Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I split the upcoming season finale into two parts.

I split the upcoming season finale of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. into two parts. Please do NOT fuse them back together! AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to split the summary. They are separate episodes that just so happen to air on the same day, so there is no reason to have both of them in the same slot. It is also more consistent with other Wikipedia TV articles. For example, in Agent Carter (TV series), the first two episodes aired the same day but were properly listed with both each getting their own slot because they are separate episodes. Darkknight2149 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As I explained when I merged the two episodes, they are listed together in the source, whereas in Agent Carter's case, for example, futon listed them as two separate episodes airing one after the other. If you look at this, they are not listed as two separate episodes airing one after the other, but as a single episode consisting of 221 and 222. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam (for the moment) is correct, that this should be treated as one episode. Agent Carter was always implied as it was two episodes airing the first week, while the way Futon lists the episodes, it appears that it will be a two-hour season finale. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We should probably re-asses once we get a press release, but they are two separate episodes, ABC is just scheduling them as a "two-hour finale". If they were one episode, it would be either episode 21 or 22, not both. Because if the episodes have different titles, writers, directors (most likely the case), it'll be quite cumbersome to have them combined. We could easily switch the source to Zap2it, and then there's reason to split them. My point being, we shouldn't format them in a certain way just because that's the way one website decides to do it. They're separate episodes, they just share the same air date. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is a two part finale with one storyline then they will probably contract the director and/or writer to do both so that they have the same. Obviously when the episode airs we will end up taking a two hour espiode and try to condense it to the space of a one hour episode to meet the 200 wood limit or whatever it is.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have to condense a summary for two episodes into one, when it's two episodes... Episodes are written and filmed far in advance of knowing how the episodes will be scheduled by the network. The only way for it to make sense to use one row, is if the episodes have the exact same title (no, "part 1" or "part 2"), and have the same writer(s) and director. Otherwise, they should be separated, for logical reasons. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel like they should be split anyway (different episode numbers) but for now (unless they do change director and/or writers between episodes) it should be left as it is because that is the way the source does it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)uq

Yeah, I think they should split because they are two different episodes, regardless of airing together. Darkknight2149 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

However, I think the actual episode page should be 1 page unless they are named differently.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a little too early to merge it in the list, but I don't really care about how it's listed until more reliable sources list it (ideally official, not TVDB-esque sites). In my experience, 2 hour finales are somewhat common, but usually they are just back to back episodes. There's also the future syndication on their mind, which would require splitting the episode. I also feel it's important to respect the intentions of the showrunners, and if they felt it necessary to list these as separate episodes during production, there's no reason to combine them here. The goal of these episode lists is to provide information about the episodes themselves indefinitely, the original airdate is pretty much just trivia for people reading the page during its original run and much fewer people in future years. We don't seem to know yet whether they have the same writer or director, and the ratings information will likely vary between the 2 episodes. However the 2-parter is done, I don't see how we can't separate the summaries into 2 episodes. That being said, I agree with Ditto51's proposal of using a single episode article, assuming they're part of a single story. ― Padenton|✉   15:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for episodes which share the same episode title, one episode article is created. Of course, we won't know until the press release with the episode titles, if that's even the case. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Press Release is out, and the Episode Table updated accordingly. They are titled Part One and Part Two. Alex|The|Whovian 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we still thinking that they should share an article? Or two separate articles, titled "S.O.S. Part One" and "S.O.S. Part Two"? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the table should revert to one cell, with the title as "S.O.S." As an example, see List of Parks and Recreation episodes, where most of their finales are in a similar style to this: two part episodes. However, it is represented as one cell, even though Futon lists them as two (as is the case here). @Adamstom.97: I think we should make one article at S.O.S. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Favre that this is the same case as Parks and Rec, and based on the sources we have, these should have a single cell in the tables, and a single episode article. For those worried about the plot summaries, it will be okay if we have a double length summary for a double length episode, as far as I am concerned. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The only possibility I see for two cells is if, with Marvel's "Declassifying" release, there are two sets of creative teams. Ratings are most likely not going to be an issue, with Nielsen (via TV by the Numbers) most likely reporting numbers for the two hours. But that is just my guess. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that Nielson will report the ratings for the two hours, as they seem to do pretty consistently. And I agree that if Marvel themselves differentiate themselves, especially with different creative teams, then it may make sense to split the cells. But for now this all looks like the same situation found multiple times over at Parks and Rec, so it doesn't make sense to me to split the episodes over two cells. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem leaving for the immediate future. Let's wait for Marvel to give us the info, and we can make a decision then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And FYI, the episode template will allow us to use <br/> to add two viewer numbers if that is the case. So that should not be used as a deterrent for using one cell. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been reverted back to one cell, though I don't feel there is a consensus for that given the discussion here; if anything, I feel more editors prefer if being listed as two. I'll say exactly what I said above (which seems no one picked up on): We could easily switch the source to Zap2it, and then there's reason to split them. My point being, we shouldn't format them in a certain way just because that's the way one website decides to do it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a better choice would be to leave it until the episode airs.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As someone who does think the episodes should be listed separately, I do agree we should wait for the episodes to air before making a definitive decision. We're in no hurry, after all. Darkknight2149 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

