Talk:Daredevil (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent episode table changes

I may be missing something, but the ref added for the episode titles and directors/writers doesn't seem to contain that information, or even anything about this series at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it isn't the clearest. Possibly be better if the references were for each individual episode? Episode 1, Episode 2 and Episode 3 Cheers, NZunknown (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored synopses for episodes 8-13 after they were taken down. Have contacted editor to ask why. - AL

Glenn interview

Potentially some stuff in this interview, I just can't get the video to load on my computer, so I can't be sure. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw it and it's really good for us to add. If I have the time, I might transcribe it. Or if we find a source, even an normally unreliable one, that has, that will save time and we can just cite the video. Try loading it on YouTube if IGN's site isn't working for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I found it on YouTube and agree that there's some good stuff for him that we can use. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible AoS connection

This source might be useful once the episodes release. [1] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: what do you think of this? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A good chance he may actually be in it, but just based on the tweet, general excitement that the character may be used in the series. It's looking promising though... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: What you make of this? I can't tell if Loeb's quote about Wade means this show or AoS. But still, it is interesting they are supposed to be the same person. Does that mean it is indeed Wade playing him again? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for a while, and I think that all we can take from this is that AoS's Carl Creel is going to appear in Daredevil. Whether he is played by Wade or by a younger actor, I don't think we can say at this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to look at it. I have similar feelings. So we know at least the character is the same (may be a Howard Stark situation). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Random subtitles

Is it just me? When watching this show on Netflix I get random non-English subtitles popping up, probably 2 or 3 an episode, translating signs, names on maps or doors, or single words spoken, subtitled into what looks like German. I can understand that when they are speaking a language that is not that of the viewer it needs to be subtitles into the viewer's language, but I do not need "West Street & 9th Avenue" on a map translated into English, I have selected English. If I re-watch the show it is not translated, but then something else will be instead. Someone walks in a room, says "Hello" (in English) and I get it subtitled as "Hallo" just that one word. From then on no more subtitles. Until someone walks past a door with a sign on "Murdock & Henson, lawyer." and I get a subtitle "Murdock & Henson, anwalt." (TO the best of my memory) 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Animated gif

I'm not sure if the WP:FUR is satisfactory for the use of File:Charlie_Cox_as_Daredevil_in_Marvel's_Daredevil.gif. I understand what is trying to be accomplished but wonder if two static images might be preferable. Technically, each frame of the gif counts as an individual image. This might come up at WP:NFR or perhaps during a GA or FA review. Also it is quite large.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I felt the same. I think it would be better possible as the two static images (or rather the posters released). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You could also just knock it down to three frames, it doesn't need all the fancy stuff, just three static images on a time delay. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Two frames would be better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We could use all (or two) of the images here. I think that will accomplish what the GIF did with Triiiple's idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind just using two decent images of the suits, I just thought that this was an opportunity to feature both suits in one "image" when I saw it, though I do see your guys' concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

http://s3.postimg.org/loty6xn7n/Daredevil_Outfits.gif Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Some useful links

Here are two more reviews. I feel we should start curtailing these a bit. But Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic don't have their numbers yet. Collider; Screencrush.

Here are two general interview that we can maybe pull info from. New Zealand Herald; Irish Examiner. Added - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is some more tidbits from IGN. Hoping someone can add it to the page. I regrettably don't have the time to do so myself over the next few days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done, plus I added some other things that I found around the web. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks Adam!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Two more interviews: Foggy and Night Nurse. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a significant issue that we should perhaps be noting somewhere on the page. Does anybody have any thoughts on it? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Audience

