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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Addition of one-liner bullet for more limited second season cast member

…to list of core cast in this article—the final, single-line, undeveloped bullet entry for "Nick Blood as Lance Hunter"— is inappropriate, relative to the wide array of unmentioned cast members from seasons 1 and 2. He belongs in the more focused season 2 cast article, but not in this season-spanning, core article. If he stays, many, many more bulleted characters need be added (see actors each season given preeminence to him in credits). No, easiest is to keep this "Cast and characters" focused on the core season 1-2 cast members, and not the significant array of other characters that come and go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He's listed because he's a main cast member, and the section is limited to series regulars, not recurring characters. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand by the critique, until clearer argument and full sourcing is given to indicate actual "main" vs "recurring" cast members. See further comment on this issue at [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you not watch the show? Do you not notice that Nick Blood is billed under "starring" along with the rest of the main cast. Actors billed under "guest starring" would be recurring. It's quite simple. The press release for the season 2 premiere (and every other season 2 episode) has him listed as main cast. We don't determine who main vs. recurring is, as that is not a WP:NPOV, the series does. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Drove is correct. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. You are persuasive, not for @Adamstom.97:'s confidence, but for @Drovethrughosts: offering of citations. Now, since this reliability of information is not clear from the in-article, cited source(s) at the various points where the content appears, how can we make this fact (an apparent change from the preceding season) verifiable in this article? The TV guide article is early, and does not make clear what you state; are the web sources you cite, Drovethrughosts, acceptable, reliable source, per WP:Sources? (Otherwise, no, I do not watch the show, though young nephews do. But I'm aware of no place making this either a criteria for reading WO articles, or giving preeminence of opinion in editing them (where, per WP policy, as Drove alludes, opinion should not enter in). In my spare time, I edit encyclopedias and other online content, as my professional public service work component. There, standards of content verifiability [here, WP:Verifiability] are a chief, guiding concern for the sake of the longterm quality of the efforts to which I commit time.) Finally, thank you for your clear communication and receptiveness. I once attempted to do a passing edit regarding a Canadian pop star (article arrived at via her charitable work with female victims falsely accused of crimes in the Middle East), and the simplest questions and changes resulted in firestorms, and edit warring. Here's to collegial understanding. Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Just going back to a discussion from a few months ago when we discussed the whole of the MCU pages, does anyone else think that we should nominate this one (and maybe the season 1 article as well) for GA?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The season 1 article has already been nominated (quite a while ago actually, it just hasn't been picked up yet). As for this one, I don't think we're quite there yet, and I think there is still too much potential to change for us to go ahead with a nom just now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bobbi's Name

I'm assuming that Bobbi isn't being called Mockingbird here because she hasn't been called that in the series, but should we not have some consistency across this and the season 2 article since she is called Mockingbird over there?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought we had sources explicitly "Mockingbird", but I guess we don't. I think it was only the initial July 2014 SDCC comment that we had. We should not, for the time being, use "Mockingbird". I'll make the changes where necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

table of contents glitch and Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Double Agent

i just found this by accident. i think it's a web-exclusive spin-off? i can't play it right now. Does anyone have any information? Specifically, is it related to the spin-off mentioned here (and why doesn't that appear in this article's table of contents)? Should information about the Double Agents series go in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. article or should Double Agents get its own article?

http://abc.go.com/shows/marvels-agents-of-shield/news/maos-double-agent/main

Thanks

--70.17.203.31 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Double Agent should probably go in the Marketing section on the season 2 article. The table of content does not have a glitch. We have limited the number of headings it shows so the list is not exceptionally long. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins

Should the tie-ins section mention episodes "The Dirty Half Dozen" and "Scars" as tie-ins for Avengers: Age of Ultron? Also, the extremis virus in the Pilot is a tie-in for Iron Man 3 yet the section has "The series' first tie-in episode with the Marvel Cinematic Universe is "The Well"". Wouldn't want to get reverted again by editing this section so asking. --Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think "The Well" tie in bit was reffering to the first offical tie-in to a paticular episode, the Iron Man 3 and extremeis thing was more of a plot line shared between the two. However, everything you have mentioned should probably be mentioned in there somewhere. (Although they are almost definitly all mentioned on the indivudual season pages--20:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym: The section already mentions the AoU tie ins (second to last paragraph). As for Extremis, that should be regulated to the season 1 article, as the section here, outside of quotes, is for "official" crossover episodes and any material that the show introduces to the universe (Kree and Inhumans). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Didn't notice the AoU tie in. --Gonnym (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem! It can be easy to over look content sometimes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft article:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins

I've created a draft version of an article about Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. I would appreciate any help in making this article ready for inclusion in mainspace. --Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrew's part

I added an introduction to Andrew, since he is one of the main characters in Season 3 now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriwang43 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The main characters are decided by the production. Andrew is just a guest character who happens to appear a lot this season. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about Lincoln? He does not show up many times. Seriwang43 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Seriwang43

As Adam said, series regulars are decided by the production team. Lincoln is listed as starring in the opening credits, Andrew is not. It is not our place to decide series regular status.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:TVCAST for more info. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2016

The following is a closed 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 for all articles. (non-admin closure) Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. → Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
• Agent Carter (TV series) → Marvel's Agent Carter
• Legends of Tomorrow → DC's Legends of Tomorrow

– The shows' respective owner names are part of the title. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:1DB9:7163:2B7C:1FD6 (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Product/Company" names should not be used in the article's title. They can be mentioned in the articles' lead, but WP:OFFICIALNAMES should be avoided as the titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Favre's reasoning and the previous discussions on this matter, including for The Avengers (2012 film). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This has been discussed before. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• 'Oppose all. Perennial proposal that fails COMMONNAME and raises promotional concerns. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all - Per WP:COMMONNAME.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Few would actually think or use a company's name inserted in a possessive manner as part of the title. Would assume that it was just an indication of ownership. Thus COMMONNAME would dictate dropping the company name. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2016 (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.

Characters' codenames

I have added character codenames for the superpowered characters within the series, with names officially announced by Marvel Studios, and yet some editor keeps reverting character listings to just include their birth names. There are multiple valid and reliable sources that have been included. Burningblue52 (talk)

Once again, as you have to have been told this at least 10 times now, it doesn't matter how many reliable sources you find, if the characters are never called that in the series and/or film, we can't put that in the area of "Actor as Character:" (ie "Chloe Bennet as Daisy "Skye" Johnson" is correct, "Chloe Bennet as Daisy "Skye" Johnson / Quake" is NOT). Daisy has not been called "Quake" in the series, which also goes for Lincoln not being called "Sparkplug" and Bobbi never being called "Mockingbird" in her time on the show. The references can be used support linking the character name to a relevant wiki article if it is not entirely clear, as well as in the prose section describing the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Analysis piece?

