is NO WAY that the man who made this video, is allowing ABC or anyone else, to use his work to discredit a grass-roots group fighting climate change, and spread propaganda for corporate plutocracy.

http://market-thoughts.com/2012/11/02/romneys-america-according-to-joss-whedon/ 173.23.238.78 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Episode summaries are too long

They are far too long, and I have taken the liberty of shortening the last three. If an editor feels they are too brief, they should embrace this opinion by expanding the summary into a full episode article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit 8th episode description

May I add the following to the end of the S01E08 description?: ", specially by the means of a suggestive Dollhouse reference." Varum1 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The page is not protected. You are free to edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just make sure you can link that reference via a Reliable Source; we cannot include it because you notice it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Info in infobox

In the infobox it states that the tv series is based on S.H.I.E.L.D. by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. But S.H.I.E.L.D. is the name of a comic book series and that series is not by Lee and Kirby, nor is the tv show based on it. The Lee and Kirby comic book series, which introduced S.H.I.E.L.D., was titled Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. I changed the infobox accordingly, but my change was reverted, on the grounds that the tv show is based on the "organization", not on the comic book series. Because of the citation of the creators, and because S.H.I.E.L.D. is the name of a comic book, it seems to me that to just say based on S.H.I.E.L.D. is ambiguous at best. Thoughts? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide citations that back one position over the other?Wzrd1 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

SHIELD is SHIELD, and that's it. Publishing several comic books with minor variations of the title is just a regular procedure in the comic book industry. Same as Spider-Man is simply Spider-Man, even if his comics books are always titled "Amazing Spider-Man", "Spectacular Spider-Man", "Peter Parker: Spider-Man", "Ultimate Spider-Man", "Spider-Man Unlimited" and what not. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken, S.H.I.E.L.D., the organization was introduced in a segment of Strange Tales #135 (Aug 1965) by Lee and Kirby called "Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.". The comic book titled Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. wasn't introduced until June 1968 and was written and drawn by Jim Steranko. There was a 2010 miniseries simply titled S.H.I.E.L.D. but notice S.H.I.E.L.D. in the infobox is not italicized so we are referring to the organization S.H.I.E.L.D., not the comic book S.H.I.E.L.D.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat is correct. Even though the organization appeared in Strange Tales under the guise of "Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.", that organization was still created by Lee and Kirby for the purpose of that story. Thus, the way it is is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Episode summaries, again

I know it's been mentioned before, but it has to be said. The episode summaries are getting out of hand in this article. They are way too long, compared to other TV show articles on Wikipedia. The summaries should definitely be trimmed, they should be no more than a few sentences long.Richiekim (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100%. WP:TVPLOT says between 200-500 words but that's for stand-alone articles. So I would say they should be no longer than 200 words for the purposes of this list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I was going to just amend that, to add TVPLOT says 200-500. The TV project is, in my opinion, loose on formatting and acceptability for how to apply guidelines. Pages take it upon themselves on to format and utilize the info as they see fit for their show. So, from my experience on other pages that do not create individual episode articles, summaries in the 200-300 word rage are more than sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

300 words still seems a bit lengthy, especially considering that a lot of editors seem to think they must use every word allotted. <200 is perfectly sufficient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as an example, List of Arrow episodes has summaries that range from 200 - 240ish. Those are appropriate length summaries in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ratings section

