Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 6

A new look for Quake
Bennet revealed her new look for the season. Is that enough by itself to put in the article at this time? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we could add it with some commentary from those reporting on it (mentioning the added colour for example), and especially if someone has mentioned that the look appears to borrow from her Marvel Rising design. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In the End
Did anyone notice the latest trailer played a cover version of this song? Is it worth adding? The problem is, I don't know who the cover artist is. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Covers of songs in trailers is reasonably common, so I wouldn't add it unless there was decent discussion by reliable sources about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Guest Stars
Has anyone got sourses for Sherri Saum, Anthony Michael Hall, and Coy Stewart as they're listed without a source and I can't see them in the casting section?-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 11:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

MCU Tie-in
The referenced source says "it’s possible the timeline changed into one that WASN'T among the 14 million possible futures that Dr. Strange saw". The article text (that adamstom97 has reverted to) says "the fifth season could explain the discrepancy by moving the sixth season into one of the 14 million alternate futures mentioned by Doctor Strange". To me this seems like a clear contradiction. If the timeline wasn't among those he saw, how can it be one of those he mentioned?

My version of the article said "the fifth season could explain the discrepancy by moving the sixth season into an alternate future not seen by Doctor Strange during Infinity War". How is that "unsourced", when it matches what Tim Baysinger actually wrote? Adaj (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will re-apply the edits Adaj (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Nomination
Hi, I'd like to nominate Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 6) to GA status. I've read the article, cross-examined it with the WP:GAC, and the final step is asking the main editors of the article. ,, and , are there any objections to this article being promoted to WP:GA status? Also, for Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 7), Gonnym, I'm just a "trophy collector"? I want to help Wikipedia. I added that topicon because I thought it was just to symbolize that you liked the MCU. My mistake. Ping me if there are any objections, or DM me on Discord. Thanks. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to contribute then do so. Go to any article and add information which is missing or create a new article and submit it to WP:AFC. Nominating an article you haven't edited once isn't contributing and your very minimal editing experience and understanding of en.wiki guidelines make you not suitable for GA nomination or review. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Anybody can nominate an article if they properly consult the main editors first. Also, personally attacking me, saying "I'm not suitable for the job" isn't kind or helpful. In Wikipedia's guidelines, anybody can nominate an article. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you are currently under discussion regarding your lack of understanding of Wikipedia procedures, it isn't the best idea to continue doing what made the discussion start in the first place (ie requesting GA nominations with absolutely no editing experience). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Say what?
"It debuted to lower ratings but a higher audience than the previous season, and remained consistent in viewership."

I cannot figure out how to parse that sentence. It seems to be saying "It started with fewer viewers, but more viewers, and it kept the same number of viewers."

I suppose the second clause of the sentence could be interpreted differently, but "It started with fewer viewers, but they were on more drugs, and it kept the same number of viewers" doesn't help that much.

If Neilsen ratings have suddenly shifted to NOT representing number of viewers, perhaps we need a link there or something? And the last clause of the sentence still doesn't jive without some clarifying text such as "over the course of the series" or something.

