Talk:List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

What about future episodes?

There's a table with future appearances, but should we add people who've already appeared before there too? I'm mainly thinking about Hill (confirmed for Nothing Personal) and Fury (confirmed for the season finale), though the guest stars for Providence are already known too. Denvercoder9 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in the case of Hill and Fury. That section is for future, relevant, new characters. Hill and Fury have already been on the show, so they already have spots above that section. Once they appear again, the ep # will just be increased. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Clairvoyant

I am not familiar with the Marvel universe but I came here to see what information there was about this character and found nothing. Does this mean that she or he is not represented in the comic books and it's an original character for the TV show? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as we know, it is an original character. The name certainly is (haven't seen 3/4 ep yet so I don't know if this changed). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Favre1fan93...there was no activity on this talk page so I wasn't sure if would get a response. I'm going to have to read some recaps because I feel like I'm missing a lot of information, not knowing about the history of SHIELD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

All that we know is that the Clairvoyant is behind Project Centipede and was shown to be associated with Ian Quinn. The Clairvoyant was said to have seen everything and is seeking the information on how S.H.I.E.L.D. brought Phil Coulson back to life. Also, the Clairvoyant did something that killed Edison Po over his phone. I can't say when the identity of the Clairvoyant will be revealed, that will be for Joss Whedon decide. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Turns out that John Garrett is not only the Clairvoyant, but a HYDRA agent as well. Might be a good idea to move him to Recurring Characters. 68.225.228.213 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I will go do that. 68.225.228.213 (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In "Turn, Turn, Turn", Garrett never confirms that he is the Clairvoyant, at least in my eyes he didn't. He only revealed himself to be a HYDRA agent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I need to find the scene that says otherwise. I will get back to you when I do. 68.225.228.213 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

See this review, which validates my thoughts. I don't believe it was every clarified, but please prove me wrong if you can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this article on Marvel's website. 68.225.228.213 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Great article find! Definite confirmation there. I just felt the actual episode was a little too ambiguous. I will use that as a source for the information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

....and more contradition. @TriiipleThreat: Do you have any thoughts on this (if you saw the episode)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is definite verification and I think it was pretty clear in the show too, but I can understand your skepticism considering all the previous red herrings.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do have it source in this page with the Marvel.com article. If Bell's comments in the IGN interview do choose to be true, and it is still not Garrett, we can change after Tuesday's episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr Vanchat

I don't believe Mr Vanchat appeared in the Pilot episode. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I will make the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Guest cast

Can we reevaluate some more of these characters? I'm looking at: Quan Chen, Richard Lumley, Carlo Mancini, Lloyd Rathman and Mr. Vanchat, specifically. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of actually limiting it to "Guest stars" like Bill Paxton.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should include any cameos from established MCU franchises, guest stars such as Paxton (but he will move up a table anyways, shortly) and characters that had a significant part in the plot, such as the ones listed from "The Well". And then, obviously the Marvel characters (Dr. Hall, Blizzard). Thoughts on this? I tried finding another list of characters page to look to, but they are all very different. Possibly List of Arrow characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What I meant by guest stars was featured players in the episode or as you say "characters that had a significant part in the plot". We can include notable cameos as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. And, if these characters ever come back, it's a simple add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If some of the characters do come back, it would probably end up involving any other SHIELD Agents. Before someone sorted the recurring cast from the guest cast, I have previously talked with TriiipleThreat about sorting the characters if we get any more known members of S.H.I.E.L.D. and any other people that are either involved with or are members of Project Centipede. I don't know why anyone removed Hannah Hutchins from the cast since she was important to the episode and was targeted by Tobias Ford (who was responsible for the bad things that have been happening around her). --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In the grand scope of this page and the series, she was a very minor character. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, so every single character that has appeared on this show does not need to be mentioned. The ones that are included, are the correct ones. Some of the guest cast could probably still be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How important is Triplett by the way? 68.225.228.213 (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

He's a recurring star for the first season. Seems to be heading towards a principle cast for next season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to "List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. cast members"?

This may seem unnecessary, but from what I've seen around Wikipedia, the majority of series character pages are named "List of _____ cast members". It would make sense that this page would follow that pattern for many reasons, not least of all that people will most likely search for that format. I understand if you guys don't want to make the change, but i think it should be seriously considered. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Image

I understand the removal of my recently added image in favour of the free image, as we should always take free over non-free, but I don't think it is applicable here, as the image on the page right now doesn't even show the entire season 1 principle cast, let alone the season 2 cast. If it was a matter of image quality or recentness or something along those lines then I would agree that we should stick with the free image, per wikipedia's copyright rules, but I think there is more to this then that. I propose that we use the most appropriate image, an image that has been released to the general public for promotional uses anyway, and covers not only all of the season 1 principle cast, but also the season 2 addition, and a couple of significant recurring characters as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The free image provides adequate coverage for the topic and a free image should always be chosen over a non-free per copyright rules. There will hopefully be a free version to come out of NYCC next month, so a change should not be made until at least then. And if one still does not surface, the free version should still be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what your saying, but I disagree that the coverage is adequate. I agree that a free image should always be chosen over a non-free, but I don't think the two images are comparable here. And it's not like this is a tv screenshot vs a set pic or something like that, as the image removed was released to the general public, and is being used on multiple sites, not just by Marvel. I am willing to wait for NYCC to see if we can get a more appropriate version, but if we can't then I think changing back should definitely be considered. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it important to include spoilers?

