Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 3

Season 3 Poster

A poster was released for the AoS Season 3. Perhaps we can add it to the "Marketing" section? [1] Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We would need commentary about the photo to include it, and more beyond the fact that "This poster was released for Comic-Con for the season." On the season 1 article, that poster was included, because it was meant to juxtapose the initial one. For season 2 article, its caption explains that. So, unfortunately, no, this poster shouldn't be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I was just checking. Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln codename

Marvel's referring to him as Sparkplug, but who knows if he will actually go by it in the show. Just wanted to see if other's had thoughts about adding it anywhere, or just holding off. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like something that Fitz would call him when he is jealous of something, but the way that video is presented implies that it is going to be his codename, no matter how stupid it actually sounds. Sparkplug? That sounds like something you call him when you want to insult him. I would say add it for now, and then if he doesn't use it within the series, remove it. Like with Mockingbird being mentioned in some sources from Marvel for Bobbi but never mentioned in the show.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Gordon called him Sparkplug in the episode "Melinda" and it was in a somewhat condescending manner. DinoSlider (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Marvel is using "Sparkplug" as a codename to market the character in the second season, I don't see any harm in leaving it in the article, at least until the series airs. After the first several episodes, if he is never referred to as "Sparkplug" as an actual codename, then we can just remove it from the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything to make of this in release?

Apparently the season is getting a "Super Room" on iTunes but based on what it is described to be, it doesn't seem to be anything noteworthy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I read through it, and thought maybe it could be mentioned, but nothing jumped out to me as being all that important really. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not essential to the article but it could be added IMO, if an editor wants to add it. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Patton Oswalt in the season?

I figure this is a super long shot, but could we use the fact that he appeared in Team SHIELD's Dubsmash War video as confirmation? (And if you haven't been following SHIELD and Carter's Dubsmash War, its some good stuff.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I do think it is cool that he got involved, and I would be very surprised if we didn't see him at least a few times this season at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

If anyone ever encounters the editor who makes these edits, as @Adamstom.97 and AlexTheWhovian: did, they are a sockpuppet and should be reported immediately to SPI. If you use Twinkle, you can use the ARV part to report them. They are a "Sockpuppet" and the "Sockpuppeter" is LadyGaga2015. Here's a link to the relevant case file, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LadyGaga2015. I have already reported this user, but just of note for future reference, here or on the other season articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Official poster

Here's the poster. However, here and other sites all have it with the watermark at the bottom. Let's be on the lookout for one that doesn't have it. If not, we may have to settle with this version. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If we can't find an un-watermarked version, Marvel.com released a version with their watermark that I think would be preferential to the People watermark on the other version. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I found one and used it! (I think it was on Comic Book Movies, but I sourced People as that was the original.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Purpose in the Machine BTS info

Here's some great info to add to the article when it is (hopefully) created next week. [2] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Season's premiere date

The template is for the "original air date", meaning it should have only the date which the episode had originally aired (September 29, 2015). The ref. to the LA premiere shouldn't be inside the episode table, but simply cited on one of the topics of the season's article. — Artmanha (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Episode 46

The number of U.S. viewers should be 4.32 milion, not 4.28.85.81.82.15 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Good BTS interview for 4,722 Hours

Here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Secret warriors?

There is currently a dispute as to whether or not the Secret Warriors are actually called the Secret Warriors, which is why I'm bringing this to the Talk Page. A user is arguing that the title of the comic "Secret Warriors" is not what the team is called, since they are never called that in the comic.

The first thing I want to point out is that, while they aren't referred to as "Secret Warriors" in the comic, they most definitely are in Agents of SHIELD. Secondly, they may not be called "Secret Warriors" in the comic but the name still refers to the team, therefore making the use of the phrase "team of the same name" correct (at least in my opinion). Thoughts? Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalia Cordova

I don't know if this is reliable, but it is something to look out for. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't seem reliable on the onset, and others reporting are CBM, IMDb, MCU Exchange, etc., so definitely something to look out from RSs and Marvel should it arise. Thanks for passing it along. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Sorry about that, I was thinking about the above source, which does say recurring. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Completely forgot that we "knew" about this this long ago. Unless something new comes out, we'll just have to count for her as we get the press releases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we consider "Hive" a main character?