Came across this and wasn't sure if it'd be good to add to the "Analysis" section. Figured I'd place it here if others felt something could be added from it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, and have another one as well that seems to apply more to the series than any particular season. I was thinking of looking to add stuff from them here soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit explanation

My edit adding an additional link to S.H.I.E.L.D. in the hatnote was for the accessibility of this article to users who are browsing Wikipedia through a text-only interface. --- 2601:602:101:8358:8481:2C0A:7746:E217 (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If possible, we may need to come to a consensus regarding what the best use is of this article's hatnote. --- 2601:602:101:8358:8481:2C0A:7746:E217 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And the lead is also text-only (which is what my revert was talking about, not the infobox), and the very same link exists literally two lines below the hatnote. It is not necessary. And this isn't a versus-match. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

IP, the hatnotes are used to quickly get readers where they need to go, based on searches and them getting to the wrong page. If someone comes and searches "S.H.I.E.L.D." looking for the TV series, they get taken to S.H.I.E.L.D. so it is appropriate that the hatnote there directs readers here, because the shorthand for the series is also S.H.I.E.L.D. However, someone searching for "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." most likely isn't looking for the article on S.H.I.E.L.D., but possibly were looking for List of S.H.I.E.L.D. members. So the hatnote, as Alex restored to, is correct in its nature. And as they mentioned, the link to S.H.I.E.L.D. is right in the opening sentence of the lead and does not need to be in the hatnote. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Multi-colors for season 4 rows

Since it was determined to use split season code for the episode table for season 4 as it is in three "pods", is it worth while to made the color cell for the season row in tables here, on the LoE article, and the List of MCU TV series article, as I tested here? I don't think the split season code/formatting as seen in the examples at {{Series overview}} is the correct way to go, because it is still one season of 22 episodes, with only the storylines within the season different. So in this case, only the color is different, so I didn't know if the way I formatted it would be the way to go to indicate that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe that the extra colours and headers and whatnot are really necessary at all, when they're only for separate storylines which can be described in prose, rather than the intended use for split seasons. Nevertheless, I believe that the table you edited should also reflect the series overview, that being the use of only one colour, while the episode table sticks to its usage of the split table headers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the episode table should show the divisions in content made by the showrunners, but everywhere else it should be shown as a normal single season just like the previous ones. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Adam what do you think though of using the two (later three) colors in the single row for season 4? That's what I was adjusting in the edit. Alex, I do understand your stance on being against the split season code, and normally I would be too, but the fact that they are all distinctly different and new season posters have been released (versus just a normal image), indicating different colors/style, I think it is justified in this case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What I was trying to say in my above reply is all colours in the episode table but only one everywhere else. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your answer now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Outdated?

Isn't the paragraph beginning The series' introduction of the Inhumans... essentially out of date at this point? Sava was working with out-of-date information, and speculating based on the fact that Inhumans were appearing in the TV show that this would cross over with the then-upcoming film, but the film shortly thereafter became not-happening. Per this source the fact that the show introduced Inhumans was actually a reason to doubt that the Inhumans movie would be moving ahead, since rumours started circling around that time because of the show, and were later confirmed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it out of date, as the section is an analysis of the series as a whole. And at the time of those comments, they were true. So even if the info and relevance have since changed, at the time, they were true. Does that mean then we might need a follow up? Possibly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be seen which relation is set between the Inhumans of the upcoming TV series and the Inhumans as depicted in this one. Perhaps they mention them, perhaps their setting is self-contained from this series (the most probable one), or perhaps they simply ignore it and write their own stuff ignoring the possible contradictions. Either way, that should be mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: The problem is that the upcoming TV series is not related to the MCU, so no one thinks it is tied to Agents. The text in question is talking about the films. But a lot of fanboys/fangirls (some of whom have columns in magazines and the like) think that the MCU properties are all tied together and interconnected, rather than the more likely scenario that the films affect what happens in the network TV shows (with occasional cast cameos) and, to a lesser extent, the Netflix shows (no cameos), but the Netflix and network shows never have any impact on the films (with no TV show cast ever cameoing in the films), especially since the messy breakup between Marvel Studios and Marvel Television made this even less likely than before. This article currently cites such fan speculation uncritically, even though the specific fan speculation in question has already been thoroughly refuted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What do people think about balancing it with a statement that the film was taken off the docket shortly after Agents introduced Inhumans? Right now, all I'm seeing in this article is as Marvel Studios had [emphasis added] plans for an Inhumans film, which one has to really to push to read as implying that Sava's speculation wound up being incorrect, and it's in a completely different part of the article. I considered adding that Others, however, speculated that the series' introduction of Inhumans meant that the film was no longer in development, which was later reinforced [confirmed?] when the film was taken off Marvel's release schedule., but the fact that the source gives the "others speculated" as "rumors" that "hit the web" in 2015 made me reluctant. But when we get right down to it, Sava's speculation is really just a rumour that was repeated in a reliable source, similar to rumours Foutch cites, with the only difference being that Foutch's rumours wound up being correct. So ... yeah ... I don't think my proposed addition is very good, and I don't want to add it to the article myself, but I wouldn't want to add the current text to the article for the same reason. What to do? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We have to be careful to not fall into OR here, and to leave personal feelings out of this. The paragraph was correct at the time, and the only follow up that I can think is appropriate at this time is the whole movie vs. TV debate and the division between the Movie and TV studios, which I don't think fits within the scope of this article, and is better discussed at the main MCU article and at the Inhumans (TV series) page. Perhaps when we have more info/discussion about this issue and can talk about it more at those other places, we can come back here and add something. BTW, the new series is part of the MCU and has connections to the mythology established in Agents. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that my first choice would be simply to remove the disproven speculation, so OR is not a matter of concern here, and if you want (more) sources about the messy breakup between the TV and film divisions I can retrieve them. I wasn't aware that the new series would be part of the MCU, and the reason for that is doubtless that I stopped religiously following news related to the TV shows around midway through season 3 of Agents once I realized what a bunch of critics apparently realized sometime before I did, that the influence and crossovers were all one-way. My personal feelings and history of course have nothing to do with what the article should be seeing, mind. What matters is what's in reliable sources, and not just the ones that simply repeat marketing from the producers of the show. Of course Marvel/Disney/ABC want Wikipdedia's readers to think that everything is connected, but critical sources realized a long time ago that stuff from the show wouldn't be showing up in the films, and there's a very specific reason for that. Again, I'm not asking for any of my opinions to be put in the article. Just what's in the sources. Or analyse the sources and determine that something that's already in the article is disproven fan speculation and doesn't belong. Either's good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The point is, they were discussing what was known at the time. All we should do is note what has changed since, and I just feel that we should wait for a bit before we do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't leave in rumours and speculation that have been proven incorrect indefinitely until it becomes clear just how incorrect they were. If in doubt, take it out; it can be restored later with the proper contextualization (something along the lines of Some commentators, such as Sava at The AV Club, speculated following the introduction of Inhumans in season two that this represented a shift in the direction of influence between the films and TV shows, as the Inhumans were presumed to be appearing in a film several years later. Others, however, speculated that this meant that the Inhumans film was effectively cancelled, which was later confirmed when the film was removed from Marvel Studios' release schedule and an Inhumans TV show was produced instead. or whatever the best sources are saying at the time). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

