Talk:Daredevil: Born Again/Archive 1

Archive 1

Background

Just wanted to confirm the approach for this draft before making major changes, but I feel that most of the content in the background section at the moment should definitely be kept at the other Daredevil article and summarised here rather than being kept here like this and summarised over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the more expanded information should be at the main series article, but I think we should also keep it here as this is the main subject for it, and once this is in the mainspace, the info at the main series article will be summarized. I think we can have it work in both places, but we can definitely summarize it as needed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What I'm saying is if this becomes a thing and moves to the mainspace, we should not be keeping it all here and summarising it at the other article. The main subject for most of this information is the original series, since it covers the planned fourth season of Daredevil, the cancelation of Daredevil, future plans for that series and its characters, and moving that series to Disney+. There are bits in there that are definitely relevant to a potential continuation, but the majority of the content should be kept at the original article and summarised here (in my opinion). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. It does make sense to move all of the details from the planned season 4 to post-cancellation and Disney+/future to the main series article. Summarizing it up here with a link directing to the two main articles (as we currently have) should suffice, in a similar fashion to the Draft:Untitled Captain America sequel. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I thought there needed to be some cutdown of it, but in my creation, I just brought it all here so it could be worked on. Happy to see what you want to attempt Adamstom.97. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, I just thought I would check before doing something controversial. I have had a go at cutting it down. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

DD series officially announced.

Variety just broke the news. "Daredevil" coming to Disney+ with Matt Corman and Chris Ord now attached as writers. No further confirmations as to filming start date, casting or airdate beyond what we know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelYasha (talk • contribs)

@RebelYasha: Every article/news break on this doesn't need a talk page discussion. Just add it into the article if it's all straight forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuation / Reboot

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/daredevil-disney-series-in-the-works-at-marvel-1235150713/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelYasha (talk • contribs) 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter describes the series as being a "new but continued series". This wording seems to indicate that it is still a continuation of the Netflix series, despite the term "reboot" being used by Production Weekly in March. YgorD3 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

THR and also Variety refer to the show just as a "new Daredevil series", not using the term reboot AxGRvS (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to rename the draft to "Upcoming Daredevil series" or "Untitled Daredevil series", just avoiding the specific term "reboot" that have not been used by trades. YgorD3 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus to move this page to Draft:Untitled Daredevil series? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, it's also better to have the basic title and let us update the prose as we get more details. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Per my removal in the draft, THR's use of "continuation" is not in regards to the narrative. The way I've been reading it is that, "this is a new series of one that previously existed", and frankly I feel like "continuation" was a poor word choice on THR's part, especially since Variety didn't make such mention. Will the series ultimately be a story/narrative continuation? Likely, but it isn't known now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

"Matt Corman and Chris Ord have been tapped to write and exec produce a series that will be notable for being the first of the Netflix Marvel shows to get a new but continued series, sources tell The Hollywood Reporter."

Well, THR says their sources told them that about the continuation thing. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Favre may be onto something. The part about sources tell The Hollywood Reporter most likely refers to Matt Corman and Chris Ord have been tapped to write and exec produce, and the bit about the first of the Netflix Marvel shows to get a new but continued series is probably just added commentary from whoever wrote that article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Again, it may turn out to be the case, but we can't go off of a head writer announcement when no other trades are discussing "story/narrative". And in this instance, all of them got the same info, so it's not like THR has a different source I feel like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

i don't think so, because THR article clarifies at the end "Variety first reported the involvement of Corman and Ord", so the "sources tell The Hollywood Reporter" part doesn't refer, at least, to the involvement of the head writers. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that the series is not a continuation based on Favre's interpretation. I'm not against the lead change that has been made, but I think we should still mention THR's wording until we learn more: The Hollywood Reporter described it as a continuation of the prior series. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I find THR's wording still holds some weight as the only source describing it as such. The way I took it, THR cites Corman and Ord's involvement from the same source as others, especially Variety, but THR's sources got word of the a series that will be notable for being the first of the Netflix Marvel shows to get a new but continued series part, which I interpret as separate/additional information to what the other sources reported on. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

