Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)/Archive 1

DYK
I nominated the page as a DYK and it has gotten approved. I presented 3 options, and the reviewer did not have an opinion either way of which to use. If others would like to help decided, that'd be appreciated. You can do so here: Template:Did you know nominations/Agent Carter (TV series). if you'd like to help pick. If other opinions aren't added, I'll just pick one or just let it default to the initial one I gave. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Article title?
Dear page creator Favre1fan93 & editors,

Does anyone know why the article is titled "Agent Carter" even though the show is actually titled "Marvel's Agent Carter". Rather confusing until you start reading the article. Officially titled by ABC here.

Thanks,  Limbsaw  19:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is because of WP:COMMONNAME. See also The Avengers vs. Marvel's The Avengers and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. vs. Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Understandable. Also apologises for the reference mix up with my recent edit on the main article. They do indeed annotate that it does air in Jan 2015 (on the official YouTube video). So far away! --  Limbsaw  19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * before I remove it again, please tell me where in the video it says this? Unfortunately channel comments or video annotations can't be used as a source. Only the content in the video or the video's description, and I don't see that there. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see it in the description. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 20:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For calcification... Video here. Description: "The star of "Marvel's Agent Carter" talks about the new series coming to ABC in January 2015!". "Publisher annotation" AKA "video description". Thanks... --  Limbsaw  20:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Peggy Carter; founding member of SHIELD
Shouldn't this also be added to her description? "An officer with the Strategic Scientific Reserve." and one of the founding members of S.H.I.E.L.D. It was confirmed that she is, indeed a founding member of SHIELD due to the phone call made by Howard Stark, "Tell her she'll be running S.H.I.E.L.D., with me" 98.110.8.213 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was the One-Shot, not this show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken Cap also said she helped found SHIELD during The Winter Soldier. --DocNox (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The series is confirmed to be set before/during the One-Shot, so the "Tell her she'll be running S.H.I.E.L.D., with me" line hasn't happened yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edwin Jarvis, inspiration for J.A.R.V.I.S.
here's the source 2601:C:780:59F:99F1:4703:E1EC:9C71 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks for the find. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Edwin JArvis actor has been cast. source 2601:C:780:234:8BC:599B:2E7:9077 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dominic Cooper
That source does not confirm his involvement in the show, and another source after that claims he wasn't yet signed. Is there a better source out there? I'm not seeing one. 24.125.151.246 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Atwell saying he will be on set is pretty good confirmation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Episode table column widths
please explain to me how this:

is better than this:

and because you don't like the layout is not a good enough reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. Forcing the columns widths without even knowing the full content is idiotic.  Already the writing column isn't large enough to fit the content that is there (at least on my screen), so how could that possibly be better?  Also both of you have blatantly broken the three revert rule and should be reported to an admin.  This constant back and forth is childish. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that that edit warring got way out of control and was completely ridiculous. Continuing this discussion, Alex keeps referring to the new format as better, but it all seems to be opinion to me. From my point of view, the title column has heaps of space but only 3 letter for each cell, while the contents of the writing column can't even fit in on one line. The reason for allowing auto-adjustment for the column widths is so that the content can fit the best it can, and though I agree it can be annoying when different episode tables don't match up in terms of column widths, we have to what's best for this page, and the new format just doesn't work. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The real reason to use column widths is to unify the formatting of different tables on a single page. This show doesn't have a second season, so there's no second table so what exactly is supposed to be unified here?  They really are not needed. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me how it's not better. In yours, the title column can fit about four letters. How does a title column that is about 4% wide in any way provide good formatting and layout to the page? The writers column has WAY too much padding. If there's an excess in length of the writer, it's not meant to fit all on one line. The reason for forcing widths is so that the content can fit the best it can. Column widths is not necessarily only for multiple episode tables - documentation stating this, please? (Also, I believe it's a week before reverting without a response... Given that my user page says I'm on holiday as well. How about a friendly reminder?) AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your content doesn't fit at all. Your formatting forces the writers onto two lines.  Your claim that "forcing widths is so that the content can fit the best it can" but your formatting actually does the opposite of this as both Adamstom and I have pointed out.  The reason the title column is so small now is because we don't have titles at the moment.  Once they're released and added the table will automatically adjust to be able to fit all the content comfortably.  Forcing widths to accommodate content is only a reasonable argument when you actually know what the content will be.  Enforcing column widths so early serves no point, especially when the writers are forced onto two lines when they can easily fit on one. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Episode table position
Before you goad me into another ridiculous edit war, explain to me how your moving of the episode table to above the production section makes any sense whatsoever. If you don't (as I know from previous experience that you have difficulty with replying to these sorts of questions and/or actually backing up your point of view) then I am just going to revert the page to the last good version, but I'm sure someone else will probably do it anyway first. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Be mature about it. I'm not sure how it doesn't make sense. When a regular user wants to look up the show, the first thing they want to see is the episode details (titles, when they air, etc). The production is secondary. How does it make sense to have the episode listing right at the bottom of the page? Would you be able to explain your point of view? (For future reference, here is only a few of the one-season shows that I follow, that have episodes before production: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "When a regular user wants to look up the show, the first thing they want to see is the episode details", but that isn't what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide, it is an encyclopaedia, and it has rules and guidelines in place to ensure that. Wikipedia articles are always about the real world, with any major in-universe focus frowned upon. However, some in-universe details are often required when dealing with films and tv, so a plot summary is written first to give context to the rest of the page. In articles likes Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2), that is clearly the case: a plot summary of the season is given (the episode table) and then the actual important info (cast, production, reception, etc.) is given in great detail. Obviously for a single season series article like this one, the large infobox interferes with the episode table and creates a large amount of whitespace, which just looks bad. In replacement of this plot summary then, we add a premise section that gives a brief rundown of the season/series as a whole, and then the actual important stuff can be explored. Yes, the titles and directors and stuff is still important, so we don't remove the episode table completely, but it no longer has to go before the cast and the production and stuff and create a mess. Where we then put the table is a new issue, as no guideline exists to follow for this. Some just put it below the cast, some below the production, some in the broadcast section. It really depends on the article itself and what works best. Those articles you gave as examples show that not every page is going to be identical, and only certain info is going to be available for certain series. In the case of this page, I am concerned with the look of the page (meaning removing the unnecessary whitespace) and with the flow of the page, and what makes sense for the reader to read when. This is important, as it obviously wouldn't make sense for, in example, a reader to be reading Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and that page having the plot section, then the reception section, then the cast section, then the sequel section, then the production section, etc. The page would be all over the place and the reader would not be able to flow through the info in a logical and organised way that would allow them to actually understand it and process it. So when looking at this page and situation, that is what I am thinking, and the answer is pretty clear. For now, everywhere that episode table is put, except for where it was before you moved it, it creates a whole lot of unnecessary whitespace. You argument against worrying about the whitespace (which is a bit confusing given your penchant for always worrying about whitespace) is that we can just make the premise bigger and there wont be a problem. That isn't going to happen. Like with S.H.I.E.L.D., we will update the premise, maybe when the season has finished, and definitely if it gets more seasons. However, we won't be adding paragraphs of plot to the extremely summarised premise section. The cast section will most likely grow, and that will probably fix the issue, but even if it does, that does not mean we should automatically move the episode table up above the production, because the question of flow comes up again. You get the short plot summary, you get the cast and character info, the next natural progression is the production info. It would make sense to have the episode table, which has individual release dates, before the broadcast section, which is also about the release of the episodes, so it just seems logical for me to have the episode table below the production section, but above the broadcast/reception stuff. We don't need to get the episode table as close to the top of the article as possible just because some people will come here looking specifically for it, as that is what the table of contents is for – the reader just has to come to this page and click on the episodes link to jump straight down to that section. I hope this explanation makes sense to you, but as always, if you are not satisfied, then please just continue on the discussion with me. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You know what, I'm just going to be WP:BOLD and move the table back to the bottom. It doesn't make any sense where it is, but if you still want to discuss the issue then feel free to do so. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure why a 750-word essay was required, but alright... Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, sure, but it's the user-friendly layout that counts when editing pages for regular viewing-users to see. You say that there's rules and guidelines, naturally, but when it comes to the MOS of TV, there's no note of where to put the episode table for one-season shows. Hence, we should fall back on what is best for both the layouts and the format, as I have done. I don't see what our problem is with extending the premise to eliminate the whitespace, and why "this won't happen". You say it's already "extremely summarised"... except for the fact that it's a mere two sentences/three lines, hence it pretty much calls for an extension. You say that this won't be done, and that won't be done, and this has to go over there - much of this sounds like a own-y explanation. Many articles won't look like each other, agreed, though that often goes against your own arguments - the width of the ratings table should be 99% because of the fact that many other articles do the same (hence my constant replies to you of WP:OTHER). I think it's about time that someone opened up a discussion about the MOS for the position of episode tables, given that everything else is included in order on the MOS/TV article. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be brought up over at MOS:TV, but I also think I gave a good enough argument for why the table should go below the production.


