Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1

Two things

1. This page is more than a list
2. and two, the link to the list of MCU/One-shot characters has to go, it looks terrible there. (Or bullet it and put it underneath the characters. Or perhaps with the Other "Main" link )

Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a no wrap template to the further template for guest cast. Should be better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jim Steranko

The article currently says the Steranko's later reviews were "largely positive", however he seems to have been pretty critical of the entire season.--TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 14:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviews were the one thing I didn't get a chance to comb through after the split. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

List of episodes split/ Individual episode pages

I know it was decided over at the main series page to hold of on this move until we had more information on specific season 2 episodes, but looking at this page, it just seems way too big for a season page. Maybe the less detailed table from the main page could be moved from there to here, and then this extra detailed episodes table could be moved to its own page, to be joined by future seasons' tables. Another option that i haven't seen discussed yet would be to have really basic plot summaries in this table, and have the proper detailed summaries at their own pages, with specific production, reception, and continuity (with the rest of the MCU) sections. This is something that most major shows do, and while it may be a lot of work, it could help to spread some of the information from all of these Agents of SHIELD pages around. I would be happy to help with creating all of these pages (two have already been made), but its a big project that i don't want to start without knowing others are on board and supportive. If we are to make individual episode pages, we should endeavor to create the season 2 episode pages as the episodes are aired, as i believe happens with other shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Adam, per the MOS:TV, this is the point of the season page, to have the episode list as is. A List of episodes page (or for the time being in our case, just at the main page) has the "vital info" for the episodes. As for the plots here, plots should be between 100-200 words. If this is wished to be expanded on, making individual articles need to have enough reliable sources to cover areas such as production and reception, to pass WP:GNG. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cast and characters