Since this is who Dalton is playing now, and Dalton is still a billed actor, does this make Hive a main character? I want to say yes, but there's a part of me still feeling like maybe not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dalton is really playing Hive playing Ward, and the way they are talking about the retaining memories and stuff, I'm pretty sure they going to act like he is still basically Ward for the rest of the season. I'm sure the press releases will clarify that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they still list Dalton as playing Ward. So, I would rather wait for a while before adding Hive as a main character. Also, a similar thing happened with Agent 33 last year, where we thought we might have to add her as another main character for Wen, but she ended up with her own recurring actress, and we just noted a few of the main actors who also temporarily played her in the casting section. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We should wait and see how much of a role Hive plays before adding him. Like Adamstom.97 said, it could just be him as Ward for the remainder of the season. If need be, we might also list Dalton as "Grant Ward / Hive". DarkKnight2149 00:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

So this source announcing it "officially" puts some support back into at least doing Dalton as "Grant Ward / Hive". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems to confirm what I thought before, that they are going to act like it is basically Ward, even though we know it isn't, sort of like how The Flash keeps trying to make us believe that Harrison Wells was a main character in season 1 when we know that it was Eobard Thawne. The press releases still list Dalton as playing Ward, and I think just keeping everything that way, and having a separate listing for Hive on the character list that includes both Dalton and Casey plus anyone else down the line, is fine for us for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

We should be waiting to see what episode 13 and 14 list him as, because 11 and 12 were created before this announcement, and it is possible that they didn't want to reveal the identity through the release (as they've done with other characters, such as Von Strucker's original credit in the press release). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I once again agree that we should wait. Although I'm convinced that Ward and Hive will more or less be the same character this half of the season, there's no rush, so we can afford to wait until we know for certain (which won't be long, as the series returns very soon). DarkKnight2149 23:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Marvel version of the "official" announcement specifically states that "Brett Dalton stars as Grant Ward / Hive". I personally would still prefer listing them as separate characters, even if we have 'Brett Dalton as Grant Ward and Hive' in the main cast bit, but I do think we will have a better idea of how to proceed after we see the next episode or so. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Darkknight2149: Since we saw actual Hive (and not just Hive-in-Ward) last week, even if it was just from behind, and it was obviously portrayed by Dalton under CGI, I think we can now say that for the second half of the season Hive has been a main character. I suggest we change this article and the main series article to say "Brett Dalton as Grant Ward and Hive", with an added note at the main article about how Hive inhabits Ward's corpse. At the TV actors list we should add Hive to the "Introduced in Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 3" section with Dalton listed as a main cast member for the character. As for the character list, I'm thinking we should make Hive almost like a sub character of Ward within the main characters section. Any thoughts on this? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

When they announced the whole "he retains the memories of his hosts" thing, I expected Hive to basically be super-powered Grant Ward with the added memories of others. However, he has instead been portrayed as a character distinctive from Grant Ward. Because of this, I believe that listing him as the previously suggested "Grant Ward / Hive" is out of the question.

However, I'm not against having listed as the also suggested "Grant Ward and Hive". If I'm not mistaken, I still think Brett Dalton is part of the main cast for the entire season. Another possibility is something similar to this:

• Brett Dalton as Grant Ward
  • Hive

DarkKnight2149 13:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that Ward and Hive are two distinct characters, so "Grant Ward / Hive" isn't correct. "Grant Ward and Hive" isn't bad, but I think it might be a bit confusing, with readers thinking they are the same, since they are not (despite Hive inhabiting Ward's body). The second format Darkknight suggest with having Hive under Ward is also a possibility. It's tough to judge though because Dalton is still being credited as Ward in the press releases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The press releases are just a guide though, they aren't always all that reliable (Blood and Palicki are still being listed in all the press releases). I agree that "Grant Ward / Hive" would be wrong, but I disagree that my version will be confusing. We explain the relationship between the characters several times in the article, and can add that information to the main series article. I'm sure it will be fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If we do change, we should keep the note ref next to it, at least on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes, and then we can all see what it looks like. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