With the addition of Canadian and Australian ratings, I feel the section has become quite excessive. With potential subsequent seasons, that section will become huge and bloated. As someone who feels even the U.S. ratings table is excessive, ratings for various other countries is even more so. The prose portion of that section is fine, it points notable ratings, but having four tables that list every single rating statistic in existence is quite excessive. Please see WP:NOTSTATS. I'd like to hear what other people think. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If and when a second season is announced, I would split that information and the episode list to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Season 1).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Triiiple, but even then, the amount of tables may be excessive. I know many people in the TV project have different opinions on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Can this be addressed again? Even if this info gets split off, it still seems a bit excessive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We now have four separate tables addressing international ratings. It's beyond excessive. There needs to be notability to include international ratings, we just don't include them because they're available. Most of that section violates WP:NOTSTATS. In my opinion, the tables should all be removed, and only notable international ratings should be included via prose, like if they're really high or broke some record. The way it's handled in prose form at the top of the section, mentioning the premiere viewers for international airings is suffice enough. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the country of origin ratings (so in this case the US) and would support a move of the others to prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, are you in favor of the complete removal of all ratings tables (except U.S.), and only mention the initial premiere viewers for international countries in prose form? The UK, Canada, and Australia premieres are already mentioned, I'd just have to include the New Zealand one. And then, basically, from then on, only notable (record-breaking, for example, or season averages) international ratings should be included via prose form. If you agree, I'll be bold and makes these changes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As you stated is exactly correct. Eventually, we will want to bring this to GA status, so removing those tables now will help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative and making the changes. Good stuff. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I had some time on my hands. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Episode Formatting

I think that the use of multiple date types in the "Original Air Date" is confusing. If you are going to use MM-DD-YYYY then please use consistently. If not then use another date type. Either way can it be changed to be all one type. This has been one of the down falls of most episode lists. Whether it is the Air Date, Summaries, etc. If the formatting is constantly changing then it just makes it look ugly.

Where are you seeing this issue, because it does not exist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested Split

Why are the episodes listed in the show's main article? So far, this is the only continuously running series that I have seen that has its episode list on the same page as the shows main article. Someone has already brought up the fact that the episode summaries are getting too long, so the best way to remedy this is to create a new article for the episodes. There is no reason not to do this, nearly every major series that I know of has its own article for episodes on here. –Nahald (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the show hasn't been renewed for a second season, yet. All main series articles contain episode lists while there is only a single season. What is the point in having an entire LoE page for a series that only lasted one season? If the show gets a second season, then a split would be a good idea. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Schrutedlt08. At such a time as a second season is ordered, a discussion would need to be had to determine if we just split to a LoE page, or go to a LoE page AND a season page, because there is, in my opinion, end of relevant info that can be used to create a stand alone season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Also agree w/ Schrutedlt08. I think the right time for a split discussion to occur is after renewal is announced. This way we'll have the split in place in time for the episode titles to be announced. Since renewal is likely, this is more a debate about timing and policy than whether or not it will actually happen. 98.219.8.186 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. → Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. – I just saw "Marvel's" listed in the title of the new series. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Compare to, for example, Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?, which appropriately redirects to simply Why Did I Get Married?, or Lee Daniels' The Butler, which redirects to The Butler. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated by BDD. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. gsk 03:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support not about the various "Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D." comic book titles, or the various characters who are "agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per BDD, further examples include The Avengers (2012 film) vs. Marvel's The Avengers and Pacific Rim (film) vs. Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim.--TriiipleThreat (talk)-
  • "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim" really? Where did you make up that name? If you watch the TV show, it explicitly state's its name as "Marvel's Agents of Shield" in the voiceover. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Google is your friend. Also you do realize Wikipedia naming conventions advises against using WP:OFFICIALNAMES.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Interesting. Didn't know that about Pacific Rim. Yes, "Marvel's", while in the official title, is not the common title. It is just Marvel looking to include their company name in the title for marketing purposes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, yes it does have Marvel's in front of it, but that could change and most people search for "Agents of Shield" not "Marvel's Agents of Shield". The policy clearly states that it shouldn't use the official name only the common name so really this shouldn't be a problem nor is it a discussion that need to be happening.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree but just a point of clarification (which I think is my fault): WP:OFFICIALNAMES is an essay. WP:COMMONNAME is the actual guideline, which it is based upon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per other opposers. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Full Names of Characters

