Talk:Agent Carter season 2

New poster
So a new poster was released, but frankly, it is really similar to S1's. I'd argue to keep the current one, as it is different and has variety (especially when choosing a color). But maybe that's their plan: use a similar image, and adjust Carter's pose each season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the equivalent of the season 1 poster, while the current poster here seems to be the equivalent of the previous season 1 poster. By that logic we should change to the new one. If we do change, then I think we should go with the red here, since the glasses are unique to this poster. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I've been feeling, thinking about this for a bit. And I agree with the red for sure. I haven't been able to find a non-watermarked version. Have you? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but I'm sure one will turn up soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would there be a problem with adding this version of the poster until we get a non-watermarked version? The Marvel watermark seems better than another one. Just a thought. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with TriiipleThreat at the moment, that the poster we have now, is more distinctive. We can change down the line, but as we were discussion above, it really is essentially s1's poster. Not that that a bad thing, I just feel the one we have is a good change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to a non-watermarked version of the Season 2 poster. I would also stick to the red for the season color. Plus, the current version seems to be computer-made art, not an actual picture, like in the black poster. —  Art manha  22:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what you're saying Favre, but I still think that this new one is the equivalent of the first season poster and will be used for the home media. I also think if we take the lighter red from the sunglasses we will be emphasising the difference between the two and will overall make them feel distinctive. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fight anything either way. I just know when we uploaded it when it was released, reverted back, so I feel he should weigh in again, before anything is done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have no idea what art will be used for the home media release but the suggested poster is too similar to the season 1 poster. As Favre stated, I think we should use one that is more distinct. The current poster IMHO, is more representative of the season as it predominately features Los Angeles in the background, which per the marketing is a defining characteristic of season 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, I can see what your thought process is. I still think that it is supposed to be similar to the first season poster, just as the current version here is similar to the previous version for the first season, but I am happy to wait for the home media release to see what they use there. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cast
Just an FYI for everyone, since we are only dealing with 10 episodes, I'm going to add the guest cast members from each episode to my sandbox here to count their appearances. Others are welcome to add as the season goes on if I don't get to an episode right away when the press info is released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not just put them on the page as they are announced? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because we have no knowledge at this time if any of these characters are recurring (4 or more appearances, as has been consensus for MCU television articles). By the time we hit episode 4, we'll see if any have been recurring, and can add them then. But until then, I'm just keeping track in my sandbox, so as not to clutter the article here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a wikilink for the MCU consensus defining recurring as 4 episodes at least?–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually 3 episodes per season consists of recurring status and recurring character. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Starring actors for the season
Despite the press releases including Everett and Austin as main cast, for 201 and 202 they are not credited as such, appearing under the "Guest starring" heading. What should we do for their placements here, because we have conflicting info (the press releases and onscreen)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we need to move them to recurring. We can move them back if they get promoted at any point, on-screen credits wise, during the season, but for now this seems to be just another case of press releases not being entirely accurate. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

End Date
I assumed that since the season was delayed by two weeks then the end would be too as well as the start of Agents of SHIELD. I saw one source that said just that, but it appeared to be speculation. I guess we will find out soon. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After the delay, it was confirmed that AoS would return still on March 8, and that Agent Carter would continue as planned until March 1. So that's where we hit the snag because we have two weeks left for four episodes. I'm assuming they will be doubling up both of those weeks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that confirmation. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here it is: "Though the preemption wouldn’t have impacted Carters initial Jan. 5 return date, postponing the Hayley Atwell-led series will allow it to run uninterrupted for all 10 episodes. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.s March 8 return date remains unaffected.)" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Thor: Ragnarok easter egg
This is a HUGE if, but Broxton, Oklahoma (home of Whitney Frost) is where Thor rebuilt Asgard above in the comics after a Ragnarok event. The source is here should we need it in a year's time and the film comes out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not so much call it a huge if as ridiculously off-the-wall speculation that should never be included unless, like R+L=J, it was a famous and widely attested fan theory and was included in separate section discussing fandom, not possible intentional, official and canonical tie-ins. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

When are MCU tie-ins not MCU tie-ins?
The Darkforce has not been canonically mentioned in any MCU properties. It has been speculated that something from season one of AOS might be the same, and that since in the comics it is tied into the Dr. Strange mythos, that maybe it is linked to the upcoming movie. But nothing in the sources even hints at this. Saying that the Agent Carter Darkforce does not contradict the script for Doctor Strange is not the same as calling it a tie-in.

Furthermore, the second paragraph is even worse, because it doesn't even engage in the original research and SYNTH necessary to call it a tie-in. It calls it an allusion. The show contains plenty of thematic allusions and subtle references to other properties, and we shouldn't be distinguishing between thematic allusions to MCU properties and thematic allusions to other properties.

Furthermore, Adamstom.97's reversion of my edit shows a complete lack of understanding of WP:BURDEN. Material that is challenged based on it either being unsourced or dubiously sourced should stay out unless it has been discussed on the talk page, not stay in. I have encountered this same problem, with this same user, every single time I have tried to edit an MCU article, and every single time it has come to discussion on the talk page I have won the debate, because I have always been right in this traditional interpretation of Wikipedia policy: why would this time be any different?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because of WP:BRD: you made a bold edit, I didn't agree with it, I reverted it, and now we can discuss it. I honestly do not remember any of these other times we have debated edits to MCU articles, but I hope you realise that this is not a competition that you can win. In fact, I would consider coming to the correct conclusion in a debate, whether it was my original opinion or not, to be "winning" one.