 * When you say that the premise calls for an extension as it is, I say that this isn't and episode summary or a plot summary or enough that requires much more detail, it is just the basic premise of the show. Look to the SHIELD page to see how basic that premise (though that will be updated/changed soon I think). Yes, I know some series pages have extremely detailed "premises", but they are overkill really, especially when those series also have detailed season summaries and detailed episode summaries telling the same thing.


 * You say I am giving "own-y" explanations, but I feel the only person who is acting as if they WP:OWN these pages is you - when you come to a decision concerning an edit, you ignore everyone else's opinion and go so far as to edit war without discussion in an attempt to get what you want. I feel that I don't do this, because I am constantly communicating with other users, starting discussions, and making sure that the actions I want to take line up with the general consensus, and the rules/guidelines.


 * WP:OTHER does not say what you think it says, as I have pointed out to you before.


 * - adamstom97 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Look to the SHIELD page to see how basic that premise". I present you with your own argument: "Those articles you gave as examples show that not every page is going to be identical". You feel that you don't edit war without discussion? Take a look at the warnings on your own talk page. And WP:OTHER says exactly what I think it says: "[...] is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others". Some users add content to articles because other articles have them. Though, that's not what this discussion is about. I direct you to the conversation on the MOS:TV page, and present the argument given by another user. which has equal validity and is rather sound. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we should do anything because of another page, I said look to the SHIELD page to see how basic that premise is. Nothing in that statement says "we must do as another page does" at all.
 * I am well aware of the warnings on my own talk page thank you very much, and I stand by my statement regarding that matter.
 * WP:OTHER says


 * "A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exist according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them."


 * and


 * "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his movie pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. Generally, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project."


