Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Television)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC).

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Television)

 * Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it has now been developed to a point where it is comprehensive on the subject at hand, is neatly organized, and well sourced. This list is for the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe television series franchise (itself part of a larger media franchise), and with the article most likely to keep growing as the series expand, now felt like a perfect time to nominate, given the hard work various editors along with myself have put in over the years to make the list it is currently. Please leave any comments or concerns, and I (or another highly involved editor of the list) will do our best to address them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Psst- you didn't transclude this nomination. -- Pres N  21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments epic. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would restrict the TOC, who uses it anyway, so we don't have all that whitespace immediately after the start of the article.
 * I don't think we should limit the TOC, because users should have the ability to jump to each introduction heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * DIsagree. Have you ever found one example of someone who uses the TOC? The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:READERSFIRST. How can you make a blanket statement like "who uses it anyway" (which I assume was a questioning one) and think all readers do not use the TOC. I for one do on many occasions, so that there disproves your statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could use some citations in the lead, e.g. " began airing on ABC during the 2013–14 television season"...
 * " in 2018." avoid easter egg links like this.
 * How so? If earlier in the sentence/paragraph, we link the network shows to the television season article, the logic would follow through for the cable/streaming shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Linking just the year is an easter egg. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, how so? Per WP:EASTEREGG, a reader will be expected to be taken to an article about [Year] in television for the year links, given context. It won't be a surprise for them. An EGG link in this case would be something like this: "Netflix released ..." Readers would not be expecting to end up at the 2015 in American television article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Clark GreggM [4][5]" loads of these, no spaces before refs please.
 * No spaces if you look in the wikicode. Byproduct of note label I believe, not our end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that needs to be fixed before I could support this. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the proper implementation of a template used on over 10,000 articles going to prevent the passing of this for FL? If you have an issue with what the template does, please take that up on the talk page of that template. But don't let that be a hinderance for this article when myself and the editors of this article don't have any control on what the template does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mention ABC in the lead but not Netflix, yet there's a whole table of Netflix actors.
 * Netflix is mentioned in the lead, first paragraph: "Netflix's Marvel series began in 2015 with..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I missed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some responses above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose clearly no appetite to work collegiately here. I was trying to do you a favour by reviewing it but I'll leave it to others now. Unwatching, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to discuss each point with you, but you leaving the discussion after I've made two responses isn't working collegiately. We can't do that if only one of us are bringing something to the discussion, and because you felt I was unwilling to work with you is a weak reason to oppose the nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47
 * For the issue regarding the TOS, you could try following the same pattern done with List of Alien characters. I believe that would be a perfect compromise as it would keep the information already in the TOS, but make it leaner and take up less space than its current version.


 * I would actually say that this is my only real concern about this list. I highly respect The Rambling Man, and he/she is a much more experienced user/reviewer than myself. For me, I do not take issue with the links to 2018 (just make sure you keep up-to-date on this) and I understand the issue with the wikicode and I do not take issue with that either as it is consistent throughout the entire list. I would just suggest changing up the TOS as done in List of Alien characters as that would be appear to be a good compromise to me if that makes any sense. I will support this once my only comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aoba. I will consider the horizontal TOC implementation. I still don't feel having it vertical is an issue. And even if the horizontal one is implemented as with the Alien article, a clear would still be needed for the pictures used, which would still have whitespace (though yes, slightly smaller than currently). And implementing the horizontal TOC, though parenthesis are used to distinguish subsection, I feel it is harder to follow the flow of the article than in the vertical position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any thoughts on using the horizontal TOC? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of Favre's comments so far, and hope everyone remembers that this is a discussion that everybody wants to be cooperative with. We just want the best result for the article. If we are talking about Template:horizontal TOC, I just did a test to see what it would look like and it seems to bunch all the links together in what seems like quite an unreadable way. I'm sure it would be appropriate to use this for some articles, but considering the nature of all the subheadings here (lots of long "Introduced in ... season X") I think we would be doing a huge disservice to our readers here, as I do think the TOC is used by many readers (I myself definitely jump to specific sections if that is where I want to go). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was a way to better control how the sections appeared in the TOC horizontally, I think I would be in more support of doing that. But looking over the documentation of Horizontal TOC, it doesn't seem to allow much adjustments. And I don't think TOC limit is an option either, because we only have level 2 headings, albeit a good amount of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the discussion. I completely understand your point about the TOC. I just wanted to try to help by offering some ideas. I will actually support this nomination. I actually did not have any major issues with the TOC as it stood originally (I could see the use of a TOC to readers). I am not sure how it looks on mobile as I primarily access Wikipedia through my laptop, but I think everything is fine for promotion, at least from perspective. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. I hope your nomination gets more traffic and feedback in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Aoba. FYI, here is how the site looks on mobile, which you can always look at for any article, by clicking "Mobile view" all the way at the bottom of a desktop article. I'll try to look over your FAC as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response; I always wondering if there is a way to see the "Mobile view" of an article or a list so I greatly appreciate the link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Argento Surfer
 * I think the image for Krysten Ritter stands out in a bad way for lighting and angle. Is there a good reason for using it over, say, File:Peabody's 'Marvel's Jessica Jones' Night (27139382503) (edited).jpg? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The file you linked to is a much newer upload and I personally have not checked in a while if new commons images existed that may be a better fit. I'll add in the one you suggested over what was there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. I can support this nom. The TOC and template issues seem trivial to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and comment! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Golbez
 * Could we have maybe an N/A column, with a rowspan maybe so there's not a hundred N/As, for the seasons preceding the introduction? In fact I've gone ahead and added this for the non-Netflix shows, but leave it up to y'all if you want to continue it for the Netflix ones.
