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

Duplicate links and rowspans

@BradVesp: Once again, please read WP:DUPLINKS, links to articles should only appear one in an article, and then again in infoboxs or tables, but sill only the first mention there. Secondly, the rowspan formatting is also correct. Please read up on WP:BRD because you are now edit warring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I recommend using some common sense when reading new edits and recognizing consistency. I'm sure there are policy pages for these things. BradVesp (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate links are unnecessary, especially so close to each other in the table (WP:DUPLINKS as I keep link for you), and each row does not need it's own cell, when it can be spanned for items that are similar ie all of the "Pilot" introductions for the main cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but the merged cells create inconsistencies in such a large table and complex table. The extra links do no harm and infact they make it easier for someone who is only looking at one character or actor.

The policies you cite are recommendations not mandates. BradVesp (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There were no inconsistencies, the table was created to conform to what's recommended by the manual of style, again WP:DUPLINKS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The extra links and cell line do no harm and make it easier to follow a complex table. BradVesp (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You've now been reported for edit warring so we will wait for that to play out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reporting a user for edit warring when you are 5 reverts deep today yourself is likely to get yourself WP:BOOMERANG'd in the process. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Favre1fan93 that we don't need duplicate links. The rowspan does not need to repeat either when there it makes more sense to span across several rows. — Czello 17:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe DUPLINKS holds in this situation because the would-be duplicate links are very near each other, formatted the same, etc. The issue of rowspans is more contestable. Usually in a table, a cell spanning multiple rows or columns indicates that there is a connection or comparison to be made there, just as columnspans in this table indicate consecutive and consistent appearances. I am not familiar with this piece of media, so I would ask those of you that know: are these characters that would share the rowspan connected? Partners, coworkers, best friends, etc? If so I think there would be a strong case to connect them. But if the characters are otherwise completely unrelated then I think it would make the most sense to separate the rows.

TL;DR DUPLINKS is true, but I think unless the characters are connected/related somehow, the rows should be split. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I was originally going for a line in the area about ....Ming-Na Wen...."Pilot"....Brett Dalton...."4,722 Hours"... This area is confusing to look at.

I added the links because, among other things, they add the value that the internet has ascribed to weblinks. There's no harm to them. They make it no more difficult to read. I was unaware about the policy, but upon reading it I noticed it's a guideline, only. The links aren't going to break Wikipedia, but considering policies mandates rather then recommendations (in a fiction article) might break it. BradVesp (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

p.s. It's self-appointed dictators without common sense that can break Wikipedia.BradVesp (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd urge you to read WP:NPA before making statements like that. — Czello 17:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What issue were these edits supposed to address? Seems like an editor was making random changes because they wanted to without actually improving the article. Splitting the episodes into many rows all with the same link is very unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I responded to this below>> BradVesp (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A few things to point out:

If one reads the policies referenced by WP:DUPLINKS you'll learn that it applies more to the lead to technical articles then to a fantasy or entertainment based one like this. "...Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."

The bigger issue: the area about ....Ming-Na Wen...."Pilot"....Brett Dalton...."4,722 Hours"... is confusing to look at. I don't know what policy applies to adding a line there common sense? Table formation?

I'm sorry if there's too much confusion. These policies can be a bit much, no? I had time to more thoroughly read the policies; wish more people did. Really, @Favre1fan93: @Czello: @GabberFlasted: the links, are useful and within policy guidelines. My motivation to change it, now, is to point out the previously misconstrued WP:DUPLINKS policy.

Aside that, I think the area about ....Ming-Na Wen...."Pilot"....Brett Dalton...."4,722 Hours"... is problematic; confusing or disorienting. That should have another line added. Then for consistency there should be another line added by the episode separating the characters. BradVesp (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Do you have a reply? Reasoning would be more useful then clicking "undo"; I know it can be hard. BradVesp (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You're skating on thin ice by re-reverting your changes in the middle of a discussion after just being blocked for edit warring. Snarky comments like this are also not helping. Please be cordial and refrain from further edit warring until the discussion is done.

I think I understand what you are confused about, but I don't agree that it is actually all that confusing for most readers. It definitely is not "disorienting". If there is consensus that the rowspans in the table are confusing enough to need to be addressed then I would support splitting them into individual rows, but I don't think it is necessary to link every episode in every row. That leads to heaps of ridiculous WP:DUPLINKS within a few rows of each other. If someone is looking at the rows for May and Ward and wants to click on the unlinked "Pilot" cell then all they need to do is look up a three lines to the Coulson row. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97:, Sure, but let me point out again:

If one reads the policies referenced by WP:DUPLINKS you'll learn that it applies more to the lead to technical articles then to a fantasy or entertainment based one like this. "...Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."