Not sure what was the intended layout, but the "Guest" part looks really bad at its current position on its page. Either it should be at the same level as one of the Main/Recurring lists or after the Recurring list. --Gonnym (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It is because of the infobox. If you look at just the section, you see it is in line with the Recurring list. It did look like this before, but apparently that produced odd results on other viewing platforms, versus this one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I agree with Gonnym - it does look really bad, and I think it worked well as it was before. I realise that aesthetics cannot trump more important rules and how the page is working, etc. but I don't really see what the problem is. On the mobile version there is no interference from the infobox because of the altered layout. The only way I could see this being a problem is if the text was being pushed down to the next line to accomodate the infobox on a much smaller moniter, but it would have to be pretty small, as it all works well on my laptop screen. I think we should look at changing this back - why downgrade everyone to satisfy a few? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree too. I was the one to create the original version (because it worked) and it was changed to what it is now, if I remember correctly, because of the reason I stated. I never looked into it much though regarding how it was different and would welcome the change back. I'm going to look through the edit history and see what the exact reason given was. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If we can't change it back because of that reason, maybe we can try something else? It will still leave a lot of white space, but having the main and recurring cast members together, with the guests below does look a lot better (I just used edit preview to see what it would look like). I agree that the previous version worked, in fact it looked really good, so this is all a bit of a pain really. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So I changed it, but the amount of whitespace is the same, the formatting is just different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a definite improvement, even though there is still a lot of whitespace. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed it again. There are so many column templates it is insane. Other promising ones (if we can get them to work right) is {{col-float}} and {{multicol}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been playing around with different formatting, and {{multicol}} also seems to work, although you either have to remove or move the Further information bit up to the top or the text runs over the infobox. The current way (at least for me, I'm on a laptop), you have to change it to around 70% or the infobox pushes down the text causing a bunch of whitespace. Actually, the further template above the Guest section seems to cause problems due to its length—maybe remove it (or at the very least, move it up), because those articles don't even mention the TV series and the characters listed here do have articles themselves, if someone wants more information regarding those characters. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In my testing, multicol seemed to be the same as what I changed it to now. I would be supportive of deleting the "Further" template, because if a reader wants more info, they can go to the character page, which (now) has both of those links under its "see also" section. The text looks fine for me at 80 on a 15" Macbook Pro, but I did see the issue that it appears you are having. What I wanted was a column template that would "kick" once of the columns below the first one when it encountered a collision. It seemed like col-float might have been able to do that, if we added the correct syntax. I'm going to try to investigate that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless your intention is to have all sections across from each other on the same space, the new formatting I did looks pretty good to me. I've always thought it was better to have the main cast on their own line, then the recurring and guest sections across from each other below. Also, with that it doesn't cause extra white space by the text be pushed down by the infobox. I also changed it to 70%, at 80& (for me, 13" MacBook), there's tons of white space caused by infobox, and longer names, such as "Bill Paxton as John Garrett / The Clairvoyant" appears on two lines, and there's not much padding around the different sections. Hopefully it looks good for you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks good on my screen (no text wrapping), but the text for recurring and guest is wrapped on the mobile site. I don't know how much that is an issue, but it is happening. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Now the normal page is back to where we started, but the mobile site is worse off - we're kinda taking backwards steps here. The original point of all of this was to get at least the main and recurring on the same line, if not all three. Did we get anywhere with that, or was nothing working? Having the whitespace below the text is definitely preferable to having it above, as it is now. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done some tinkering in my sandbox and what I got is how it should look, without that infobox interference issue on smaller screens we were having (I increased my screen size to 250% without it happening). The mobile version does look a little different though, so that may be an issue with this version, but you guys can check it out to see if this is viable or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your sandbox edit looks good on normal viewing, but on mobile, it puts the content in a "table", opposed to the sections being one on top of the other, as it should appear on the mobile site. This is frustrating me now, because it seems like such a simple desire and it is really convoluted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this works perfectly - adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to be WP:BOLD and make the edit. If it doesn't work, we can just revert it and go back to the drawing board. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the main cast is ordered by the official order (i.e. the order they are credited on screen in) but the other two columns have been alphabetised, so should we do the same with the main one just to be consistent? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion would be: no, the main cast should always follow billing order. It'd be odd to not have Gregg listed first. Alphabetical makes sense for the others as there's no other logical way to order them (beyond maybe, by episode counts). Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Drove took the comment out of my mouth. Same as they said; leave as is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's alright, just wondering. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: If you helped write that, then you obviously understand the meaning behind it, but given that it is the only guidelines for any cast, I think it makes sense to follow it. When I asked about the ordering above, its because the inconsistency stood out to me as a reader, and this would easily fix that. Drove said that alphabetical was the only logical way to order them, but I think it is more logical to use the same system for all three columns. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is most logical for alphabetical ordering after principal characters, because then we begin to order them by our view as who is more important than someone else (which MOS:TVCAST says not to do), and ordering by appearance also gives a set order to them, not determined officially by producers. Alpha order is an unbiased ordering. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You say that ordering by appearance gives the characters a set order that was not determined officially by producers, but that is what alphabetical order is as well - alphabetical is the set order, but it is not determined officially by producers because they didn't name the actors. It is also unbiased as well, as the order will not change based on our perceptions, their appearances in the episodes are facts. By this logic, the two formats are equal, so it would be up to us to choose the most logical/appropriate, and I think taking the option most like what we have to do for the main cast is definitely more logical than having two separate methods on the same page (right beside each other) which is discouraged throughout the MOS for basically every variable. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

FZZT vs. F.Z.Z.T.

[1] lists the episode as F.Z.Z.T., but [2] and [3] list it as FZZT. Reviews refer to it as either. What should we go with? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Futon lists it as FZZT (formerly known as F.Z.Z.T), iTunes is Fzzt, Amazon is FZZT. I feel like editors determined to use the periods when it was first announced. If we wait a bit, the home media comes out on Tuesday. That should have a proper listing in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm the title appears as "FZZT" on the Blu-ray release. The Blu-ray also features slight variations on some other titles as well, including "Eye-Spy" (dash added), "The Girl in the Flower Dress", and "Turn Turn Turn" (no commas). So yeah. I'm not sure. I just thought "F.Z.Z.T." made more sense given other titles like "T.R.A.C.K.S." and "T.A.H.I.T.I.". Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we change the names to reflect this? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Only "FZZT" should be changed (if you agree it should be), not the others. The media release isn't the definitive answer, as sometimes they do have small errors. I would go by the official press releases for final titles. The ABC episode guide also doesn't have these versions of the titles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that FZZT should be changed, and we can use the ABC source in the Alt title field if we wish, to show it did have the periods. Also, Drove, I struck through "Turn Turn Turn" in your comment above, because it does have the commas (at least my packing does). I would also say leave "Eye Spy" without the dash, and "Girl in the Flower Dress" without the leading "The". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the clarification, it appears as "Turn, Turn, Turn" on the case, but the on the actual menu screen, it appears without commas. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay. I was only looking on the case. My apologies. But I feel like that should stay with the commas. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Colour