Why is it that we have Fitz's full name and nickname listed under the cast and characters section but not Coulson's? Transphasic (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That should not be. Will fix. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is that both characters should have their full names and nicknames listed. Transphasic (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The common name should be used, which would be Phil Coulson and Leo Fitz. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of Coulson, this is the only page where Fitz is specially listed. Shouldn't we have his full name since it has been mentioned several times on the show? The NCIS and Chicago Fire pages, for example, list the main characters' full names and nicknames. Transphasic (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think when it gets renewed it should be put in a table with their full names, but for now it is fine as it is. Their full names should be listed on the List of Characters Page though. Although I wouldn't mind with some help with references and stuff like that redoing that page to be much more like other character list pages freeing this page up to litterally just be a basic list of their names and actor or if it gets a second season then have a table with who remains a regular and who leaves. Like the Vampire Diaries Page and its list of characters.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ditto51: once a renewal (hopefully) comes, a lot does have to happen to this page, to fork content out. I will in the mean time, make the full name change over at the List of characters page. However, I don't think switching things up to be like the Vampire Diaries pages is the way to go. For one, the list of characters page like that allows too much in-universe information to be added, which should not be done. And as for the table on the main page, I do not foresee that many changes to warrant it. Keeping it as is, and in similar style to Arrow (TV series), would be the best way to go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Premiss

Shouldn't it now read that The Cavalry (Agent May) put the team together , not Coulson , as revealed in a recent episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.110.189 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes...but I think, based on the events of the season, a new one will need to be written once it has concluded. One of the many tasks that has to happen once the season ends on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Casting section

A little bit of outdated information there. Cobie Smulders is cited as saying her character "may" appear in the series. We now know that she appears in the series premiere, and plays a major role in the post-Winter Soldier episode "Nothing Personal". 68.146.70.124 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

AoS adding 2 new cast members to principle cast.

Shouldn't this have been added 3 months ago? It states that we'll be getting 2 new cast members. Here's the source 71.188.30.224 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It says they're adding two recurring characters not principal characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this refers to Garrett and Triplett, we now know one isn't a principal character and it remains to be seen if the other ends up being more than a multi-episode guest star. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

For the season, Garrett and Triplett are recurring characters. Should the show be renewed, the principals will most likely be updated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request, Hydra to HYDRA (Semi-Protected Article)

Multiple inaccuracies whereby the organisation known as "HYDRA" is incorrectly listed as "Hydra", change of "Hyrda" and "hydra" to "HYDRA" is the intended edit, Many thanks, Phil.cob Phil.cob (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Go to the Hydra talk page. Even the page itself was renamed from HYDRA to Hydra. it is not an acronym and so Marvel changed it--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, as I understood it, for example, "S.H.I.E.L.D." is separated by full stops as its an acronym, however the organisation name "HYDRA" is not an acronym, merely the name was in capitals. Thank you for correcting me, Phil.cob (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Character Descriptions

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the descriptions on this page are bigger and more detailed than that of the same characters on the List of Agents of SHIELD Characters Page?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

It's been suggested that you should split the episode section of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes, since the show has been renewed for a second season. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion right above this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Season 2

Per WP:TVUPCOMING, is there enough information on season 2 to allow its own section, or should we fold this into the lead and just wait for the first episode to air, or until there is more information to put here? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that I worked on writing that, in my interpretation of what I wrote, I am a little iffy on if we can consider Gregg's comments substantial enough. We could very easily move it to the lead. I'd like other's opinions on their thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Season 2 - What do we split

Hey everyone. Hoping we can discuss what can be branched out before rashly doing it. Main concern is what pages are and aren't made. Normally, individual season pages are not created with so few episodes aired, but I think there is more than enough info on this page to make Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) and thus List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes. Does anyone else feel any additional should be moved around to any other pages that I have not mentioned? Looking mainly at the episode tables, s1 specific production and casting info, and the ratings table to split out. Also, if a list of episodes page is made, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2) can redirect to the section "Season 2" on that page, that would just say, "On May 8, 2014, the series was renewed for a second season.[ref]" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we split off the Episodes and Ratings sections and maybe some of the Production, Castings, and Reception sections as most of it appears to be mainly Season 1 based at the moment and the Production section is already huge to the point that adding on everything from Season 2 will cause the section to become bigger than it needs to be.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