71.236.204.7 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the sentence. What it was saying was the premiere episode was a lower amount than past seasons, but higher than much of the previous season's episodes. After that, viewership remained consistent in the season, with no abnormal spikes or dips. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Two-parter
can you please explain why you keep removing the two-parter formatting for the two-part episode? There is no rule saying that a certain number of columns need to be shared between the two episodes for this formatting to be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that we have to merge unrelated episodes either. Also, this is the second time you are twisting what is actually happening. I'm not keep removing but you are the one that is continuing to try to implement a reverted style. Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are the only editor who has ever reverted the formatting. They are not unrelated episodes, they are one two-part episode. We use the two-parter formatting for all the other two-parters in this series even though they also tend to have different writers and directors for each part. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5 years of it being this way shows your changes aren't wanted. You should know that in a serial each episode is a continuation of the previous one, especially in heavily serialized shows like this, with most of the final season one single long story. A "two-part" episode is meaningless here, more so when in fact, what you call a "two-parter" is not in fact one. It didn't air together and it didn't have the same crew. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need to explain how serialised television works, doesn't change that this episode is literally a two-parter. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, your layout change does not improve anything in the episode table and just makes reading it harder. I also doubt the accessibility aspect of it as the second plot "section" can't be assigned to the actual episode row. So for now just to make you sleep better, I also oppose it per WP:ACCESSABILITY. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have accessability concerns then you need to take that to the template talk page, that is not valid justification for using the template incorrectly at this article and is a silly argument to make when you are apparently happy with this being done at the other articles for this series. You also can't just say this isn't a two-parter as if that is the end of the conversation. In addition to it literally being in the titles of the episodes, here are third-party sources confirming that this is a two-part episode: 1, 2, 3, 4. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * any update on your reasoning for this? Or do you just not like it? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained that the 5 year status quo is correct and that there are even accessibility issues with it. For some odd reason you believe that should fix that issue when you are the one that wants to change the accessible and correct style. Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't correct just because you keep saying so. You have not provided any justification for why you think this formatting should not be used in this article but you are happy for it to be used at the other season articles. By changing from the status quo, I aligned this article with the other ones for the same series. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll add my two-cents. I don't see the issue with using the multi-part formatting for these. The table can handle it and, to my knowledge, it isn't an accessibility concern. If it is, then we should have that discussion at Episode list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A few reasons this should list as 2 episodes, with a "part subtitle, and not a two-parter in the table:
 * 1. Both episodes start with "Previously on..."
 * 2. Both episodes aired on different days
 * 3. The Blu-ray and Disney+ page both show them as individuals with the "part" subtitle
 * There are many examples of shows (including this one) that have episodes that are double length, and air back-to-back. Meaning they cannot/shouldn't be viewed individually. These should show in the table as a single episode. This episode is not that type of episode.
 * I'd be on board combining them if they had the same director, writer, release date, etc. but this seems pretty cut and dry to me that it should be 2 table entries and not one. Inkwiwtba (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct and the only person supporting adam was an IP who got blocked not long after. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None of these are reasons to not use the two-parter formatting. Two-part episodes can start with previously on segments, they are often aired on different days, they are often two individual episodes with "part" in the title, etc. You have not provided any new reasoning for why we should not follow the two-parter format here when we do for the rest of the series. My opinion hasn't changed: we should use the two-parter formatting for every two-part episode of the series, or not at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think they're all good reasons to split the two episodes into two parts in the table.
 * As an example, S02E21 (S.O.S.) is a double episode with no break. It is a complete episode that aired on the same day, but with different writers and directors for each half. It wouldn't be watched separately. Those entry belongs merged together.
 * Additionally, the two separate episode summaries separated as they are create a big wall of text that harms accessibility of the article. Inkwiwtba (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it's a 2 to 1 vote? Does anyone else want to weigh in? Inkwiwtba (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not formed by counting votes. See WP:POLL. So It sounds like it's a 2 to 1 vote is irrelevant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you, i never read that. i should read the rules more. Inkwiwtba (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i would, however, like to reach a consensus Inkwiwtba (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Favre1fan93 that being said, for years the status quo on this page was two different entries and which was changed without consensus, so yes, a simple majority is enough here. Gonnym (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you care as much as you make it seem with your comments here then why not start a discussion about the underlying issues? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't Inkwiwtba just do that? I agree with all of their points. Gonnym (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they did not. Arguing over the use of this formatting at this article is ridiculous, as I have tried to explain multiple times. You are both taking issue with the formatting in general, so you should be starting a discussion at the template's talk page or maybe WT:TV to confirm when it should be used. At the very least this discussion should move to Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. so consensus can be found for the whole show and not just this season. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can disagree all you want, and that is fine. We don't need to convince you of anything as you are not a gatekepper here. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Episode_list and I think this is too specific of an issue to discuss on the templates page. Further, there is a lot of use of the word "should" in the templates, which makes me think there is a lot of leeway regarding the style choices. I still highlight the accessibility issue of the plot summary section as the most egregious issue at play.
 * For example, most music album pages use the track listing table, but some specific pages use a simple list for these sections. Inkwiwtba (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to say that I still believe s02e21 in this series to be an example where the merged episode format *should* be used. So i have no issue with the format, but it has its place, and this season's episode pair is not that place. Inkwiwtba (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any more thoughts on this? I made the edit and you reverted it, so I assume you still disagree. Thanks for not declaring it disruptive. Inkwiwtba (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gonnym, I could say the same to you. You two can't just make random changes because you feel like it. The consensus for this series is to use the two-parter formatting for two-parter episodes. My primary concern is about consistency across the series, and it is not out of order for me to ask that we make sure our decision is applied appropriately across the topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you two have both decided to make this change without finishing the discussion, are going to go remove the two-parter formatting from the other episodes in this series? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * we could talk about my points. i haven't heard a response to my points about the accessibility, or the differences btwn this episode and s02e21. what do you think about those?
 * there are lots of examples across wiki where templates are deviated from for the benefit of style of the individual page (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Computer#Track_listing, in which the track listing table is deviated from because the community thinks a simple list "looks better" than a table) Inkwiwtba (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the other episode is orientation, whose parts both aired on the same day. i think that should stay as is. Inkwiwtba (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any accessibility concerns should be taken to the template's talk page, and are undermined by the fact that you think the template is okay to use in some places but not others. I agree that different approaches can be appropriate for different articles, but we are talking about the season articles for the same series here. They are all sub-articles of the same parent article and are all part of a single topic, so there is no problem with ensuring consistency across them. The day that an episode is released has no bearing on whether it is a two-parter or not, release decisions are made separately from writing and production. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

An IP has restored the two-parter formatting, FYI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Because is absolutely correct. Gonnym is alone in their claim on how it works. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)