But this isn't rumour or speculation, it is just someone's opinion and analysis. It can't really be "incorrect". - adamstom97 (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Potato potahto. Even appropriately attributed inline, it presents serious WP:WEIGHT problems when we give a full paragraph to one commentator who doesn't meet GNG, whose speculation wound up being incorrect. It certainly reads like we are taking his analysis (another word, in this context, for speculation) as still being viable, which it isn't. the connections between the series and the films previously having always been reactive on the series' behalf [...] [but] the series would now be "making things happen, and these events will clearly impact the future of the MCU" is speculation, and it wound up being incorrect, as the opposite was the case. Several other commentators, though the source doesn't name them, gave the opinion and analysis that since the Inhumans showed up on the TV show, that meant they wouldn't be showing up in the movies, and the movie would be taken off the docket. The real-world reason for this is almost certainly the drahms between Feige (who apparently didn't want Inhumans in the first place) and Perlmutter (who did). We don't need to include that in the article, though; just choose between (a) removing the disproven speculation and (b) balancing it out with the speculation that wound up being 100% correct.

At the very best, what you are arguing for is equivalent to claiming that an article on a film with a sequel that was announced immediately but has been in development hell for years should not explicitly say that the sequel is probably not happening. But in reality (since I'm not arguing for that), what you are doing is maintaining an out-of-date claim that the sequel is happening even though we all know it probably isn't.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the argument about saying the sequel is probably not happening is not a good one since that would be OR. But that is beside the point. If you really have an issue with this opinion, perhaps you should go to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2), which is where the main section on this topic is. The paragraph here is just a summary of it. I think that would be a more appropriate place to discuss this. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the argument about saying the sequel is probably not happening is not a good one since that would be OR. Are you trolling me? There is absolutely no way you could be serious with this comment. I specifically told you I wasn't arguing for that. If you really have an issue with this opinion, perhaps you should go to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2), which is where the main section on this topic is. Honestly, I wish we didn't have so many pointless POV-fork-magnet articles. Either way, it is not so much a problem with that article because it is significantly less visible, and it is clearly marked as a contemporary opinion. Having it in the article on the ongoing series is much more problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I am happy to do something here but I would rather wait for a bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mitchell, Blood and Palicki's status "for the third season"

This may be my ignorance of TV casting and billing talking, but what does it mean to say that Mitchell was for the third season, [...] Mitchell [joined the principal cast members], promoted from [his] recurring [role]?

If I recall correctly (I haven't rewatched season three since it originally aired, mind you) he was barely in the first several episodes. I recall some controversy over whether a source described Palicki as joining the main cast at some arbitrary point during season two, having not even appeared in the first several episodes, which would imply that the "principal cast" can change mid-season. Would it be more accurate to say Mitchell officially joined the principal cast after a certain episode during the third season? The source currently cited (a pre-season marketing blurb from Marvel) is inadequate for the claim that he was a principal cast member for the entire season, as it doesn't say so either way.

It also seems entirely possible that this was just a mistake on the part of whichever Wikipedians put the sentence together, as the "for the third season" is part of a different clause with a different source describing different cast members. It's not technically accurate to say that [a]ll season two principal cast members returned for [emphasis added] the third season, as Blood and Palicki are specifically stated to have left the main cast following [episode 13] (in fact, again based on perhaps-flawed personal memory, they didn't appear at all after that episode), which really lends to the idea that the unfortunate use of "for" was just a mistake. While it's possible to read the first clause of the paragraph as all principal cast members returning in some capacity in the third season, it definitely looks a lot more like they returned as principal cast members, and when one reads it in that manner "for" doesn't conjugate with "return" in the same manner. As a Japanese poetry aficionado, I find it interesting that we could play around with language like this so that the meaning of "for" can change when conjugated with different words such that both meanings are "true" in themselves but the entire sentence is technically false if the two meanings are read together, but on Wikipedia we really should just use precise language, especially given that readers who haven't seen the show themselves might just get the wrong idea.

I would ask for permission to change this as above, but since I can't see anyone possibly disagreeing with this (again, it looks like a good faith mistake) I'm just going to go ahead and change it to "during".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A member of the principal cast is someone who is billed as a "starring" cast member, as opposed to a guest star for the episode. For instance, Mitchell was hired to make guest appearances in several season two episodes, and was credited onscreen as a guest star for those appearances. Then he was hired as a regular cast member for the third season, and was credited onscreen as a starring cast member. Whether he actually had a prominent role in each episode or not doesn't effect that status. This was the same situation with Palicki: she was hired as a guest star for a second season episode, with the potential to make more appearances; halfway through that season she was hired to be a series regular and from there was credited as part of the starring cast; she returned for the third season and continued as a starring cast member; when she and Blood began production on the planned spin-off, they were no longer credited in the starring cast and have not appeared in any episode since. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"All season two principal cast members returned for the third season" is correct, because this for the start of the season, irregardless of what happens during the season. Also, "during" implies that not all appeared at the start, which is the case (and again why "for" is used). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: [Mitchell] was credited onscreen as a starring cast member. [...] This was the same situation with Palicki: [...] she returned for the third season [...] as a starring cast member; when she and Blood began production on the planned spin-off, they were no longer credited in the starring cast But can you see the problem with referring to them as starring cast members for the season when their names didn't appear in the onscreen credits for a significant number of episodes? Because of that one episode with only Henstridge early on in the season, no one cast member appeared in every episode and so could have been honestly credited as a main cast member for every episode (although I forget if the show's onscreen credits dishonestly claimed Gregg et al. were in that episode), but still...