For now, I'd say we create Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) with a detailed episode list and ratings section like South Park (season 1). Later we can create a basic overview episode list at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes like List of South Park episodes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes is a definite. For a Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) to be notable enough on its own–some of the production and casting info from here; the entire episode list and ratings table, that would then be removed from the main article; initial critical reception, including new content based on the more positive reception the show has received; and a cast listing including the main and notable recurring/guest cast. And then from there, if necessary, trim content from the main article so it's only included in the season article so it's not duplicated content. Examples could possibly be the poster art initiative and the Marvel crossovers info. Basically, the more generalized series information should stay here, while more specifically season 1 info can be moved. Will be happy to help out with any work that needs to be done. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone actually coming here! What a rare occurrence! (Not against any of you, just how I things tend to happen around here. Always jumping the gun.) Anyways, I think most, if not all of the production section can go to the season page, because it is all season 1 info. Some can stay, such as initial pilot stuff, orders and renewals, and any general show info (possibly the Hydra twist). Casting can all go as it is, with just the info on the main stars staying. Series overview template can be merged with the premise section here. Obviously the ep list goes and the rating table. Some of the commentary on reception and ratings can also go, but we should avoid duplication for what is here now. (Side note: I have a Zap2It article I've been meaning to add for the reception section. Gives a nice overview of good early, sluggish and eh in the middle, and then better after Hydra twist.) And then that's pretty much it, beyond then updating and cleaning up this page. As for the episode page, I somewhat agree with TriiipleThreat at the moment. It is not really helpful while we only have one season table. Maybe we can create it once season two ep info starts coming out and a table is necessary? Since we are semi protected through the finale next week, can we agree to make all regular after episode edits, then split? Or is that waiting too long? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say start up a Draft Page to work on and then when Season 2 info becomes more widely available (ie outside of the writers's heads.) then we move the page into the main space. That way the page stay tidy until we are ready to trim it down by removing any duplicate information. It will also make it easier for the people just visiting otherwise they will end up with two half built pages rather than one complete page.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

While not in draft, I had a few weeks back, started a split in my sandbox here. Everyone is welcome to create the page there if they'd like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The page looks great, but on the topic of duplicated information...the character descriptions should not be listed on the page. Really (like most other season pages I've seen) it should be like

Actor 1 portrays Character 1
Actor 2 portrays Character 2
etc...

And the character descriptions for the main characters are more detailed on this page than they are on the actual list of characters page.

PS. Doing it in draft was just a suggestion. If you've got the groundwork down in your sandbox then I say we use that.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Some season pages have in depth character descriptions, some don't. The MOS is not really helpful here because they group everything for parent, season and episode pages together. I would argue since this is set in the MCU, we could dip into the TV MOS and the Film MOS, to make a "composite" styled article. At least that is how I believe the main page should end up. And yes, by all means, let's use my sandbox. Feel free to do stuff in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Here is how I'm envisioning the eventual split happening: main page (premise needs updating/changing once season is over, character descriptions also need updating), season 1 page (this still needs some cut down of the production section). Let me know what you think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think its best to obviously have the main page, then have these: AOS Characters, AOS Season 1 & AOS Season 2 [AOS = Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D]. It makes sense having these; due to another Marvel Agent spin off (Agent Carter) in production soon, mainly because every other popular TV show has this layout, and especially now it has been renewed. Just my option. Limbsaw 21:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbsaw (talk • contribs)

I feel like the new main page is ready to be made public, but the season 1 page still requires some editing, especially in the production section, which seems to be too long, and has material that is either repeated from the main page or just doesn't belong (is relevant to the series as a whole rather than the season specifically) - adamstom97 (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Splitting to an LoE page is reasonable at this point, but remember there are other factors to consider when splitting season articles, like WP:SIZERULE and MOS:TV#Multiple pages, which says that it's only necessary to start creating individual season articles when a show hits 80+ episodes, which is a long way off for this one. Most of the information from the temp season one page is just copied straight from the main series article and much of that information will remain there even after the proposed split, which seems pretty pointless to me. There's no sense in having two articles with practically identical information, especially for a show that only has a single season so far. Unless editors are willing to find notable, and particularly new, information for a season article then it's best to simply create an LoE page, especially considering what a short shelf-life the series has enjoyed so far. So basically: LoE page yes, season one page no. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't remain the same though, the only reason that the infomation is duplicated at the moment is because Favre1fan93 is working in his sandbox as such removing the information before the sandboxes are moved to the main space would be stupid.

