Talk:Cloak & Dagger (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cloak & Dagger (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

A fact from Cloak & Dagger (TV series) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a version of the Freeform television series Cloak & Dagger had been in development since 2011, when the network was still known as ABC Family?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cloak & Dagger (TV series).

Wikipedia

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Television: Marvel Cinematic Universe Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Cloak & Dagger (TV series) was copied or moved into Cloak & Dagger (season 1) with this edit on August 15, 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nayemaislam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MCU tie-ins[edit]

Favre1fan93 Why do you have a problem with this section? are the refs incorrect? Is the info incorrect? why cut this down? The edit 'reason' you gave is frankly cryptic and nonsensical.

Dava4444 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this edit then Favre's reasoning was quite clear. You (I assume) tried to duplicate content from the season article to this one, but the whole point of making the season article was to give the season-specific content its own article. We therefore should not duplicate it back here unless we actually need to. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buried in the season 1 description, where I would never think to look for it, oh I found it now. Then shouldn't it be more prominent? It makes more sense for it to be part of the main MCU page. I tried to duplicate nothing, read my edit here afaik i was the first to add these ref and text, if someone had done this before I was unaware. Dava4444 (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you were talking about a separate issue. But my response is the same: that is season one info, and it is detailed at the season one page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary tables[edit]

@YoungForever: Can you please discuss here why you want to change the established summary table format? This format has stood as the consensus version since this page (in its current form) was put together, and is based on the format used in the wider topic of the Marvel Cinematic Universe so is also well established in a large number of other similar articles. That does not mean that there are not improvements to be made, but they should be discussed and agreed upon first. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this little issue on the page history, and in fairness combined Nielsen/Critic tables are rarely used on television pages so its an easy mistake for anyone to make. It's a little unreasonable to expect someone to also know that this format is used on other Marvel movie pages, as some of us are television exclusive editors. Esuka (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Esuka: I am only talking about television articles here. This format has nothing to do with movies. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: I was not aware that the combined Nielsen/Critic tables format is exclusively use in Marvel Cinematic Universe TV series articles in which you claimed it to be. For most TV series that have the tables (only ones that have the tables), they are separate from another for accessibility and not to confused the readers. I checked the Marvel Cinematic Universe, most are not in the combined format. In fact, most keep a separate Critics table from joining a different table or don't even have a table. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I'm only aware of two television pages that use the combined Nielsen/Critic format, the other being Legion (TV series). Esuka (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This format is used in a few articles, including Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter (TV series). The idea behind it is to summarise the entire Release and Reception sections in simple tables with easy links to those sections at the season articles, as it helps the readers find all the information they need from this overview-style article to the more detailed season articles. The format is technically used in all the Marvel-Netflix series, such as Daredevil (TV series), but looks a little different there since there is no ratings information to include in the table. But since there is here, there is no need to make this change. If there is a change that you think should be made, for instance a column that you think should be removed or some available data that could be added, then I am happy to discuss those suggestions with you here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: The Rank should be remove because there is no info (as in reliable sources) on TV series with under a million viewers (editors can't really rank themselves as there is no guidelines for this). — YoungForever^(talk) 20:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, there is no point having empty columns in the table permanently (that is why the format was altered for the Netflix shows, since they were always going to have empty spots for the ratings info so we had to cut that all out). Even without those columns, there is still plenty of information to justify having the full summary table as it is I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97:The rank has been removed by another editor already. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you happy with the data presented currently or is there more to discuss? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: The DVD and Blu-ray release dates table is pretty empty I suggest that it should be hidden until at least until a region have a DVD/Blu-ray release date. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Bump, bump. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have hidden these for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the Marvel television series articles all use a unique format in comparison to every other television series articles? Does Marvel have its own MoS that supercedes the Television MoS and standard practices? 193.115.122.185 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS does not dictate things like this. The style here was created because the editors working on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. came up with what they believed to be the best option for that article, and it has been kept consistent within the franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split the character section[edit]

Hi. I am starting this discussion to split the characters of this show into a new section to talk about the characters including those who are exclusive to the TV series. This has been done before with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist. Who's with me on this? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have no issue with this as long as the initial page is notable enough to exist. Esuka (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Can be revisited if/when season #3 happens. But, right now, it's not long enough to require a split... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if it doesn't receive a season three. Freeforms ratings are horrific and they have to renew something. They use notable show repeats/Disney movies as leadins for a lot of their shows, and without they fall further. Esuka (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Hey while you're at it, can someone do the same thing for Runaways? That one needs it bad, too.Voicebox64 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet: The list as it is will not be enough for a whole separate article, and some of the other articles listed by OP here aren't even that great either. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet: It's not enough to split into it's own article. WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has two seasons now and a lot of character which could be better covered in a separate list.★Trekker (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet - the article isn't large enough to warrant a split per Wikipedia:SIZESPLIT. The readable prose is barely over 3000 words. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet: Content in the section doesn't seem long notable enough for its own article. Nzggsvd (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Or "not yet". The page isn't long enough to warrant separation of any content. See WP:SIZE, which is what WP:MOSTV uses as a guideline. Additionally, we don't typically cover regular "guests" (e.g., "professional killer disguised as a water delivery person" -- really?). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – even a third season would not warrant a split based on WP:SIZESPLIT: the readable prose is 14K KB and would need to be over 40 KB before a split should even be considered, let alone done. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]