Currently we are using the grey from the poster/cover art as the colour for season 1, but as I understand it, we can use any majorly featured colour. It seems to me that each dvd cover is quite likely to have grey on it, but what will probably distinguish this one is the orange sky. I think it would be more appropriate to use that rather than the grey, so I thought I would just mention it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, it can stay grey. We should also wait (again) for the DVD release, to see what is on the spine. That is usually helpful, colorwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, it's not really a major right now. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The spine colour is blue. Look here, click "Slip" to see the cover. But, there's no blue on the actual front cover, might be best to stick with grey for now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Drove, do you know if there is a site that has the DVD cover with all those images? Because the Blu-ray is that solid grey, and the DVD cover is what the image on the page is now, so the spine may be different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The spine for the DVD is mainly orange, look here. If you want to change the S1 color to orange, I'd be up for that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think if we get that "burnt orange" color from the spine, that would be fine. I'll make the change. It is going to look really weird not being grey, after seeing it as such for so long. See what you think, and if it does not look good, we'll change it back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the infobox image should be the DVD cover (showing the spine)? It might look a bit better with the new color being used. No big deal. Just throwing it out there. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally feel the current image is fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think it will matter too much if we change it or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In saying that, I think having the image say 'The Complete First Season' rather than 'A New TV Series Sept 24 Tuesdays 8/7 c' would probably be better, so maybe we should change it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The image is the exact same, so I do not see the need to upload the exact same image (virtually) again. It is adequately noted in the caption that it is the Region 1 cover art. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter too much, so I guess we can leave it as is to avoid unnecessary work. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be changing the season colours on both seasons to match the posters more accurately. If you have an issue with the colour, please let me know. LLArrow (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, it was reverted with reasoning given, now lets discuss the issue before any further changes are made. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's squash two birds with one stone here and hammer out the issue on this Talk page, instead of bouncing back and forth. I made a slight change in hue to both season's colour just to more accurately exemplify the shade already in use. I really do not get the issue. LLArrow (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The change seems reasonable as it does reflect the orange used on the poster more than the current one. The orange being used now is based off the spine of the DVD cover [4]. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Art of Level 7

@Favre1fan93: I see what you were trying to do with the table, but I don't think it is the right way to go. There is minimal readability difference between the prose and table, but there is a considerable difference in the flow of the page, and in the aesthetics of it. Sometimes it makes sense to use a table (episodes, where you are listing the title, director, writer etc. over and over; ratings, where you are listing numbers over and over) but in this case, where this is descriptions/analyses of posters, I don't think it works. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a much better alternative. It is still simple, readable, and logical, like the table, but flows much better, and fits in with the greater context of the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a major issue, so I'm just going to be bold and make the change for the reasons above. If you wish to revert and discuss then please feel free to do so. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the simpler, bulleted list, is the better way to go. Not everything has be converted into a table, especially when there's not much content for it. And, at least for me, the images push down the table, causing a bunch of white space. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking when I changed it to the bulleted list (my original argument is above) but the list just felt too repetitive, almost too table like, for bullets. I wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on this? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it back to prose, but tried a different format to try and limit some of the uniform repetitiveness of the bulleted list. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Pilot plot summary