 * Anyway, the Darkforce has been in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., where it was clearly named as such in the episode that it appeared. Then, at SDCC last year, the showrunners revealed that the Darkforce would be appearing in the second season of Agent Carter, and they noted its connections to the characters Doctor Strange and Marcus Daniels (the latter appeared on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the aforementioned episode). That is the first line of the section. In January of this year they elaborated further, explaining how the Darkforce is created and the fact that it is called Zero Matter in the series, etc. They also reiterate that this is a "tie-in" (they literally say that) to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as well as to Doctor Strange in general. So that is the second and third lines of the section. The rest of that paragraph is some behind the scenes stuff that flesh out what they did to make this work within their show, which we want because this is an encyclopaedia which is about the real world, not the series' universe. The last line of the paragraph notes that the series had to be careful not to contradict Doctor Strange, a significant part of the relationship between Marvel's television series and films, which confirms that this also ties in some way to that film, beyond just the character and "universe" of Doctor Strange, just in case. But, the fact is that this information would belong in the section anyway simply on the grounds that it is a confirmed tie-in with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. So, I'm not sure if you actually read the sources before saying that nothing in them "even hints" at the tie-in, but clearly they more than hint at it, and I think you should probably do some research next time before making statements such as "The Darkforce has not been canonically mentioned in an MCU properties", instead of assuming that we don't understand Wikipedia policy or that we are just fanboys using rumour and speculation as hard facts.


 * As for the second paragraph, I think should chime in about that one. I believe he originally added it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting from the above is that you are saying it ties in with an obscure monster-of-the-week in mid-season one of AOS who even a nerd like me had all but forgotten about, and has no verifiable connection whatsoever to the upcoming Doctor Strange movie? They borrowed a story element from the Doctor Strange comics, and needed to check that it didn't contradict the upcoming film. That can easily be read as saying it doesn't tie in, as (1) the forces behind the show clearly are not being kept up to speed on what would contradict the film and (2) the easiest way not to contradict the film is to use only story elements that have nothing to do with the film, and your source doesn't say this is not the case.
 * In this one case, your revert can be justified based on BRD -- although essays never trump core content policies -- because I essentially removed or recontextualized two whole paragraphs of an article on a TV show on the day it was scheduled to conclude, but on Mockingbird (comics) you reinserted completely unsourced material to a much lower traffic article. You need to be more careful when you reinsert unsourced claims that are challenged.
 * Anyway, how about just retitling the section to Thematic and story references to Marvel Comics and other MCU properties or something? Apart from the unsourced implication that it ties into an unreleased film that's my only real beef with your proposed version.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if you don't have an argument to make against my removal of the second paragraph, then you can't use BRD to justify it, as you are sidestepping the discussion part. You should have asked Favre1fan93 to revert if you thought they might have something to discuss. If you agree with my proposed solution, of course, it's a moot point, because I am not opposed to the addition per se; I just don't think we should be taking what's clearly marked as a thematic allusion and calling it a tie-in. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what you think is important, it is about what the sources and the creators say and do. The problem with the Mockingbird issue was that you thought characters were important when they officially were still guest stars, not technical main characters. Here, you don't think these tie-ins are good enough to be called such, but the creators of the show disagree, and they literally say "tie-in" to S.H.I.E.L.D. and Doctor Strange. That is the real world, and you are trying to deal with the in-universe facts, which goes against Wikipedia policy. That is why we kept the Jessica Jones bit. If Favre comes and discusses and we decide to move it somewhere else, such as an "Analysis" section or something, then that is fine. The point is we should discuss it before restoring any of your bold edits. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about this being about what "I think" is "important". You are the only one who has used this wording so far.
 * I said "obscure" because I had completely forgotten about him, which was my defense against your rather harsh criticism of me for using the slightly inaccurate wording The Darkforce has not been canonically mentioned in any MCU properties. (Although if I recall correctly it may not have been named as such in the episode anyway, in which case I wouldn't technically have been "wrong" to say it "has not been canonically mentioned in any MCU properties" -- it would have been mentioned in external sources considered to be canonical until further notice.) I was quite justified in forgetting about him because there were about a dozen story threads established in the underwhelming first two thirds of the first season that have apparently been completely dropped by the show runners.
 * If it's about what the sources and the creators say and do, then why do you insist on putting the words "MCU tie-in" in their mouths when they are talking about deriving plot elements from the comic books?
 * they literally say "tie-in" to S.H.I.E.L.D. and Doctor Strange is an outright lie. This source does not mention anything about a "tie-in to Doctor Strange" -- in fact it doesn't use the word "tie-in" once, and only mentions "Dr. Strange" once, with a hyperlink to material on the film, but the wording is clearly about the Doctor Strange comic-book franchise. This source doesn't use the words "tie-in", "Strange" or even "Agents" once. Nor does this one. This source, as I already demonstrated above, is being consciously misrepresented as directly stating that there is a tie-in when in fact it appears to imply the opposite. This source is the only one that refers to any kind of tie-in, and it's written ambiguously because it refers to the "the Doctor Strange universe"; the lack of italicization or quotation marks implies they are talking about the comic book character and his mythos, not necessarily the upcoming film. Admittedly, my saying it's "written" ambiguously might be unfair, as it seems to be a transcript of an oral interview, which brings up other problems, such as that if Fazekas meant to say the "the upcoming Doctor Strange film" but misspoke, then we don't know what else she "meant" to say, and you are putting far too much weight on a single slurred quotation taken out of context. Yes, I agree she probably meant to imply that the series ties in to the upcoming film, but that assumption also requires the assumption that she did not misspeak and her wording was crafted very carefully so as either (a) not to reveal spoilers for the as-yet hush-hush film or (b) not openly admit that the Darkforce has nothing to do with the Doctor Strange film.
 * That is the real world, and you are trying to deal with the in-universe facts, which goes against Wikipedia policy. No, trying to deal with the in-universe facts is what you are doing. You know that the Darkforce is something from the Doctor Strange comic book universe, and are assuming that it therefore must tie in to the upcoming Doctor Strange film. I am saying that no real-world source indicates the Darkforce will be featured or even mentioned in the upcoming Doctor Strange film, and that the sources that mention "Doctor Strange" and "Agent Carter" alongside each other, while clearly worded so as to imply a tie-in without directly stating one way or the other, in order to drill up hype for the TV show, are inadequate. Wikipedia's role is not to drill up hype for the TV show, nor to get "inside scoops" that would earn more revenue and justify being a mouthpiece for Disney's marketing team. (This is not true for a lot of the sources the article currently cites.) If you were critically analyzing the primary sources you are quoting in order to determine how we should be writing this article, you would agree with me, but instead you are reading in-universe story logic and knowledge of the source material into what the sources actually say. And let's be clear: they are all primary sources coming directly from Disney in the form of press releases and interviews; if anyone broke rank and said something they weren't supposed to they would be immediately fired and Disney's lawyers would make sure they never did anything that might harm a film or TV project's prospects again.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Somehow I missed this. Saying that my removal of the Jessica Jones discussion is based on in-universe thinking is laughable. The section clearly calls this a "tie-in", which is a term that implies in-universe. What the source says about Jessica Jones is a (possible) thematic allusion, not a story tie-in. The source (and the quote we provide) even clearly indicate that it what is meant is a thematic allusion rather than a tie-in, as we clearly state The talent agent [is not] the Purple Man. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like we're going to need more than two or three users to resolve this dispute, so I posted on WT:TV. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what just happened. I am going to try and break this down simply for everyone (including myself, as I just don't know how to respond to whatever you are rambling on about).

