Talk:Iron Fist season 2

Claire Temple returns for S2

Rosario Dawson returns for Season 2 as Claire Temple — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.189.119 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

see Talk:Daredevil (season 3)#Claire Temple returns for S3 - DinoSlider (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Season 2 in 2018?

According to this, Daredevil Season 3 and Iron Fist Season 2 will be coming out later this year. ("Netflix has engaged the services of The Dead Lands and 6 Days helmer Toa Fraser to work on episodes for both the third season of Daredevil and the second season of Iron Fist, both of which are scheduled to debut this year.") I didn't know about the Iron Fist release date and wasn't sure if this was a reliable source so I thought I'd post it here. --74.132.167.247 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, for the director reveal and general date release. Adding in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Iron fist s02 is coming in this year or not?. Jerin roy (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That's what the discussion says. -- Alex^TW 01:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Typhoid Mary

As long as we are actually using "Typhoid Mary" for her, I feel like her name should be formatted as "Typhoid Mary" Walker rather than Mary Walker / Typhoid Mary. Thought I would bring it up here first before making a mass change though. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked/given it much thought, but are you feeling it is more a nickname a la Buschmaster? If so, I'm fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and like how we say "Mama Mabel" Stokes because it is just an addition to her name not a whole separate thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Then yeah, I'm fine making the change now, and adjusting if we need to once the eps are released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it. We can carry on this discussion as needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Blindspot

Maybe I was reading too much into this, but when I first saw this article I believed Soule's comments were in response to seeing the IMDb listing that is also mentioned in the article, especially since he apparently didn't hear about it from the production as he does not know how the character is being used. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

10 episodes

Was there a particular reason as to why Season 2 only had 10 episodes, in contrast to every other Marvel Netflix series, where each season had 13 episodes? If so, that would definitely warrant an inclusion in the article. -- Alex^TW 02:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Various issues

Inclusion of in-universe description of when the season takes place in relation to the other shows under "Writing"...

Original section title: Inclusion of in-universe description of when the season takes place in relation to the other shows under "Writing", and repeated removal of tag marking "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in" whose (outdated) cited source says essentially "Yeah, it's a cute name-drop, but it's probably not a serious tie-in"

Sorry for the section title, but I can't think of a better heading when these two editors have been blank-reverting, without a policy-based explanation, two separate edits I made that are otherwise unrelated. Am I supposed to open two separate discussions, one for each of the edits that are being reverted? I guess I can open a discussion and allow them to present content- and/or policy-based arguments in favour of their reverts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Note especially that removing a maintenance tag without addressing the issues raised therein is almost universally considered disruptive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: The apology above was for the original title, which was changed without explanation inline or anchoring the original title. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

So ... does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I am just noting here that the reason I have yet to contribute to this discussion is because I am dealing with another discussion that this user started over at User talk:Swarm#Adamstom.97, where I have asked this user to present their argument for the bold changes that they wish to make in a place that is appropriate. They have clearly not done so here, and have not done so over there in any straight-forward manner either. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

From TheWrap source: The key moment in Mary’s life prior to her introduction on “Iron Fist” comes in a location that will be very familiar to fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Sokovia. Sokovia is the homeland of Wanda Maximoff, aka Scarlet Witch, and the location of both the opening fight and final battle in “Avengers: Age of Ultron.”... At some point in the past, Mary Walker was an American soldier whose squad of eight was captured in Sokovia by unknown forces. These three sentences source in the article: The fictional country of Sokovia that was introduced in the MCU film Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) is referenced in the season as part of Walker's past as an operative in the country. Please tell me in what world that sentence has not been accurately sourced from those three sentences.