@Favre1fan93: I don't understand what you mean by because this for the start of the season: "for the season" means "for the season", not "for the start of the season". As I said above, somewhat obscurely, your wording could be interpreted as "They were principal cast members in season two. They returned for season three in some capacity. They were also joined by Mitchell and Simmons, who had not been billed as main cast in the previous season but were at some point during this one.", but that interpretation requires a lot of mental gymnastics. Your comment also doesn't address the fact that, even if your interpretation of "for the season" were correct, it would be WP:SYNTH to place Mitchell and Simmons in the same group based on sources that do not specify as much. (The reason I don't complain about Simmons is that at least for him, not for Mitchell, the current wording is "true". It would still be inappropriate to cite the current sources for the claim that Simmons was a main cast member specifically in the early episodes of the season, but since the policy is verifiability and not verifiedness that point isn't worth my time arguing over.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many episodes; if an actor is credited as starring during a season, then they are a principle cast member for that season. And just because they didn't stick around for the whole time doesn't mean that they did not return for the season. Palicki and Blood returned for the third season, but just happened to not stick around for the full length. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're playing with language: yes, Palicki and Blood "returned for the season", but they weren't "principal cast" members for the season -- they weren't even in the latter half of the season. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, they returned for the season, and that is what the article says. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but by that logic they are no different from Simmons and Mitchell, who also "returned for the season". The clear implication is that they returned as main cast members, and were "joined" by Mitchell and Simmons, who hadn't been main cast members in the previous season. But they weren't all main cast members for the season; Henstridge was absent for the first several episodes, and Palicki and Blood were gone and forgotten for a full half of the season. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Fifth season

Multiple reliable sources are reporting that the show will return for a season 5. Deadline first reported it and now other reliable sources are publishing the news as well. Take a look here for example. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Best to wait for an official announcement from the ABC. -- Alex^TW 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Andreeva at Deadline is indeed pretty reliable, and her having heard the show is being renewed is exciting news. But this isn't actually confirmation, so Alex is right. We shouldn't have to wait too long given ABC's upfronts are next week. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Official press release will arrive soon enough.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, how is this for an official confirmation?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The renewal has already been added. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 01:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Season 5 is set to premiere in 2018 (courtesy, Screen Rant, which says: "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 5 is being held for the midseason"). --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that just means it will start partway through the season (not in September). They may still do a couple episodes between Inhumans and the winter break, though I do personally think they are just going to leave it till next year. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YifxgqG8?url=http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/ to http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/tuesday-final-ratings-may-16-2017/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadline.com/2017/05/2016-2017-tv-season-ratings-series-rankings-list-1202102340/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SY870YCy?url=http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/agents_of_shield_will_get_a_captain_america_the_winter_soldier_crossover_too-2013-11 to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/11/agents-of-shield-will-get-a-captain-america-the-winter-soldier-crossover-too.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/17/marvels-agents-of-shield-showrunners-talk-season-5-and-space-cliffhanger
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ew.com/tv/2017/05/16/agents-shield-finale-season-5-spoilers/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://screenrant.com/agents-shield-season-5-premiere-date-january-2018/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/851547-netflix-june-2017-movie-and-tv-titles-announced

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What's a "pod"?

I mean, I can tell from context that it refers to a story arc, but the way it is used in the article seems inappropriate. It first appears twice (in the "Casting" and "Title sequence" sections) in a manner that seems to assume our readers will be familiar with it; it then appears in a quotation from Tancharoen in the "Broadcast" section (which is honestly the only place I would keep it if I were rewriting the article); and then it appears three times in rapid succession at the end of the "Marketing" section, with scare-quotes on it each time. Isn't this the wrong way round? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added links to the appropriate sections that explain these. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's good, but can we just say "story arc"? The term "pod" seems unnecessarily obscure. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's the official term they are using though, and it goes a bit beyond story arc, with different title sequences, tone, marketing, etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Is any of that currently explained in the article? Surely it's redundant to say that, for instance, [t]he fourth season sees new series title cards for each of the season's pods if the reason we are using the word "pod" is that there are different title sequences, etc., no? If you have a source that explains the word "pod" and why we are using it, you should add it to the article. Otherwise, it's just gobbledygook. Also, Screen Rant doesn't have any problem equating "pod" to "storyline", and clearly feels the need to explain the term to its readers. Other sources use scare-quotes. Since Wikipedia discourages scare-quotes, we are normally meant to go with an alternative. I'd actually be fine just prefacing the first instance of the word with Promotional materials refer to the individual story arcs in the series as "pods", with each season being broken down into several pods each with a designated number of episodes. or something to that effect, and then just using the term normally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is really just an overview. It is full with links to the season pages, and it is at the fourth season article where this is explained pretty well. If you think we need to drop a line in here somewhere to back that up then go ahead, but I don't think we need to make a big deal about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You can't use obscure, in-house terminology in any standalone Wikipedia article without a proper justification relevant to the article itself. Insisting that our readers click through all the links to find out what the heck we are talking about is simply not allowed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that it's not a standalone article. This article depends on the content of other articles, just as those articles depend on this one. The term is sufficiently explained elsewhere in both articles and the sources used in these articles. But you've already been told: if you feel the need to add it to the article, then why aren't you? -- Alex^TW 01:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Except that it's not a standalone article. This article depends on the content of other articles, just as those articles depend on this one. I am going by the definition of "standalone" used at WP:N. Readers are supposed to be able to read this article and have it make sense in English. Using weird, in-house terminology that may or may not be defined at another place on English Wikipedia (neither you nor User:Adamstom.97 have actually been able to point out where this is, mind you) is inappropriate. WP:PCR:Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. On the other hand, an article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article. In other words, the fact that this article is a prominent hub article is a reason not to use obscure, in-house terminology, not an argument for it. But you've already been told: if you feel the need to add it to the article, then why aren't you? Because every time I directly edit an article on an MCU topic without getting prior consent (not consensus, mind you), unless my edit is a minor grammatical fix or the like, Adamstom.97 reverts me. Literally. Every. Single. Time. As for why I didn't do it even after Adamstom.97 told me to: because I don't think anyone has presented a reasonable argument not to simply use "story arc", and I don't have a specific source for the explanation I gave above. The burden should not be on me to find a source for someone else's compromise with me. I honestly can't stand trying to access the kind of sources used in articles like this. They cause my computer to crash. Adamstom.97 has presumably seen at least one source that defined the term, so I think he should do it. If I was allowed to edit the article directly myself, I would simply replace the term with plain English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You are turning this into a fight that I don't think any of us want to have. They are called pods. If you think that needs more explaining than is done here then go ahead and add it. If you don't feel like doing that, for whatever reason, then that's fine as well. And since you seem to have missed something along the way, the information about the three pods in season four can be found here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