Also I have see a number of TV shows (Once Upon a Time and Continuum to name a couple) who have seperate Season pages without hitting the 80+ limit (It also says generally) Having separate season pages also allows the main page to lose stuff mainly attributed with Season 1, otherwise the production and reception sections will become huge--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, as long as the content is notable and unique to the season page, without compromising the strength of the main series article, it would be permissible. I don't necessarily condone it, but I won't stand in the way. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I am still trying to work around that problem Schrutedlt, but others can help. I will have more time by the end of the week to work on this more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

New working point

Okay. I have two examples to show everyone how I'm envisioning this going. First, I have the main page and a season 1 page and no list of episodes page. The episode table(s) can still be housed on the main page, with season 1's transcluded from the season page, and season two just on the main page, given that once season two starts, we will not have enough on the onset to create a season 2 page. Second, all information is as current as this edit. I am hoping that if we can come to an agreement on this before tonight's episode, it will save me from having to copy over the forthcoming after episode/end of season edits. Why do it twice and miss stuff when we can do it once? (But if we can't decide before then, that is fine.) Third, I believe I have broken up the Production and Cast sections enough that there is only minimal, necessary duplicate information. (I think I addressed the issue you had initially, Schrutedlt08). However, the Reception and prose Ratings info, I did not separate (they are both exactly the same right now), but that can be worked on and shouldn't be a reason to hold this up. I feel the production info was more important to break up than this. Finally, beyond the necessary copy editing/updating of both pages' leads and the cast section on the main page, I think we are good to go. Notifying all users who commented here previously, plus a few others. @Ditto51, TriiipleThreat, Drovethrughosts, Limbsaw, Adamstom97, SchrutedIt08, and Fandraltastic:@Richiekim:

Main page – Season 1 page - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that addresses most of my concerns, so I say you might as well go ahead. I'll just say that you may as well go all out and work up an LoE page as well, as it's already been requested once here and people seem to expect it. But if you want to hold off on doing that until we're closer to the second season that's fine as well. Good work. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will see if others comment before the final ep airs tonight before doing so. I do think we should hold off on an LoE page, because as I stated, the season 1 eps can just be transcluded on the main page, since all season 2 info known is that it was renewed. Sometimes the expected isn't always the right thing. If we can't make a worthwhile LoE page, why split it off? But regardless, that is an easy creation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Also it's still a little too early for a LoE page. Until the first episodes of season 2 are announced, it's not needed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to be bold and make the split since there is not much page activity. The other users were for some kind of split, so I'm sure they would be acceptable to this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. It is done. Can anyone advise on why the ep table is not transcluding correctly? That was a big reason for splitting, getting the large table off the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm stumped. Anyone else got any ideas on how to get it working?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to make a post at the TV project. Get some opinions there. Thanks for trying Ditto. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother found it. {{Episode list/sublist|Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This part of the coding needs to be the page you are sending it to. You forgot a . at the end of Shield--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