If we were to add it back (which I'm still of the mindset we shouldn't), I think we should only do it here, and fully quote the material stating: The Hollywood Reporter stated it was the first of the Marvel Netflix series to "get a new but continued series". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a clear argument that can be made for THR's wording to just be about the fact that this is the first Marvel Netflix series to get a new version of a prior one, and if that is entirely the case here, we can exclude any other interpretation from this article. But, considering it is not clear what was meant by "continuation", I think it is worth a mention, with that wording from Favre. If anything about continuing the narrative comes forth, that can always be added on its own. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That's all I was thinking, add Favre's wording to this article until we (hopefully) get better info on what the relationship is between the two series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, let's add in the wording I proposed then until further clarification makes it a moot point, or the start of a larger indication it is a continuation, story wise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added in the wording now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

2 seasons?

Just a note, but considering What If...?'s 2 seasons equal 18 episodes, this might be 2 seasons of 9 episodes. — SirDot (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Feige did pretty specifically say 18 episode "first season" (correcting himself from series), so I don't think that will be the case. But I do wonder if they will be splitting it into sections/parts like how Netflix sometimes does. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but I'd say splitting might be likely. — SirDot (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Eiza González

Doubt we need to include, but Eiza González has come out to deny she's the new Elektra. Deadline covered it so only reason I made a talk discussion about it, as that felt worth possibly considering or discussing inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Variety too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt we should include it for now. If it turns out Elektra's returning we could include this, or if it keeps going on. —El Millo (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I second El Millo here, there presently doesn't appear to be any use addressing this, as it just stems from rumors that got spread a lot. Knowing it's not true now won't matter for the future unless something concrete is made of this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Episodic

Kevin Feige said the show is going to experiment with episodic storytelling (with mostly self-contained episodes). Is this worth including? Source: EW interview.— Starforce¹³ 19:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think so. I'll add it to the Writing section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Cox being contacted by Feige

This article states Cox was called to reprise his role by Feige in June 2020, however Cox himself states on the Assembled special for She-Hulk that it was July 10 when he received the call. AxGRvS (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That is an interesting distinction and there could have been some confusion on what was being referred to, as the June 2020 info is from THR. I'd have to refamiliarize myself with the article and the special to see though. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It can always be changed to "mid 2020" if there is conflicting dates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Handling recast characters in relation to the Netflix series

Given the news that Sandrine Holt is playing Vanessa Fisk in an apparent recast, should her casting (and any others from now until the series premieres) be noted on List of Daredevil (TV series) characters? My inclination is no, because for all we know this is (currently) not the same character that Ayelet Zurer played and is most appropriate to mention for the time being on Vanessa Fisk (or what ever other character this may happen to). I feel this is currently a distinction from Cox and D'Onofrio because they are the same actors returning within the MCU (despite the possible murkiness of if they are indeed the same characters). Thoughts from anyone else? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep all data here until the series actually comes out and we see if this is the same story or not. If it isn't then no, these are two different TV series. If they are, then yes. Gonnym (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gonnym that any recasting or new actors should remain here until we actually know the full extent of what they truly are. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That was completely my feeling. Basically if a character is appearing here and they aren't the same actor, only make mention on this article and any comics one (if they exist) and make no mention on the Daredevil characters list just yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct. As that list is just for the Netflix series, there shouldn't be mentions of newer portrayals without clear confirmation of them being recasts or whatnot. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mitchy Power: Wanted you to be aware of this discussion since you added about Holt over at the Daredevil character list (and I reverted) and I don't want to revert just yet without you weighing in if you choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Filming Images

@Favre1fan93: I honestly don't see why a gallery would not be helpful as, even though you pointed they are not directly connected, it is still a more concise way to display the images. On my end, the images separate break into the References section and feels quite off in terms of formatting. Having them as a gallery takes up less space and removes unneeded whitespace. Also, I'm not entirely sure we need the production trailers one as the working title is only mentioned once whereas the picketing is arguably more notable for an image display in terms of the section's coverage. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

With the addition of the picketing photos, I agree we can probably lose the other one, though there really isn't any "set specific" visuals in any of the picketing ones that user uploaded, but that does relate to prose. So we can scrap the trailer one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

SAG-AFTRA strike

Please find more reliable sources about filming after the end of this year's SAG-AFTRA strike. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

When filming actually resumes, there will be sources present for it. There is no such sources at this present time, so we cannot "find more" of them. There is WP:NORUSH. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Move back to draft?