We have sources clearly stating that the Zero Matter in Agent Carter this season is actually the Darkforce, which is a "tie-in" (one of the showrunner's words, not ours) to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (because it appeared and was named in an episode in the first season of that series) and the world of Doctor Strange. Because we are interested in the real world implications of this, we also have some information on a physicist consulted concerning the Zero Matter / Darkforce, as well as one of the showrunners saying they ensured they weren't contradicting the Doctor Strange film, which is important for the series as a part of the MCU.

We also have some commentary on the season, pointing out a thematic 'tie' between it and Jessica Jones (I'm afraid that the word tie only implies multiple things being connected in some way, never has it meant "in-universe" or anything like that). This was obviously added in the MCU tie-in section, but if, through discussion, it is decided that that is not the best place in the article for it, then I'm sure we can find a more appropriate place for it.

Hopefully this clears everything up for us / anyone joining us now, and we can proceed with a healthy discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop saying "the world of Doctor Strange". The phrasing is vague, and when it is used in external sources we don't know whether it refers to the upcoming MCU film or the character who has been in comics published since the 1960s. If it is the latter -- and let's be clear: it almost certainly is, with some of the sources even implying as much -- then you are absolutely out of line in calling it a "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in". Physicists being consulted on real-world science in sources that make no mention of Doctor Strange also are not "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins". Furthermore, the word "tie" does not appear anywhere in the Jessica Jones source; it is not a tie-in by any stretch of the imagination. It might be a thematic allusion, but that is clearly not the same thing. I would be happy to discuss it in the article, as long as it is not referred to as an "MCU tie-in", and as long as non-MCU thematic allusions are given due weight in accordance with reliable sources. Stop twisting your own words and those of others -- you have been saying "MCU tie-in" throughout, and that is what your version of the article says, so making a strawman argument over the definition of the word "tie" is disruptive at best. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, as I noted in my request for input, a single third party joining a gridlocked dispute between two other parties cannot resolve the dispute; if anything, it would make it worse. Pinging one user, especially one with a checkered history of involvement with you, me and sourcing issues on MCU articles, would at best have no effect whatsoever. At worst, it would lead to a 2-1 "consensus". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How is featuring something from a different MCU series (in what the showrunners refer to as a "tie-in" to that series) not an MCU tie-in? And why should relevant behind-the-scenes information such as the employ of a consultant or the contact of the film studio to work in with their products not be included? And since when did something have to explicitly use the word "tie" in order for it to tie-in? "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" is not an official term that must be spoken by the creators in order for us to discuss here, it is a description of something that is only possible in an MCU property, and applies to anything that is a tie between multiple MCU projects, be it the reuse of a major, fictional substance (an in-universe tie-in that is supported with real world issues such as the need to ensure that it feels scientifically accurate and doesn't contradict other areas of the universe) or be it a thematic reprisal (which is really just a real world connection, one that is commented on by multiple critics). I am afraid you are the one "twisting" words and coming up with incorrect definitions of the word "tie", since you seem to be saying that "tie-in" means something more than it actually does, which is (and this is a real definition of the term) "a connection or association". - adamstom97 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Are you still on the AOS season 1 thing? I already ceded that. We are talking about Jessica Jones and Doctor Strange. None of the sources use the word ”tie-in” in relation to these properties, and in fact strongly imply that there is no tie-in to the MCU versions of these properties. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the fact that the sources don't have to say "tie-in" for there to be a tie-in. A tie-in is anything that ties-in, not just anything that is called a "tie-in". The Zero Matter ties-in to the Doctor Strange character and world because the showrunners say it is a tie-in to that, but it also ties-in to the Doctor Strange film because it deals with similar ideas, for which the showrunners had to work around the film to use. That is "a connection or association", and so it is a tie-in, though I would note that nowhere in the section does it actually say that this season ties-in with the film anyway, only with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The "smile" bit ties-in to Jessica Jones because it reuses dialogue and an idea from that series to similar, referential effect, which is again "a connection or association". That is why this information is in the MCU tie-ins section: because they are connections to or associations with other areas of the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Just wanted to note that I'm planning to participate in this discussion, but do not have the time to properly read the arguments/comments above, or present my own. I'll be able to hopefully contribute to this come the weekend, and in the mean time, please remember we are in no rush, and the status quo (the version Adam reverted back to) stays during the discussion period. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That most certainly is not the policy. The so-called status quo was unilaterally added, with no prior consensus, three weeks ago, and has now been challenged as unsourced (the inline citations do not adequately support the claims). Therefore, the default position should be to leave it out. I have not reverted, not because I think the opinion of adamstom trumps V, but as a courtesy gesture and because I hate edit wars, and I know from experience that that would certainly happen if I joined in in the reverting game. If either of you misrepresent Wikipedia policy again we will have to take this to some other venue. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So I see no reason to change the section title from what it is. The Zero Matter, which is the Darkforce, is a tie-in to the Doctor Strange film, based on the last source in the section. Quoting from that source: It touches on Doctor Strange. And all we know is, we'll write something and just hear “It doesn't conflict with the Doctor Strange script,” and we're like, “Score!”, IGN does not use any styling formatting, but given the context as it is used in the quote, it is talking about the film, not the character. So I believe that covers the first part of the content change. As for the Jessica Jones info, when I added it, I felt this was the best section for it. However, looking at it now, it may be better in a commentary or analysis section, or not even at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, so nothing in the show contradicts the film. That implies one of two things: either the film will feature the Darkforce and it will be the same thing we saw in the show, or the film will not even mention the Darkforce and so of course the show didn't contradict the film script. If the former ... well, the source doesn't say that. And if the latter, then it cannot reasonably be called a tie-in with the film. It might be reasonably called a tie-in to the Doctor Strange comic books, but then we're back to this not being an "MCU tie-in", and either needing to rename the section or move this discussion to another section discussing the plot and its relationship to the comic book source material. Of course, if another source could be found that explicitly says that the Doctor Strange film will reference the Darkforce and that this will be the same thing as seen in the show, this will be a moot point.