 * I understand the intent of this but have issues with it overall. First, "N/A" would not need to be used; the grey cell is enough. As for "rowspaning", I don't feel it makes much difference over having individual rows. Also if we do it as you suggested for before first appearances, but then not for after, it would look disjointed in my opinion. So I think as is, is okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But it wouldn't make sense to do it after; doing it before is because, well, it's impossible to appear in season 1 if your first appearance was in season 2. (Of course, now I wonder if we even need the table divided into 'introduced in' tables. It's obvious when someone was introduced.) --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do some characters have multiple names listed? For example, Blair Underwood and Matthew Willig.
 * Blair Underwood portrays Andrew Garner, while Willig portrays Garner's alter ego, Lash. Per formatting in the character column, Underwood is first, with a break line indicating Lash. So the same is done in the season column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The table needs to do a better job of explaining this, especially since Quake does not have two names, and Lash only has one name in one of its seasons. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of the citations are "X will be in this show". These are all predictive citations. Is there any chance that these can be condensed to ones that only say "X was in this show"? Descriptive, rather than predictive? Quick example: Scott Glenn as Stick, the only citations are, in order: "Glenn joins cast"; "Glenn returns"; "Glenn confirmed." In other words, all made before the actual show aired. I'd much rather have a source saying after the fact that they were on the show, rather than three sources saying they will be on the show.
 * I understand this, but if the predictive listing doesn't change from what did actually occur in the season, does it matter? If it had, the source would no longer have been used in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It matters because it's sloppy and inherently inaccurate. We have no source saying if it changed from the season, so the article doesn't know. Let me paint a scenario: Person A and Person B are both said to be in an upcoming show. Person B drops out. But we have a source saying "Person A and Person B will be in this show!" So now an editor might reasonably ask, why isn't Person A listed? And you might say, because they weren't in the show. But there's no source for that. All we have is a source saying A and B will be in the show. It doesn't make sense to then require a second source, which weirdly wouldn't even qualify for the text, to then say that, no, that previous source was wrong, because B didn't make it to the show. Predictive sources should be replaced with reactive sources where possible (and presumably it's possible). --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The tables get very tall; by the end it was easy to forget what show/season went with which column. Perhaps the header should be added to every section?
 * I'm not opposed to adding these in, but maybe not necessarily after every section. your thoughts on doing this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that there is near-zero overlap between the casts of Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter, having the columns arranged this way - which does make sense chronologically - makes for a very broken up table. You get no sense of continuity of characters or actors, and outside of one character from the movies, Dum Dum Dugan, there is zero overlap in casts. I think it might make sense for the ABC table at least to bunch Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter together. So, 5 seasons of Agents of SHIELD, then 2 seasons of Agent Carter, then Inhumans. This would get rid of all the skips in between columns.
 * Now, I also see the argument of keeping them chronologically in order, like the film lists. But the difference is, due to the differing time periods of the shows, there is virtually zero overlap in the casts. So the pros are outweighed by the cons. If there were healthy interplay between the shows - like you see in the Netflix shows - then sure, go for it. But with the ABC shows there's zero overlap, so we shouldn't treat it like there could be. I understand why you're doing it this way, but I think the situation of the ABC shows indicates that it could be done another way.
 * Another option is to give each show its own table in the ABC section. That way you don't get anachronistic with the column order, but you fix the fact that the three shows have zero overlap.
 * I can also see reasoning behind this. But if we do change, I feel it should be across the whole article, not just the ABC series. Adam thoughts on this too? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But the Netflix shows do share a common time period. For example, Rosario Dawson plays the same character in three of them; Carrie-Anne Moss is the same character in four. There is literally zero overlap in the ABC series, apart from, as mentioned, two movie characters. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A few 'better source neededs' or 'citation neededs' to be dealt with.
