Talk:Marvel Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2013 content dispute[edit]

I was asked to look into a disagreement over content between Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs) and Spshu (talk · contribs). I invite both parties to come and explain their positions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Position by Favre1fan93[edit]

I can go through each of my changes from my edit (starting from the top):

  1. Use date template: Perfectly fine to include. Included because there were discrepancies in the date usage.
  2. Caption: Proper formatting should be capital 'G', capital 'M', lowercase 'l'
  3. Genre: Same as above. Should be capital 'S'.
  4. Lead: Added source that validates the short hand Marvel TV, and capitalization changes for "Division" to "division".
  5. References: I do not see a problem with using this reference formatting on this page. Per here, this method is "a way to make referencing articles easier and with less clutter." How is that bad? Firstly, using "vty" or "dl" is far less descriptive than "Variety" or "Deadline". It is helpful for the user if they need to reuse the reference. It is always better to be clear and descriptive, than not. On this point, regardless of what the names should be, using <ref name=whatever/> should be formatted as <ref name="Name" />, per here.
  6. Combining "Background" and "History" sections: There is not much difference I see between the two, but if it is concluded they should be separate, fine.
  7. Content in new "History" section: I will return to this point.
  8. Production library: Live action can be a sub section. Same with Animation, moving that piece of info into the Main template.
  9. Next set of edits: Utilizing a correct form of <br />, changing a template error where a ' | ' should have been a ' ! ' and proper capitalization with "network" ('N' to 'n').
  10. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Adding formal name and a source for that formal name.
  11. Hulk: Series was never officially named, so changed that accordingly.
  12. Jessica Jones: This edit I was not really sure how to work with this, so that's what I came up with. Not the best, and could be worked on.
  13. Original networks: Sourcing for Mockingbird, Cloak and Dagger and Punisher networks, as they were missing.
  14. Copy editing (returning to #7): Throughout this large editing, I did a large amount of copy editing and sentence structure fixing. For example, previously in the "History" section, this sentence was there: "Marvel has four shows in development in May, while the Hulk will not be ready until the 2013-2014 season for ABC and ABC passed on AKA Jessica Jones." What? That has major formatting issues. So I changed it to this: "By April 2012, Marvel TV had four shows in development: the Hulk project and AKA Jessica Jones for ABC, Mockingbird and Cloak and Dagger for ABC Family and The Punisher for Fox.(source) In May 2012, it was announced that the Hulk project was not ready for the 2012-13 season, and would possibly be for the 2013-2014 season. It was also announced that ABC passed on AKA Jessica Jones.(source)" A lot better. Also, the info on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. originally: "In August 2012 with ABC Studios, Marvel TV received its first order from the ABC network for a Joss Whedon co-written Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. pilot(source) then green lit in May 2013 for the next season.(source)". My edit: "In August 2012, with ABC Studios, Marvel TV received its first order from the ABC network for a Joss Whedon co-written pilot, titled S.H.I.E.L.D.(source) It was announced on April 6, 2013 that the show would be titled Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.(source) and was green lit in May 2013.(source)"

So that was all my editing. Looking at that, points of contention I can see would be (from above) #6, and what I did with the AKA Jessica Jones info in #12. Instead Spshu reverts the whole edit claiming this (I will comment on each part): "background is not the history of the division, editors will argue over this; MOS:CAPS (no extra caps), no reason for alt ref. in fact adds to length of article; AKA JJ is not a fmr series as it has been one; no source indicate that it is out of dev."

  1. "background is not...": Okay, I have stated now that may have been erroneous, so you could have readded the separate heading.
  2. "MOS:CAPS (no extra caps)": I believe that I referenced the correct guideline, but where have you ever seen a caption start with a lower case and then have words after it be capital?
  3. "no reason for alt. ref.": What reason is that?
  4. "in fact adds to length of article": Why is that a negative? Undue length because of references should not be a detraction from the article.
  5. "AKA JJ is not a fmr...": That's fine. I have acknowledged now and remember while I was editing, I didn't really know what to do with it, but didn't feel like should stay where it was.