VFX

There is quite a bit here, not sure how much of it is useful or where. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much of it useful. More just how the supervisor helps coach the actors to move certain ways to make the VFX work better and more believable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Daredevil S2 easter egg

Apparently, in "Watch Dogs" there is an easter egg to DD S2 with the gang war battles in Hell's Kitchen. Here's a link should we need it and a clearer one doesn't pop up after the episode airs (which I doubt). But still. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless the episode directly ties in with Daredevil, then I'd say the Easter Egg it's a bit trivial to mention. DarkKnight2149 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 I haven't seen Daredevil, so are the Watchdogs actually connected to it or is just an Easter Egg? I'm a bit concerned that you may have added trivia in the article, something we generally shouldn't do. DarkKnight2149 14:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You can see what we added to the article from the episode in the MCU tie-in section. They may individually seem a bit trivial, but the fact that one episode has connections to three other series (including one on another network and one that is yet to be made), it seems notable enough that we should mention them as a group. It is really the first time this has happened, whereas everybody references the movies all the time, so it is only notable when something major happens in terms of film-to-TV crossovers. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Table widths

@LLArrow: I'll just start the discussion here, but it is for all three season articles. You are giving way too much space to the writing column that it doesn't need, while the director and date columns are almost so narrow that the info can't fit on one line. I fixed this issue by altering the widths so that each column has basically the same amount of padding on each side, but you have reverted this edit by saying that you are "fixing" it, which would only be true if your idea of fixing is the opposite of everybody elses. When I asked you to stop edit warring, you accused me of "exercising [my own] opinion" even though I had already explained the logic behind my edits and you have not. What do you have to say for yourself? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Completely off-topic arguing.