-_____- Wow. Can you tell I've been looking at this code for too long? Thanks for the catch!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Once we get the info on the Season Two episodes, we'll have the List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes page established with links heading to the Season One and Season Two guides. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Whats going on with this new List of Episodes page? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone didn't look at these talk pages discussing not to make it yet, I don't think any of us who discussed it majorly on here had anything to do with it. He was probably being WP:BOLD.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a BOLD edit. I reverted and restored, due to us stating we do not need an LoE at the moment. And I still don't think we do, because we can very easily house the S2 table here, with the summaries. Adding that full table on this page will not make the article overly large, so it is very doable, and then can be discussed after season 2 if we split off to an LoE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If we do it your way then we shouldn't need the LoE page until season 3 begins if it is renewed for a third season--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I would still support that. Why should we have a page that is just a duplicate of what we already have/can support on this page? That is my opinion/view of things. I would be open to starting a new discussion if other editors want to create this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

can someone add Emmy award to the award section

here the link to the ref

http://www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners/2014/special-visual-effects-series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.164.58 (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Added with this edit by Drovethrughosts. — Wyliepedia 18:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

LoE revisit

So, thinking about this recently, I think this should be reconsidered. It may be appropriate to create one. If we did this, here are my opinions on how it should be done correctly: Series overview section should use the ratings table from this page, which will subsequently be transcluded here. No where does it say that it should be the DVD release in that table, and the ratings info is a better overview of a series success then when the DVDs are released. Season 1 (2013-14) section will have the transcluded table from the season 1 page. Season 2 will have the info that is here. An individual season article should not be created at this time, as we do not have substantial info to warrant one. Secondly, once an episode table can be created, we should still not create a season page until it can be populated much like the season 1 page. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

There seems to be an ongoing edit war with IPs making the same disruptive edits continuously. Should something be done? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hidden Categories

Okay, this is for the talk page itself rather than the article, but why is the page tagged with the hidden category Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Comics articles? Can anyone see anything wrong with the coding for the Comics Wikiproject?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried some fixes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

...and my changes didn't do anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

Can we expand Simmons' profile to list she almost dies in F.T.T.Z. and is one of the few people to know Nick Fury is alive? Her profile seems lacking for an amazing character like her. Totalknockout (talk) 20:01, 6 September 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, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cast and characters section is out of control

There is way to much info. in here, it needs a haircut, esp. all the blow-by-blow description of character development events that rightly belongs in the episodes' plot summaries. -Oosh (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat: He's got a point. What's worse than them being out of control is the fact that there is more information in the characters section on this page than this is on the List of Characters page. Some of the information should really be switched between the pages. If we keep going like we have with Season 2 then it will just be way too much text.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion; take a good amount of the text from here, and change the table on the List of characters page for principals only to bulleted prose. Leave recurring and guest characters as tables, lest those get out of control as well. Thoughts? We shouldn't totally strip the descriptions here, but I do agree they are all excessive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the most that should be on this page should be who plays them, possibly a note from either before or around the premiere episode and then any really significant character developments. IE. Fitz feelings for Simmons, Ward's affair with May and Colsounbeing made director of S.H.I.E.L.D. and also him going insane.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

There's a lot of redundant language in these, how brutal a trimming back are we all comfortable with? One of Coulson's for example:

"When Joss described to me the mystery and the complexity and the unanswered questions about Phil Coulson standing there trying to deal with this, I found it so fascinating and so true to the world of the comics and mythology in general as I understand them that I was immediately in."

could at the extreme—without losing its meaning IMO—become:

"... the unanswered questions about Phil Coulson standing there trying to deal with this, I found it so fascinating ... that I was immediately in."

I've already lopped off the Joss bit, and there's probably some middle ground to be had if we want to maintain some of the flourish of the original quote, as there comes a point it's better to paraphrase and use the quote as a citation instead. -Oosh (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is definitely a need to alter this section as, really, this info belongs on the list of characters page, while this section should be almost entirely WP:Real world, like the cast sections on the film pages. I am working on some stuff in my sandboxes, but obviously things are a bit hectic with season 2 stuff right now. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to clip away at this, I just want some buy in on the approach before I do, do I give it a light trim or a buzz cut? :) -Oosh (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what others are thinking about this, but for me length doesn't really matter, as long as they are all similar lengths, and have the right info. Remember, Coulson has his own page, so it all doesn't need to be here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Adam is right. Keep it as real world as we can. I'd say, start with the trim, and then we can reevaluate. The main cast member info here should be a good overview, and the character page should get the bulk of stuff. But still as much real world as possible. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent change