For me, the only logical way I'd be fine with it as one, is if both episodes have the same writer(s) and director. But still, in the end, I do prefer two separate entries because it is two episodes at the end of the day (regardless of original air dates). Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The finale was broken into two parts again by the user Ditto51 because the writers are different for each episode of the two part finale. Is everybody okay with this? Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I forgot this was here, but overall I'm pretty sure that the consensus was to leave it until the directors and writers had been annonced and if they were different, then split it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely for them being split. No reason to have crunch of bunch of information into one slot. They're two episodes and should be treated as such. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Still for being split. ― Padenton|✉   21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As previously stated, I also believe they should stay split. Are there no objections, then? Anybody? Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the press release was pretty clear that these are two separate episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No objections. Though I do appreciated the fact that someone put the (Part 1) and (Part 2) outside the episode quotes. And if we create an individual article, it can be one article. See various Lost episodes that are multi-parts and how they handle the two plot/creative info at one article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I split the two-hour season finale episode "S.O.S." into two parts. Please don't try to fuse them back together into one. Please talk about this. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Per the episodes themselves, they are intended to be one episode with two creative teams - they had one opening, one set of credits, etc. and literally credited the creative teams onscreen together with '(Part 1)' and '(Part 2)'s. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: The episodes were aired as one and everyone was credited as one at the beginning with one opening, that and the ratings were given together and were the same. They should remain as one because that was how they were presented, in the initial press release, in the episode credit sequence as well as the overall way the episodes were aired as well. Also "Or else" what? You are the one who keeps reverting it back when lots of other editors have split them up. As such you are the one who should be warned "or else" because you are the one who could be blocked for edit warring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think joining is appropriate since they were broadcast together, not during separate weeks. But that's just my opinion. Thoughts? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I say the parts should be listed in a table separately since I split the "S.O.S." season finale into two parts in the first place. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of the way they were put together when they aired, I feel like they should be one. as do many people. If you want them to be separated then you are going to have to give a better example than "I separated them so they should be separate".--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The network itself (ABC) has separated episodes (recaps and videos): [1] [2] Also, the episodes are sold separately (for example on Amazon): [3] BTW: Don't really care if they are joined or separated, just wanted to inform you. Maticsg1 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The two parts should be listed in a table with two separate episode summaries. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree, since it is listed separately by ABC and also sold separately (Amazon, iTunes), which means there are actually two separated episodes. If ABC - the network who made it - has separated recaps, Wikipedia should have separated summaries as well, after all, it is known when the first part ends and the second one begins. Maticsg1 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I also believe it should be split in two, mostly by the reasons listed by Maticsg1. It doesn't make any sense to think that simply because they were broadcast in the same day they must be together. It is very common for networks to promote these "special events" for the shows, not meaning it is only one episode. Artmanha (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They may have aired together but these are two separate episodes and should be treated as such. It should also be taken into consideration that the first two episodes of Agent Carter (season 1) are listed as separate episodes, despite being aired as one two hour premier. Darkknight2149 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference between this case and the premiere of Agent Carter is that those were clearly two separate episodes aired one after the other, whereas here there isn't even a clear divide between the two - there was an opening Marvel logo, an opening series logo, opening credits, a double length episode, and then end credits. There was no point where the first episode clearly stopped and the second began. Also remember that we aren't saying that they are only one episode, we are listing them as episodes 43 and 44, with two different production teams. The discussion here is whether they should have separate plot summaries or not, and I think it is clear from the current summary that this should be listed as one story. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is a clear divide between the two, maybe it wasn't clear when broadcasted, but since they are sold separately and divided by ABC, it is clear where one ends and the other one begins. We even know the duration of which episode (minutes and seconds). Maticsg1 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it into a vote?! Artmanha (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't vote on things to settle disputes. It seems to me that there is currently no consensus to change back to the split format, but still room to discuss, so we should just let the discussion continue on for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable release date

User Adamstom.97 keeps trying to add a release date for the Agents of SHIELD Blu-Ray and DVD, based only on a retailer's claim that the Blu Ray will be released September 18. The problem with this is that retailers like Amazon are NOT reliable sources for release dates. When a release date hasn't been announced for a certain product, retailers like Amazon will add their own placeholder release date.