Why are there plot twists in the notes column? This isn't Wookiepedia, these articles should be about real world facts, not story details which presence is only there to spoil the enjoyment of anyone who is seeking information about the series. 80.99.221.200 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If the fact is important to the character, then it shouldn't be omitted just because it is a spoiler, per WP:SPOILER. We are working on expanding the page to include more WP:Real world information, but some are under the impression that this format is better. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Episodes in which Brett Dalton/Grant Ward does not appear

Is it necessary to say that Ward doesn't appear in just two episodes? Transphasic (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Every main cast member has appeared in every episode of the season(s) that they are listed as being a main cast member, so far, except for Dalton, so it is notable and should be mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If it become a common occurrence, maybe at the end of the season we can truncate it to "He did not appear in X season Y episodes." And then just keep that info to the season page and/or just the episode pages? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Triplett as Gabe Jones' Grandson

I went to add this in when I didn't see it, but saw a comment that asked us not to include it because it is trivia. I don't understand why it shouldn't be included. In my observation over the years, I saw that Wikipedia discouraged Triva SECTIONS, but asked that trivia be incorporated into the articles themselves. Why isn't this being included? Is there some policy that forbids it? Thanks. 161.185.161.76 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How does having this info further the character description on the page? None what so ever. Second, it is never stated on the show that the Commando was Jones. That would be WP:OR. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Underwood and Olmos

@Favre1fan93: I know we don't know much about their characters, or how many episodes they will be in, but their roles were both referred to as recurring in the release, which is why they are in the recurring column on the season page, so should we not be consistent and have them under recurring here as well? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Eventually yes. We don't know episode premieres yet, and absolutely nothing on Olmos' character. We still have two months until the show returns. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If you would rather not have so many empty cells in the table, then perhaps just have them in prose beneath the table with what little info we do know. That way, we're not putting two recurring characters in the guest section knowingly. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it that looks okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Coulson's First Appearance

Yes, Coulson's first appearance in this shared universe was in "Iron Man", but the context of this list is the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. show. The appearance header, I assume, is talking about appearances on this show, since that's what this article is about, and all other subheaders (under the appearance header) for seasons are about. It makes sense that we list Coulson's first appearance on this show. I'm not suggesting we get rid of "Iron Man", I just think that "Pilot" is more relevant and important. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This table is just an overview of the page, and in the Coulson section it is clearly stated that he first appeared in Iron Man, so I think we should reflect that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since the "first appearance" information doesn't appear on most main characters' sections. And the first appearances of Daisy and Bobbi that are listed, are the first ever appearances of that character in any media - just like Coulson's first ever appearance is Iron Man. By that logic, both for consistency, and for using the table only as an overview, Skye's first appearance should be "Secret War #2". But you know that's ridiculous, so I'm sorry if that seemed condescending. This article is about AOS, and all of the other characters' first appearances on the show are listed. Coulson's first appearance on the show is certainly relevant and useful. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Daisy Johnson that first appeared in Secret War #2 and the Skye that appears in the series are not the same character, whereas the Coulson that first appeared in Iron Man is the same as the Coulson that appears in the series. But since First Appearance is extremely trivial information anyway, I don't think it matters that much. Regardless, I am going to try something new, let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I still think that the appearance header is implying first appearance on the show, rather than first appearance in this shared universe this show is a part of, so I'd prefer more importance on "Pilot", but I guess this compromise is okay. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Professor on this (as I stated in my edit) and feel noting that for Coulson (especially since he is an MCU character) should be left to his article, or in his section. But not the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Tables vs. Prose

Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat: I recently put a great deal of time and effort into improving this page, expanding the pretty empty and useless tables into an in depth encyclopedia article that included the in-universe plot stuff that all of these character artiles include, but more importantly included relevant WP:Real world info on the casting process and the actors views of the characters. I don't understand how the current basic tables, which give the bare minimum information, is preferable to this. I understand that some c/e and cutting down may be in order (the second dalton paragrah stands out to me) but for a first shot at the page, all in one go, I don't think it is that bad. I propose that my edits be readded, and then we can all work on improving it together. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really any Featured content in the TV project for character/cast member pages to look to for guidance here. One issue I had with your change Adam, was there just seemed to be an excessive amount of info, that is not really needed. I do like the table as we have now, because it ensures we keep all info for each character short and simple. If we want more, then maybe character articles should be created. However, if we ultimately created a page similar to List of Arrow characters, I feel that would be a good compromise, in terms of adding content, while still being manageable. I think a first step change, is to cut the guest cast down even more, because there just seem to be so many, that really aren't that essential. Second, would be to maybe change the format to how you had/the Arrow page does it. And then we can maybe work from there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the guest cast should be limited to characters who have appeared more than once? That should cut out a few that are pretty insignificant to the overall scope. It will also cut out more significant characters, like Chan Ho Yin, but there is already plenty of info on him at "Girl in the Flower Dress". As for the excessive info, I was just trying to add some real world context to the page, since it is currently very in-universe focused, which I assumed from previous experience on wikipedia was something to avoid. Perhaps If I work in my sandbox on making these sections a bit more concise, then it would be a more appropriate replacement to the current layout. As for the Arrow page comparisons, I did use that as an early reference, but I don't really like the large paragraphs in tables layout, which is why I didn't use it for my edits. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just done a quick look through and have significantly cut the page down. I think what I have here is pretty good, as it is a lot more informative than the current page here, but it is still pretty short and simple in my opinion - short paragraph on real world, short paragraph on in-universe, with only a few exceptions (Dalton has extra short paragraph on character twist, guests only have one paragraph, etc.) Hopefully this pretty much addresses your guys concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Favre1fan93, the table helps curb WP:FANCRUFT. Also the prose does not highlight basic information that should be readily available for the reader, like first appearance, season count, episode count, etc. However, I would not be opposed to a more detailed table like List of Arrow characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anybody could add WP:FANCRUFT to a table as well, so I don't think we are solving that issue with this format. It is always something we will have to watch for with a page like this, which is unfortunately really in-universe based because of its nature. However, I will still have a look at making this more like the arrow page, so the appearance info is more readily available. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this actually looks pretty good. I'm not finished, I want to double check some of the guest stuff, and do some ref fix ups etc. but I think this is a good compromise between the two formats. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Guest cast should not have info on a separate line; it should all be one line. Recurring should not include all the episode appearances, and really shouldn't be in a table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I might just work on this, at least until Shadows has aired, and when I think it is ready for the mainspace I'll let you guys know. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let us know when you think you have something you want to implement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Since you have changed all the tables to prose, is this the way you envision the page? If so I will change my sandbox version to be more like the format suggested by the fictional characters wikiproject (List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, List of Uncharted characters, List of Naruto characters, and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters are all given examples. I know that they are not all for tv series, but they are considered some of the best character lists on wikipedia). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an amalgam of what it is now, and the ones you listed. It just cannot be a table as it was. We should not be in the business of updating episode number counts/number appearance. We obviously need to do that, to create criteria for who can be considered recurring versus just a frequent guest (sources explicitly stating such, or large episode appearances). You can adjust how you want, I just wanted to removed that aspect of the page, while cutting down on some guest stars. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, this is sort of what I am thinking. If this is the route we take, then expansion will need to be done for reception and behind the scenes stuff for the main and recurring characters, and for the plot info for recurring characters, before moving to the mainspace. I will also fix up the refs. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel that following the model used by List of Arrow characters is a good move. Although the first table they use wouldn't be very useful at this stage in time for AoS, with only one addition to the main cast over the course of two seasons. Another thing worth noting though, is I love the way guest characters are listed in the draft Adamstom provided. Listing actors who appeared first in films separately is a fantastic idea. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Professor. I think the idea of moving away from the tables, as Favre said above, is to prevent the page from becoming a list of appearances (some of my previous drafts were exactly that). That sort of thing should belong at the MCU wiki or something like that. My current draft is based on the featured articles suggested at the fictional characters wikiproject (listed above), and I think using those as templates is probably the way to go given the limited instruction in the MOS. With a bit of time, the draft as I have it now can be expanded to be much more comprehensive where needed, and I think it could easily be as good as those examples above. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I too like the guest cast formatting. However, I think for previously introduced characters, it should still be noted that they appeared in season X. Right now, we do not have that context. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I will have a think about that one. I would just rather not say "X first appeared in X" for every character. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It would just have to be for the film and one-shot characters, since we are not classifying them under the season headers for where they first appeared. It would just be a simple "Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill: *descriptive stuff* Smulders first appeared in season 1." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Favre, I question your un-bolding of the character names in my sandbox, because though I know you are just aligning with the filmcast info, which says don't bold cast characters, this page, rather than being a cast list, is essentially a series of miniature character pages, in which case the title of said 'pages' (the characters' names) should be in bold. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not individual pages (which would be allowed by MOS:BOLD); it is a listing of characters (which is not allowed by MOS:BOLD). The TV project is talking about this. If for some reason it appears that bolding should stay (at the moment, there isn't consensus), we can change it back. But at the moment, per that style guideline, bolding should not occur. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's fine as is, I was just looking at WP:TVCHARACTER, which says "Treat individual character sections within articles about programs as if they were mini-character articles". Perhaps this should be brought up in the TV project discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of that section. I'm going to bring up updating that wording and expanding it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, what happened here. When did we move away from the table? I thought we had decided to make an amalgam of the Adam's prose and certain elements of the table to help readers. I was very happy with this version Adam's sandbox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I boldly removed the table for the time being, as we should not be updating appearance numbers and total episodes, especially for the recurring or guest cast. I also cut down on the amount of guest characters on the page. We can change it to a version of Adam's sandbox, but we should not have appearance numbers be a part of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Adam did a good job of listing the appearances instead of the episode count for the recurring or guest cast. I agree the episode count can be a bit trivial but the episode number is useful information. Yes it does require some maintenance but that's too be expected from most articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If we bring any of that information back, I feel it should just be in the form of "X (recurred)(appeared as a guest) in season 1 and season 2". Should the series have the fortune of being on air for a while, consistently stating exact episode appearances will get lengthy and unnecessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If it gets to that point we can reconsider it but I doubt it will become a problem. Just list under the appearance column Season 1 (1, 5-6, 8)<br />Season 2 (2-5, 7) for example.