So out of all those reasons, that warrants a whole edit revert? You could have not changed the "Background" info back and done what you did with AKA JJ how you felt was accurate? You decided to revert the whole thing, when I was making valid improvements to the page (see #1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 from above). That's what I don't understand. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Position by Spshu[edit]

1. Use date template: - didn't catch this edit, no reason for reverting this.

2. Caption: & 3. Genre: MOS:CAPS states: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." Didn't see any exception for captions or infoboxes. MOS:CAPS was cite as the reason for this when it clearly doesn't allow this. Yes, it does seem odd that it voids other uses of capitalization (see below) given WP using capitalization for their article names even when the article subject isn't a proper name.

4. Lead: Added source that validates the short hand Marvel TV, and capitalization changes for "Division" to "division". TV is a general short hand or acronym for television, so no need for cite. Missed the division correction. It was capitalized as it refered to the subject of the article.

5. References:

  • Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (this principle is known as WP:CITEVAR)."
  • Per here, this method is "a way to make referencing articles easier and with less clutter." You have to name each ref. even for a one off ref. If a one use reference is removed for a better one (as it cover more info or no longer valid) then you have a dead reference, because they would assume with a name that it is use more than once.
  • "Firstly, using 'vty' or 'dl' is far less descriptive than 'Variety' or 'Deadline'." Equally descriptive, but shorter names take up less space.
  • re:Ref tag "name" Wikipedia:LDRHOW states: "Quotes are optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9 and the symbols !$%&()*,-.:;<@[]^_`{|}~" & "Inclusion of any other characters including spaces requires that the name be enclosed in straight quotes (")"

6. Combining "Background" and "History" sections: Background is the previous history of Marvel "group" in the field that Marvel TV is entering, History follows the actual unit's formation and activities. This section has been established as a standard on Marvel Animation and Marvel Studios articles to head off stub articles "Marvel in Animation" and "Marvel in Film" as after the establishment of these unit would parallel their history. With either of these articles I have had editors remove the "background" section with the claim it isn't history. One that did track down did reverse his edit. I know there are more, but I hope one sample wil be enough.

8. Production library: They can be subsection, but there isn't much point to having subsection as all the animation library would (at this point) would be at Marvel Animation. Thus a section with one effective subsection as the other would just wikilink to another article. What would be the point of the subsection?

9. Next set of edits: Wikipedia:Line break handling#Break tags: "Wikipedia currently renders HTML5 where "br" and "br /" are valid." So there wasn't a need to change thus not kept in reversal. Overlook the table correct & miscapitalization of network. I beleive in a later edit I fixed the table and caught the miscapitalization of season in the reversal.

10. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: formal name are not standard here, common names are. Using the common name makes it easier to link to. The formal name can be address at the show's article.

11. Hulk: I wouldn't assume nor should any reasonable person assume that a TV series in development would have an official name until scheduled.

12. Jessica Jones: I see you did work on it. In a later edit I pushed AKA Jessica Jones down the development list as it doesn't have a known "assigned" network unlike the others but no source indicated it is out of development.

13. Original networks: were cited at the table section header "In Development[1]". However reviewing that cite, Mockingbird's network was not mention in that cite. I though I found one for Mockingbird & that it was lost but I didn't find it via history.

14. Copy editing (returning to #7): The change system didn't flag the changes do to the header being remove and I didn't catch them.

  • Looking at it now -- Development status sentence: But "has" to "had" was all that would have been needed to fix its grammar issue as their was no "major formating" issues (being CAPitalization, font size, bolding, italized, superscript, alignment, etc.) So, I didn't add all the series to let the table carry that info. I am a bit tight in my writing.
  • Re: SHIELD, seems a bit much of an addition re:mentioning name change give that this article isn't about the show, but not total objectionable. I would like to see a year break.

Comments[edit]

This is my response to the concerns listed above. This is not to be taken as a final judgment but just a third opinion. More are welcomed.