 * Thank you for agreeing with me on Jessica Jones, though. My actual reasoning for wanting it moved (I don't want it removed from the article) is that the implication of "MCU tie-in" is "in-universe"; if the link is thematic in nature, rather than part of the in-universe story, then there is no distinction between other MCU properties. We should discuss thematic connections to other properties if these connections are well-sourced, but this discussion should not distinguish between "in-universe" thematic allusions and those to non-MCU properties.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier, we are in no rush: Wikipedia is a fluid document, always changing, always updating. As such, at this time, it does indicate that Zero Matter/Darkforce, will have some part to play in Doctor Strange, and the EPs of Carter were able to use it and tell a story about it, without the fear of stepping on the film's toes. However, should when November comes around and the film does not feature Darkforce, then this article can be updated. But we do have the proper sourcing to keep it here for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * it does indicate that Zero Matter/Darkforce, will have some part to play in Doctor Strange By "it", do you mean Wikipedia? If so, you are correct. But what external reliable sources indicate this? The only source currently cited in this article does not indicate this -- if anything, it indicates the opposite. It is original research to assert that just because Carter was not allowed use it without first checking with the higher-ups that it didn't contradict the Doctor Strange script, that this means Darkforce will appear in Doctor Strange. And original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "It" as in the sources on the page, as has been explained above a couple times how they do indicate a connection. The IGN source in particular. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think both of you have serious trouble reading sources and accurately reporting what they say. The sources do not imply any connection between this show and the upcoming movie. If anything, their saying that the scripts do not overlap implies the opposite. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please quote me one source that directly indicates that Darkforce/Zero Matter "will have some part to play in Doctor Strange". I have not seen any such source, despite the two of you claiming over and over and over again that the sources I have apparently read more closely than you have say this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt I have any trouble reading sources, thank you very much. Everything in that section has been 100% accurately reported. I'm still not clear why you're honed in on this one point, that is not definitively stating one way or another that this is in that film. What it is saying, is that the comic object (Darkforce) has ties to these comics characters (Doctor Strange and Marcus Daniels), both of whom appear in the MCU (one upcoming, and one already). The connection to Daniels and AoS is justification alone for inclusion, but we continue on, explaining that the comic object was adjusted to fit within the realm of the show and act as a precursor to the material already shown in the MCU with Daniels. And finally, because we make the initial mention about its relation to Doc Strange, we add the part that says the producers made sure that what they were doing would not conflict with anything in the film, which isn't us saying either way the material is in the film. So the presentation of this information is perfectly fine as it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're calling it an "MCU tie-in". That is explicitly stating that it has some connection to the film that neither you, nor I, nor adamstom, nor it would seem anyone involved in the script for Agent Carter has seen. We already know that Dr. Strange was not mentioned anywhere in this show -- do we have to wait another eight months until we find out that neither Zero Matter nor Agent Carter have nothing to do with the Doctor Strange film to remove this assumption of yours from the article? Everything you say above is fine; the problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Zero Matter will be in the film, so it is not a "tie-in" to the film; it is a tie-in to the the other TV show, and has a loose connection to the comic books that may or may not serve as source material for the film. For all we know at this point, the Doctor Strange film could be an entirely original story featuring a main character from the comics and a few sly nods to said comics. The history of the MCU clearly shows that even if Marvel had said the film would be based on a particular story from the comics it probably won't. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Zero Matter is still an MCU tie-in regardless of the Doctor Strange bit because of Marcus Daniels and its appearance on AoS. And as I stated above, it is not being connected to the film, but the MCU character. And as I also stated above, Wikipedia is a fluid document and ever changing. What works today, might not tomorrow. In this case, this info is accurately presented for today (not WP:OR, just re-presenting the material from reliable sources). Should it be different when November rolls around, that will be a different story. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * I was just wondering, what part about the Doctor Strange film exactly do you wish us to remove/change? If we know the specifics, it could help move along this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already stated several times that I think if the section includes references to tie-ins with non-MCU properties, then such references need to be either moved to a different section or excised completely, or the present section needs to be renamed. We are already in agreement that one of the first two options should be applied to the Jessica Jones bit. I don't care which of the three we do with the Doctor Strange bit. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what bit "exactly"? Give "specifics". Your vague statements aren't helping here. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything about Doctor Strange. Period. The only legit, sourced MCU tie-in is to AOS. The fact that both AOS and AC derived the Darkforce from the Doctor Strange comics, but this is no more an MCU tie-in than it was when AOS did it back in 2014. The fact that a Doctor Strange MCU movie is in production doesn't really change anything. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to answer the question and try and make some progress in this discussion, then what is the point? I am sure that you must actually care at least a little bit about the quality of the article given the amount of effort you have put into this discussion so far, but you are certainly not acting like it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are just trying to be disruptive now, as I already answered your question ("everything about Doctor Strange should be cut"). But I will humour you. I want the section either to be renamed, or to read as follows:
 * "In July 2015, Butters revealed that the season would feature the Darkforce, which ties to the character Marcus Daniels who appeared in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.[48] In January 2016, Fazekas elaborated, saying that the Darkforce, known as Zero Matter in the series, is the result of a nuclear test gone wrong by Isodyne Energy. Looking to the history of the Darkforce in the comics, Fazekas and Butters 'were able to select what we liked and sort of make our own rules as to what it does, how it operates, and who it affects in our world.'[30] The producers tried to take a scientific approach to the explanation of the Zero Matter, consulting with theoretical physicist Clifford Johnson to help ground it in science.[33][49] They also conversed with Eric Carroll at Marvel Studios to see if they could destroy Howard Stark's hover car, which was originally seen as a prototype in Captain America: The First Avenger.[50][39] The mention in the season finale of the land Stark owns in Malibu is a reference to what will become the location for the home of his son, Tony, in the MCU films.[51]"
 * Looking at it in more detail, I think the lengthy discussion of the development of the Zero Matter concept should be moved. Although it does belong in the article, it has nothing to do with MCU tie-ins. Neither do the references to Doctor Strange or how this series doesn't contradict the script of the upcoming film that neither you nor I nor apparently the producers of the show have any idea what it will be about. I haven't checked the refs on the newly-added material, but it doesn't seem problematic to me. BTW, thank you to whoever added more material while this section was in dispute -- you really are good at not throwing oil on the fire.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering you were refusing to answer my question and therefore hindering the constructive progression of this discussion, I find it rich that you are calling me disruptive. Anyway, there seems to be a major flaw in your thinking here: you are attempting to remove anything that is not a direct, in-universe connection to another MCU property. I am afraid that that would go completely against WP:Real world, not to mention would be ignoring the fact that this is a subsection of the Production section. We can say that a substance called Zero Matter / Darkforce appears in this season and in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (and has some as-yet-unknown connection to the character and world of Doctor Strange, who is getting his own upcoming film; I believe it is likely that the substance will not even appear in the film, and that the connection will be that it sets up here the idea of fantastical other dimensions, which the film will explore, but we will have to wait for the film's release to know that, which is fine since we are in WP:NORUSH), but that is just context. We are then able to expand on how the producers connected these projects together and 'brought this tie-in to life', meaning that the section is not just a trivial, fanboyish listing of in-universe facts. This helps establish some of the processes required for this series that are not for others outside of the MCU, which is again beneficial for this encyclopaedic article beyond mere plot elements. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I have responded to all of your questions, while you have been dodging all attempts at discussion, and you have been edit-warring to boot. You cite BRD, but I don't think you have even read BRD, since BRD is on my side in this dispute. You are the one making fanboyish speculation about in-universe facts here: Why did you insist on distinguishing "MCU" from "non-MCU" connections even when the connections are thematic rather than story-based? Why is material based on a Marvel comic that happens to have an upcoming MCU film adaptation called an "MCU tie-in" now, when the same material two years ago (before Doctor Strange was announced) was not? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But you didn't respond to my question! I asked for some specifics because I want to make some headway with the discussion, not drag it out even further, but you gave me a half-arsed reply that was very obviously not specific at all and then called me disruptive when I asked you again! Do you not see the hipocrisy in that, to literally refuse to answer my question and then blame me for disrupting the discussion? And what edit warring? I haven't touched any of the content we are discussing, except to help clarify in one place that we were talking about the Doctor Strange character rather than the film since you didn't seem to notice how the name was formatted: I was helping you understand, helping the discussion. That is the opposite of being disruptive. And yes, I just made some fanboyish speculation "that the substance will not even appear in the film, and that the connection will be that it sets up here the idea of fantastical other dimensions, which the film will explore", but I haven't added it to the article, because that isn't what we do. We have only included what the sources say, and if we accidentally had included something not from the sources, and you had pointed such a thing out, we would have remedied the situation. That is not the case, however. And you answered your last question for yourself: when the Darkforce was used in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., it was just an element from the comics, but when it was used here, the showrunners noted that it connected to a character and world to appear in an upcoming film. Likewise, when the Inhumans were introduced in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, they would have just been a comic element, but because there is an Inhumans film coming soon, they also serve as a connection to that film. Also, their use in the third season could just be a continuation of their initial storyline, but since the showrunners have stated that it ties into Civil War, we discuss that connection as an MCU tie-in as well. That is why this information is an MCU tie-in for Agent Carter. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did respond to your question! You asked for specifics, and I then told you exactly what I wanted removed. You then accused me of not answering your question, so I gave you the exact text that I wanted to read. Now you are accusing me of still not having answered your question. What on earth is wrong with you? Are you trying to be disruptive? Every single edit I have made to an MCU-related article has been reverted by one of the two of you, and all you do is post inane non-discussion on the talk page until either someone else weighs in and you lose on the merits of my arguments, or I give up and stop trying. You make ungrammatical edits, and then when I try to fix them you tell me that my grammar is incorrect, and you make edits that contradict the sources and then make "creative" interpretations of the sources that quite honestly would have seen you topic-banned from a more "serious" topic area than modern American action films. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked for specifics so that we could look at exactly what you wanted to change and be much less general and vague, and you said "the Doctor Strange bit". I asked again, telling you that you were still being too vague, and you said "Everything about Doctor Strange." I asked you a third time, and you called me disruptive! However, you did then give me the specifics of what you wanted to change, which was good. So to clarify, I am not still accusing you of not having answered the question, and if you think so because of the "But you didn't respond to my question!" line, then note that it is in the past tense (Also, I apologise, as I now realise that it should have been "But you didn't answer my question!", as responding to a question and answering it are not the same thing). There is nothing wrong with me, and as I have pointed out I am doing the opposite of trying to be disruptive, as I am trying to finish this discussion so we can move on.