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, tables are generally easier to read. Although, I stumbled over the Guest Cast table in that draft, and it took me a little while to figure out what was going on. I don't think splitting that table into two "columns", with other columns within them is a good idea. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that tables can be easier to read, and I did really like my version that listed the appearances, but after having a good think about this, and looking through the fictional character wikiproject and featured character lists, I think the best way to go is the current format in my sandbox. That version is a wee way off, so I think making the page as it is as simple and easy to read as possible is the best option in the mean time. I fyou guys think that is in table form, then maybe we should return to that, but I agree with Favre that we shouldn't be updating appearances etc. That sort of info is readily available at the MCU wiki. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see whats the trouble with updating appearances. The page requires regular upkeep anyway. However, we could just include first appearances like we had before but without the episode count. Also agree with ProfessorKilroy the guest appearance table should have one row per character, with the columns: Character || Actor || First Appearance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be okay using a first appearance column. For guests and recurring characters, that can include the first appearance in each season as well, if applicable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The really is only first appearance. We could however also include a season column like List of Game of Thrones characters that just list the seasons a character has appeared in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the point in having first appearances? It doesn't really add anything to the page. If we are to include appearance information, then people would want to know every appearance, as that would allow them to look for episode plot summaries featuring this particular character, etc. However, we could end up with 20+ episodes for multiple recurring characters, which would admittedly become a mess. I think it is better to leave individual episode appearances to sites like the MCU wiki, while we can focus on aligning this page with what is seen as the best content on this wiki. I could see a table like the GoT one happening, but then again we basically already have that with the cast table at the MCU tv page, so there's not much point in repeating it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It lets readers know when the character was introduced to series, this is pretty basic and sought after information in many character lists. In fact its currently a rather glaring omission. Also we do not leave relevant information for other websites, Wikipedia is intended to be a compendium. It seems we have small consensus in favor of returning the list to a table. If there aren't any further objections. We should begin the transition with the discussed changes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My feelings on (I think) everything we have just rediscussed: I'm in support of adding "First appearance" information, in support of no longer having the number of episodes appeared, and neutral on going back to a table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for returning these to tables. But I'm yet to see a Guest cast table that works. And I think that listing appearances is useful, and not something that should necessarily be reserved for other wikis. We should definitely be listing which seasons they appear in, or at the very least for guest cast, their first appearance. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If we add first appearance information, we are singling out those episodes for each character, which could add undue weight to them as being significant of more notable, even if that isn't our intention. It would be fine for, say, Hartley and Sif, who have appeared only once, but for Mike Peterson, for example, someone reading about him will see "Pilot", and nothing else. Though we can say that that is just his first appearance, and that he has recurred throughout the first season, all a reader is seeing is "Pilot", which will clearly stand out in a table. Since we aren't listing all appearances, I would say the only way to avoid this would be mentioning notable appearances in prose, i.e. Mike Peterson was introduced in "Pilot" ... he joined SHIELD by "The Bridge" ... etc. But we are trying to avoid lots of plot details per the MOS. I'm going to have a think about other ways of showing appearances, but previous attempts aren't making me hopeful. As for the tables, if you guys think that is the easiest way to make the page as simple and easy to read as possible for the time being, then I don't mind, but I am still looking to change over to this format when it is ready (a wee way off I think). - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is more significant for those characters and readers. Other notable information can be added in prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Um ... does anybody else notice something a bit different with the page? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat us to it. Its actually not bad almost identical to List of Arrow characters. I was actually working on something else based on your design. But I'd okay to work off of this. It does need some tweaking: adding some of your real-world prose, first appearances, removal of in-universe status, and mimicking the table in the other sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on this design, I think we could also re-add that non-free picture of the cast you wanted to use earlier, remove the non-free picture of Coulson, and add free pictures of the individual actors to each of their sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, that draft looks great, but I'm not sold on the table for the Guest characters. I feel like it takes up a lot more space than necessary. Also, showing which Seasons the Guest characters appear in is less important, as none of them appear in more than one (the one that their first appearance is in) at this stage. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am still working on my own version of the page, which is closer to the suggested structure at the fictional characters wikiproject, though I have tried to incorporate some of the table/appearance elements suggested here. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, we should definitely not have those huge tables for appearances. That defeats the purpose of just mentioning the first appearance. It is also unnecessary, because again, we should not, and do not have to be, exact in documenting every single appearance. Stating first appearances and then if they are recurring or guest, with lead sentences describing what each of those is, is sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the tables, I was just trying to come up with a good way to include all of the appearances, but I think there just isn't one. What I don't agree with is everyone's insistence that we add only first appearances. As I said above, this is adding undue weight to episodes that are not necessarily more notable than others. In some cases it makes sense to single out debut episodes, specifically characters like Hartley who have only appeared once. But for other characters, Maclachlan's character and Po for example, who have only had pretty minor single scene appearances in their first episodes, but have gone on to have major roles, singling out the first appearance as more important than the others is wrong. I understand why this would work in other situations: it makes sense in a list of team members page to note when a character joined the team, because that is significant for both the team and the character. However, it is not the same for television series. It really should be all or nothing, and stating that a character has recurred through season 1, or that they had a single guest appearance in season 2, should be enough. Further details really belong on individual character pages, and just because in several cases they do not exist does not mean we should try cram it all here. Turning the entire page into tables just to add this information is really unnecessary, and I think we should be sticking as close as possible to the MOS (what little that's suggested there) and to what is suggested at the wikiproject. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What happened to listing the Guest cast that originally appeared in other media under Film and One-Shot headers, rather than Season headers? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For now that is just over at my sandbox, which I think is being left for the time being. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Format change