Following my drastic retooling of the characters page, I made the section here more of a summary of that one, without the in-universe info. I think it is pretty good how it is now, but am happy to have a discussion if anyone wants one about the direction this section has been taken. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been bothering me since I brought it up but haven't had the time to do anything about it. Good work. -Oosh (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's alright, I had a day off so I completely rewrote the character page and added a whole lot of stuff. It was pretty easy to see what could fit here after that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014

Link the MCU acronym to the Marvel Cinematic Universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe 194.183.77.29 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 16:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

MCU Kree tie-ins

Now that we have confirmation that all this alien stuff is Kree (from Bell and Bennet and from Whedon, Tancharoen, and Negga) how should we incorporate this? As individual tie-ins (i.e. T.A.H.I.T.I. ties-into GotG, etc.) or as a recurring tie-in? I just don't know how to approach this, so any thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and might need a bit to mull it over. But technically, it was the first to introduce the Kree race into the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Potentially more stuff to use on the Kree here. Whedon specifically says that there isn't really a direct tie-in to GotG, so perhaps we should just have a paragraph here about the recurring storyline, with notes at season or episode articles where appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

Extended content

Awards Awards and nominations for Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Year Award show Category Result Recipient(s) 2013 Critics' Choice Television Awards Most Exciting New Series Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Won Satellite Awards Best Television Series or Miniseries Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Nominated 2014 People's Choice Awards Favorite Actress In A New TV Series Ming-Na Wen Nominated Favorite New TV Drama Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Nominated Golden Reel Award Best Sound Editing Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Nominated Visual Effects Society Awards Outstanding Visual Effects in a Broadcast Program Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Nominated Saturn Award Best Network Television Series Release Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Nominated Teen Choice Awards Male Breakout Star Brett Dalton Won Primetime Emmy Awards Outstanding Special and Visual Effects Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Nominated People's Choice Awards Favorite Network Sci-Fi/Fantasy TV Show Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Pending

Agentrosee (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have gone ahead and found some sources myself. Your welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation of Skye as Daisy Johnson

Link. Might as well have the ref handy since people will be adding it everywhere. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! This was needed!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This could also maybe be used for "The Doctor" / Calvin Zabo / Mister Hyde. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This one is probably better for that, they talk about the character being Calvin Zabo. -Fandraltastic (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

iTunes

Why is there no reference to the availability and regional availability of the show on iTunes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.76.109 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast

I'm sure a couple of editors are aware of what happened over at Agent Carter regarding international broadcasting, so I'm just wondering why this page has been allowed to list countries that have aired the show, but don't have English as their main language? For example: Malaysia is listed as a country that airs the show, but English is a second-language for them, therefore not "official". Note; WP:TVINTL.

FYI, I've started this before editing it directly, because I don't want anyone getting into an edit war. Seen too many of them recently.

Thanks, Limbsaw ^~talk~ 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not to sure, some one went around to quite a few pages and added the information of international non-english speaking countries. I left it in case something had changed with policy that I hadn't seen. Not that I know why it would have done. Whoever did it likely did it because like you said, English is still one of their languages. The policy only says don't mention non-english countires so I guess it is all down to interpritation. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I know, its a difficult one. I've just seen a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, saying the same thing about interpretation etc etc. Limbsaw ^~talk~ 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Adamstom97, Fandraltastic, Favre1fan93, and TriiipleThreat: Thoughts on this?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I left it to avoid an edit war like at AC, but I don't think it should be here. I mean, "Middle East" and "Southeast Asia" aren't even countries, just general areas. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Best case of action for the time being: we should remove it per WP:STATUSQUO and await the outcome at the TV project. I have yet to join the conversation, but will be doing so, and encourage you all as well to give your two cents. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight on Los Angeles Times critic