 * Favre and I have not reverted every single MCU-related edit you have made, but when we have, we engage willingly in (hopefully) proper talk page discussions. For instance, in the case of the discussion below, you saw my wording of the lead as incorrect, and changed it to something that I saw as even more incorrect. I reverted your edit, you started a discussion, we agreed that something has to be done, and now Favre has rewritten the line. In the case of this discussion, you believed that all the Jessica Jones and Doctor Strange/Doctor Strange information in the MCU tie-in section was misplaced. Through discussion, we have all agreed that the Jessica Jones information is probably more appropriate elsewhere, and so it has been moved, but we still disagree on the rest, and so nothing has been done about that so far. This all seems like the opposite of "inane non-discussion"s to me.


 * Also, there is no 'losing' in these discussions, at least not as you seem to believe. A win would be the best possible outcome for the article being achieved, not your personal opinion becoming consensus. So for the discussion below, the outcome was different to my version of the article, but as an editor who is very invested in the quality of this article it was still a win for me. Again with the Jessica Jones information in this discussion—I originally argued for it to remain where it was, but after discussion it has been moved somewhere else. That is still a win for me, and us all. If you are just going to pick at stuff you don't like, or don't think is right, regardless of whether it is actually incorrect or not, with the goal of 'winning' the ensuing debate, then it seems likely that you will be doomed to repeat such frustrating exercises as this one until you eventually "give up and stop trying" on Wikipedia itself.


 * If you are insinuating that there is some sort of 'dirty' editing going on here, where we don't follow guidelines and just make up content regardless of sources because these are not "serious" topics, then you are way off base. We take these articles very seriously, and if an editor adds information that isn't actually in the source, we deal with it properly. Often we have had to deal with issues such as the recent Spider-Man deal between Marvel and Sony, in which it was not actually confirmed that the new Spider-Man film would be set in the MCU, and that confirmation did not come for a considerable time. In the months or so between the announcement and the confirmation, there were dozens of attempts to add the film to the MCU film list, not to mention too many discussions started on the topic to link to. The point is, we make sure that what we are adding to these articles is fact, and have patience to wait for confirmation when others do not. The Doctor Strange tie-in information is presented exactly as the sources tell us it should be, and we are willing to wait for clarification several months away before changing anything. You want to make changes now, based on assumptions and predictions about a film that isn't even finished yet, which seems to me like a much more serious, ban-worthy act then anything we have knowingly or unknowingly done.


 * Now, this has been fun and all, but do you want to get back to the discussion? For someone who seems to really hate "non-discussion"s, you are certainly doing a good job at completely ignoring the point. We were discussing the fact that you want the MCU tie-in section to be written from an in-universe perspective rather than from the real world point of view. You have also stated that you believe tie-ins are inherently in-universe in nature, as if significant behind the scenes efforts haven't gone in (on the series' behalf, not really the film's) to make sure that these tie-ins work. You have also stated that the producers can't possibly know what happens in the film if they think they are tying into it, even though they have been in contact with the film division, and have stated on multiple occasions that this is a tie-in of some sort, while working for a notoriously secretive and tight-lipped company. And even though you haven't actually seen the film and can't possibly be in any position to make that call. How about you stop making ridiculous statements and assumptions, and just be patient. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read all of the above at the moment, but it is not true that you and Favre have not reverted every single MCU edit I have made at least once. Over more than a year, every single time I try to edit one of these articles, no matter how innocuous my edit, it has been immediately reverted by one of you. Then I provided a rationale on the talk page (usually "your version misrepresents what is in the source") and, sometimes, you didn't revert me again. But you have never engaged in constructive discussion on the talk page, and on many occasions have appeared to misunderstand my arguments (such as the term "ensemble cast" having more than one definition but WP:FILMCAST clearly not working with your definition because if it did it wouldn't make sense). Anyway, if you still are not going to explain to me why you think a tie-in to a comic is an "MCU tie-in", we should revert to my version. And please stop calling me a fanboy talking about in-universe facts -- MCU tie-ins are by definition in-universe; thematic links to MCU properties are the same as thematic links to non-MCU properties, and saying otherwise is WP:OR. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this helps or hurts this discussion, but here is an article that explicitly states the tie-in. - DinoSlider (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that having now seen Doctor Strange (although that was ten months ago and I only got my Blu-Ray last weekend, and haven't found time to rewatch the film proper as opposed to the director's commentary yet), the Darkforce and the events of season two of Agent Carter were not mentioned, so I was 100% right in saying this was not a tie-in to the then-upcoming film and would almost certainly not pay off in said film, and those arguing with me were arguing for the inclusion of fan WP:SPECULATION that wound up being wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear (since the more detailed comment in the separate thread further down the page makes it clear what was meant by the above sarcastic remark), nothing in my above comment is meant to imply anything about "winners" and "losers". I am saying that Wikipedia policy was on my side 20 months ago, but I gave up trying to push it because I was tired of the harassment I was receiving, and that now not only was Wikipedia policy on my side but it turned out that the WP:TRUTH was as well. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammar in the lead
Please explain your revert. TV shows do not air to positive reviews ; they receive positive reviews. At least that is how I would typically write it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that this is how it is typically written, but it seems preferable to "It received low ratings". I would be happy to discuss further alternatives for this, but that seems redundant as myself and presumably some other editors are going to expand the reception section now that the season is over, which will then require the third "paragraph" of the lead to be expanded, which will hopefully solve this issue as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, but ... could you not correct my grammar if you are going to write things like "myself and presumably some other editors are going to"? "[The show] received low ratings" is perfectly acceptable English; "[The show] aired to low ratings" is not; and neither is "[The show] aired to positive reviews". Expand the article's coverage of the season's reception and change the lead accordingly, but if there are more grammatical errors I will speak up. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with "myself and presumably some other editors are going to", especially since we are having a conversation, not writing an ecyclopaedia article. And how is something only acceptable English if it appears in a book in Google's database? I think the fact that, unlike reviews, ratings are not "given", they depend on viewers, answers very simply the question of whether "[The show] aired to low ratings" is acceptable. Anyway, nitpicking grammar and making condescending statements aren't helpful in the least, let's just move on and try to create the best possible encyclopaedia article we can. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just change it to "myself am going to". Or maybe "myself is going to". It is grammatically incorrect, and a careful reader would see such and cringe if you added it to an article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, just because this is a talk page doesn't change the fact that you added bad English to the article, and then when I corrected it you reverted me and claimed that my grammar was the problem. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of maintenance templates
Could you explain this? It seems like a given that a source speculating about continuity connections between a TV show and an upcoming film would automatically become outdated when the film comes out and has nothing to do with the TV show. Providing an explanation for the actual content of your edit would be a more helpful use of the limited-character-count edit summary than giving your idiosyncratic and unelaborated opinion that it is "not outdated" and a snarky comment about how two years ago (almost a full year before the film came out where I live) a "discussion" about a loosely related issue had taken place on the talk page.