First of all this argument is so ludicrous I will only allocate the smallest amount of time to this matter. The column width of each section should be determined by the largest substance of text. The writing section set the precedence, with the "Pilot", of being the largest column. The goal of numbering the columns should be to keep each section from becoming double spaced, if at all possible. My edition of the column numbers allows for that to take place. Adamstom's version, and the version that has been in place for some time, double spaced the writing column, beginning with the "Pilot". Frankly I don't see how this is even an issue considering my version allows everything to fit in rather nicely, with the least amount of double spacing. LLArrow (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, you may need to donate as much of your time needed to reach a consensus because if this edit war continues, a request for page protection may become necessary. I say this as a neutral party in this argument. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, I ask that you not contribute to this discussion with an already blatantly obvious observation. We are in need of voices to side with respective opinions. LLArrow (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Simply stating what needs to be said, considering this should have been taken to the Talk Page sooner than it was. An edit war did take place, after all. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Darkknight2149, indeed it did, and the offending user has been reported at WP:AN3. LLArrow, any editor is allowed to say as they wish here - you do not own this discussion and cannot tell other editors whether they should or should not contribute to the discussion. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Of course typical twisting of words by another finger-shaking editor. I asked that no one make non-consensus forming comments, I did not tell, world of difference. Sad that I have to point that out. Seriously people have become so vicious and touchy on Wikipedia. You people are responsible for creating a toxic work environment, impeding any chance of furthering these article for the greater good. I kinda hope that I am blocked from editing, then I'll have an excuse for not helping to make Wikipedia a better place. Congratulations editors, you have again blown the smallest issue into the Pacific ocean. LLArrow (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC) These edits, however, are not furthering the articles for the greater good, they are worsening them by cramping the information. What blew this into a big issue with the edit warring instead of taking it to discussion after the first revert. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Amazing also how no one hints at making mistakes or accepting even a smidgen of the blame. Holier than thou. The information is cramped in the status quo form; or the writers. I guess people only give a s#%t when it's the airdate stressed for a bit of space. "No logic, no-brainer", should be Wikipedia's new motto. LLArrow (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Accepting the blame for what? Your reasoning for why you made the edits doesn't change that you decided to edit war. DarkKnight2149 04:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC) I'm not speaking about you, rather Adamstom. But still, no one is considering or commenting on my logical analysis of the logic behind this whole ordeal. I only edit war when I'm passionate enough about the subject to be banned from editing Wikipedia. That's the thing about the editors on here, such as Alex, you make one edit they disagree with, they're willing to discard every good thing you've ever contributed to the site, in favour of tossing you to the wolves of the administration. No report whatsoever. LLArrow (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)So, I should ignore you violating policies and shouldn't report you for it because you've made good edits to the site before, and because you think it's perfectly alright to edit war and not discuss given the topic, which doesn't fall under WP:3RRNO. Right. This is getting off-topic. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC) No you shouldn't ignore it, but you should talk to me on my Talk page, maybe engage with me about the issue before throwing me to the edit war pit. As I said no report, no allegiance, just a dog-eat-dog mentality. No one on here, especially you Alex, is concerned with "collaborating". LLArrow (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me try start this discussion again; hopefully everyone can focus on the issue at hand. LLArrow, if you are getting the writing info of the pilot wrapping around to a second line, then I am sorry, I completely understand how frustrating that would be and the want to fix it. But the way you have it is taking away the padding from the other cells, which to myself and presumably the others here is leaving a ridiculously spaced out cell surrounded by some with no spacing, and it is egregious because the info isn't wrapping around for us. If the decision is between most people having no space for 120-odd cells and some people having one cell wrapping around, I think it is clear what the logical conclusion of this discussion is. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I respect this assessment and wish you would have lead with it. I should not try and force a viewpoint, if I'm the only one (or one of the few) affected by its changing. I will agree to drop the issue entirely if that is the case. LLArrow (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Fallen Agent

I'm not sure if the reliable sources have picked up on this yet, but the promo for the next episode revealed that it will mark the beginning of an event known as Fallen Agent (presumably similar to the Uprising event from Season 1 that tied into Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Obviously we can't say anything until there's a source, but it's something to watch out for. DarkKnight2149 02:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the promo, but I'll be sure to keep my eyes out for something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we somehow use the promos themselves? Because today's episode was similarly marketed as Secret Warriors Unite which I think should also be mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to see the new promo, but the one you mentioned Adam seems more like a tagline than an "event" like "Uprising" was in the first season (and "Fallen Agent" may be). Can you also link to a promo that said that? I don't recall any that I came across. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Also keep WP:VIDEOLINK in mind. As for the promo that confirmed Fallen Agent, it can be viewed here. DarkKnight2149 03:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the Secret Warriors Unite promo [3]. DarkKnight2149 03:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So we should list Fallen Agent as a bit of an event here, and just use Secret Warriors Unite as a tagline for the episode article? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would think so. DarkKnight2149 04:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a third party source for Fallen Agent, here, which I will add now. However, I don't think there is anything special to Secret Warriors Unite, even to add to the episode article. Just seems like general marketing/hype text for the episode. As for WP:VIDEOLINK, we would need the promo to be uploaded to an "official" channel (like Marvel's or a news publication's like CBR). The one that you linked to Dark is fine for here, but we wouldn't be able to use it in article. But hopefully the AV Club source will serve our purpose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why Johnson not Daisy

With the plot summary on the episodes why is it that Daisy is referred to as Johnson and not Daisy. She is commonly refer to by her first and not her last name and the plot summaries should reflect that.122.108.156.100 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The tone on this site should be formal and encyclopedic. As such, last names are preferred. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

We are not talking about real people here but fictional characters.122.108.156.100 (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Same rules apply. This article does not differ from those about "real people" when it comes to tone. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got to admit some sympathy for 122. She was formerly referred to exclusively as Skye; currently, usually as Daisy, occasionally as Tremors by Mack, and once in a while Skye by Coulson. Unlike just about all of the other characters, I don't think she's ever been referred to solely by her surname on-air, and I can't remember the last time "Johnson" was even spoken.