Considering the recent news of all the writers and directors being let go, and that they plan to reshoot from scratch mostly, should we move this back to draft per WP:NFF? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, as they may reuse some of the footage they already shot. It is not unusual, though not often, series get revamps during production and filming. It can remain in the mainspace. I would argue that this production revamp makes the production itself more notable, thus justifying retaining it in the mainspace. Of course, there is no sure release production. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Cast listing

So, from this show onwards (barring any show that may be too in post-production to change significantly), Marvel Studios is treating their shows as shows and not movies. They'll have pilot orders, showrunners, etc.

So, I have two questions:

1) Should we change the cast list to be like that of any TV show?

2) What are we gonna do with roles that are confirmed but not whether they are recurring, main, or guests? 201.219.236.134 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't have much of anything to go off of for what a different cast order may look like, and the current order is per the US Copyright Filing Office from last month, which is very warranted. Once we know more on how the credits will be moving forward, we'll be able to take next steps in how to adjust this article and our approach to others taking a similar approach. It is not all that drastic, as we'd likely just follow the formats used at the likes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Daredevil already. Though, we shouldn't jump the gun on anything here while this creative overhaul takes place, as there is WP:NORUSH in updating contents as we are still awaiting further development, filming, etc. The credits will be much further down the road unless any source includes what each actors' role types will be. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, accirding to a Deadline repirt from some months ago (before the overhaul), Clark Johnson's role was meant to be a recurrent one. BestDaysofMusic (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That term has been used for casting reports on MCU Disney+ shows before but it doesn't change the consensus for how we format cast lists. The reported changes in Marvel's approach are related to writing and producing the shows, there is currently no indication that this or any future MCU series will have different credit approaches. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter says the series is no longer 18 episodes, but closer to the original Netflix seasons' 13.

This is a source we already use in this article, yet its info about the episodes are not mentioned. -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 01:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't know whether that statement is referring to the 9-episode first half of the series that Sneider has reported or if they are saying that Sneider is wrong and the whole series will be closer to 13 episodes. The article directly references Sneider's report in another place so it seems odd that it would be directly contradicting it without saying so. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it still something worth mentioning? It is conflicting, but for now we should probably put unknown as the amount of episodes to see whether Hollywood Reporter or Sneider's info is the correct one. It's something to take in mind at the very least. -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 04:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It was included with the rest of the reports in recent edits made to the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"Revealed"