Every time I remove this unreliable information, Adamstom.97 adds puts it back into the article, with his/her only justification being "this is how we have always done this." If that is the case, then the way you have always done it is wrong. In order for this information to stay in the article, someone will need to add another reliable source from a non-retailer. If a reliable source can't be found, then this information can't stay in the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My justification is that you haven't backed up your claims that retailers are unreliable. Also, it doesn't matter if the date is going to change, because we can just update the article when it does. For now, we have a major retailer telling us that they are releasing a product on a certain day. If something changes, we can make changes here, but for now we know nothing more and should not be making any assumptions. Remember that Wikipedia isn't always about what is true, even if we know that information is false. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that Wikipedia is about is verifiable, not what is true. However, Wikipedia still it needs to be verified by a reliable source. We can't throw in any website we want as a citation. Amazon is not a reliable source for release dates. Also, since when do I need a reliable source to prove an unreliable source is unreliable? I'd recommend researching Amazon placeholder dates.

I myself looked for a reliable source and found that there weren't any reliable sources to confirm the release date. Only retailers. The fact that only retailers have a release date for the product speaks for itself. We are not in a hurry, so I think we can wait for an official announcement or confirmation from a reliable source. Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say a reliable source was required to prove that another is unreliable, I said that I would like proof that this source is unreliable, because we already use this source for this sort of thing, and because the retailer - the people who are actually selling the product - are telling us when they're going to begin doing so. Yes, as with anything, there is potential for the information to change, and as per usual we will update the article when/if we need to. But for now we can only go on what we know, not what we assume, which would be original research. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: Amazon as a site is not unreliable; the release dates that Amazon puts on their site are unreliable because Amazon uses placeholder dates. Other retailers are known to do the same. Research it. Again, we are not in a hurry. No release date has been announced or confirmed by any reliable sources. The only sites that claim to have a release date are retailers. We can wait for a confirmation for the actual release date.

And the fact that you have used Amazon as a citation for release dates in the past is entirely irrelevant. Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Character links

This Agent 33 is the only link that goes to an article that gives 3 paragraphs on the character, as opposed to the half a sentence that's hard to find at Kara Palamas / Agent 33. I explained this, yet Adamstom.97 has reverted it to the second with the comment we already have that link in the section. It's for every character without their own page. First, there is no direct link to the three paragraphs on the character if you do that, and how is it of use to readers to link them to a half sentence on the comics character when the much more appropriate and informative one on the TV series character exists? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Agent 33 is one of several characters listed in the cast section without their own character page, but they are all featured on the list of character pages, which is one of the reasons why we have a for more information link to it at the top of the section. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We always link the characters to their comic counterpart (because they are comics characters before they are TV characters), NOT List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters. Daisy "Skye" Johnson links to Daisy Johnson, Cal Zabo links to Mister Hyde (comics), ETC. Hence why Agent 33 links to List of S.H.I.E.L.D. members#Agents (Pre-Civil War). If the readers want to know more about how they are adapted into the show, then they can go to List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters. Darkknight2149 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No response as to how that is helpful to readers. This article is on the TV series, not the comics, and that half a sentence for this character on the comic list article is near-worthless. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

For one, each character page has a "In other media" section. For two, that is their primary page. Darkknight2149 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about the link for a character. That should go directly to the best article for that characer. Most readers using that link won't even know you expect them to not use that link for the character, but go hunting for another link they probably don't know exists. This probably is going against WP:EGG as well, in that a reader would expect a character link on a TV series page to go to the TV series character page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a violation of WP:EGG. An Easter Egg link would be linking Daisy Johnson to potato. We link the characters to their primary page. If people want to know more about how they are adapted in the show, they can go to List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters. As I previously mentioned, each character's primary article contains an "In other media" section that lists their appearances in other media (TV, film, video games, ETC). List of S.H.I.E.L.D. members is no exception. See List of S.H.I.E.L.D. members#Marvel Cinematic Universe S.H.I.E.L.D. Darkknight2149 (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That is off-point. There is no way a reader is going to know each character's primary article contains an "In other media" section that lists their appearances in other media (TV, film, video games, ETC) if they follow the character link for Kara Palamas / Agent 33 unless they go hunting around - which they shouldn't have to do. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Every regular Wikipedia reader will know that. As for readers that aren't regular, all they have to do is scroll down. Every single article also contains a table of contents. There's not much to hunt around in. And considering that the "cast and characters" section opens with this template:

Main article: List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters

They won't need to hunt around for anything. Darkknight2149 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ratings

Some of the ratings mentioned in the article are incorrect. See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._(season_2)/Archive_2#Ratings for further information.85.81.82.15 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)