The writing info is definitely useful, considering all of the Marvel Netflix series are related to one another, and this season is not simply the next after Iron Fist season 1, but rather a continuation of the story from The Defenders. In your original edit you said: it's just a synopsis that belongs further up the article. but you didn't do that. You removed the info completely. So please, if you feel the info would be better included or used elsewhere, please state such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please mind your tone. The "world" in which the sentence is not an accurate reflection of what's in the source is the "world" in which the title and whole point of the source are "Does it actually tie in with AOU? I don't think so. Maybe season 3 will do something with it." You are also being disingenuous by only quoting our sentence out of the context in which we present it; yeah, the sentence itself is (probably) an objective factual statement that is supported by the source, but what we are doing with it (calling it an MCU tie-in) is the opposite of what the source does with it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And if the synopsis isn't already further up the article, you can't blame me; I don't think it belongs where I found it, and I was assuming it or something similar to it already was in a more appropriate location. It's not my responsibility to fix all of this or that or any article's problems at once. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh? So you admit that "the sentence itself is (probably) an objective factual statement that is supported by the source", but you still thought it was appropriate to tag it as unsourced and then accuse us of OWNership when we removed the tag? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't seriously expect me to take you seriously when you write things like Huh? So you admit that "the sentence itself is (probably) an objective factual statement that is supported by the source", but you still thought it was appropriate to tag it as [not being supported by the source] and then accuse us of OWNership when we removed the tag?. You clearly read my comment enough to quote it like that, but you either didn't understand it or consciously chose to misinterpret it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't expect much from you Hijiri. What I am saying is that, regardless of your interpretation of the section and what you think it implies, it is completely inappropriate to tag information as unsourced when it is very clearly sourced. If you had just come here and started a discussion about the implications of having the Sokovia information in a section called "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins", then we could have gone from there and avoided all of this pain. But that isn't what you did. Instead, you intentionally lied by claiming that the information was not in the given citation, and then used our responses to that as an excuse to try and get me banned. So I am not being incompetent, and I am not misinterpreting anything, I am simply pointing out that what you did was incredibly wrong even though I know you are most likely going to get away with it. If you want to move on and discuss the issue that you actually have with the article then Favre has obviously expressed interest in having that discussion per his comments above, and I will contribute as well in that case, but otherwise I am thoroughly disgusted by this whole thing and would much rather get on with my life then let you drag it on any more. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't "think" it "implies" anything: I am saying it directly states that this is an "MCU tie-in", but what the source cited to justify this actually says is "Is it? I don't think so." What you two are doing here is taking what you want the article to say and attributing it to a perhaps-reliable secondary source that doesn't actually say it, which is WP:OR. (I've seen it called WP:SYNTH since you are synthesizing what you think with what the source says, but normally SYNTH means using two sources to write something that is not supported by either, while in this case what we have written is exactly the former and not the latter.) If I can't convince you ... well, it's quite disturbing that Wikipedians who have been here as long as the two of you have such a poor understanding of (or willing refusal to accept) our core content policies, but I guess we could take this to RSN or NORN? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, don't start complaining that you can't convince us that we are violating OR when this is literally the first time you have accused us of doing so throughout this whole ordeal! At least now you've stopped using the "not in citation given" tag, though you don't really seem to have grasped how seriously terrible your use of it was. Moving on to your new tag, and what I suppose you have been wanting to discuss this whole time: you don't like us putting something in the "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" section when the source says that it is not a tie-in. Sounds fair enough ... except the source doesn't say that! The part of the source that you are talking about says that the series does not explicitly tie-in to any of the characters related to Sokovia that have been featured in the films, which is fine because we never say anything like that either. All we say is that the country of Sokovia that was introduced in Age of Ultron is referenced in the backstory of one of the characters. We consider that to be a tie-in because it is an explicit reference to an element of one of the films that has never been featured in any of these series before, it is a rare moment for these series to both visit a foreign country and to have such an explicit connection to the films, and we have (at least one) reliable source pointing out the connection for us. If the source was downplaying the fact that the country is featured at all then maybe you would be right, but it isn't, it just says that there is no explicit crossover with a specific film, and that is not something that we were ever trying to claim. If that is what this whole mess has been about, then it is even more ridiculous than I thought. By the way, telling us that we are being disruptive for removing maintenance tags when you know (as you have admitted here) that the tag you were adding was an outright lie is not only the truly disruptive behaviour, but extremely UNCIVIL as well. I suggest you stop threatening everyone who is doing things that you dislike and stick to actually discussing the issue here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