The word "revealed" is used no less than eight twelve times in this article. What are we, a tabloid? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please see MOS:SAID. Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. That's from the actual WP Manual of Style. We're not a Marvel press release to be guarded by fanboys. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing biased about saying "revealed" when information is revealed. Additionally, the change you made in the article from "revealed" to "announced" is not correct as it suggests that there was an official announcement from Marvel which is not the case for that information. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't claim there was anything "biased"? What I write is there, immediately above - the Manual of Style says to use said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to as they are almost always neutral and accurate. You're reading a lot into "announced" that isn't there. But fine. "According to" or "stated" will work even better. Do you have a preference? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You said "revealed" is not neutral or accurate, which is nonsense. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, no. I did not say either of those things. What I said is directly above, and in two edit summaries. "Revealed" is to be avoided, in favour of said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to, per the MOS. I don't know why you don't get this, or why you're putting words in my mouth. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS does not prohibit the use of "Revealed". Word use on Wikipedia is not restricted and you trying to force your own preferred word use is becoming disruptive. You implied through the MOS that because "revealed" is not listed among the other words that are "almost always neutral and accurate" that it is somehow incorrect, which is untrue. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. You keep putting words in my mouth. Stop - do not do that. I "implied" nothing. I stated what I stated, above - it's there in black and white. You inferred meaning. Look, this is what the WP:MOS says: Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable. Why are you objecting to terms that the MOS says to use? The article had no less than 12 instances of "revealed", which was ridiculous. Who was hiding this information? Why does the article need to be that repetitive? Or written in Dail Mail-esque? "According to Deadline", "The Hollywood Reporter announced", "In April, Cox was said to..." are all perfectly valid and non-sensational English, mandated by the MOS. Your WP:OWNERSHIP is the only disruptive thing here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is not using repeated words in excess to the point where I would be concerned. (I still only count eight instances of "revealed", not sure where you got 12 from.) "Revealed" is attesting to a truth, especially in the case of this article and each of the contents that are discussed as being revealed by either Marvel, the trades, or other means of a copyright filing or set photos. Using "said" for a trade report is somewhat incorrect as the trades can not speak, but "stated" would be correct when referring to what the specific reporters themselves have said in their report (though this wording, and "according to Deadline", etc.) would be needlessly excessive in addressing the facts. We do not need to say in prose where the reveals came from, just that they are a fact, which the current wording accurately and clearly addresses. Clearly there is a disagreement here over the interpretation of the MOS' intent and word usage, so these concerns may be best addressed at the MOS if you have a wider issue, though I don't think this is something that requires much concern to be had. One would argue you coming in and being disruptive in your excessive verbiage charges is not constructive. No one is "hiding" any information here, so it is not clear what you are trying to get across. "Revealed" is not a loaded term as it is not too vague and is quite accurate in these instances. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"You coming in and being disruptive"?! Seriously?! Classic ownership and now personal attacks? Jebus! Cop on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not an attack on you. The wording has been largely unchanged for a few years and months until you changed it. When you were reverted, you reinstated it and furthered your alterations while a discussion was ongoing. That is disruptive and not in-line with WP:BRD. Making allegations does not help your case. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your wording - coming in and being disruptive, excessive verbiage - is absolutely a personal attack. And you need to remember, this is a wiki. It does not matter that something has been largely unchanged for a few years and months" (article is less than two years old...) - people will come and improve things. Your blanket revert of 8 changes is a clear example of WP:OWN. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