@TriiipleThreat and ProfessorKilroy: Since before season 2 of SHIELD began airing I have been working on a new format for this page, which is the format that we are using for List of Agent Carter characters. I have got it to a place that I am happy with, and User:Favre1fan93 and I have been talking about it and have decided to propose it to the community. Here in my sandbox] is what we are looking to the change the page to. If anyone has any questions about how I came to any decisions, just ask. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of this format. I think it allows the reader to comprehend the information quicker, and navigate to certain areas easily, and the table provides all of the basic information in a smaller space, so the details don't get in the way of the bigger picture, but they're still there in an orderly fashion. However, the danger with this format (and the biggest problem in your current version of it), is that it's easy to let the paragraphs go on too long. I think a lot of that information is unnecessary, and just clogs up the page. So, whilst I support this format, I think there needs to be some kind of control on how much information goes into these paragraphs. Another thought is that the table could be improved by using the words "Main", "Recurring" and "Guest" inside the table as well as using the colours as indicators. EDIT: Oh, and I love that Coulson's first appearance is listed as Iron Man, but it could be useful to list his first appearance on this show alongside that. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My biggest problem with prose, is that readers see it as an excuse rehash plot information. We take great pains to keep these details to a minimum on the episodes page but throw caution to the wind on pages like this. While character pages might not have specific guidelines regarding plot information, the spirit of other guidelines is very much in effect here. I'm fine with the sandbox, am I'm sure watchers like Adam will do their best to prevent this but it still concerns me. Phil Coulson is an example of page that has gotten out of hand. It is possible to translate who a character is without simply retelling their entire story in detail.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concerns presented by both users above me, but just thinking back do during the season, we surprising did not have much of the issue you presented (even though the page format was different). Obviously with no new episodes airing right now, if we were to change the page, it might be fine, and the real test would be in September. But for some reason (based on past edit history), I think this issue may not be as big of a concern as we make it out to be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I too see the points made above to be valid concerns, but agree with Favre in that from past experience we should be able to handle this. The idea is deffinitely to avoid the likes of Phil Coulson and keep plot info to a minimum, with the actual content of the page preferably being about the character's concept and creation, characteristics, and reception. The page currently does not have any reception, but I will look to do something about that later. For now I feel like the page should be at a place so that if a good article comes out about how a character was created (both originally or via makeup, etc.) or what is going on in their head, we have an appropriate place to put it. I might just make this change, unless there is anything else that anyone wants to discuss, and I will look into making the change in the overview table that Professor suggested, but I feel that just keeping it as is, with the key explaining the colours above, rather than repeating the same three words over and over again will be a better option. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd support attempting the format change and see what happens in regards to content additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, ProfessorKilroy, and TriiipleThreat: What are your thoughts to adding Commons images (if available) for each of the main cast sections now? (Maybe recurring too?) The layout is more conducive now to have them, and I feel like we should come up with a consensus before an IP or non-regular editor comes and adds them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be for images of the main cast members, and maybe for certain recurring cast members. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