Is there a metrics which allows to evaluate the success of the series within the Netflix portfolio ? Number of views for instance Hektor (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Netflix doesn't release that information to anybody, not even to the creators of the series. The best way to gauge the success of a Netflix series is to see it get renewed. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97, pleases refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources particularly WP:WPNOTRS : "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Facebook and Twitter are not even allowed especially when they are unverified accounts. Please do not reverse removal of primary sources. Spshu (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Marvel.com is not a primary source. Easily confused given its url. Primary source in this case would be a press release from Marvel Entertainment/Studios or Netflix. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did Marvel Entertainment sell Marvel.com? Also, Daredevil's official website is list as being on Marvel.com. A press release is just one form of primary source, ie. information sent ("release") to news outlets ("the press", hence "press release") to make an announcement or respond to an event. Spshu (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, the use of Marvel.com is not in violation of WP:WPNOTRS, per the third paragraph there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the instant that I found another source: " While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." So, your reversal of replacing the marvel.com source with Hollywood Reporter is in direct violation of WP:WPNOTRS. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Key word is "preferred" not "required" and Hollywood Reporter does not present the same info that is specifically mentioned here in the article that Marvel provides. Once again, not in violation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Preferred is key which means you are required means that you are in direct violation after some else -- me -- inserts such a source in its place. I did check that the article does provide the same info. Once again you are in violation. Spshu (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1. The edit warring needs to stop. 2. Why not just use both? Yes, WP:INDY sources are preferred over WP:PRIMARY sources but I understand the sense of authority a WP:PRIMARY can offer. So just use both and move on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Well, I wish it would but Favre1fan93 is driving the edit war, as he sure does not wait to convince me of any thing. I made a RfPP but has reversed it before any action (and still no action has been taken on this article or Marvel TV) given his misuse of TW (since my edits are good faith; no I did not place source inline, a bot did that). 2. Citation clutter: "A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient." Why duplicate or have a primary source more acceptable to link rot. Yes, the article has been "immunized" against that with webcitation.org (unless a future "no botcrawl" tag will have them drop the archived copy like archive.org), so the need of a duplicate to stop linkrot (per WP:Citation clutter) is not present. The article is heavily cited which is going to make it difficult for any one to verify all these references given that they will have to see which parts of the double sources verifies which part or are duplicate and was a waste of time to visit. Spshu (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 is also intent on keeping trivial cameo appearances source by an unconfirmed social media account and other sourcing by unconfirmed social media accounts (twitter and facebook). This is against WP:TVCAST & indiscriminate trivial. Consider too that some of the social media accounts duplicate other sources. He, after having it explain in edit summaries, slaps my talk page with template:uw-delete2 claiming that edit summaries were blank when they were then left blank given his edit warring. Also, continually adding Marvel.com cites will give the appearance of relying too much on references to primary sources. As I intended to look over the other doubled up Marvel.com sources and potentially remove them leaving one would make that difficult. Spshu (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Even if Favre1fan93 is driving the edit-war (I am not saying that he is), either party can stop it. 2. WP:CITECLUTTER is an essay. Though sound advice, it is less disruptive than edit warring. It also suggests WP:CITEMERGE as a possible solution, perhaps one worth looking into. I do agree with you about unverified social media accounts.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To Spshu and TriiipleThreat: Please look at what Spshu is removing with their edit:

1. Pat Kiernan appearance: Please point me to the (non-existant) wording in WP:TVCAST that prevents this. Secondly on that material, please actually look at the source used: it is his own verified Twitter account, which I changed to comply with policy.
2. "Murals" source: Spshu replaces a valid, verified social media site, with a quoted excerpt for the material used in the article, with the initially used unconfirmed Twitter account.
3. Changing of to second party source. Again, we don't need to replace it, and as Triiiple suggested, why do you have to replace it, instead of using it as well? As I stated above, the Marvel source has info used in the article the THR source does not cover.

So both of you please tell me (as I've been explaining) why my edit was in error? Yes maybe on the secondary source, but the rest of this, no. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

1. If Keirman's account is verified, it is acceptable as a source. Forgive me I am not a member of WP:TV and not thoroughly versed in their guidelines like WP:TVCAST, which seems to link the inclusion of a fictional character in a cast list to an essay about notability for articles about fictional elements. So does that mean the character as to has it own article? Pat Kiernan plays himself and has standalone article, so if that is the case then it seems it would pass WP:TVCAST. 2. I don't why he would replace a verified social media source with a unverified social media source. I have shared my thought on point #3.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Pat Kiernan. "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article...." With the only a Twitter source verified or not, his appearances in Daredevil do not rise to the level of notability as self sourced cannot be used to meet notability requirements. This is indiscriminate information. Are we going to list every extra or other cameo appearances that happens to tweet or make a facebook post that they were in Daredevil? That is what you are implying.