 * These two quotes back up my argument, which is other pages can be referenced when dealing with minor details and styling etc. and that giving "because another page does it" as rationale for making an edit is not necessarily a breach of WP:OTHER, which you seem to believe it is. Just because another page does something, does not mean we shouldn't do it as well. Sometimes it is better to be consistent.
 * I have seen the conversation you began over at the MOS:TV talk page, and I would point out that their argument basically matches up with mine, I have just gone on to think about what should be done given that the ideal situation is, in general, impossible, due to the infobox. Perhaps you should have another read of my argument above, even though it is rather long, which I do apologise about, as I can see how off-putting that may be. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is now just a discussion about Wikipedia articles, instead of the article and point of discussion itself. It can stay where it is, until the need arises that it be moved, or another user moves it. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:2015 American television series debuts
I don't see why Category:2015 American television series debuts should be hidden from this page considering that 1)The category is entirely populated with shows which have not aired yet. If premiere broadcast date has been announced, I see no reason why shows shouldn't be included in the category. 2)Filming is pretty much completed and its debut is this Tuesday. 3)There is nothing in the WP:TV guidelines which prohibits this. There really is no reason to hide the categories.Richiekim (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I too was confused about this some months ago, much like you right are. This is why I was explained of the situation by a more experience used on my talk page - you can read about it here. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Colour Scheme
"when did I say that only I have seen it?" - "reflects most of the marketing material I have seen" AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One, that isn't a discussion, two, those two statements perfectly match up together so I don't see what the issue is, and three, you made your change, it has been reverted, now we discuss, so the page should remain as it was, not how you want it to be, so I am going to revert the page to the status quo. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One, I wasn't starting a full discussion, two, you denied having admitted that only you see it, and yet you're basing the colour scheme... on something that you've seen. And apparently, it must stay that way because you saw it, and three, we go by Wikipedia guidelines, not how you want it to be. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I see something, does that mean no one else could possibly have seen it? If so then that is news to me friend. If you need me to spell this out for you again, then here goes. We had a logo, with the blue currently being used as its primary colour scheme. Therefore, we used that colour scheme for this episode table, and for other colour identifiers at the MCU main and TV articles. If you did not see this yourself, then you can also find this colour scheme in all of the promos that ABC have been releasing online for the series. Even though this is true, if you still believe the colour should be changed, then per WP:TVOVERVIEW (which states "Once established, colors should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion.") then you must discuss the change first. And while this discussion is taking place, we don't leave the page in the contentious/controversial state that you want, we revert it to what is already consensus, until such a time as new consensus can be found, if that is indeed what will happen. This has nothing to do with "how [I] want it to be". This is how Wikipedia works. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you're demanding the colour scheme be used for the marketing material that you've seen, not what everyone else has seen. I haven't seen such a logo. I'm using a colour scheme that is available for everyone to view on this very article. You assume that I've been watching promos on ABC - bit hard, given that I don't have ABC, because I'm not American. And your view alone isn't consensus. Yet another WP:OWN view own your part. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a little comment; you're both getting awfully close to violating 3RR here. Please stop now, or you'll both be blocked. Bjelleklang -  talk 10:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at this. We're discussing it, we haven't reverted in a while. Attempt to be an admin elsewhere. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is completely inappropriate, so I suggest you change it or go elsewhere. Wikipedia is a community and therefore requires cooperation. If you can't maturely discuss an issue without personal attacks or other juvenile behaviour, then you should not be here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't ask for your opinion on this. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. You've both reverted three times each, once each after starting the discussion. You actually reverted just to note that a discussion had been started in the edit summary, which isn't really constructive. I simply notified both of you in the same way that others are being notified when they get close to 3RR or when revert wars are ongoing. Bjelleklang -  talk 11:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have already explained multiple times, I did not choose the current colour scheme, it came from the original logo that was on this page before the current one was added. And I am not American either, and do not have ABC either, but as I already explained, the promos are online for anyone to see. Now, if you want to change the colour scheme (again, as I have already explained) then that is fine, you may have a valid argument, but you must discuss the change first, per WP:TVOVERVIEW. This has nothing to do with my own view, again, as I have already explained. We must follow Wikipedia guidelines, not what you want to do. But since you "Didn't ask for [my] opinion" and clearly have no interest in discussing this, I guess there is no point in trying anymore. The page can stay as it is (not because that's what I want, but becase, as I have already explained, Wikipedia guidelines). - adamstom97 (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you're the one enforcing it, based on a logo that nobody that view this article can easily see straight away. You assume that everyone watches it. And you're repeating facts here to make your arguments larger, so I'll skim over to the important stuff. I am following Wikipedia guidelines, by picking a colour scheme that has an obvious source on this article, not one that has been arbitrarily picked from the internet. And since I didn't ask for your opinion? Huh, WP:OWN. And since you're automatically assuming that I don't want to discuss, hence extending that you don't want to, the colour scheme should reflect upon Wikipedia policies by being based on publically-viewable sources. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am "enforcing it" because we WP:TVOVERVIEW tells us to do this, and so that is what we will do. You do not get to decide which guidelines will be followed and which will not. You do not WP:OWN this page. And if you didn't notice, you are the one that brought up my opinion (hence the quotation marks when I used the phrase). I am assuming you don't want to discuss because A, you started edit warring again, B, you began this "discussion" with a couple of vague quotations, and then said "I wasn't starting a full discussion", C, you have an appaling attitude which shows me you have no interest in working in with other wikieditors, and C, you continuously ignore my arguments in favour of repeating yours, unlike myself, as I am repeating my arguments in response to yours.