this is literally the first time you have accused us of doing so throughout this whole ordeal To be clear, I consider this to be the same thing as happened on Agent Carter (season 2) (and said as much here), and essentially the same as the "sharing continuity" mess that I've brought up from time to time. The real problem is that you seem to be unwilling to admit you are wrong, or to learn from your mistakes; lots of editors don't fully "get" the finer points of these policies (I could point you to a few places where I went astray), but it's important to recognize that fact when someone points it out to you, and to try to do better going forward. The Agent Carter thing was almost three years ago now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're hung up on all of this because the section is "tie-in" and you taking a very specific approach to this term and don't feel this content fits in this heading? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If the source says "It's not a tie-in", you're not allowed cite it for the claim that "It is a tie-in". This seems like a fairly simple concept; what are you not getting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't tell us that we just aren't getting the problem when you have not proven that there is a problem! Since you are basing this whole issue on a misreading of the source (you thought it said that there was no clear tie-in with the MCU, but it actually said there was no direct tie-in to a specific film which is not what the article says at all), I think it is you who is just not getting it. And considering the consensus of the Agent Carter issue was against you, and there has been no community action on the "sharing continuity" thing either, I don't know why you think this is just another in a long line of you being right about stuff. History would say otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If the source says "It's not a tie-in", you're not allowed cite it for the claim that "It is a tie-in". This seems like a fairly simple concept; what are you not getting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A very mature response there, as per usual. I have already explained this to you, but I'll say it again: the source does not say "It's not a tie-in", it says there is no direct tie-in with Age of Ultron. We have never said that there is a direct tie-in with the film, so I don't see what the problem is. If you start insisting that the source says "It's not a tie-in" (literally or not) then that will be as bad and as blatant a lie as your whole "not in citation given" nonsense. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A very mature response there, as per usual. Again, please drop the snark and focus on content. I have already explained this to you, but I'll say it again: the source does not say "It's not a tie-in", it says there is no direct tie-in with Age of Ultron. How is that any different for my purposes? You are citing it as saying there is a direct tie-in; if you want to summarize what the source actually says rather than simply calling it a tie-in, you should do that. I don't feel comfortable doing that kinda stuff until I've seen the actual show, as I wrote above (or in an edit summary or on Swarm's talkpage or somewhere; I don't remember). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Drop the snark, eh? That's rich. Again, we are not saying that there is a direct tie-in. I don't know how else I can say that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I still think you are misrepresenting the source by just writing up the plot detail (which might as well have come from a synthesis of the two primary sources, as it has nothing to do with what Owen wrote) and calling it a "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in". I thought we had cleared this up the last time this happened, back on Agent Carter (season 2). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We are only using the source to support the fact that Sokovia is visited in the series, and that it was created for Age of Ultron. We are never discussing any of the other stuff about characters or direct movie crossovers, so there shouldn't be any problem with what the source says about those things. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You're not allowed "only us[e] the source to support the fact that Sokovia is visited in the series, and that it was created for Age of Ultron" and make the unsourced statement that this constitutes a tie-in with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, because the one source you are using quite openly disagrees with the conclusion you are drawing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. All the source says is that there is no direct tie-in to a specific movie. There is still a general tie-in with the use of a setting that was created for the MCU films. And we don't need a source to support that it can be called an MCU tie-in because that is not how headings work. We don't need a source explicitly saying that something is part of the production of a film to put it in a "Production" section, we can just use common sense when placing things in the most appropriate place. It is the same here.

Once again, I would agree with you that there was a problem here if there was a reliable source saying that the use of Sokovia is completely unrelated to the films. An appropriate example would be an Easter egg to a comic book element that somebody tried to add to a similar section, but should be removed because a reliable source says that it is only referencing the comics and not another part of the MCU. However, that is not the case here. The source does say that there are no direct connections to any of the films' characters or storylines, which is true, but it still states that the general reference being made is to an element that was created for Age of Ultron, which qualifies as a "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in" even though it would not qualify as a "direct Marvel Cinematic Universe film crossover".

To be clear, since you have not seen the thing that you are arguing about, the series features scenes that are literally set in a country that was created for an MCU film. It does not crossover with that film in any other way, and the source makes that clear, so we do not draw any extra conclusions from the appearance, but the country is still visited in the series and the source does confirm that, so it is a factual statement that should be added to the article in an appropriately titled section. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