2. The "mural" information was suppose to be completely removed with the AnomieBOT added back the source inline after I removed it [removal before I could remove the mural text and other reference tags. I though I had reversed it correctly, but apparently not. An issue with how you like to source the article. Check back the original social media sources (Decider and Igintion) were not valid, verified social media accounts (as these social media sites are not reliable to begin with) either. How about you stop lying to us, Favre1fan93.

3. Ask and answered before. Just stating that the Marvel.com article has addition information not in the THR article isn't enough when I have indicated that I check that it did cover what was sourced in the article. Your word is not law. You want to prove on the Marvel TV article explicity something that isn't claimed and you miss read. So, you don't have to prove a thing, while I do?

What is the need also reverse merging the Music and Visual effects section into one section. Both of the two sections had all of one sentence, they can be split latter if enough information on one exceeds two paragraphs (my rule of thumb for sections). Spshu (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability has to do with the inclusion of articles. WP:ONUS has to do with the exclusion of verified content, which boils down to consensus. Point #2 seems like a misunderstanding, this should be easily fixed. There has to be some middle ground regarding point #3. If not my suggestion, please do try to come up with something.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Split?

@Adamstom.97: what do you think of making a season 1 article, given the season 2 order? I definitely think it would be plausible and worthwhile. If you agree, we can test it out like we did with SHIELD to see where everything would go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I only just saw the (great!) news, and was starting to come up with a bit of a plan. I was thinking we should make a season 1 article and a list of characters article, but leave the list of eps article unto closer to the time, especially since we're a year out rather than just a few months. This article will be more of an overview like AoS has, but with all the season 2 stuff in there. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree on the episodes, since we only have 13 and (presumably) will have another 13, so that's only 26 total, definitely not enough yet for an LoE. We can use my 6th sandbox for the S1 article mock up again and my 4th for what this page will end up being. Also, if you can't tell, I watched the series and am back on the page.- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I am happy with the current split in your sandboxes, and have sorted out the refs. I think we should make the change in the mainspace, and then everyone can work on both pages if they want. I have also moved the original cast and characters section to my 7th sandbox, so we can use that to get a list of characters page going as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make the split, as I'm pretty sure everything is in the right place. Then everybody can help out and make both the articles as good as they can be. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Principle cast

This lists Zurer as a main cast member, but not Glenn. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Panel didn't give me any indication for any of the new cast, but based on that, I'd say let's go Cox, Woll, Henson, Zurer, Dawson, D'Onofrio, with this url hidden to indicate that is the listing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Should really add Scott Glenn as Stick in the cast section. His character is important and will probably return for Season 2.

That's not how this works. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Title design

Something useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw this too. Says basically the exact same stuff we already have in the article. That's why I didn't add it when I saw it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Elektra cast

Don't have time to update but here's Marvel's article about Elektra being cast. Also Bernthal is listed as a series regular. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why has this cast announcement been erased from the article ? Hektor (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hektor: It is currently unknown what role Elektra has in the season (ie a regular, recurring or guest). The announcement as linked above just states she is cast, so that automatically means she will be a guest for the season. Beyond that would be WP:OR. And in order to be added to the list here, she must be a regular, and that is not known. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Why not just write that Marvel issued a press release to say she is cast. This is factually correct. Hektor (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Because all cast info on this page is for the series regulars. You can find info regarding her being cast at List of Daredevil characters and Daredevil (season 2). If it is later announced she is a series regular, we will add the line here under "Casting" that she was so in July 2015. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Season 2 synopsis

According to CBR, it is: "Just when Matt thinks he is bringing order back to the city, new forces are rising in Hell’s Kitchen. Now the Man Without Fear must take on a new adversary in Frank Castle and face an old flame – Elektra Natchios. Bigger problems emerge when Frank Castle, a man looking for vengeance, is reborn as The Punisher, a man who takes justice into his own hands in Matt’s neighborhood. Meanwhile, Matt must balance his duty to his community as a lawyer and his dangerous life as the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen, facing a life-altering choice that forces him to truly understand what it means to be a hero." The experienced may update the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Episode list page branch