 * Now, again, If you think that the colour should be changed, then that is fine. Per WP:TVOVERVIEW, we will discuss the issue before anymore brash edits are made. If you can bring yourself to do so, and if anyone else wants to join in, then the process should be pretty easy, and consensus on whether there should be a change, and, if so, what that change should be, will be found, and the page can be edited accordingly. No more edit warring. No more personal attacks. No more time-wasting. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The blue color is based on this image which was the image on the page for the longest time, and frankly should most likely be the image on this page again. Save what is on the article now for maybe an eventual LoE article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Blue it is. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've finally reached a decision, but I'd like to comment about the colour differences. The orange background with the white text's contrast doesn't conform with the WCAG 2.0's AA level on WP:COLOR, meaning it isn't allowed on an article (accessibility reasons for colour blind users etc). The blue background works fine with the WCAG contrast ratings. Can I also just comment on the bad negativity between both AlexTheWhovian & adamstom97 on this page? Please don't get me wrong, I'm not here to pass judgment on who you are or how you edit, but at the end of the day, if you just simply read above on this talk page, you've both been involved in 3RR/edit wars multiple times in the space of a month... Also again, if you had an issue with the colours, why didn't either of you bring it up in the Talk:Agent_Carter_(TV_series) when Adam inserted the table? Thanks, Limbsaw  ~talk~  01:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that anyway Limbsaw. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Favre, though I think the previous image was better, since the show is premiering tomorrow, we should be able to get an intertitle shot to use here then, like at AoS. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Howard Stark
The cast section lists Howard Stark as Tony Stark's father. I think it's more likely that he is Tony Stark's grandfather. According to what I could find on the page for Howard Stark his father was Howard Stark Sr. The reason I think this is the case is because of the gap in time. In the premier of Agent Carter Howard Stark seemed to be in his 40's and that was 1946. Tony Stark in present day seems to be in his 40's as well which would put his birth sometime around 1970. It seems to me that if Howard Stark of Agent Carter is in fact Tony Stark's father instead of his grandfather then Howard Stark must have been in his 70's. Seems unlikely to me. --Jimv1983 (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for this, or is this simply original research? There's already many sources stating that this is Tony's father, given that it is continuity of Captain America, where it is explicitly stated that he is Tony's father.. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, no source which is why I have not changed it and don't intend to. Just seems a bit off to me. I did just watch the clip from Iron Man 2 where Tony is watching the film of his dad. The film was made in 1973 and shows Tony's father appearing to be in his mid 50's maybe and Tony in the background looked maybe 8 which would put his birth in like 1965. It also would have made his father in his 40's when Tony was born. It seems to me that Howard Stark would have been more like 20 in 1946 and like 16 in 1942 when the first Captain America took place. The numbers just don't seem to add up. Just trying to figure it out for myself and wanted to see if I was the only one that thought it something was off. --Jimv1983 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that there are multiple sources stating that Howard is Tony's father, according to the SHIELD personnel files included in a deleted scene of The Avengers. Howard Stark was born in 1917 and died in 1991, and Tony was born in 1970. So Howard would have been 53 at the time of Tony's birth, all perfectly logical.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on in the Infobox
In this article's "Based on" field in the infobox it lists the appearances in the films and one-shot and not the comic character as its done in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and in all other MCU films (for example: Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier Iron Man (2008 film) The Avengers (2012 film)). Shouldn't this list also Peggy Carter by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby?--Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See the referenced citation in the lead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but its a press release not an in-depth analysis on the origin of the story. The character in those films and for which this series is a continuation of is based on the comic book character Peggy Carter, and like i showed, all other Marvel related Wikipedia pages state the comic book character as well. Just my thoughts on this matter.Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are all stated how they are sourced. This property does not list the character as its "Based on". It lists the Cap films and One-Shot as its basis. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Stan Lee Reference
What makes a reference unreliable? Recaps have been used universally over Wikipedia as reliable sources, I see no difference with the one that I used for Stan Lee. It reliably details the events of the most recent episode, which also contains the information I added about Lee's cameo. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good point. I'm not quite sure, so I guess just go ahead, and we can look into it more if someone else takes issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" overkill