They all have commons images (outside of Nick Blood), but what they do have, is slim pickings and wouldn't really give us many other options beside what is used on the actor's page. So in that case, I don't know if it is worth it to rehash the image again, when readers can find the same exact image on the actor page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

IP change

Well this was unexpected. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

We get this sort of thing all the time. It was handled quickly and easily, and we are back to normal. If it persists, we can request protection, as we usualy do. No reason to make a big fuss out of nothing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In the future, I would recommend linking IP users to this discussion when such edits are made, so that they know why such edits are made and make suggestions themselves, instead of reverting with unhelpful edit summaries of "NOOOOOPE". Alex|The|Whovian 05:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize for that edit summary. It just caught me by surprise and that came to mind first to write. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ward material from Dalton

Here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Quake

@Bluerules: In the source you provided, Bennet says that the character hadn't gone by Quake back in September. Considering they haven't even finished filming the season now, there were obviously plenty of season three episodes that she had not yet read. Our source for her going by Quake says that it will happen during season three, so your source does not contradict or supersede ours. If season three ends and she is still yet to go by Quake, then the articles should be updated to reflect that, but for now we have reliable sources telling us that it will happen, and since we haven't seen the rest of the season, we can't argue that fact. As for the formatting, if we were to remove Quake from her name, it would stay Daisy "Skye" Johnson, not become Daisy Johnson / Skye. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The source that claims the character would go by Quake is even older (written in July) and was taken from a panel that Bennet was part of. So if the source was truly accurate, Bennet should have already known that her character would be called Quake in season 3. But as the other source proves - and with a direct quote from the actress herself - Bennet does not know when, or even if her character will be called Quake. That's why this source contradicts and supersedes the existing one. To assume the existing source is accurate also means that the writers were willing to share information about the character with the public, but not with the actress who portrays her.

As for the formatting issue, to call her Daisy "Skye" Johnson implies that Skye is a nickname and she is still referred to as such. Neither of these are accurate; Skye is an alias and other characters no longer call her by this name, at least not deliberately. I don't see how calling her "Daisy Johnson / Skye" would create a formatting issue, especially when there are other characters whose real names and aliases are separated by a hyphen.

Also, while unrelated, I would like to know why you removed the information about Ward's body being assimilated by Hive in the main article. Removing the information about Austin Lyon was a mistake on my part, but the fact that his corpse is taken over by Hive is a crucial detail; it's why Ward still plays a major role in the show, even after his death. Furthermore, Dalton (who still receives starring credit) is currently portraying Hive, not Ward. Bluerules (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The original source says "They confirmed Daisy's code name will be Quake in Season 3", your source says "She has not yet [gone by Quake]. I hope that comes soon." From that information, all we know is that she will be called Quake during season three, and that she hadn't been called it when Bennet was interviewed. Trying to figure out anything else the way you are is called original research, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia.

"Skye" was her name, not an alias, she legally changed it back to Daisy Johnson for this season, and so saying that her legal name is the same as the alias "Deathlok", for example, is completely wrong. And per the MOS, "articles should reflect the entire history of a series", so whether she is still referred to as such or not is irrelevant.

We have been discussing how to approach the Ward/Hive situation, and decided to list Hive and Ward as separate characters, as can be seen here and at the season three page. We do have a note about it in the Ward section here, because we have some info from the showrunners discussing why they chose to use Ward's corpse, but for the scope of the paragraph at the main page it doesn't really seem that appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because a source says something does not automatically mean it is true. We are normally supposed to accept the information in a credible source as true, but not if there is contradictory information from another source. And that's present in the second source here. The original source also says that it came from "a panel at Comic-Con with SHIELD cast members Luke Mitchell (Lincoln), Henry Simmons (Mac), Nick Blood (Lance), Adrianne Palicki (Mockingbird), Iain de Caestecker (Fitz), Elizabeth Henstridge (Simmons), Ming-Na Wen (May), Brett Dalton (Ward), Chloe Bennet (Daisy Johnson), and Clark Gregg (Coulson)." So again, Bennet was at the panel where it was apparently confirmed that her character would be called Quake during season 3. Again, this was in July and Bennet was interviewed in September. Again, if she was at the panel (as reported by the source) and this information was confirmed at the panel (as reported by the source), she would have known her character was going to be called Quake in season 3 before September. And again, this was proven to be false by a direct statement from the actress herself, reported by the second source months after the panel. This is not original research because it is backed by direct evidence from the sources: the panel taking place in July, Bennet being at the panel, and Bennet's interview taking place in September.

Regardless of what "Skye" really is, the point stands that "Skye" is not a nickname. To put "Skye" in quotation marks around Daisy's first and last name implies it is a nickname, which again, is incorrect. Both of her names are used because of that MOS guideline, but the names still need to be differentiated accurately. The hyphen between the other characters' names does not automatically mean one name is his/her true identity and the other is an alias. The hyphen is simply a means of separating the alternate names a character goes, or had gone by. In this character's case, she has gone by both Skye and Daisy Johnson, which is why using the hyphen is accurate.

I agree that Ward and Hive should be listed as separate characters. However, the fact that Ward's corpse is possessed by Hive is a crucial detail. It's the next part in his character arc. Simply saying he is killed by Coulson indicates his arc ends with his death, when his memories live on through Hive possessing his body. Bluerules (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

But there is no contradiction. The showrunners said it would happen in July, then in September Bennet said it hadn't happened yet. Obviously she had forgotten that brief mention from several months earlier, and was stating all that she knew at that moment. So it could still happen. Which is in line with what the source says. So there is no problem.