At nearly 90k in size, shouldn't it be time for a separate episode list page? I was in the middle of doing this but reverted by User:Adamstom.97, who said "we don't need to do this yet, and if we did it would be done differently." If not now, when? And if not done the way I've done it for five years, how? — Wyliepedia 05:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We were going to wait until we had a table for the third season, or at least that is what we sort-of-discussed back when the second season was first announced, in terms of number of episodes rather than page size. However, if the consensus now is that the article is big enough to make the split, I don't actually have a problem with that. By "it would be done differently", I meant that the episode summaries go at the season articles, and the abbreviated versions go at the list of episodes. If you were in the process of doing that, and just not finished yet, then I apologise for that statement. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you jumped the gun, and no, I see no such "discussion" I see it buried above, which I passed over because it began with splitting out the first season. — Wyliepedia 05:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The separate episode list only removes 2k, so I don't really care if it stays or goes, but as a regular TV article editor I've separated with less when a second season began. — Wyliepedia 06:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as an aside, before we continue, how do you check the size of an article? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A page's View History gives you the size after every edit. As for this discussion, I'm out. I edit on a phone, which is why it took me 45 minutes to do all that was just undone (and killed my battery). I won't be licking that calf over. — Wyliepedia 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And there isn't really any need to be like that - if consensus is to make the split, then my edits can simply be reverted. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, Richiekim, TriiipleThreat, and Fandraltastic: So this article does indeed seem to meet the size requirements for making a split, and we now have confirmation of a third season so we know that there will definitely be more than 26 episodes listed at this new article at some point, so I am now for making the split. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This article seems to have done everything arse about face. Normally the article is split out to the episode list article first and then the season articles are created, yet the season articles were created first. Since they existed there really should have been an episode list created long before now. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We had enough production info, etc., to justify season articles before there was a need to split off an episode list. This is the same with most MCU TV series, actually. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason not to follow the process that we follow for every other TV article. MCU articles don't have some special exemption. If there is enough content for season articles, then an episode list article should be created, and there are technical reasons for doing so.

At nearly 90k in size - That's not correct. The size used for splitting is the readable prose size, not the file size. This article contains only 20kB of readable prose.

The separate episode list only removes 2k - That's not entirely true. Because the season articles are transcluded here, you need to look at the "post-expand include size", which is 425,827 bytes. Removing the episode lists reduces this by about 62,000 bytes, because it's not just the episode table that is transcluded. The whole page is transcluded, but only what is between the tranclusion tags is displayed.

If you start transcluding content from multiple pages into an article you can increase the post-expand include size to a point where it breaks the 2MB limit easily. Even below that, the page load times start to increase and people will have trouble viewing it, especially on mobile devices. If you break the post-expand include size limit, some content will not be displayed at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You are acting as if we jumped the gun and gave the season episode tables their own articles before we even had the established "80+ episodes" (from MOS:TV) in a separate list, but if you look at the season articles you will see that they both have all the required production and reception info to justify existing, and are Good Articles. This is the same with all the MCU TV series. The only reason this isn't the normal process is because many series don't have what is essentially a dedicated team focused on creating and maintaining high quality articles, which the MCU articles do. So, the decision to split off the list of episodes should be solely based on size issues. The existence of season articles doesn't need to affect that. However, I am now even more confused about this part—is this article above the 50-60kB that are suggested for splitting at WP:SIZESPLIT, or is it not? - adamstom97 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you have the required production information information or not, if there is enough content to justfy the season articles, then an LoE page should be created to avoid blowing out the post-expand include size of the main series article.

The only reason this isn't the normal process is because many series don't have what is essentially a dedicated team That's not it at all.