I don't understand why "After the events of The Avengers and Iron Man 3" is preferable to "After the events of Iron Man 3". If it is after Iron Man 3, then it is also after The Avengers. That's like saying "After the events of Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Iron Man 3". It is unnecessary because if it is after Iron Man 3, then it is after the previous films as well. Is there a way this can be changed to make more sense? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If anything, it should just be after The Avengers, because that was previously sourced. Iron Man 3 is assumed. And Extremis appearing does not place it after IM3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Only Iron Man 3 is sourced at the episode page, which I think is more important since this here is a summary of that summary, if you know what I mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Accolades

Currently, all of the accolades are over at the main page, except for the Emmy, which is in the lead, and unsourced. How should we approach this? Do we duplicate the info from there to here, or just have it on the one page? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

All of those are about the series as a whole, except for the Emmy. So that is the only one that should be mentioned here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominate for GA/FA?

This article has become very expansive since its creation, is well-written, has tons of content and citations. Props to Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97 for their efforts with this article. Do you think it's time to nominate it for GA or FA? Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drove. We were planning on leaving it, probably till December, before going ahead with nominating it. I mean, since I first proposed nominating it so much has changed already. Might as well take our time and see if anything else can be added/improved. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks as well Drove. You've made many contributions as well! My suggestion moving forward, as I know we are close to a GA nomination: we all copy-edit the article, then request the Copy Edit guild to give it a pass over; we make sure structurally everything is in order, and that there is nothing else we feel needs to be added, or could potentially be added. Additionally, there is also not too much info there, that say, would be better suited at an individual episode's article, or the main series article. Once we've checked all those boxes, I'd say we'd have a strong article to present to a GA nomination. So yeah, maybe around December/January? I know I'll also be trying to get GotG up to GA at that point as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of additions, would you guys mind reading my suggestion below please? Thanks Limbsaw ^~talk~ 00:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

UK viewing

Hi editors,

I don't normally edit over here much, even though I love the show, I just feel everything is normally in order. I'm here to ask your opinion - I have seen on other articles that its made and released in the US, but then massive in the UK as well. With almost the same response, critic, ratings etc.. I have formed some information about the release of both S1 & S2 in the UK, such as the Channel/Network, release date, viewing figures... the normal stuff. This is currently sitting in an excel spreadsheet, ready for me to transfer to my sandbox.

I can't personally see that this input will have an adverse effect on the articles, just simply improve them. Before I do go ahead, I'll like your guys opinions before I waste a load of time editing! :)

Thanks, Limbsaw ^~talk~ 00:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, etc. then please feel free to add stuff. We will go over anything added anyway. I think the layout of the page is pretty simple already, so you should be able to find where stuff should go and how it should be integrated. If we have any additional questions of thoughts on what your adding, we will most likely come here. The MOS does state "As Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia, it would also be beneficial to the article to find international reception", so some good UK stuff could be great help if we look for GA/FA. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Viewing figures should be kept to a minimum (ie, avoid a table like format that we use for US ratings). However, that data can be used as a general overview of how the season went about, like in the prose below that table. You can probably expand the info there, such as giving us end of the season figures. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Image gallery for "Art of Level Seven"

I've been thinking about this recently, and since this has come back for season 2, I think the best (and really only way) to really visual the small amount of text we use to describe these posters, is to have them visable. And to do that, we could put them all in an {{gallery}}. Wanted other opinions, because I feel that doing this would be within the guidelines of WP:IG and the amount of non-free images in the article would be justifiable, because we would be enhancing the text we have, and no free alternative would be able to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I would be open to this, but won't make a final judgement until after I see how it will turn out. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'll create the gallery soon so we can see what it would look like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Are suggesting to include every "Art of Level Seven" poster? I think that would be a gross violation, as the text only describes what the images are, not the significance of the images.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes that was the suggestion. I mean, the images are in the refs, but I just felt a visual would be better suited over the text descriptions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I don't want to rush you, but are you going to look at this soon? I would definitely like to see how it would look, and remember that this page is currently nominated for GA review, so any things like these preferably should be cleaned up. I would do it myself, but I'm not really confident with all the images and the actual gallery template myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm kind of second guessing it based on Triiiple's comment. I think we should clarify if it would in fact be passable before actually looking to implementing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Colour theme

