Talk:Daredevil: Born Again

"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)

Cast

Deadline in their report on Bethel highlight Margarita Levieva, Arty Froushan, Sandrine Holt, Michael Gandolfini and Nikki M. James as still being part of the cast https://deadline.com/2024/01/daredevil-born-again-wilson-bethel-bullseye-marvel-disney-plus-1235803004/. Rusted AutoParts 02:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added those actors back to the cast list and noted their castings were reaffirmed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I interpreted that statement in the article as just regurgitating the cast from previously, not necessarily a reconfirmation that they were returning on the restart. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about what has been done with the cast over the last few days. TVLine was used to remove most of the cast and then Deadline was used to restore some of those, but neither of those articles support those actions in my opinion. TVLine is speculating that anything could change with the previous cast following the creative overhaul, not reporting that it is possible that they will be removed, and based on the other reporting that we have it sounds like most of the existing 6 episodes will be retained. So I don't think we can use that TVLine article to support removing the previous cast members. But even if we did, I agree with Favre that the Deadline article is not reconfirming the shorter casting list, they are just relisting some of the previously reported cast members. I think we need to restore the full cast list (i.e. add Walton, Johnson, and Guevara back to the cast list) and wait until there is a source that is actually reporting their removal from the series. I do think we can use the TVLine article as we have it in the Casting section to say it is unclear whether they will all be retained, but I don't think we should keep the Deadline article in that section except for Bethel. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I can definitely see the concerns to be had with both these articles, and I would support restoring the entire cast section and making necessary adjustments, including not using the Deadline article to source that janky wording. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly restored the cast listing and removed the additional Deadline ref tags, speculative details. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and Trailblazer101: Just catching up. I still feel we need a way to indicate who was cast prior to the overhaul as we don't truly know who's character's will be retained with whatever they are reworking with what was already shot. That was the reasoning behind my reformatting and using the TVLine source as a way to state that. Much like the directors and the previous known writers, we should provide some delineation in the cast section for reader to know these actors may still be involved, but we aren't fully certain yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that four of the previously-cast actors have been spotted on set since filming resumed: Levieva, Froushan, and Gandolfini with Walton. Not sure if these can be mentioned in the article in any way, just sharing for added context. Aldwiki1 (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That is helpful. I was able to add Levieva and will go about adding those other two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

These set photo sources reaffirming their involvement is more definitive verification indeed. I'm still not certain if we should prop up the TVLine article in a more prominent manner in the "Cast" section as it was not necessarily a report and was more so just expressing uncertainty given the creative overhaul happened. I don't think we necessarily need to list every time an actor already cast is "reaffirmed" to be in the series given there was no conclusive indication or report any actors were actually being removed or had the potential to be. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok so I wanted to bring this discussion back. With Zurer now confirmed to be returning (and thus replacing Holt), I also came across this article (which we can't use as a reference) that mentions that Nikki James may also have been written out of the series. I think we need to make clear in the cast section actors who were previously known to have been cast but have not been reconfirmed following the overhaul. That would currently be Nikki James; Clark Johnson; Zabryna Guevara; Michael Gaston; Marc Geller; and Harris Yulin. @Rusted AutoParts, Adamstom.97, Trailblazer101, and Aldwiki1: since you all discussed previously, if you would like to add any new thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we hide them from the cast list/lead/infobox until they are reconfirmed, but leave their casting details since we don't have a source either way? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd support infobox and lead removal certainly at this time, and possibly just a prose sentence listing them in the cast section (and leaving all that we have in casting already). So something like Prior to the series' creative overhaul, the following were known to be involved with the series: Nikki M. James as Kirsten McDuffie; Clark Johnson as Cherry; Zabryna Guevara as Sheila Rivera; Michael Gaston; Marc Geller; and Harris Yulin. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support that, given the skepticism and ambiguity on if they are actually still attached. While I do believe some of these cast changes were inevitable given the overhaul, nothing has really been concrete (save for the Vanessa reverse recasting). Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hiding them at the least makes sense. Given there being no means of corroborating they had come back following the overhaul, nor if their roles got recast with previous actors ala Vanessa, hiding at the least keeps them embedded on the page until they're able to be reconfirmed. Rusted AutoParts 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with the change! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This can't be used but back in March someone who visited the set and took some photos said they spotted a trailer for Nikki James' character Kirsten McDuffie. And two days ago they reaffirmed that it was indeed for that character, which might indicate that McDuffie is still in the show. We don't have definitive proof since they only took a photo of Vanessa's trailer but I thought I'd share regardless. Aldwiki1 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think with what we're proposing, that still leave this open to being possible once things are confirmed either way (if James is still in the show or not, or if the character itself is or isn't in the show). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 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)

Is this really a miniseries?

I haven't seen any confirmation about it being so, and that is why I asked this. Thanks. Mattgelo (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced in the "Creative overhaul" section as being a big "limited series", which is just used interchangeably with "miniseries". It doesn't have two seasons (which would not make it limited or a miniseries) but rather is split up into two parts. Most of Marvel Studios' MCU series are miniseries by definition unless they get additional seasons, and there is consensus to use the "miniseries" term for these series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)