They are called pods. Maybe so, but they are also called story arcs. The difference is that "story arcs" is plain English that everyone can easily understand, and you still haven't presented any valid reason why the plain English term cannot be used instead. And since you seem to have missed something along the way, the information about the three pods in season four can be found here. I don't think you mentioned that at any point in this discussion. And like I said above, obscure terminology must be explained in this article if it is to be used in this article, as this one is much more likely to be seen than the article on season 4. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you mentioned that at any point in this discussion. Well... It is full with links to the season pages, and it is at the fourth season article where this is explained pretty well. -- Alex^TW 09:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm going with Hijiri 88 on this one. While yes they are officially called "pods", I think it will be beneficial to readers to use more descriptive language. "Pods" is overly jargonistic and the average reader may not fully understand it. That's not to say we can't mention the term at all but we should use more common terminology in general discussion of the topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that more descriptive language could be used, let's be careful about how it is defined. My interpretation the quote in the Broadcast section, is that the producers are using the term pod to describe an uninterrupted block of episodes which they then used to build story arcs around. As such, replacing "pod" with "story arc" seems a bit too simplistic. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dino. I'm fine defining what a "pod" is, but simply using "story arc" doesn't seem correct to me. They are the blocks for which the season was broadcast, which happened to center on a specific storyline. But as sourced on the season 4 page, there are connective elements between the three, so it isn't like the Ghost Rider pod aired and then we move completely on to something else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Contributors to this discussion may be interested that this very thread was brought up with this contribution at ANI, by the editor who started this thread (as a logged-out IP on ANI), along with the quote of It's pretty rich seeing someone who has on at least one occasion taken the side of the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour. Just passing on an interesting titbit for those interested. -- Alex^TW 09:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Dropping by late to this conversation as I just came myself to ask for an explanation to the term. There really is no logical way a reader will know to go to the 4th season article and find the explantion to that term somewhere there. I really feel if the term is used 10 times in this article, then at least explain what it is, else it really just becomes a term that only people "on the inside" understand. I really hope you guys do decide to add this in. --Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the term is linked directly to the fourth season article from here seems like a pretty logical reason to go look there. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You really believe that asking a normal reader to go to the talk section of an article (which btw, there is no link to from the mobile version) then read a long discussion (which even editors don't do), find a small link that says "here"? That link does not link to the pod section, so the user will then need to search the whole season 4 article to find that part. The only reason I read through all that and went through the motions was to understand the rational behind your stance on this. I can't really believe you think that this is the best way to handle this instead of adding a few lines explaining what "pod" is. --Gonnym (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

When I said "here", I meant the article not this talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Emily VanCamp

Here VanCamp says that there were discussions about here joining the show, but she couldn't because of the other show she was doing. Wasn't sure if that is something we wanted to add, and, if so, where we would do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Best spot would probably be the MCU tie-ins section. I'll try adding something in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6cJntUsGL?url=http://www.ezydvd.com.au/blu-ray/marvels-agents-of-shield-season-1/dp/6156612 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/blu-ray/marvels-agents-of-shield-season-1/dp/6156612
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6cKzCbI1n?url=http://www.ezydvd.com.au/blu-ray/marvels-agents-of-shield-season-2/dp/6169351 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/blu-ray/marvels-agents-of-shield-season-2/dp/6169351
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvline.com/2018/01/20/sonequa-martin-green-star-trek-discovery-performance-season-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Template for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ratings

I would like to add a template for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. television ratings and start a discussion. I plan to add it to the ratings section. I found that a previous discussion ruled out this template, but I would like to add a new template featuring season 5 ratings. I have sources for each season's ratings here: . Regards, MyNameIsASDF (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the previous discussions, the table is still not needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If previous discussion has ruled out the template, then why would adding a new season make it any better? -- Alex^TW 00:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Season 6 airing - Summer 2019

The United States television season for any given year (in this instance the 2018–19 United States network television schedule) consists of the the "Fall" schedule (typically shows airing from end of September - mid December), a short "Winter" schedule (end of December - mid January), a "Spring" schedule (mid-January - early May), and finally a "Summer" schedule (mid-May - August). Per MOS:SEASON, we can not state "Summer" because Summer to readers in the northern hemisphere is a different time period than readers in the southern hemisphere. So the statement we use in the article "intended to air in mid-2019 of the 2018-19 television season." is 100% correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Also the linked network schedule article literally says in the lead The 2018–19 network television schedule for the five major English-language commercial broadcast networks in the United States covers the prime time hours from September 2018 to August 2019. (bolding mine). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You have your words switched. It's television schedule and summer season. A season can not encompass an entire year. That is what I'm trying to get across. Just because you can't use the word "summer" does not negate the fact that it's airing after the 2018-19 season--Harmony944 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"season" is also used to describe the entire schedule. Thus 2018/19 season and 2018/19 schedule, are the same thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire section of a schedule. Words have meanings. By your logic, metabolism, body, and gall bladder all have the same meaning--Harmony944 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Favre is saying that "season" is the name for a full year's TV schedule, in addition to being the standard definition we know that just covers part of a year. Some words mean multiple things. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. The industry does use this terminology, even if it bucks "traditional" conventions and meanings for these words. One can describe the entire release of shows by a network (from September to August) as the "2018-19 schedule" or the "2018-19 season", as well as each individual parts, as I broke down above, as the "Fall schedule" or the "Fall season" etc. Both uses are correct, and since this article was established as "intended to air in mid-2019 of the 2018-19 television season" it shouldn't be adjusted because others may prefer the other word use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"No, Favre is saying that "season" is the name for a full year's TV schedule" WHICH IS A LIE. Yes, words can have multiple meanings, but not here--Harmony944 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Harmony944: 2015-16 season @ Deadline, 2015-16 season @ THR, 2015-16 season @ Metacritic, 2015-16 season @ TV by the Numbers, 2016-17 season @ Variety, 2016-17 season @ Indiewire, 2016-17 season @ EW. I can provide more/other years if necessary, but as I said, "XXXX-YYYY (TV/television) season" is correct terminology, even if it doesn't support conventional definitions of the word. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm now confused as to what you are actually trying to argue is wrong. In your initial edit, you didn't change "2018-19 season" to "2018-19 schedule" as you seem to be arguing here, but were arguing that a network's "summer" programming is not part of the yearly schedule (which I highlighted is not the case in my very first discussion edit, it very much is). So what is it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You never highlighted as such. Summer is part of the schedule, not the season. You started an edit war over basic goddamn common sense that you vehemently dislike. The main primetime network television season is September to May. Not September to August. Your very first example (before I even ran through every one) has a dateline of May 26. If a season ran September to August, why would they be ranking best performers in May?--Harmony944 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If it causes so much trouble, just remove that part of the sentence; it doesn't add anything anyway. It's scheduled for summer/mid 2019, mentioning the television season doesn't really contribute anything. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please summarize for me what the issue is? I can't seem to understand from the edits what the argument is about. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD season 6 will premiere in Summer 2019. Favre seems to believe that the main network primetime television season runs from September to August, when it actually runs September to May. It's become clear that he thinks season and schedule are interchangeable, when even his evidence points to that they aren't--Harmony944 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the Emmy award qualifying period is June 1 to May 31 so thats essentially the season. Spanneraol (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Emmy season is not broadcast season. A qualifying period is not a season. It's fascinating how far you people are willing to go to avoid common sense--Harmony944 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Emmys recognize work from the previous television season... which is an entire year, starting in June and ending at the end of May.. thats how the television academy and thus the networks consider to be their season. Spanneraol (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I was sure this would have been easier to get an answer to this from a simple search, but sadly it isn't so. While I was sure Favre1fan93 is right, I can't find a single source saying the "television season runs from September to August". Analyzing Favre1fan93's links, a pattern does seem to be noticeable. While I did not find the holy grail source, the sources seem to suggest Harmony944's September to May is also not correct (or at least not correct for current times).