that is not how headings work Umm ... do you have a source for that statement? Preferably to a widely-accepted Wikipedia policy? Headings need to accurately reflect the content of the sections they are heading, and that content needs to accurately reflect what is found in the sources; it is unacceptable to use a heading to recontextualize content so that it says or implies something that is not found in a source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, you continue to present a very narrow-minded definition of "tie-in" and are expecting the content to be literal. "Tie-in" does not only mean literal instances, but can include things such as what we have here, where a fictional country created in this universe appears multiple times in this season. All in all, this is not in incorrect heading to use, and the material has not be misinterpreted to fit some incorrect definition you think we are using. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So ... you want our articles' factual claims to be "figurative" or "allusive"? Again, on Talk:Agent Carter (season 2), both of you insisted on grouping thematic similarities to other "Marvel Cinematic (sic) Universe" projects together under the "tie-in" banner while either not including at all or keeping under a separate heading thematic similarities to other works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything we are discussing here? We are not talking about "thematic similarities", we are talking about part of this series being set in a country that was created for the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You accuse me of having "too narrow a definition of tie-in", and then when I point out that it's your definition that's too broad (and directly conflicts with your cited source) you tell me that that has nothing to do with what we are discussing? Can both of you please either (a) stay on point or (b) not criticize me for responding to your off-point remarks? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No, Favre said you had "too narrow a definition of tie-in", and then you brought up a whole different discussion that has nothing to do with this one. You are the one that needs to stay on point please. We are saying that sharing a fictional setting with the films is a tie-in. I'm not entirely sure why you are saying that it is not, but I'm certain it has nothing to do with a completely different discussion about "thematic similarities" since that would make zero sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he said I had too narrow a definition of "tie-in", and I pointed out how both of you have too broad a definition of "tie-in", at least as long as both properties "share continuity" or some such. Your cited source doesn't agree with your definition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Now you are bringing up another discussion again! Would you please stick to the one we are having here? The source does not need to define tie-in, as we are only using it to support the appearance of Sokovia and its origin in the films. The rest is common sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What other discussion do you think I'm bringing up? I assume you're referring to my use of the buzz-phrase "share continuity" above, but I didn't directly reference the fact that you or someone else added that phrase to the lead of this article again despite the multiple discussions previously in which no one outside of the two of you and one other editor believed it to be appropriate (but see the following section). I was just specifying why (I think?) you consider these "tie-ins" to be worthy of mention regardless of their importance to the topic. The simple fact is that the last two subsections of "Production" have a combined 41 words, and while "Music" is the worse offender on the front of useless sub-headings given two single sections, at least that is related to production rather than something someone decided at some pointed needed to be in all our MCU (sic) TV show articles. (BTW: I keep using "sic" because there appears to be a move among third-party critics away from using "Marvel Cinematic Universe" to describe the network TV and streaming shows; I think I recall MovieBob referring to it as the "Marvel Cinematic/TV/Streaming/Whatever-we're-supposed-to-call-it" universe at one point, and I'm inclined to agree on simple lexical grounds since it sounds silly to refer to it as a "cinematic" universe when talking about a portion of it that is specifically meant for streaming.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, would you stay on topic?! You keep bringing up all sorts of irrelevant nonsense to distract from the discussion at hand. Almost none of this last comment has anything to do with what we are discussing! The simple issue that we are trying to sort out is if it is appropriate to use the term "tie-in" to refer to the borrowing of a fictional setting from the films. I think so, and so does Favre. Do you have a specific, clear reason for why you do not? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You insisted that I open a talk page discussion about ... you and Favre edit-warring, I guess (?) ... without explaining what the content dispute we were having was, and I still don't fully understand how you are not "getting" that what you are doing is counter-policy. It's really hard to stay "on topic" when there is no concrete topic to be discussed apart user conduct, which isn't what article talk pages are for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You are the one that has an issue with the MCU tie-ins heading. If you can't figure out how to discuss that then I'm not sure why I'm bothering. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"sharing continuity"

... that said, do we really need to have this discussion again? I thought Adam (at least) had agreed to a compromise wording the last time this had been brought up, at least until an RFC can establish a clearer community consensus on the issue -- was I mistaken? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So... why is the wording still there? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

With how long you have been contributing to Wikipedia, surely you should know by now that it is not uncommon for things to not be done. Discussion fizzle out, not enough people show interest, etc. Regardless, any further discussion on this matter does not really belong at this specific page. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Mary appears in E01, Wiki page introduces her in E02

E02 reads: ...On the streets, Danny meets a strange newcomer to the city, Mary, and helps her by giving her directions...

But I am seeing E01 and Mary has already appeared at 17:36 and met Danny.

Are there different versions video released, or should the page be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsrawat (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

E10 Mid credit part not mentioned here

I saw additional E10 Mid credit part, a person supposedly in a jail cell talking to himself about some "justice cannot be found in court of law..." concluding with "I will die as devil, rather than living as Matt Murdock."

Someone could check that out, and add in tha page, clarifying what is meant by that mention of Daredevil in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsrawat (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)