  1. Resolved
  2. I do not believe capitalizing the first letter of the first word in an itemized list qualifies as unnecessary.
  3. Same as 2.
  4. Agree with Spshu, no need to cite use of TV in lieu of television.
  5. Changing the citation style, is the type of bold change that should be discussed first. However I do prefer to list the references in the reference section as opposed to the body of the article, it is cleaner and makes copy-editing much easier as editors do not have to wade through lines of wiki markup. Also the clearer the names of the reference tags, the easier it is for editors to follow.
  6. I understand "Background" to be a sort of "pre-history" before the formation of the company, which is fine by me.
  7. See 14.
  8. Why not included a separate table for the animated shows? The Marvel Animation article also encompasses the animated dvd films so there is no need to worry about WP:CONTENTFORK. On a side note I believe there maybe some WP:CRYSTAL concerns with listing planned shows alongside shows that are in active development. In other words there should be more of a distinction made between the two. Same could be done with the rejected shows.
  9. I think <br /> is generally accepted as the correct form.
  10. The common name is fine, there's no need to be overly formal here. We don't generally call "Bill Clinton", "William Jefferson Clinton".
  11. I don't think this has an official or unofficial name, so maybe "Untitled Hulk project" is better served in this case. It also distinguished it from other Hulk TV series.
  12. ABC passed on the show. I believe Rosenberg has the option of selling it other networks but until another network picks it up, it is out of development.
  13. The citation in the history section is sufficient.
  14. I mostly agree with grammatical changes, though as Spshu pointed out we may not need to go through the title history here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

More info for Background[edit]

This source might be good to expand the Background section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Punisher series cancelled in 2012, removal from "Marvel Television" line up?[edit]

Source: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118044804

It wasn't cancelled. The source just states that ABC Studios sold the show to Fox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
As a put-pilot, does that mean we can move it to under "production" or a "pre-production" status? Spshu (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not in any production stage, possibly even cancelled, per the bottom of this source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hellfire tentative title[edit]

The Hellfire TV series was, expresly, announced as a working title. What's exactly the problem with reflect with that?OscarFercho (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Really, I can't understand what's the problem with the inclusion of mention of it's a working title. That's not a standard practice with these announcements. I think that's is important reflects the announce as its.OscarFercho (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. The fact that it is in development should be enough to indicate that details could still change. The fact that it was mentioned in the press release could be an indication that they are still determining the name, but it could just as easily indicate that it simply had not passed through legal yet. It is better to wait for better context since we are in no rush. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
And as I've stated, it is not something to note in the table. Possibly the prose, but even then, it really isn't needed unless it turns out the show will be named something else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm disagree, but understand. Tks for your time and your opinions. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Netflix show issue[edit]

  • was "Luke Cage dates"