But so long as we're insisting on following this rule off a cliff anyway, we should be using "MacKenzie" instead of "Mack". —Cryptic 09:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The name "Mack" supersedes the name Alphonso MacKenzie as his primary name. The name Daisy does not supersede the name Daisy Johnson, it is simply part of it. And since using these full, primary names for most characters other than Mack would lead to overkill with the first and the last names, we just use the last, as is formally appropriate (unless that would lead to confusion, such as when dealing with multiple family members as we occasionally do). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there a style guideline regarding how we refer to fictional characters? I've seen both ways, it just depends on the series itself and what the characters are commonly refereed to as. You're not referring to the characters of say, Seinfeld (except Kramer, of course) or Friends by their last names. I personally agree with the use of "Daisy" over "Johnson". Press releases for season 3 episodes name her as "Daisy" in the summaries and a recap for the season 3 premiere on the official website also uses "Daisy". Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

But the official sites could decide to say "Phil" or "Melinda", and that doesn't make those more formal. We have always generally used last names, for films and TV, because otherwise it comes across as really unencyclopaedic. Another example: a lot of people, including official sources and the films themselves, refer to "Cap" and "Tony", but we have always agreed to use "Rogers" or "Captain America", or "Stark" or "Iron Man", because this is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. The characters are not our friends. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hydra "retcon"

I came across this fan infograph on Reddit, and it makes me question us using "retcon" in the article. I think what the season did more so, as seen by the infograph, was reveal there were multiple sects of Hydra, with this religious one coming into existence before the scientific one that we saw in The First Avenger. Anyone else feel we should reword what we have here, to maybe remove or downplay "retcon"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A retcon is "a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events". This season revealed that Hydra was not founded during World War 2. Yes, they did it in a way that doesn't really affect the films, but they still changed how we, as viewers of the show, percieve Hydra in the films (like you said, we now look at the film Hydra as the modern scientific Hydra versus the ancient religious Hydra, which we didn't before). So, I think retcon is still the correct term to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add some clarification though. Maybe it's just me, but I've always understood 'retcon' to refer to a story's history being 're-written' not just 'added to'. By saying that this season retconned Hydra, it sounds as though the scientific branch of Hydra was overwritten and now they're a religious organization, instead of explaining that there are now two known branches of the same organization, one religious and one scientific. JMcGowan2 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my feeling too Jmcgowan2 and the reason I brought it up here first because I didn't want to outright remove "retcon". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I just don't really see what the issue is with the current wording. "the episode "Many Heads, One Tale" sees the season tie its Hydra and Inhuman storylines together, retconning the history of Hydra in the MCU" is pretty clear to me: the series changed the history of Hydra as we knew it by revealing that it is tied to the Inhumans. Which it did. I don't see how you can get from this to what you are saying, Jmcgowan2, especially since retcon doesn't mean re-written, it means having your perspective altered.

Another example is Loki's Sceptre in the Avengers films. For the first film, it was just a weapon made from the same stuff as the Tesseract. In Age of Ultron, it was revealed to contain the Mind Stone. Nothing was re-written, it is still technically made from the same stuff as the Tesseract, but because it has the same origin as an Infinity Stone, not anything else that the first film implied. This also changes our perspective of Thanos's actions in the first film, but it doesn't re-write them.