I now understand what you mean with the formatting, but I'm still not sure about changing it. I would like some more opinions on the matter.

He can't have a "next part in his character arc", because he is dead. It is a different character. The next part in Dalton's arc, perhaps, and it may deal with some Ward issues since Hive has his memories and looks, but it is a different character who happens to look like one of the main cast—that isn't significant enough for the brief overview on the main page. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that indicates Bennet forgot what was stated at the panel and for that matter, there is no evidence (assuming the source is accurate) that the panel was the first time Bennet heard about her character being called Quake. We can only go by what is factually presented in sources when using them to support information. And judging by the information directly stated in these sources, there is a contradiction. The first source states the character would be called Quake at a panel Bennet was part of in July, the second source states Bennet did not know when her character would be called Quake in September. Now that doesn't mean the character won't be called Quake in season 3; in fact, the second source does leave that possibility open. However, there's no reliable evidence that this will happen when her actress is saying she doesn't know when the character will go by Quake, months after she was present at an event where this information was apparently confirmed. In order to prove the first source is accurate, we need information supported by concrete evidence to explain why Bennet made that statement after she should have known when her character would go by Quake, and there currently is none.

I'm glad we've come to an understanding over the formatting issue. It might be best to create a new section here on the talk page to see where other editors stand on that matter.

A character's arc does not always end after his or her death. Perhaps the best example of this is Darth Vader, who's dead before the events of The Force Awakens, but the opening paragraph on his page mentions "his character is heavily referenced" in that film. He lives on in Kylo Ren's motivations and actions. In Ward's case, his body is taken over by Hive. Yes, Hive is a different character, but it's the body of Ward that he's living inside of. Ward's memories live on in Hive. The detail of Hive assimilating his body is still written with Ward as the primary focus. Bluerules (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Blood and Palicki status

@Favre1fan93: The difference between the ABC and Netflix shows for me, is that Netflix only credits those who appear in the episode, while ABC always lists the full starring cast regardless of whether the actor appears in the episode. For instance, Dalton wasn't in last nights episode, but he is credited onscreen. So you wouldn't know if a Netflix cast member left the main cast until they are credited as something else, but if an ABC show stops crediting someone as starring, then that should mean they are no longer a series regular. Blood and Palicki weren't credited onscreen, and so have been completely removed from the series starring cast, which seems noteworthy to me. If they come back and are given starring credit then we could readjust then, but for now we have Bell telling us that they have properly left the series, and ABC has stopped billing them as main cast members, so I think we should be noting it here like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: That is not always the case. During the second season, Brett Dalton was not credited for the episodes he was absent from. It appears to be a contractual thing. - DinoSlider (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, I didn't realise that. If it is a case-by-case thing, then I guess we will just have to wait. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter are, they've already appeared in season 3 as starring. So regardless of if they were on the season like they were, or in another scenario, were not in the season at the beginning and then became starring actors midway through, the cell would still be the "main" one. I think the note is important for situations like Palicki had for season 2 where she started out as a guest and then superseded that and became starring, but not going from the grey to or from starring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

a Mayan hunter (portrayed by Jason Glover)

This does not need a third-party citation - it's listed in the credits for Season 3, Episode 19: Failed Experiments. I've removed the tag. 108.69.134.228 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Third party source is still preferred always over first party. Restored. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, a citation is only required if it is likely to be challenged and I can't imagine why anyone would challenge the credits of this episode. Not all "portrayed by" parentheticals on this page have citations. Besides, it seems unlikely that there will be a good third party source for what amounted to be a glorified extra. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gregg image

@Favre1fan93: The reason there was no image for Gregg is I removed it when I split most of his section off to its own article at Phil Coulson. Not set on whether to keep the image or remove it though. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, it looks weird without it (completely understanding your reason with the split), given we have images for all the other main cast members. I think because Coulson has his own article, should not exclude him having an image here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Melinda May (Radcliffe LMD)

The Melinda May L.M.D. created by Radcliffe is a different character from Melinda May in the same way the Phil Coulson Chronicom L.M.D. is from the original Coulson. Both Wen and Gregg are merely credited by their original character names rather than as L.M.D.s, but they are different characters, despite sharing the same memories, with their own distinct arcs. Wen is credited as Main for playing the May L.M.D. for half of the fourth season; they are distinct enough to receive their own subsection. RadioDemon (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems fair. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I still believe the May LMD info can be integrated into existing section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: If that was the case, then the Chronicom L.M.D. Coulson section should also be integrated into the main Coulson section. They have the same memories, and ultimately are the same person, but are still different characters, worthy of their own sections. RadioDemon (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Apples and oranges in my opinion. Gregg is portraying the Coulson LMD for an entire season, which is notable. The May LMD was for a couple episodes in season 4. We don't make separate sections for slight variations in characters (ie when a new actor portrays a younger version etc.) That's what I feel the May LMD is in relation to "normal" May. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Except in this case it is not a new actor, it is Ming-Na Wen, still credited as Main for playing the character, regardless of the number of episodes (which were nine by the way, consisting of the entirety of the L.M.D. pod and one episode of the previous Ghost Rider pod). It is not a younger version or one from an altered timeline, it is essentially a robot with her mind and memories. Gregg played the Chronicom L.M.D. in a single episode of Season 6 and was still credited as Main for it; overall he will have played the character for fourteen episodes counting Season 7 against Wen's nine as the May L.M.D.. RadioDemon (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