This article unduly emphasizes a single critic, critic Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times. No other critics are quoted or even mentioned by name in the Reception section, but we have an entire section based on a single article of hers. This should be removed or the work of other critics should be cited. I also note that User:Adamstom.97 has violated WP:3RR resisting efforts to reduce this undue emphasis, or even tag it as disputed. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, every time I have reverted has been about a different issue. If I was repeatedly reverting the same thing, I would have asked for this discussion earlier, before an edit war started. Now, not too long ago it was decided that this page should remain an overview or summary of the other Agents of SHIELD pages, with the only additional information being the information that serves the series as a whole. Because of this, you can see that the release and reception sections include overview tables of the info found at the two season pages, plus some short prose elaborating on this, like the main English-speaking countries the series is broadcast in, when the home media was first released, etc. At the season 1 page we have a section where we highlight analysis some critics have made of the series connections to the films, and since that can't be summarised in the reception overview table, we added a short paragraph to give the gist of what is being said. McNamara's thoughts, as seen here, are representative of the other information found at the other page, so we are not singling it out to give any undue weight to her opinions, we are using her as an example, and further information can be found over there. I really don't understand your insistence to merge this section with another, or to remove it entirely. An analysis section is not without precedent, and no one has had any issues with it till now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My insistence is because it violates WP:UNDUE. To me, it seems too favorable to be truly representative of the mixed reviews - 77 percent on Metacritic for example. Even if it were representative, it does not justify an entire section devoted to highlighting a single critic. If you feel it is representative, then we can put it in a pull quote box like the Whedon and Bell quotes. Would that be an acceptable compromise to you? Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. This paragraph is not representative of the series' overall critical response. It would be difficult to find a critics opinion that could do that, but the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores do give a pretty good indication, which is why they are used in the critical response section. What the Analysis section is summarising is the Analysis section at the Season 1 page, and the paragraph here seems like a pretty good representation of that, which is why it is here. Now knowing this, would you rather we use little bits from every critics' opinions on that page to make a summary here? That could remove the illusion of undue weight. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's intended to be a summary of another section, then maybe we should have a template like Template:Main directing readers to the full discussion. But yes, if the intent isn't to highlight a single criticism (for which the pull quote box would be more appropriate), then it should be a summary containing examples of multiple perspectives. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The season numbers in the overview boxes link to the individual pages, so they act as our main article or further info type links, as it would become a mess to link every season article in every section. I'll take a look at maybe changing this analysis section soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It should now be a better summary of the section. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work, it highlights McNamara's article while placing it in context with general critical response. I believe that satisfies any UNDUE concerns, though I still am puzzled why this section is called "analysis" as it is just run of the mill critical response from some tv/pop culture critics. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The critical response section is about how critics feel about the series as a series (do they think the acting/writing/directing/etc. is good, and so on), whereas the analysis section is about critics who have looked at the series connections to the films, and made specific notes about how that affected the outcome of the series, and what it means for television and entertainment in general. If this page was itself only about the connections between the series and the films, then it would be appropriate to just call this critical response, as it would be a section about critics responding to said connections, but since this page is about the series as a whole, this specific information doesn't really come under critics responding to the series as a series. That's where I'm coming from anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's just a critical response commenting on a different aspect of the show. I'm a bit swamped right now, but I have some ideas to crack this nut which I will be able to play around with next week or so. Since you've deftly dealt with the major problem already, there's no rush to tackle this one. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't an issue here to be dealt with. It isn't a critical response to a different aspect of the show, it is critics analysing the connections between the show and the films. It is more about the shared universe than the show itself, which is why some of it is repeated over at the main MCU page. It would be wrong to mix together the actual critical response section, which is about critics responding to the series, and the analysis section, which is about critics analysing the series' connections to the MCU. They are two different things, and so go in two different sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the distinction you are making, but they are both different types of critical response. Analysis implies a scholarly look at the cultural context of the work, the writer from Zap2It or wherever is just writing a regular old critical response, whether it's about one particular episode of the show or about the show's connection to some films. Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but as long as they are analysing something, as in examining the elements and connections in detail, rather than just giving their thoughts or opinions of something then it can come under analysis, and I feel that what we have here goes well beyond just critically responding to the series as a series. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)