• Favre1fan93's Metacritic source: "Below are all new and returning primetime shows expected to air during the 2015-16 television season (beginning with the summer of 2015)."
• Favre1fan93's Cinemablend source: "When The Big 2017-2018 TV Season Finales Are Airing" and has dates up to Tuesday, July 31.
• TV Guide: "When successful, series on the broadcast networks usually run at least 22 episodes from September to May." - this seems to be what Harmony944's point is. However, this is from 2011.

It would seem that maybe the old traditional season range of September to May has been weakened in the last few years and Favre1fan93 is correct in saying a season is the full year. --Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"It would seem" Based on what exactly? All the evidence he points to says what I've been saying. The main TV season is September to May. There is not a single source that says I'm incorrect--Harmony944 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Either way this goes, this portion of the article needs to stop being edited while the discussion is ongoing. I am not an active participant and I honestly don't have a strong opinion either way, but the constant changing on Harmony944's part is getting absurd. While there is a controversial discussion occurring, the article should remain in its stable version. That's what WP:STATUSQUO says in a nutshell, and while it is not an official guideline or policy, it is one that serves debates like these very well. Sock (tock talk) 16:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't have to be so absurd if I wasn't being attacked for telling the truth. My version needs to stay up.--Harmony944 (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a mute issue. You were edit-warring, regardless of your believe in this matter. The STATUSQUO stays until the discussion finishes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a moot issue. You're just trying to downplay your involvement. The fact is that you're trying to call lies the "status quo", and your insistence on keeping the lie there is unacceptable--Harmony944 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AHA! I told you your sources against me were in my favor. From Favre's EW article published a year ago yesterday (again, if the entire television season spanned all 12 months in a year, why would they publish a definitive "Top shows of the season" three months before it's over?) "So what shows kept you tuning in to the Big Four networks during the traditional September-to-May season that ends Wednesday night?" There is no weakening of the definition of the network primetime television season. Case closed--Harmony944 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Is your point simply that we shouldn't list the 2018-19 tv season line? If thats your position then i would agree as it really doesn't serve any purpose in the narrative.. mid 2019 is perfectly fine. All the debate of what constitutes a tv season is pretty pointless the issue should be that none of the other remarks about when the show aired specified which "tv season" the various seasons aired in. Spanneraol (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Originally, the point was even more minute, I had it as after the season. He was convinced it was during the season,which, it could've ended up being depending on how early into May it would've aired, but it remains that all we knew was that it would be Summer 2019 in the US, which makes it after the main television season. Then Drovethroughghosts suggested taking out the television season reference due to non-necessity, which I agreed with, but they wouldn't even let me do that. --Harmony944 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It definitely isn't "case closed". Yes, the "bulk/traditional" part of the yearly season is the fall and spring schedules (Sep to Dec, Jan to May), but that doesn't mean the winter or summer schedules aren't a part of the yearly season. Again, pointing out our own article on the subject, it says the entire season is from September until August. It's just the way the industry as morphed the term. What you are saying has generally been correct, but what I'm saying isn't wrong either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, what Harmony944 has been arguing is also known as the "broadcast/primetime season". But that's not what we're saying here. We're saying the "television season" which as I've been repeating myself now, is everything. Again, another instance of the industry morphing the term to mean different things in different contexts. And by linking the use "2018-19 television season" to 2018–19 United States network television schedule, an article which covers the whole season, it is not limiting the definition to the "broadcast/primetime season" as Harmony is thinking. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Favre, ignoring the debate about when the season is for a bit.. why do we even need to mention what TV season its part of? It seems unnecessary and really awkward.. shouldn't just saying.. "it will premier in summer 2019" sufficient? Spanneraol (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can't mention "summer" because of MOS:SEASON. And per examples and wording given at WP:UPCOMING, it is helpful for the reader since we can't state seasons, to say something like "2018 of the 2018-19 season" to mean a fall debut, "2019 of the 2018-19 season" for a spring, and, as was done here, "mid-2019 of the 2018-19 season" to indicate summer. But also by adding "2018-19 season" indicates the series is returning in the next broadcast season/schedule, because I feel simply having "mid-2019", a reader could incorrectly get the assumption it isn't part of that schedule and would be return in the next one (ie 2019-2020). Obviously, once we get the exact date, this phrasing goes away, because we can simply say "Season six will premiere on...". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we can say summer because thats what the actual reliable sources say "it will be summer 2019" .. Should fall under the exception for "part of a formal or conventional name or designation" as the entertainment press recognizes summer television as a common term. It's clearly an american television program, so it shouldnt be confusing... you can add "Season six will premiere during the U.S. summer 2019 television season." if you really need the clarification. And there is actual real debate on if its really part of the 2018-19 season as the Emmy Awards recognize the season as being from June 2018-May 2019 and it will probably start after that. Remember a few years ago Game of Thrones wasnt eligible for the awards because it started in July which they said qualified it as part of the following season. Spanneraol (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not. We had a discussion about this identical issue for Descendants 3 (I'll find the link if necessary) where the consensus was clear that simply because the source says summer, we do not need to. -- Alex^TW 09:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You may CHOOSE not to but its not entirely against policy. Spanneraol (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not is it for policy to use the terminology. And actually, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. -- Alex^TW 14:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that previous discussion only involved a handful of people so i'm not sure a general consensus emerged there.. and my point here is that referring to the 2018-2019 season is just plain bad writing as its awkward sentence structure. In that other discussion you decided on mid-2019 which i think would be fine here too without mentioning the tv season which like i noted before is not entirely accurate. Spanneraol (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: As Alex somewhat pointed out by mentioning the Descendants discussion/issue, the TV project has discussed on multiple occasions the issue of noting seasons, and has determined not to, even when specifying the production country, because series air all over the world at different points, some quite prominently. Therefore, "mid-2019" is still the best term to use. To your additional point on the Emmys, that may be, but networks don't use that calendar; they use September - August. This is noted in our own article on the entire yearly schedule, and partially by the upfront presentations each give, which are held in May and cover new/returning shows for the upcoming schedule. Of note, programs returning/beginning to air in June 2018, were announced at the upfronts in May 2017, or at some point after that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that the wikipedia article mentions the season in that manner but it is unsourced and i have not been able to find any actual reliable source that does so. But in any event, despite all that, my point remains that it is very awkward sentence structure which has been my issue all along. Why does the tv season need to be mentioned at all? Spanneraol (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Summer is a redundant term and shouldn't be used in the lede. We don't use "Fall" on show pages when describing every upcoming and returning show that's due to air in September/October on Broadcast television so why is the season worth using here? There's also no such thing as a Summer television season, the term Summer is just a blanket term used to describe shows airing during the Summer in the United States. Esuka323 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been five days since there was any significant discussion about this. There has been no evidence that would suggest mentioning a television season it isn't even part of makes any sense. Therefore I'm ending the discussion. The portion mentioning the 2018-19 television season will be removed--Harmony944 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I would actually agree with Harmony here.. why is it necessary to mention the television season? It's awkwardly worded and ads nothing of value to the article. I didnt get any response when i asked the same question above. Spanneraol (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I posted previously stating my opinion, but I'll say again that I agree with the removal of mentioning the television season; it doesn't add anything. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm indifferent and happy with what keeps the peace here. If there's a consensus to remove I'll accept that. It looks like there's almost a tie in terms of opinion. Harmony should respect that and wait until more people have given their thoughts, reverting everyone will only result in a block. Esuka323 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we agree to removal on June 4 if there's no favor to keeping the phrase there by then? If a party in a court case doesn't show up to a court date, does the judge wait however many years it takes until they do make their argument? No, it goes on without them and a verdict is made. I shouldn't have to wait an eternity to remove information that is the very least agreed upon as valueless--Harmony944 (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. You remove only when there's a clear number of people who are for the action. At the moment its an almost even split with keeping slightly ahead, please be patient. Esuka323 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont know about that, those people have never really addressed this issue specifically as the above discussion got bogged down in extraneous issues. Spanneraol (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion, sure, we can shorten the lead to simply In May 2018, the series was renewed for a sixth season, intended to air in mid-2019. But that still does not mean the current wording is wrong, it's just simpler for all involved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Netfix US release dates