In the name of still being on topic in discussing the article, your edits were contested and you reinstated them while they were being discussed and after they were reverted. This is disruptive behavior and against WP:BRD. Saying they were "excessive verbiage" is not a personal attack, I merely said what I deemed it to be: introducing unnecessary words to convey what has already been done but in a longer or different way. Unless you provide a more convincing rationale for why this wording ought to be changed (the wording presently used is not prohibited by the MOS), then that's what you should focus on here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And once again, I'll repeat, the MOS specifically advises to not use reveal. It's used multiple times in this article. One or two uses might be appropriate, in context. (I can identify none where another word wouldn't be better, but y'know, compromise). Reveal: "to make known or show something that is surprising or that was previously secret"; "to allow something to be seen that, until then, had been hidden". Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate and would in all cases be a better choice than repeating "revealed" in this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Trailblazer101 and 176.201.27.134 - this is the article Talk page. Can I suggest ye both use it, rather than edit warring? Can ye both also please use edit summaries to explain your edits? Both of you, please take this as your warning that you are about to breach the three-revert rule and may be blocked as a result. Discuss your changes, come to a consensus? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, though I am well aware about the 3RR rule. The IP is blatantly vandalizing with unsourced additions and I was in the process of requesting page protection to prevent it from further happening. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content is not vandalism. The proper response is to either add a reference yourself, or to add a 'citation needed' or 'fact' taf. If you used edit summaries, then the IP would know why they were being reverted. Seems to be a perfectly legit addition, at that. I can't report you for breach of 3RR unless I issue a warning, but if you're aware of 3RR, the question becomes one of why are sailing close to breaching it instead of you opening a discussion with the IP... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources in the article do not contextualize how many episodes these crew worked on at large, so the IP was either making assumptions (WP:SYNTH) or making it up. And the repeated additions through different IPs is rather disruptive, if not veering towards vandalism. I already warned the IP on one of their talks. Looking into the sources proves this is essentially becoming vandalistic behavior on the IP, and not some good faith content that ought to remain in the article. I stand by my edits regardless and didn't think they would cause a stir in reverting unsourced additions by several IPs given this article's recent popularity among the internet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Also may I point to WP:DONTFEED. There is no use in attempting to garner a consensus with an IP adding unverifiable content which no source confirms in the manner they were added, especially in this instance where it constitutes vandalism after multiple reverts. The only solution is to revert to the WP:STATUSQUO and report the IP or protect the article (which I have already requested) to avoid such disruptive editing form occurring again. Your prior discussion at this talk makes me question your intent here, though I'll assume good faith on your part. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nonethless, I reverted three different IPs on three different days, the 28th, 29th, and the 30th. This was not close to violating the WP:3RR in the slightest as you proclaimed, which states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." My edits were not within the 24 hour period, and as such, there is no violation or warning to be had here. The article is protected now from vandalism, so there is no point in prolonging this discussion with baseless allegations and unnecessary compromising with what is evidently a vandalism account. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is the page's edit history. You clearly have two reverts of the same material within 24 hours. That's why I gave you a 3RR warning - to ensure neither of ye breached the 3RR rule. It's perfectly reasonable to issue a warning where there is evidence of edit warring, even where neither party is actually on three reverts. So no, not "baseless." And again, adding content is not vandalism. I've warned you already about ownership on this page, maybe pay heed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I'll bite. Trailblazer101, why is "lethal" apparently "more descriptive" for this character than "deadly" is? They are literally synonyms! What are you "remaining consistent" with, and who says, and where, that "It is best practice to remain consistent in how we convey such descriptions"? And lastly, why do you feel the need to revert pretty much everyone other than you who edits this page? Seriously, ownership, much? Two of us think the change was an improvement. One doesn't. Self-revert. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It is better to be consistent with the character descriptions across these articles (ie Daredevil, The Punisher and their respective character lists) than to have this one be an outlier from those. "Lethal" implies a more violent, harmful, or destructive nature than what "deadly" merely conveys. I reverted the change because it was unexplained and unnecessary to change such wording. I don't see the need for me to self-revert my edits as these are all constructive differences in perspectives, and I don't think any of this is worth fighting over. I know I don't "own" this article or others, so please kindly stop throwing that around and WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Making demands for an editor to self-revert is not really helpful. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine, then. As 'deadly' and 'lethal' are literally synonyms, and two of us prefer the new wording, then I'll change it back. Per WP:CON and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I absolutely assume good faith, but only up to a point - you can't deny there's absolutely a pattern of you reverting other editors on this and other related articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think lethal makes sense for the consistency across related show articles. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, there is absolutely no requirement for consistency across related show articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But hey, if you're copying stuff from other articles to use here, or vice versa (no matter how ungrammatical the construction), you are using proper attribution, aren't you? And I'd see that in the edit histories? ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No one said there was a requirement for consistency, though it is a good rule of thumb to follow for our readers. and asking such questions in that manner doesn't seem that civil. The WP:STATUSQUO applies here. This really isn't that big of a deal and is kind of being blown out of proportion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD mainly applies here. Once a bold edit is contested, you should not restore it without letting the discussion pan out. Now it is 2 for and 2 against, so this is clearly a contested edit and should not be restored again. I'm not denying or admitting to anything here, and am trying to focus on constructively improving the article, which is what this talk should be about. Save editor's actions for their talks. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Consistency absolutely trumps the personal feelings of one editor at one article. This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it's an MCU taskforce argument of creating consistency between all our articles (where appropriate) to provide a better experience for readers and to help on our progress towards various Good Topics. That doesn't mean ignoring the needs of individual articles for the sake of consistency across the topic, but in this case there is no special need for there to be a difference since the words are synonyms (as you pointed out Bastun). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)