From Citing sources: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Do you seriously think a line like "Alexander Carroll as Yauch: An S.S.R. agent." is likely to be challenged? As I mentioned, the contents of a show do not need citations because they're the contents of the show. If it was an interpretation ("An S.S.R. agent with an unstated crush on Carter", for instance), then yes. This, no. - Richfife (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the above discussion, where it was decided that we will source all of this information. If this was a list of characters page, then I would agree that the show would serve as the source, but we have decided that for this page, only the episode table will use the show as a source. Obviously we know, after watching the show, that this information is correct, but not everybody has watched the show, and if at anypoint we decide to nominate this article for GA, these will remind us that we need to find refs for that information, if we have not yet done so by then. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the "Unnecessary in-universe detail" section? I think you're being obtuse here.  That's a discussion about interpretations of the characters ("unspoken for and struggling to find a place outside the home") as opposed to plain facts ("A switchboard operator who works for the S.S.R.").  Again, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged".  Is it likely to be challenged?  No?  Then it doesn't need the tag.  It implies "Or is she?" when you add that tag, which implies content that isn't there. - Richfife (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary in-universe detail
WP:TVCAST says nothing about allowing unsourced character descriptions, and in fact says we should avoid such things that belong in a plot section (which is the next section of the page anyway). I think it is preferable to do as we have done for SHIELD and the film pages, by only having sourced and, for the most part, real world info here, and leaving the more in depth stuff, like what the character is/does in the show, for actual character pages. And just because this series doesn't have a character page yet, doesn't mean all this unnecessary and unsourced info should be shoved in here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest if that info is going to be added here, then some simple refs be added to confirm it (I'm sure there are some revies or recaps out there that have this info in them). That way, everyone is happy. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the addition of small character descriptions, but like Adam said, let's find a source for it before adding it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The show itself is a perfectly fine source for basic character descriptions on the level of "a switchboard operator". As I've mentioned, the show is a reliable source (in fact, it's arguably the only reliable source) for what is unambiguously shown in its fictional universe. - Richfife (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are approaching this as someone who has seen the series. We cannot assume that this will be the case for everyone, both those reading the page now, and those reading it in the future when the series has finished airing. How can someone trust information about a series they haven't seen when it is the only information on the page that is unreferenced. This really isn't a big deal anyway, and if you do take issue with the cn tags, then just find some reliable sources to replace them with yourself. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Visual effects
Would we be able to use this to expand the vfx section here? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we would, but I had previously viewed that video and didn't really see any info to add beyond what we already had. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about ILM's transition to TV more than anything really. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yauch
and I are looking to get more opinions on the matter of where Yauch should be placed in the character list: either recurring or guest. The character falls within our rule of thumb guideline for a recurring character (at least 4 appearances) with 5 appearances, though only 3 of those episodes had him credited in the press releases from Marvel. Additionally, he also could be considered a guest character, with that definition being: "recurring guest stars that appear in lesser roles or make significant cameo appearances". So we are wondering what others thought: did Yauch have enough notability in the season to classify him as recurring, or should he just be a guest? We are just looking for an informal straw poll here. More info on this matter can be found on my talk page. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Guest - I feel that despite the 5 appearances in the season, 3 were only credited by Marvel, and 1 really stood out as notable (his last appearance). But as a whole, the character was not in my mind a "recurring" one, just a recurring "guest". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Recurring - Krzeminski, Fry and Stark were only in 3 episodes and they are recurring. If Youch should be guest than they should be eather. Mike210381 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Krzeminski, Fry and Stark are all sourced as being recurring roles, hence why they are there. Because of that, they are automatically added to recurring, regardless of number of episodes. Sorry if that was not clear or understood before. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing Game of Tag
For the past couple of days now, two users have been playing editing tag arguing over a very small detail. The two should come to an agreement to what it should say instead of having an editing war. To continue arguing over this is a bit childish as it seems neither one of the two seem to let it go. DarienLeonhart (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers
I know the policy on spoilers, but does there have to be a major plot reveal in Dooley's character synopsis? OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The section doesn't have to be exempt from spoilers. We don't get to pick and choose where we apply WP:SPOILER. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The death of the character isn't really necessary for the understanding of the character, atleast not in the information that is currently being presented. It is being presented as more of a plot point in which case its already covered in the episode summary. So I'm fine with removing it from the cast section. If this was a standalone list then it would be different.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)