If our sentence didn't use the term retcon then I can sort of see how it might be confusing, but it does, so if the issue here, really, is a misunderstanding of the term retcon, which we do link to, then I don't see what a re-write of the sentence is going to do to fix that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think to my and Jmcgown2's point, we should be putting the emphasis in the sentence on the fact that a religious sect was revealed for Hydra, not emphasizing "retcon" (though it can stay in the sentence). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

How about trying to use the sentence to explain what retcon actually means, because not emphasising retcon in this situation doesn't really make sense, given that it is basically the definition of retconning. So something like, "the episode "Many Heads, One Tale" retcons the history of Hydra in the MCU by revealing connections between the organization and the season's Inhuman storyline". This makes it pretty clear that by retconning we mean 'revealing something new' not 'changing what came before'. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this site, a retcon "is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work." In this case, what previously established facts where altered? This simply feels like more information rather than changing existing information. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It was previously established that Red Skull founded Hydra during World War 2, this was changed to the followers of Hive founding Hydra in thousands of years earlier. Note that the article you linked to also says "Some retcons do not contradict previously established facts but instead fill in missing background details, usually to support current plot points", which is exactly what happened here: the films still make sense, they haven't been contradicted, but this series has retroactively altered the MCU's esatblished continuity so that this season's storyline also makes sense. Yes, all that has happened is we have been given more information, but that is what retconning is: learning something new that changes your perspective of the old, not literally changing the old, necessarily. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll concede that this situation fits that definition, but it seems like any flashback or discussion about the past would fit as well. Oh, well. I do have one question for you though: Where is it established that Red Skull founded Hydra during World War 2? That wasn't stated in the First Avenger. - DinoSlider (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If it isn't stated in the films, then it is definitely implied by them, and either way, the series puts it all into words for us (as it is wont to do) by Malick asking Ward what he knows of Hydra. Ward says that it was founded by Red Skull for World War 2, and then Malick basically meta-retcons that by giving us the new history with Hive and the Monolith. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Machine Teen as Holden Radcliffe?

This article keeps linking Holden Radcliffe to Machine Teen, even though he's neither a machine nor a teen, plus there's nothing in Machine Teen that suggests any link to the cinematic universe. Is this vandalism? -79.180.112.99 (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's the only article that covers Holden Radcliffe the comics character. Reach Out to the Truth 23:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We also have a source in the article to justify the link, that states the character is the one from Machine Teen. As ROttT stated, it isn't ideal, but it is the best Wikipedia article associated with the character at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be linked. Linking Holden Radcliffe to Machine Teen implies that he is that character. That's like linking Polka Dot Man to Batman simply because he doesn't have an article. There isn't even a section on that article dedicated to Radcliffe. This link needs to be removed, as it is an obvious violation of WP:EASTEREGG. DarkKnight2149 01:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Home media

@Darkknight2149: We have always used retailers for release info; they are often the only place we learn of these things, especially for outside of America. Also, that seems like a pretty specific placeholder date. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if that's something that's always been done, that doesn't necessarily make it right. And usually a release date for digital/home video releases will be officially announced by a reliable source sometime ahead of its release. And there are times when, even weeks after a release date is announced, it will still wrong on certain retailer sites simply because the site hadn't gotten around to changing the placeholder. Amazon is especially guilty of this, though its a problem with retailers in general. DarkKnight2149 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say we always do it so it is right, I said we always do it because we must. Very rarely do reliable sources announce home media release dates, and they do so for non-American releases even less. And what this seems like to me, is you assuming that this is a placeholder date based on your past experiences, which would be WP:OR, as opposed to taking the word of the actual company selling the product at face value. Remember, we can always update information if it turns out to be wrong. In fact, we often get early placeholder dates for films, and just update the articles as new, more accurate release dates are announced. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research, because retailers aren't considered unreliable due to my personal experiences with them; they're unreliable because of the previously mentioned use of placeholder dates. And while I concur that many television shows don't get such announcements, higher profile network shows like Agents of SHIELD usually do. One thing I do agree with, though, is that this is the best source we have at the moment because an announcement hasn't happened yet. For this reason, even though it's not ideal, I would be willing to re-add it if we added a "Better source needed" template for the time being, at least until we get closer to the alleged release date. DarkKnight2149 00:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding the template, I agree that a better source would be ideal. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)