I reverted the edit on the Production library table which added "-present" to the Aired column for Luke Cage. When the show was ordered by Netflix, there was no guarantee that it would be recurring. Marvel has completed their contractual obligation for Luke Cage and now Netflix could take further action. There is no source that states it is an ongoing series. It is WP:SYNTH to assume it will have more seasons until a renewal occurs. Similar discussions happened after the release of the other series. We are in WP:NORUSH and the renewal announcements usually come pretty quickly anyway. - DinoSlider (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but removing "present" indicates that it has been canceled. TV series are ongoing, there are no sources that it is a mini-series. Why are you coming to the premature decision and assuming that Netflix will not renew the series. --Spshu (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Network shows use the the "-present" because they release a new show every week and are truly ongoing. Netflix is a different model because the season is released all at once. By default, none of their shows are ongoing, but all of them could become that way. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I know Netflix's model. The whole season of episodes are not available just on one day and that is it and you can not see them later (although programming is later dropped, based on licensing). That is like saying that regular TV shows are canceled or not longer ongoing because of summer rebroadcasts or canceled between episodes. The show is ongoing because it is just available more than just on the day of release. A series isn't canceled until a decision is made to cancel them. Mini-series are by default not ongoing, which the Defenders was announced as such while the other four shows were not. (source for Netflix deal: Lieberman, David (November 7, 2013). "Disney To Provide Netflix With Four Series Based On Marvel Characters". Deadline.com. Retrieved November 7, 2013. ) Thus that doesn't support your notion that changes how it works in default in TV show productions as one is clearly tagged as a one season while the others are not. You are confusing its release schedule as a total breaking of the standard TV model if it was such we would not be talking about it as a TV series. Series by definition meaning broadcasting at intervals, instead of both episode intervals and season intervals, Netflix just has seasonal intervals and voluntary intervals for the episodes as Netflix does not force them to watch a whole season at once if the viewing user does not want to. Spshu (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I can see both sides. Technically including "-present" if fine until the series is cancelled (which is never will, because it will always be streaming). But on the other side, what Dino stated initially is also true. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It is auto canceled under Netflix method then likely all staff and stars would already be looking for their next show or film, thus there would almost never be a second season of a series. Favre1fan93, a show is cancelled when they say they will not make a new season. DinoSlider, you need to produce a source that indicates that the Netflix model that the default is canceled after being placed on the website. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I never said it was canceled. My position is that terms and conventions for broadcast television do not necessarily apply to streaming services. As Favre1fan93 stated, they never cancel a show, they simply don't buy more. A show is ongoing if more episodes are slated to be released. This is straightforward for broadcast shows. During the summer, when no episodes are airing, it is still ongoing if it has been renewed for the next season. Currently, Luke Cage has no more episodes ordered. Coker himself is on record stating that he is not assuming there will be a second season. As for the cast and crew, they have all moved on to other things since the production ended some time ago. The stars presumably have options in their contracts, but I'm sure the rest are not waiting around. There was a quote recently from one of the producers of Agents of SHIELD stating how nice it was for the network to renew them early this past season so they could retain people and didn't have to scramble to find replacements for those who bailed. I honestly believed that Netflix would have ordered another season by now and this would have been a moot point, but I guess not. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"I never said it was canceled." But as I indicated that is what you are telling the readers of the article as that is the presumption of the reader given the lack of "-present". Yes, I know your position, you have repeated it repeatedly. I asked for actual sourced back up. Netflix nor ABC Studios has not deviated in using TV style terminology (episodes, season, etc.) unlike the diference in TV terms to theatrical films (movie serial became TV series, chapters become episodes plus new one like pilot). It is a moot point for Cage as just the other day has been renewed. But the issue might as well be hashed out as other Marvel TV Netflix show are in the pipeline, Iron Fist, The Defenders and The Punisher. Spshu (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You claim that it is misleading to not include "-present" because it implies there will never be more. I claim it is misleading to include it because it implies there will be more. We are not going to change each other's minds and I don't see a middle ground, so I guess we need to wait for others to chime in. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Slingshot & Series table[edit]

Slingshot is a series and the note field easily can be used to indicate that the online series is short form, or mini episodes. There is no need to invent that it cannot fit in the table and needs to have its own table. Spshu (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

On "Untitled Marvel Comedy"[edit]

It seems odd to have that put there, as we don't know if any of the announced comedies since that initial report (New Warriors, Deadpool) are in fact that project. It kinda feels redundant?

Until a newer source confirms an announced series is what Lee was referring to in his statements, we can't know for sure if it has been announced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hellfire Club unproduced series[edit]

Other unproduced series have been mention in history and removed from the development-production table/list: Hulk (ABC 2010), AKA Jessica Jones (ABC 2010), Cloak and Dagger (ABC Family 2011), Mockingbird (ABC Family 2011), Punisher (2011 Fox). Punisher even had a put-pilot, but no indication that the pilot was produced. So why does Hellfire Club get special status in being listed? Spshu (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the put pilot for the Punisher should be listed in the table. To answer your question, Hellfire had a press release from Marvel/Fox stating the show would be produced. To the best of my knowledge, none of the others you listed can say that. At best, there were Comic-Con presentations stating they were in development. It doesn't take much to be "in development", but an announcement via an official press release is more notable than that. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
So you are saying that the level of production it went through is what makes it different? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)