In some cases and the link is pretty far away, especially for characters added later. Adding it is not "disorienting" I agree.

Try this: What harm do my edits do? They don't make it infinitely better, but how do they make the page worse?

I've not accused anyone of "war". We all do things differentially. Look at my profile. Keeping an open mind is important, and I hope(lessly) everyone else does so, but it's hard to do sometime, harder then using ones index finger one time. Just, sometimes one has to ping another to get a reason. BradVesp (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you don't think your edits are doing any "harm", if editors disagree with you then you must resolve the issue by discussion, not edit warring. "We all do things differentially [sic]" may be true, but the same rules still apply to all of us. The point isn't what WP:DUPLINKS says, the point is that you are adding heaps of the same link to a table that just doesn't need them. A little bit of WP:COMMONSENSE should be used here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, @Adamstom.97:, the point very much is what WP:DUPLINKS says. That's what everyone's relied on to claim my edits are "disruptful". If one is to use it, one should use it correctly. If one is going to use a policy to set how Wikipedia is to be edited, then one should know what the policy sais. Take a look at it. I quoted it above, and linked to the page. If one misunderstood the policy it would be good to update how one understands how Wikipedia is to be edited.

And I'm asking for your opinion, not stating mine (i.e. it's not rhetoric it's an actual question): How are my edits harmful? Your responce might be useful in how I edit pages in the future. I'm trying to have a discussion, not insult anyone. BradVesp (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are harmful because you seem to have no regard to the WP:CONSENSUS that exists on this page (and frankly most of Wikipedia) that the episodes should not be linked more than once in the table because of WP:DUPLINKS. Additionally, the fact you continued to edit the article with further adjustments in the face of discussion after being banned for warring on that content, does not look good to other editors who are trying to follow WP:BRD and actually discuss this to see if any new consensus needs to be formed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. I can comprehend how my actions are harmful to the "optional" "BRD" policy. It seems as if all these policies are optional. (Optional as in one is not required to follow them, but they are a good guide line, a nice suggestion...hu? Who knew? Somebody I guess. Did you?)

How about the content? How are those links harmful? Feel free to discuss how you would like to.

Also, please read the policies referenced in WP:DUPLINKS (The quotation here is relevant to the table I edited.). You'll learn that it applies more to the lead to technical articles then to a fantasy or entertainment based one like this. "...Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." BradVesp (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You all ever see this? Wikipedia:Five_pillars; might supersede WP:DUPLINKS, BRD, and other policy suggestions butthatsjustme, I'vebeenwrongbefore. BradVesp (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

None of the 5 pillars are directly relevant to this change, though "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" does apply to this situation given your edit warring and the lack of civility that you continue to show. Your dismissive behaviour and insistence on ignoring what we are all saying in favour of repeating the same question over again is not appreciated. You have made your point, you think the table is confusing and you think making it less confusing isn't going to "harm" anyone. But there is no consensus here that it is confusing enough to change, and even if that was not the case there is certainly no consensus to support adding duplicate episode links throughout the table. So I suggest you take a break and wait to see if anyone else supports your position. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, please read the policies referenced in WP:DUPLINKS (The quotation here is relevant to the table I edited.). You'll learn that it applies more to the lead to technical articles then to a fantasy or entertainment based one like this. "...Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." BradVesp (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] BradVesp (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

if it significantly aids the reader -- we are saying that it does not in this case. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate linking which significantly aids the reader "is most often the case when the list is presenting information ... formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, ..." BradVesp (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't need the same link only a handful of rows apart. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Missing Link

@Favre1fan93:, I noticed the link coding changes you made on the source page. When I was adding the link for Fear and Loathing on the Planet of Kitson and Toldja I took out that line break. I didn't think it would cause a problem. You got it back, so that's something. The changes don't seem to affected the read page. Is that right? Maybe I'm missing something or its got a different look on a different browser.

How'd those links get missed in the first place; no separate Wikipedia page? They were pretty late in the series. BradVesp (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Over the course of the series there was different editor availability for making episode-specific articles, so we don't have articles for every episode of the show at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Akela Amador" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Akela Amador has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22 § Akela Amador until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Ilsa Koenig" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ilsa Koenig has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 20 § Ilsa Koenig until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)