I am now even more confused about this part—is this article above the 50-60kB that are suggested for splitting at WP:SIZESPLIT, or is it not - You're overthinking this. The consensus at the discussions we've had was that generally an LoE page shouldn't be created until a second season has started, and when that happens there is nothing generally stopping an LoE page being created. That's not a rule of course, there are plenty of articles that don't have an LoE page at all, but then again they don't have season articles. Those are articles where there simply isn't enough content to justify a split. Ancient Aliens is a good and Hotel Impossible are two examples of such pages. In both of those articles there simply isn't enough content outside of the episode table to warrant a split, and doing so would turn the main series articles into stubs. WP:SIZESPLIT doesn't really apply to splitting out to an LoE page as, per the definition of readable prose, table content isn't included as part of readable prose. However, it is relevant when splitting from an LoE page to a season article. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"whether you have the required production information information or not, if there is enough content to justfy the season articles, then an LoE page should be created to avoid blowing out the post-expand include size of the main series article": But how does the other season information affect the transcluded episode tables? If your argument was about the size of the transcluded tables, then that would make sense, and I would state, again, that we had agreed that there weren't enough episodes yet for this to be an issue. Is that what you disagree with?

I may be overthinking this as you say, but all of your and Wylie's explanations are just leaving me even more confused than before. This seems like something that should have a straightforward, easy-to-follow guideline (perhaps this is something we should address in the upcoming MOS:TV run-through). Are you suggesting that transcluding these two episode tables here has made the article too big, behind-the-scenes, and so we should split them off now? If so, does the same apply to Agent Carter? It also has two full season articles with episode tables transcluded to the main article. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

how does the other season information affect the transcluded episode tables? - As I explained above, when a page is transcluded, it's not just what is in between the "onlyinclude" tags that is transcluded. The entire page is transcluded, but only what is between the tags is displayed. Because both season 1 & 2 are transluded, this page then becomes the size of this page + season 1 + season 2 + all the templates on the page. It was so bad at one article that some content had to be commented out and references had to be reformatted.

This seems like something that should have a straightforward, easy-to-follow guideline - Unfortunately, it's awkward because there are a lot of issues involved and each case can be different. However, I'm sure we could create a guideline. It's probably going to be necessary because of the issues we had with List of The Simpsons episodes, which had to be split into two separate episode list articles because it went well past the post-expand include size limit.

Are you suggesting that transcluding these two episode tables here has made the article too big, behind-the-scenes, and so we should split them off now? - The page is certainly bigger than it should be. As I said, while the file size is 90kB, the post-expand include size is nearly 426kB and the page will only get larger with each season that is added. Agent Carter's post-expand include size is actually smaller than this page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, I think I'm on the same page now. I just thought that the extra stuff being transcluded was the hidden episode summaries only. I can definitely see how transcluding the entirety of both season articles here could be a problem, and why splitting off the episode tables is probably a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Original Characters Section

Can we have a section listing off which characters are original to the show and aren't from the comics? Characters that were created specifically for the show that could be introduced to the comics like Coulsen or X-23 were? You know what I mean? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That's trivial. Any reliable sources regarding said creations of these characters are or will be added to their proper location at List of Daredevil characters. If any of these characters are introduced to the 616 universe, that info, with a reliable source, could possibly be added to the "Marketing" section here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is continuing at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. If anyone else chooses to comment, please do so there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray table

DVD regions

Regions for the Blu-ray Disc standard

The "DVD and Blu-ray" table mistakenly mixed release dates so I removed "and Blu-ray" but Adamstom.97 restored the table claiming "the idea is that there are equivalent Blu-ray regions to go with these dates. Redundant to repeat the information in the same table". However, you simply cannot do this. DVD regions (1-6) and Blu-ray regions (A, B & C) cover geographically different areas. For example, the United States and Canada are in both DVD region 1 and Blu-ray region A while Mexico is in DVD Region 4 but Blu-ray region A. Australia, like Mexico, is in DVD region 4, but Blu-ray region B. All of the African continent is in Blu-ray region B but different parts are in DVD regions 2 & 5. When listing release dates you must list release dates for the different regions in the correct cells, even if that requires duplication. You can't combine cells because that is, at best, misleading to readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who else is watching this article that could contribute to this discussion, but I personally don't think it is all that big of a deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at it this way: A reader comes here and looks for Blu-ray region B. What column is it in? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

When I said that I don't think it is a big deal, I meant that I don't really care either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)