I propose changing the colour theme for this season from #F77F00, which doesn't reflect the majority colour of the poster, to #2C2C2C, which is quite fitting in my book. I'd really appreciate you guys' opinion. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The colour used to be similar to what you are proposing, but we changed it to match the side of the DVD case. Not to mention the orange is a standout colour from the other generic S.H.I.E.L.D. colours, and so is better for differentiating. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto Adam's comment. I'm also looking at my copy right now, and the orange is the best to use, given its prominence on the front, and spine of the cover, to differentiate it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Uprising arc

I saw how the Ghost Rider arc has got it's own section and color in season four. I like that, and think it's very helpful. I though would be cool to do the same thing with Uprising arc from season one. I think Uprising deserves this treatment for a few reasons. First, it's it's own contained arc, for the most part. Even though it does contain with a few things from previous episodes, it's still over all self contained. Second, it marks a major change in AoS as far as how episodes are done. Before the arc episodes were done in an "adventure of the week" format, during and after Uprising they changed to overarching multi-episode plots. Thirdly, it also continues the events of The Winter Soldier. It's also when AoS starts to get good IMHO.

So yeah, I think Uprising arc is as significant as the Ghost Rider arc. I don't how many people asked me what AoS episodes to skip and I just told them "start with the Uprising arc". I mean, they named the first and last episodes of the arc "End of the Beginning" and "Beginning of End" just to make it easier.

Although, I don't think things like "Fallen Agent" or "Secret Warriors" are significant enough to do the same with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.2.210 (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Uprising was just used in marketing to lead up to the Winter Soldier crossover. The difference with the season 4 stuff is that they have separated the season's content into different parts with different subtitles and marketing, and have discussed all of that in interviews, which is why the change to using parts in the episode table was made. I understand your reasoning, but what you are describing is not the same as what we have been told about season 4 by the executive producers. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but "Fallen Agent", "Uprising", "Secret Warriors" "Ghost Rider" are all come from promo marketing stuff. The question is, are they promoting significant self contained story arcs, and more than just marketing? The answer is yes for "Uprising" and "Ghost Rider".

As far as how much execs talk about an arc, just has to do with promoting it. "Ghost Rider" is really just an AoS thing, and has nothing to do with anything beyond that. Also, introducing Ghost Rider is a big deal so. As for "Uprising", yeah it's a "The Winter Soldier" aftermath story, so it was part of the promotion for TWS. There's no reason not to highlight "Uprising" just because execs didn't talk about it enough.

The main reason I think it should be highlighted is because it would be more helpful IMO. It make's it more like a guide and less like a simple listing of episodes. When I saw that "Ghost Rider" was highlighted I said "That's great, that's really helpful. Especially to people who haven't seen the show and might want to get into it. Highlighting 'Uprising' would be great too." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.2.210 (talk)

Uprising and the other marketed arcs outside of season 4 are different than what is happening for season 4. The season 4 arcs are all episodes in each "pod", while the other previous ones are not. For example, in season 1 with Uprising. Episodes 1-13 are all AoS proper, then AoS: Uprising is episodes 14-16, and the remaining episodes of the season return to AoS proper. The same example can be said and done for the other marketed subtitles. However, for season 4, all episodes in each pod are known by said subtitles, not just a select few for storyline arc over a couple episodes. I hope that was clear. We are also not a TV guide, as you indicated by saying It make's it more like a guide and less like a simple listing of episodes. so again this formatting for mere marketed storylines is incorrect. And the subtitle is noted appropriately in this article, the main AoS article, and each of the episode articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 Incorrect, the "Uprising" arc was episodes 16-22. Also, Wikipedia rules you posted counters your own argument. As it says that listings should not be simple lists, they should have context and information. As far as it "not being like a TV guide" I'm not asking for that at all (an episode guide and TV guide are two completely different things btw). I'm asking for what Wikipedia requires, information and context. Yes this listing already has that, but I'm merely asking for a little more. You don't seem to know what I'm talking about at all.

@Adamstom you make a lot of good points. I thought about it and maybe it can be highlighted, but in a different way. Like, a note in the episode's description perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.2.210 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)