Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 6

Marvel Cinematic Universe Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force (assessed as Mid-importance ).

Comics: Marvel Bottom‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Bennet revealed her new look for the season. Is that enough by itself to put in the article at this time? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could add it with some commentary from those reporting on it (mentioning the added colour for example), and especially if someone has mentioned that the look appears to borrow from her Marvel Rising design. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice the latest trailer played a cover version of this song? Is it worth adding? The problem is, I don't know who the cover artist is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Covers of songs in trailers is reasonably common, so I wouldn't add it unless there was decent discussion by reliable sources about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone got sourses for Sherri Saum, Anthony Michael Hall, and Coy Stewart as they're listed without a source and I can't see them in the casting section?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced source says "it’s possible the timeline changed into one that WASN'T among the 14 million possible futures that Dr. Strange saw". The article text (that adamstom97 has reverted to) says "the fifth season could explain the discrepancy by moving the sixth season into one of the 14 million alternate futures mentioned by Doctor Strange". To me this seems like a clear contradiction. If the timeline wasn't among those he saw, how can it be one of those he mentioned?

My version of the article said "the fifth season could explain the discrepancy by moving the sixth season into an alternate future not seen by Doctor Strange during Infinity War". How is that "unsourced", when it matches what Tim Baysinger actually wrote? Adaj (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I will re-apply the edits Adaj (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to nominate

• If you want to contribute then do so. Go to any article and add information which is missing or create a new article and submit it to
  WP:AFC. Nominating an article you haven't edited once isn't contributing and your very minimal editing experience and understanding of en.wiki guidelines make you not suitable for GA nomination or review. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Anybody can nominate an article if they properly consult the main editors first. Also, personally attacking me, saying "I'm not suitable for the job" isn't kind or helpful. In Wikipedia's guidelines, anybody can nominate an article. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing as you are currently under discussion regarding your lack of understanding of Wikipedia procedures, it isn't the best idea to continue doing what made the discussion start in the first place (ie requesting GA nominations with absolutely no editing experience). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It debuted to lower ratings but a higher audience than the previous season, and remained consistent in viewership."

I cannot figure out how to parse that sentence. It seems to be saying "It started with fewer viewers, but more viewers, and it kept the same number of viewers."

I suppose the second clause of the sentence could be interpreted differently, but "It started with fewer viewers, but they were on more drugs, and it kept the same number of viewers" doesn't help that much.

If Neilsen ratings have suddenly shifted to NOT representing number of viewers, perhaps we need a link there or something? And the last clause of the sentence still doesn't jive without some clarifying text such as "over the course of the series" or something.

71.236.204.7 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the sentence. What it was saying was the premiere episode was a lower amount than past seasons, but higher than much of the previous season's episodes. After that, viewership remained consistent in the season, with no abnormal spikes or dips. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: can you please explain why you keep removing the two-parter formatting for the two-part episode? There is no rule saying that a certain number of columns need to be shared between the two episodes for this formatting to be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that we have to merge unrelated episodes either. Also, this is the second time you are twisting what is actually happening. I'm not keep removing but you are the one that is continuing to try to implement a reverted style. Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor who has ever reverted the formatting. They are not unrelated episodes, they are one two-part episode. We use the two-parter formatting for all the other two-parters in this series even though they also tend to have different writers and directors for each part. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 years of it being this way shows your changes aren't wanted. You should know that in a serial each episode is a continuation of the previous one, especially in heavily serialized shows like this, with most of the final season one single long story. A "two-part" episode is meaningless here, more so when in fact, what you call a "two-parter" is not in fact one. It didn't air together and it didn't have the same crew. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to explain how serialised television works, doesn't change that this episode is literally a two-parter. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your layout change does not improve anything in the episode table and just makes reading it harder. I also doubt the accessibility aspect of it as the second plot "section" can't be assigned to the actual episode row. So for now just to make you sleep better, I also oppose it per

WP:ACCESSABILITY. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

If you have accessability concerns then you need to take that to the template talk page, that is not valid justification for using the template incorrectly at this article and is a silly argument to make when you are apparently happy with this being done at the other articles for this series. You also can't just say this isn't a two-parter as if that is the end of the conversation. In addition to it literally being in the titles of the episodes, here are third-party sources confirming that this is a two-part episode: 1, 2, 3, 4. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

not like it? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I explained that the 5 year status quo is correct and that there are even accessibility issues with it. For some odd reason you believe that I should fix that issue when you are the one that wants to change the accessible and correct style. Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't correct just because you keep saying so. You have not provided any justification for why you think this formatting should not be used in this article but you are happy for it to be used at the other season articles. By changing from the status quo, I aligned this article with the other ones for the same series. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my two-cents. I don't see the issue with using the multi-part formatting for these. The table can handle it and, to my knowledge, it isn't an accessibility concern. If it is, then we should have that discussion at {{Episode list}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has restored the two-parter formatting, FYI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because adamstom.97 is absolutely correct. Gonnym is alone in their claim on how it works. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]