By the way (since this happened recently on a related article): if you or anyone else tries to tell me that this is a GA and I can't add a maintenance tag without "talk page consensus to add the tag", I will request outside input because I do not have to put up with that kind of nonsense. A GA review, even if it worked as a lot of users in this general topic area seem to think, would not be valid for a claim that something did not become outdated several months after said GA review took place.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh goody, already decided what I am going to say have you? It's nice how you showed up to this talk page over a year after our discussion ended to "claim victory" and then took that as an invitation to completely ignore said discussion.


 * First of all, I have already said this to you on this very talk page, but I think it needs to be repeated now: there IS NO WINNING!!!! I don't know how I can make that any more clear for you. This is not a competition where there is a victor. This is an encyclopaedia, and our only purpose here is to make the best encyclopaedic articles that we can.


 * Now, onto the issue at hand. The info that you want to delete has not changed since the previous discussion ended. There is literally no difference now. So trying to pretend that we didn't have that massive discussion and jumping straight to adding an outdated tag to the article itself is disingenuous and silly. You may not like that it is still there, but your course of action should be bringing that fact up here.


 * So, if you want to discuss this info and whether it should be in the article, then let's do that. Also, I don't feel that it is up to me to elaborate on my opinions straight up when you are the one boldly ignoring talk page discussions. I will further explain myself once you have clearly explained what you think has changed / why this info is outdated. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Drop the tone, please. I know what you are going to say because you say it every single time, except when one of your two companions does first. I'll get around to reading your second, third and fourth paragraphs when you strike the first one, which is nothing but needlessly uncivil and overly aggressive mud-hurling. I do not have to put up with that and no Wikipedian should be forced to read something like that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. I have had it with editors who think they are better than me showing up and trying to throw me around. I really enjoy volunteering my time to Wikipedia, and at the moment I do not have much of it spare, so the last thing I want to be doing is having stupid arguments with editors who couldn't care less about what they are doing to these articles or who they have to bully to get their way. We can have a constructive discussion about this content, or you can leave me alone, but I am not going to let you vandalise this article because you think you know best and can just ignore discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see you making friends here as well. I have noted this elsewhere, and yet you seem to not be prepared to listen. No one is thinking they are better than you (except, perhaps, when you attack others; that is when we know we are presenting ourself better than you), and know one is trying to "throw you around" (whatever that means).
 * I will point out that many of us have careers or other RL claims on our time; you are no special snowflake in that regard. You need to take special and immediate notice that you get what you put out there. If you act like an ass, you are going to be treated thusly. Please do not see that as an attack; it is an observation that you taking exception doesn't effect any change in others. All you control is how you react to events. Calling someone's edits or discussion as anything less than constructive and civil opens you to the same charge. This is not me saying this; ask around, and they will almost to a man agree with that statement.
 * Keep your edits solely about the content and keep the personal stuff off the article discussion page. If you feel the burning need to address a personal slight, do so on the user's talk page. That's the best way to handle it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the content that had the tag placed on it, it won't change today, tomorrow, or yesterday. It isn't saying that the series is a tie-in to Doctor Strange, only that the EPs consulted with Marvel Studios on an element similar in nature between both projects to ensure Carter was not stepping on the toes of Strange or contradicting it. It doesn't matter if the ultimate outcome was that there was no connection, because we aren't saying there is or was going to be in the first place, so nothing needs to be updated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said 20 months ago, it is saying that the series is a tie-in to Doctor Strange: that's what the title of the section is. I proposed a reasonable change back then, and it was rejected, presumably because I hadn't seen the film yet and couldn't say for certain that it wouldn't tie in (even though that's not how WP:SPECULATION works). Then the movie came out and it was confirmed that nothing from the show tied in with it, so I really think either the section title needs to be changed and the section refocused (perhaps to specifically clarify that it was not a tie-in), or the information needs to go because it was originally nothing more than WP:SPECULATION about something that didn't even pan out. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that Wikipedia has to get the story out as soon as possible is totally bogus. The is no rush, because wehn doing so, people conflate events, Sherlock outcomes and make a mess of things. I remember the huge ragey lamewar that occurred in the Gotham (TV series) article when everybody thought that a certain character was the Joker. It turned out that he wasn't, but that didn't stop several editors from trying to squeeze blood from a stone (or in this case, inference from several weak sources) to support their opinion.
 * The point is this: while deductive reasoning and insight is helpful in many other forms of writing, it is actually a detrimental skillset when editing in Wikipedia. We don't guess. We do not surmise. We state what the clearest sources say, and not one iota more. If it is flipping important, lots of sources will figure it out, and give us the material we need to state it. Without it, its a dead conversation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the way that both of you treat other editors, this is a very simple issue. "The showrunners also conversed with Eric Carroll at Marvel Studios to ensure anything they were doing with the Darkforce would not contradict the Doctor Strange script". That is what they did. You do not know what the showrunners did better than them, so you cannot possibly say that this did not happen without a reliable source saying as such. And this sentence cannot ever be outdated, because if they had done it when this interview came out, then they must still have done it at any other point in the future. So I don't know what argument you think you have here, but there is no good reason to remove this information. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In almost two years, you have been unable to explain how the text you quote constitutes a "tie-in" to the "Marvel Cinematic Universe". The clear connotation of our text as you have written it is that Agent Carter ties in with the plot of the then-upcoming-but-now-so-old-I-was-able-to-buy-a-BluRay-of-it-in-Japan film. If you moved the claim out of the section and into "Writing" that might solve the problem, but listing something there precisely because it does not tie in with the movies is nonsense, just as much as listing the showrunner's comment that Arnim Zola would not be reappearing in the season as an MCU tie-in would be. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, please refrain from making off-topic personal remarks on article talk pages, and from making accusations without evidence, like claiming JS and I "treat other editors [atrociously]". I would Template:Rpa that part of your comment but I know it would just invite more fire. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...yeah, because I'm the bad guy here.