But Gregg was specifically announced as playing a new character for the last season just as he was for season 6, while the May LMD was just part of Wen's regular role on the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 better articulated my point for why May's info can be integrated in her normal section, and Coulson has separate sections for both Sarge and this LMD. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Two points, being that Gregg's specific announcmenet to be portraying a different character was referring to his depiction of Sarge, not the Coulson L.M.D. at first; the May L.M.D.'s status as an L.M.D. was intended to be a surprise to viewers at first, hence why there was no widespread announcement. In neither case was the L.M.D. portrayals specifically credited as separate characters, although they are very much separate characters. Either the May L.M.D. should receive their own section, or the Coulson L.M.D. shouldn't. RadioDemon (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the May L.M.D. should be handled like any recurring character; a separate description and highlighted as "recurring" for season 4 in the chart. That's like the crux to the argument, isn't it? Maybe it depends on whether you are considering the actor or the character when the sections are written. Liberty5651 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't put any potential info outside of the May section that's there. I don't have a problem mentioning the LMD material, I just feel we can integrate it in the May section, and it doesn't need its own separate subsection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems inconsistent since the Coulson L.M.D. has a separate subsection. To quote a playground conversation: "It's not fair". What other characters had L.M.D.s involved in a plotline. I don't remember. Did Syke? Liberty5651 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Another consideration, if the L.M.D. is incorporated into the normal character's synopsis, then would the activities in the framework world be ignored as separate from the normal one? Ug, that's confusing...sheesh, comics. Funny, eh? Liberty5651 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the Framework, that was the original May who experienced a parallel life and retained memories of it alongside her own by the end of things. In the case of the L.M.D., there was a point where their memories split off from each other, and they were treated as separate characters. You are quite correct in calling it inconsistent. There were other L.M.D.s involved in the plotline, yes, the May one being the most notable. RadioDemon (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@RadioDemon: I have reverted your excessive notes in the overview table regarding LMDs. Per being discussed here, and the fact that the overview table should be a quick visual overview for readers, the LMD info (outside of Coulson's S7 LMD) should all be noted in each character's sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Everyone seems serious on these talk pages. Everyone, not just this Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. page. For non entertainment based articles I can get it, but this is a superhero show on network T.V. It's made as escapism. Liberty5651 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Season Seven Fitz a Recurring Character? Is He A Main Character?

This is a interesting topic. As some pointed out he only made three appearances, yet, he was very noticeable by his absence. I was constantly wondering "where's Fitz?" It's not like a minor character that one didn't know anything about nor expect to see again. His character's actions dictated the plot for the season. Liberty5651 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We only keep track of physical actor appearances. Thus, he only appeared for three episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll play along (unless there are there rules, bylaws, or an authoritative fiat somewhere that would demand the closure to this otherwise hypothetical conversation). Three of thirteen is just under 1/4th the season. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd think he's still a main character. His actions (off screen) significantly drove the plot. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST. Please also read WP:NOTFORUM if you wish to have hypothetical conversations on talk pages. This is not the place for that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That's so sadly serious. This is a superhero show on network T.V. It's made as escapism. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Reducing text duplication

Characters that now have articles should have their prose section cut down drastically to 1-3 lines as there is no need to duplicate their article content here. Currently that includes: Phil Coulson, Melinda May, Grant Ward (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Leo Fitz, and Jemma Simmons. --Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think generally yes, I agree with this. Doing a quick l look, it seems like all these articles appear to have everything in these sections at their articles. I would say only for Coulson, because he started in the films first, we might not want all of his section info here to be moved over to his article to shift the weight towards SHIELD. We should just find a good balance with him for what is fully here, fully at his article, or duplicated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hive used to be called Alveus

I don't mean any offence. I think this is a silly and entertaining webpage about superheros. I don't take it very seriously while it seems other peoople do.

2601:246:c700:558:94e7:1d8e:e430:94d4 seems to have had a valid point. I think it's a formatting issue. The format: "from Latin: ___" is usually found in dictionary and academic reference materials. It's used for derivation and is helpful with pronunciation. I don't see it used for proper nouns. Also, the formatting is inconsistent. Is it used for any other characters? Maybe someone's trying to point out that Hive was portrayed by a C.G.I. actor or had a C.G.I. face. every other character is in the format: Characters' Name (portrayed by Actor's Name).

I'll stop this is too serious for me right now. Liberty5651 (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)