Does the table at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.#Release really need a US only Netflix column? Netflix was not the original platform it was released on, so listing only US release dates seems like an arbitrary decision, isn't it? --Gonnym (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a US show. If it was released globally on Netflix at the same time like Netflix originals are then we would just note that, but since that is not the case we are just using it as the first US streaming release in a home media-y kind of way. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand that its a US show. But most (all?) US shows don't add a US syndication column to show when it was first syndicated. What is the difference? Even in the home release column, you list international regions and not only US. It just seems like this is overly US-centric and also Netflix-centric for something that really shouldn't be. Netflix has really nothing to do with the series. Its just one of several places that the show can be watched at (Hulu, Amazon and presumabbly Google but I cant access the site). --Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't find it justified either, because in the last few years, I've noticed certain movie franchises like Back to the Future, Jaws, Jurassic Park, and Lethal Weapon have a revolving door of arriving on and departing Netflix. While it is comparing movies and TV series, movies get home releases just like TV shows do. Streaming licenses expire far quicker than a movie can go out of print. Do we list every time a DVD release with a new cover happens?--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 16:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Since the nature of "home media" has changed for current TV shows (less importance on the physical release, and more on the streaming service release), that was the reasoning behind including the Netflix release date. It was only the US one, because it is an American show. I think it is fine including it as is, but would be okay with just removing it from the table and keeping the info in the home media section. To Harmony's "every new DVD cover" argument, that's not really what this situation is. If at some point the show is ever removed from Netflix (which it hasn't been nor any indication of yet that it will), we would change the info to a date range. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing it all together. I see it less a home media release and more similar to a syndication deal. Netflix is just another 2nd market (as I've shown with links to other internet streaming services), so there really is no point in singling it out. --Gonnym (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd actually argue it is more of a home media release. I don't know how to describe this, so I'll explain it the best I can, but Hulu/Amazon/iTunes/Google Play all have the most recent episodes that air available subsequently to view (or purchase) immediately after the broadcast airing. So in essence, they are the same as if one watched the show live on ABC or the next day on ABC.com (albeit with a potential monetary gain by the service). The Netflix release isn't like this, it has the whole season to view on a singular date, much like if one was to buy the DVD or Blu-ray for the season. I hope that was clear as to why there is a difference. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I see the difference now, but that just brings different issues then. We've never limited home media release to country of origin (as shown in this article with the different region DVD/Blue ray releases), so why is Netflix the exception? (this is semi-rhetorical as I'm not excepting a 100+ list of Netflix release dates per country). --Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess because (as far as I've seen), there hasn't been any other sources indicating other Netflix releases, nor a "catch-all" one saying something like "Agents of SHIELD will be available [globally/in X countries] on Y date.". But also, according to UNOGS, which lets you search Netflix content for a good number of countries/regions, the series is also available in India, Singapore, Thailand, Brazil, Italy and Spain, so it isn't available in many other regions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your last point. You found other countries that the show was released on Netflix for, but since it's just a small list, you aren't adding it? Might be lost in the translation as I'm a bit confused. --Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. UNOGS can be used to quickly search a title's availability on Netflix around the world, but can't be used as an inline citation. As such, I was just pointing out to your comment how the series may have been available in quite a large number of countries, UNOGS suggests only 6 others. But, I haven't been able to find reliable sources support this otherwise I'd put it up for consideration to add in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Television series set in the 2010s

I have removed the article from Category:Television series set in the 2010s. As it says on the category's page "Television shows whose events take place in the 2010s but which were made before that decade." Agents of Shield was/is made in the 2010s and so does not meet the criteria to be included in the category. Dunarc (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if this is where this goes but I have noticed an error.

Hi, hello, yes. Okay there's an error, get right to it here, in the opening of the article. In reference to "Several characters created for the series...", Lance Hunter dates to a first appearance in 1977 in "Captain Britain Weekly #19" (this per his wikipedia page). Bobbi Morse a.k.a. Mockingbird first appeared in 1971 (per her wikipedia page) in "Astonishing Tales #6. Elena "Yo-Yo" Rodriguez a.k.a. Slingshot, first appeared in 2008 in "The Mighty Avengers #13". To suggest that these three characters were created for the show is misleading. Their characterizations are different to one extent or another. The most altered being Mockingbird (Bobbi Morse) who, in the mainstream Marvel continuity is a Ph.D and later possesses some of the abilities that Captain America has, due to her being given a variation of the Super Soldier serum.

All this information is available on each individual character's wikipedia pages. The alteration is really insignificant to the general populace but for comic nerds it's a big deal. Since we demand reality in our fictional fantasy worlds where people fly and no one ever seems to die. LOL

Thanks, sorry if this is in the wrong place.