 * Nobody is saying that there is a direct tie-in with the plot here, only that they worked with Marvel Studios to make sure there was no contradictions. These tie-in sections do not have to be about full crossovers, they can also include significant references, general plot connections, recurring in-universe ideas, shared thematic material that was included for "synergy", etc. In this case, the season deals with another dimension, and when they were making it there was an MCU film being made that is all about other dimensions (Doctor Strange), so they checked with Marvel Studios to make sure that all lined up. Yes, there are other places in the article where that could be mentioned as well, but since there is a dedicated section for connections between the series and the rest of the MCU, and the producers obviously felt there was a need to ensure continuity between this season and a specific film, it makes most sense to include it there. You may personally feel that this isn't "tie-in"-enough, but the producers do. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * they worked with Marvel Studios to make sure there was no contradictions That's not a tie-in. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. I just said that. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So can we move it to the writing section and stop calling it a tie-in? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not calling it a tie-in. That section is not just for literally describing crossovers, it is for discussing the behind-the-scenes of the crossovers as well. This is preferrable since we don't want to be focusing on the in-universe aspect. If all we did was talk about the fictional side, then crossovers and shared universes wouldn't belong on Wikipedia. This sentence is about the producers of the show coordinating with the makers of another area of the shared universe to make sure it all lines up. That's the sort of thing that we want in this section. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says, though, and I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth. Literally every time I bring this stuff up, you accuse me of focusing on "in-universe" stuff, but it's the opposite. I think that since the show has no in-universe tie-ins with other "Marvel Cinematic Universe" properties, we shouldn't be implying that there are, as we definitely are by listing the "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "the show has no in-universe tie-ins with other "Marvel Cinematic Universe" properties"? That's not true. If you had said that the show has no impact on Doctor Strange, you would be closer to the truth, and I know that is one of the elements of the shared universe that bothers you. But even then, the producers of a TV show explaining what they did to try and not get in the way of the films is an example of them working to tie-in their show with the wider universe (creating a shared universe is as much about avoiding contradictions as it is about forming connections). That belongs in the section about tie-ins with other properties. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an in-universe tie-in (how are you not getting this?), and giving it its own section devoted to in-universe tie-ins heavily implies it is. You have not demonstrated how it is any different from any other random piece of production trivia that couldn't be either cut or incorporated into the "Writing" section. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, I know it is not an in-universe tie-in. In your own words, "Would you please read my comments before responding to them?" - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did, but you apparently did not. Could you read your own comments before saving them? You said What do you mean "the show has no in-universe tie-ins with other "Marvel Cinematic Universe" properties"? That's not true. ... well, I guess it's still a problem of you not reading my comments before replying to them, even the bits you quote. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The show connects to other MCU properties. That is a fact. What we are discussing here is whether the line about trying not to contradict Doctor Strange should be in the MCU tie-in section or the writing section. While it could fit under both, it doesn't really make sense to not include information about working in with another part of the MCU in the section that is dedicated to that. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying there shouldn't be an MCU tie-in section. Most of the content of the section actually has nothing to do with MCU tie-ins to begin with. The first sentence and the last two sentences are the only ones that have to do with so-called "MCU tie-ins", and of those: the first sentence speculates on the relationship of the "Darkforce" in this show to two characters who, in the comics, were apparently associated with Darkforce, both of whom have appeared in other MCU properties, but neither of the MCU versions bore any relationship to either the comics Darkforce or the version seen in this show, and is outdated WP:SPECULATION; the first half of the second-to-last sentence is the one most of this discussion has focused on, and is outdated WP:SPECULATION; the second half of the same sentence and the final sentence are WP:TRIVIA consisting of nothing more than fan minutiae. My preferred solution would be to remove the second half of the second-to-last sentence and the last sentence in their entirety, move the first sentence down to directly connect to the first half of the second-to-last (now just the last) sentence, and move what's left (consisting of a mostly real-world discussion of the inclusion of the Darkforce in the story) up to the "Writing" section. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really getting sick of this discussion. You can interpret sources however you want, but we are not going to change the article to fit your personal opinions. You are always complaining about how you can never get anything done at these articles, but perhaps you would have more success if your arguments did not blatantly contradict facts and reliable sources, and ignore the real-world context of the content. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Freeman's review of the finale
We have a separate article on the individual episode (I don't think we should, but we do), so why is half a paragraph of this article devoted to a review of that? The same website hosted a review of the season as a whole here -- wouldn't it make more sense to quote that? It's by a different author: a freelancer as opposed to an associate editor, but since they're both professional critics that just means it's more removed from being self-published (if it means anything at all), doesn't it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What the article was supposed to be reviewing is irrelevant. The passage that has been added here is about the season as a whole, not the specific episode, so it is applicable here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, what I mean is how does Freeman's opinion that the season was excellent deserve mention here while Chipman's view that the season was disappointing does not? The same media outlet chose to lend more weight to Chipman's view, as they apparently commissioned him to write the full season review. (Full disclosure: I'm a long-time fan of Chipman's work, and was directed to his season review from his blog, way back when it was first published, as I am not a regular reader of ScreenRant otherwise.) Pretty much everything we attribute to Freeman besides the word "excellent" relates to the season finale, not the season as a whole, whereas Chipman had a lot to say about the overall season, which is supposed to be the topic of this article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying the anything deserves more mention than anything else, and I stand by my previous comment. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you won't revert me if I cite Chipman's review in the article? It happens quite frequently that you give me your apparent approval for an edit I wish to make on the talk page, and then when I make it you autorevert and tell me to get consensus for it first. I really hope that is not what is happening this time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)