 * The "better sources" are passable, but overall we prefer to use season press releases (which should be released in late summer). If you'd prefer we remove them until then, I can do that. "Citation needed" was taken care of (just the one yes?) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to each of your points. I've also pinged my colleague Adamstom.97 who works with me on this article to get their opinions on some of your points. And just so you know, I think both of us are on and off Wiki for the time being, so we'll both try to make timely responses as best we can (in case it has been a bit since we last did). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am against the big row-spanning in the tables. I understand the thinking there, but I feel it draws too much attention to itself and can also be a bit confusing by removing what I would consider to be guidelines from the character to the actor, showing readers who goes with who. As for splitting up into individual series, I have also been considering this recently due to the increasing size. If we do decide to do that, then I agree that we should be consistent throughout the article, and in that case we would have a lot of tables just for one or two columns (for now, at least). So I'm not exactly sure on that one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't overdo the push for consistency. The ABC series and the Netflix series are very different beasts, and should be treated as such. No one is going to be confused. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I still agree with Adam that I don't think the big rowspan grey cells is any better than the individual rows, especially since it is used after first appearances in many cases. So the formatting would be disjointed. A reformatting of the article by having individual series tables, or grouping differently in single tables, isn't out of the question for me yet. I'd just have to create a mark up of it, to see if it seems more feasible to present as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for finally getting around to answering some more here. Per a discussion I had separately with Adamstom.97 (link here), I reformatted the tables as I believe you suggested, which can be seen in my sandbox here. Firstly, Adam and I both agree the Netflix section should not be reformatted as such, but did agree we could probably split it to be series/seasons from 2015-2017, and then start a new table for 2018 onwards (much like the "Phases" sections on the sister List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors article). I am a bit more open to the reformatting of of the ABC series, but we would like to keep a similar formatting for the entire article, and in my eyes formatting by series for the ABC ones, results in what I consider "dumber" versions of the more extensive lists at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters and List of Agent Carter characters. Please let us know if you have additional comments on this, and any other remaining thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like Favre1fan93 had a month-later response to your last comments (a week ago); are you still participating in this review? Have your comments been addressed? -- Pres N  16:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; I'd accidentally not watched this. The sandbox looks ... I mean, I don't want to call your work ugly, because it's exactly what I asked for, so now that I see it I see the problems with it. :P I might be able to do something with it but that would be a big project with little, at this point, payoff. I like the split of 2018 onwards, it keeps things narrow and prunes down extra characters. Support. --Golbez (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assist PresN. I'm sorry you maybe didn't get my initial ping for my response Golbez (that has been happening to me on occasion too). Regardless, thanks for the support and for participating in the review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've left my final comments above, but nothing major so I can support this nomination. Great job! - Brojam (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brojam. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review – I'm seeing a lot of issues here.
 * Refs 8, 45, 53, and 82 are tagged as being possibly unreliable, and I'd agree given that they are all Facebook or Instagram pages. We really need to see these replaced before considering promotion.
 * As I stated above, these are all from verified social media accounts, so they are acceptable per WP:TWITTER. However, ultimately they will be replaced with better sources (hence the tag). So if that means we need to hide the content until that time, that is fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's do that then. I'd have a hard time promoting an article tagged in this way to FL myself, although I can't speak for the other closers. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Will hide. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sold on refs 64, 119, 139, 145, 150, 218, or 232, as they are all to social media websites. They aren't much better (if at all) than the ones already tagged.
 * 64, 139, 218 and 232 also included per WP:TWITTER. 119, 145, and 150 have been replaced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this unstruck for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail (ref 149) has had a whole RfC declaring it generally unreliable, and I don't see why this article would be an exception.
 * Taken care of with the above adjustments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes BroadwayWorld (refs 52 and 56) a reliable source?
 * Both replaced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes Monkeys Fighting Robots (ref 143) reliable?
 * It's a review of the episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any random blogger or YouTube poster can make a review of a TV episode. That doesn't make those sources reliable. Sorry, but I can't say that I'm convinced on this one. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a potential alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that's much better. If you can't find sources better than these, you may consider just sourcing an episode itself. That strikes me as a situation where using a primary source would be acceptable. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the same after my last comment, because luckily (outside of the opening credits), the Marvel series all have full credits at the end, to use as citations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Tyranny of Style (ref 183) reliable?
 * Yes. Direct interview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving this one unstruck too. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is MCU Exchange (ref 187) reliable or just somebody's fan site?
 * Just removed entirely. No longer needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Teenplicity (ref 233) is another one that I'm unsure about.
 * Again, a direct interview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also leaving this unstruck for others to consider. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All caps in refs 28, 33, 52, 59, 93, 144, 154, 162, and 254 need fixing.
 * Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor, but the publisher of ref 245 (Parade) should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'm tired of seeing this list hovering at the bottom of WP:FLC. I'm fine with the interviews being used as sources, and with the 3 twitter references. Promoting. -- Pres N  11:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.