Lance Hunter

Mockingbird

Elena "Yo-Yo" Rodriguez (Slingshot)

References

A) Other wikias/Wikipedia articles can't be used to back up claims. B) That line in the article is not referring to any of the characters you've listed here. It is for Melinda May, Jemma Simmons, and Leo Fitz, all original characters for this show, being introduced in the 616 universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

New article

there is a darft for List of accolades received by Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. go to Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe/Drafts#Draft:List_of_accolades_received_by_Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D. to discuss it there Fanoflionking 21:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, you should be discussing a split from this article here, not at a completely different talk page, who's purpose is just to inform editors about draft articles, not discuss them. While on the topic, I will reiterate what I stated in my edit summary. There are no where near enough accolades for the series to justify a split per WP:SPLIT. If there were more then it could be considered. But a separate list would be an unnecessary content fork at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Multitude of images related to this series are up for discussion

Input from other editors are welcome. You can find all the images here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

I am surprised that an article rated good article has such a nonsensical statement in the lead -

After starting the first season with high ratings but mixed reviews, the ratings began to drop while reviews improved. This led to much lower but more consistent ratings, as well as more consistently positive reviews in the subsequent seasons.

• First, a look at the year-on-year decline in ratings or viewership shows that they are anything but consistent. The viewer numbers dropped by two-third from the second to sixth season. This is a huge drop. It is even worse if you look at the 18-49 demo, there's only one-seventh of the demo in the sixth season compared to the second. It is a gigantic drop in ratings. I'm not even sure what is intended, is it meant to convey a more consistent rating within a season? If so, then state it as declining season-to-season but more consistent within each season.

• Second, the second sentence starting with this led to much lower ... is a nonsequitur. What's said in the first sentence does not lead to the second - dropping ratings and improving reviews in the first season does not logically lead to much lower but more consistent ratings nor more consistently positive reviews in the subsequent seasons. If you mean is "this is followed by ..." then write it that way. Hzh (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: The intent of the old wording was to say that the ratings became more consistent each season, although they were much lower than when the show started airing. I've added that wording saying such back in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The confusion seems to be that is not quite clear what is meant by the original statement, whether it's more consistent within a season or across multiple seasons. Even within season the drop is quite significant, just not as big as the first season. I would describe the fall in rating as "not as steep" rather than the ratings being "more consistent". It is complicated by the fact that the season average viewer number did not appear to have dropped by that much between the first and second season after the additions of other viewing figures, therefore it did not dropped as much as first appeared from the overnight figures. The whole sentence is further messed up by the suggestion that the drop in ratings and consistent review in subsequent seasons is due to the drop in ratings and improving review in the first season, which is a completely illogical suggestion. Hzh (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's the info as I see it:

• The series had high viewership to start, but as the first season went on, the viewers started to decline per episode.
• Each subsequent season further declined in viewership, but within each season those viewers per episode were basically consistent.
• The average viewership per season (which includes DVR/+7 viewership figures) has declined.
• The series critically earned mixed reviews at its start.
• Critically, the series has been more positive through subsequent seasons

That is what was said in the initial statement, but I agree it was not stated in the best possible way. I also agree that the viewerships are not mutually exclusive to the critical reception (ie because viewers went down, reception went up). Here's what is currently on the article: After starting the first season with high ratings but mixed reviews, the ratings began to drop while reviews improved. In subsequent seasons, although the ratings were lower, they were more consistent, along with consistently positive reviews. Maybe this becomes something like: After starting the first season with high ratings, viewership began to drop, with later seasons, while lower ratings, seeing more consistent ratings each episode. As well, the first season debuted to mixed reviews, while later seasons have had more positive reviews. It at least breaks the viewership info from the critical info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the suggested change is better (it reads a bit clunky). Possibly the only changes needed now are minor tweaks in wordings, e.g. "In subsequent seasons, although the ratings were progressively lower, they were more consistent within each season, along with consistently positive reviews." I can leave the "more consistent" as it is for now until I can think of another better way of saying it. Hzh (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That wording works for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

New Episodes

How does everyone feel about AGENTS OF SHIELD getting the rest of the episode articles created? We have all of them from seasons 1-2 and 7, we need to mush together Absolution and Ascension since it was a 2-hour finale (like What we're fighting for and SOS), and create the rest of the articles for seasons 4, 5, and 6? Can we do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilCoulson20 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Stop with blanking episode redirects. You are being very WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Change "notable" to "notably" in paragraph 2. 2606:A000:1127:C197:F8BA:3A:1720:E506 (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Tie Ins

At the risk of confusing people. I think we all need to carefully determine the definition of "The Marvel Cinematic Universe". I am stating this concerning an edit I attempted to post concerning the Darkhold's appearance in the HULU Show MARVEL Runaways.

While I am irritated that the post was removed for rather weak reasons, (especially since I kept them brief and didn't go into too much detail) and that I'm forced to unnecessarily create another topic for this, on further examination of the subheading concerning the tie-ins I've noticed that what tie ins there are mentioned only concern the other ABC shows, Disney + shows, and the Cinematic Films.

Aside from the same Darkhold from Agents being in Runaways, there is also no mention for instance of Daisy being in the same orphanage as Matt Murdock or his father once being in the ring with Carl "Crusher" Creel.

Personally don't be fooled by the "trolling" the producers are giving us saying that it's all "Multiversal" because the connections are obvious to each network, despite the mistakes they make of forgetting how certain items (Like the Darkhold) were designed.

Without attempting to edit anything... (Hopefully yet) Does Netflix, and Hulu not count to all of you as the "Marvel Cinematic Universe," and if what I posted is only for a Darkhold Article why even mention the Darkhold at all by that logic?

Maxcardun (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The section isn't for Easter eggs on other shows, it discusses crossovers from the films and other shows that happen in this series plus discussion of Marvel Studios' lack of acknowledgement of this series. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me but doesn't the word "Crossover" actually imply to a fictional cooperation between two characters, like for instance (And please please PLEASE Forgive me for crossing genre) Crisis on Earth X for the CW Shows? What happens on Agents seems to be some kind of ripple effect that hits them IN the form of collateral like how "Captain America Winter Solder" affected their organization, or those short mentions from the movies like the time after "Ant Man" was released they mention "The Pym Incident". If you want to talk about crossovers Coulson sadly didn't work with any of the Avengers again and this subheading doesn't even mention the two times Lady Sif from the Thor movies made an appearance on the show. Perhaps you are accidentally using the wrong word for that.

Maxcardun (talk) 8:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about character crossovers, I'm talking about crossover events: Winter Soldier affecting multiple episodes of this series is a good example. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. But since Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ended before Wandavision and Loki began it's my personal opinion that mentioning them may be too much undue attention, still I'll let that go with no argument. As for my case on the "Darkhold" I just inserted a link to the Darkhold article and I hope that is an acceptable compromise.

Maxcardun (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)