Talk:New Warriors (TV pilot)

Kevin Biegel definitely onboard?

Per his Tweets (which are verified and can be used) he does seem to definitely be on board, contrary to THR's report that he was only nearing a deal to join. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if they necessarily say that it is a done deal, but they do seem to indicate that finalising the deal is just going to be a formality. The THR report does say that he was onboard for the show before Freeform even was, so I don't have any problem using him in the article now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear, my quandary was more to if the wording should be adjusted to veer away from it seeming like the deal could still not happen, as it is currently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we are fine to use the "nearing a deal" wording in the development section, but assume elsewhere that he has the job. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As of today, when the cast was announced, Biegel was also stated as the showrunner.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Status

We're still treating this show as if it's in active development, and maybe they'll suddenly make a surprise announcement, but that would have to be one big sudden announcement to get a pilot finished that doesn't even sound finished to be aired this year. This sounds more hopeful than Krypton, and that page used to be based solely on the pilot. This page is setting up things beyond that, of course because of what has been announced, but should we maybe pull back some stuff like removing the episode guide, and find anything else more up to date. Nothing sounds positive about this show that sounds half done at the pilot stage. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The pilot has been made, they just don't have somewhere to air it yet and aren't going to make any new episodes until they do. We only just got an update for this, so it should be left as is for now. If we eventually learn or decide that it is just not happening, this page can be similar to Most Wanted (TV pilot) in focusing on the existing pilot and potential for an actual show. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Two months left of 2018. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Please can we do something with this page. Unless there's a surprise announcement for December, I don't see this happening. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, There’s speculation it will end up on Disney+.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The end of the year

If it was going to air this year in this month, I imagine they'd be some announcement. This isn't like when Kevin Feige gave a specific timing that it would be released by the end of the year about Avengers 4. So by the end of this month, we know that this is going to happen. This is the complete opposite of what we've got about New Warriors, just that it's planned to be aired in 2018, and since it wasn't given a specified time frame, because they're being overly optimistic about a series that lost its home and is now scrawling around for a new one, telling our readers that this will air in 2018, a year that is in its last month, doesn't make it sound at all credible. Yes, tomorrow they could make a surprise announcement, and if that were to happen (not that this seems at all likely), we can just easily put that up as new, updated info that would be more credible than the dated info we have now. Yes, congrats you found a credible source before, but we are just adding this for the sake of some bonafide resource that doesn't amount to anything anymore. Why exactly is so important to have this WRONG AND OUTDATED still up? I held out to this month, just for the sake of going by that source of 2018, but like I said this is December, and we have to face reality. This isn't stone Wikipedia, we can remove things, add things, but whatever we add has to have some common sense behind it as well. There is no common sense in claiming to our readers that is happening in a year that is in its last month. It's misleading and confusing. That's what doesn't make sense. If anything this page shouldn't even be here until, since we're basing everything on a semi-filmed pilot episode, because that's what we describing to our readers. This would be different if it had a home and further episodes were being filmed, but this is not the case. It's on an indefinite "We might air, maybe in 2019 on Disney+" to "At some point, maybe, whoever will take us." This just isn't really professional. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a source saying it is planned to come out this year. You have not provided one that says otherwise. There is no other encyclopaedic reason to disbelieve the current source, only the personal feelings of some editors. Thus, the current information stays. That is how Wikipedia works. Period. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you not know how common sense and outdated info works. Maybe you think there's enough time for this to happen. But you do not realise the reality, you are treating this as if it is set in stone, that this is how it is meant to be. No it is not, because it's false information. You're letting yourself get hung up on dated sources that may have provided some context at some point, but this is no longer the point, Wikipedia also encourages you to be BOLD. I don't need to provide a source, it's just common sense. Look that up in a dictionary and look at your calendar, please. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh, what? None of that makes sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Just be ignorant. It's clearly getting what you want. I get it, we have the glory of a source. A source that is obviously invalid now. It doesn't count when 2018 is almost finished. But you have your undisputed reasons and I have my nonsensical gibberish. So, thanks buddy boy, you've been a great help. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You are the on being rude and belligerent, insisting that you are right when what you are saying doesn't make any sense and goes against Wikipedia policy. A source that is obviously invalid now. How? How could it possibly be invalid if what it says has not been contradicted in any way, not by a more up-to-date source or by common sense? If it was not possible for the source to be true then you would be correct, but that is obviously not the case here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Adam and I are both very aware that it is highly unlikely that this is coming out in 2018. But we can't make that conclusion ourselves like you've been doing. That's WP:OR, taking your belief and applying it to our sourced info in the article. As has been stated, once December 31, 2018 comes and goes we can then look at how we address this in the article. I can tell you that will not be outright deleting the info as you have been doing, but rather with rewording, adjustments, and additional phrasing to reflect the sourced material we had, and the fact the year has come and gone with no update. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is old and outdated. It's not highly unlikely, it's impossible that show is coming out in 2018. There is no reason to wait until December 31 to remove this information. This is no WP:OR, this is a fact. Lado85 (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not impossible, and it is not a fact unless you can prove it so. Remember, WP:NOTTRUTH. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's realy impossible. They haven't found channel and producition hasn't started yet. Two week is not enough to start pre-production, filming, post-production and air at least one episode. At least it's impossible to filming episodes on Christmas holdays. Thi sis truth. The source informs that "production had been scheduled to resume in January 2018". It had't be resumed in January, and so soure is outtdated an incorect now. Lado85 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Common Sense, this series is not airing in 2018. It does not matter that this contradicts other Wikipedia policies. Common Sense trumps all other. It also appears that everyone is in agreement aside from User:Adamstom.97, so this is probably an article for you to read.

"Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. "

MarioFan78 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there an update with a premiere date that is this year in 2018? If not, it is safe to say is definitely not going to premiere this year. I am sure the network is not going to announce a premiere date in less than a month. WP:UCS — Lbtocth^talk 19:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Once 2018 passes, if it still hasn't premiered, then that info can be changed, but until then it should stay per WP:NORUSH. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hopes are not commitments, plans were conditional on stuff happening that hasn't. The original wording in the sources was about stuff they hoped would happen. Nothing wrong with reporting what the sources actually stated along with the caveats . The problem is with inaccurate reporting. An {{as of}} statement that things haven't happened as hoped for would be appropriate. As for common sense see WP:NOCOMMON for why appeal to that is normally unpersuasive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

And the thing is, even if by some miracle the series did air in 2018 (it's not), as of right now there is no release date so I fail to see how the current revision is inaccurate in any way. Mountain out of a molehill guys MarioFan78 (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to point out there is no trailer with a set premiere date in 2018. — Lbtocth^talk 20:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the only recent update that I found: [1] — Lbtocth^talk 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the show is stuck in some sort of limbo. There's no promotion for the show and the TV media sites aren't talking about it either. There's likely nothing Marvel can do until maybe the Disney service launches and they release the pilot on that perhaps? Esuka323 (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be mentioned that it is due to air in 2018. From what I understand about this series it has had quite the troubling time what with the lack of networks willing to pick it up and air it. I'd imagine the cast options have probably expired too, which means It'll probably be one and done unless it does well and they sign them up to new contracts. Esuka323 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought. The article is saying the TV series is hold on. In addition, no network has confirmed to pick up the series to air it. — Lbtocth^talk 22:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, as soon as Freeform backed out of airing the series the planned 2018 airdate became meaningless. Disney/Marvel have clearly been unable to find a buyer for the show as no one has reported anything. Esuka323 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As has been consistently stated here, once 2018 comes and goes, then adjustments can be made here, WP:NORUSH. Also as been stated, yes everyone knows the series isn't releasing this year. But we are going by the sourced content we have. Additionally, the proposed changes are not great, adding the troublesome statement "as of now" (when is now? where's the source for this?). So again, the info will be adjusted come the new year, and honestly we only need to indicate how the series had been planned for release in 2018, and from that statement and not including any further updated info, and the info on it still being presented to other networks, it is known to now have a release date. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The sourced info is outdated because it was based on Freeform airing the show, which they're not. The show has no network, no release date, nothing. So to say the show is "planned to air in 2018" is dreadful wording and wholly inaccurate. Planned by whom? Where? Esuka323 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. Putting 2018 as the airdate is invalid. — Lbtocth^talk 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There's also no consensus on the talkpage for the inclusion of the mythical 2018 airdate, there's more editors against it than for. Esuka323 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Esuka323: please see my proposed changes below which will address this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed wording update

Since this has become a much greater issue than intended, here is a proposal for new wording in the article (diff, article). This is the wording I personally would use/implement come January 1, 2019, but if it will appease others, let's implement it now. Alternatively with this edit, the "Release" section could be removed altogether if others deem, as all the info is in the development section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself in its current state because it uses outdated information for its release date which was based on Freeform airing the show, and then mentions that Freeform are no longer airing. So where will it air? And when? To say 2018 makes no sense because there's no supporting evidence to back that up. Esuka323 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Mountain out of a molehill guys. It's not a big deal, stop making it one. This is such a silly issue for people to be fighting over. MARIO^Fan78 17:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It's always worth pointing out when an article is badly worded & poorly sourced when a contentious issue like this one emerges. I wouldn't have an issue if there were current sourcing to support the argument that the show would air in 2018. But the only information appears to be an article from 2017 dated I believe before Freeform dropped the show and some rumors that it may be picked up. Esuka323 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Esuka323: please see the proposed changes above (and re-noted below) which will address this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that no one actually commented on the proposed wording I have suggested to solve the issue presented, most importantly as noted above, to not have "as of" as that is definitely not appropriate here. Please comment on this, or suggest an alternative, but do not re-insert changes on the article per WP:STATUSQUO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, if it wasn't clear, the proposal is not the "live" version of the article. It is with the diff edit linked in my initial comment in this subheading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The Original air date on the Episode Table should be set to TBD (leaving it blank) in terms of wording as it is certainly not airing in 2018. No network is going to pick up the series and air it in less than a week before 2019. — Lbtocth^talk 21:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

By telling people the series is going to air in 2018 we are promoting false information. It is under no circumstances airing this week. Change the wording if you want, but do not revert it to promote false information. MARIO^Fan78 23:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be best to just remove the statement about its release date from the lede entirely. There's no source talking about when its actually going to be released and there's a short statement in the "release" section that covers. The TBD on the episodes table should remain though. But as we're so close to 2019 anyway, it would be great if perhaps the current revision remained until a more appropriate one can be made. If anyone has a great idea, just WP:BOLD and discuss if reverted. Esuka323 (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: Yes, in the edit I made to link here to discuss, I forgot to remove that from the table, but it will definitely be removed. @MarioFan78: That's what I'm trying to do, adjust the wording, through discussion. And since you've been vocally against the current wording, I would appreciate your comments on this so we can all adjust it and fix the way the wording looks. @Esuka323: Did you see how I adjusted the article that I'm proposing? Your concerns have been addressed.

If everyone is fine with my proposal, or just doesn't care and just doesn't want the way the article is currently worded as the way the article exists, then I'll just go ahead with my proposal. But I would like your opinions on it, if you so choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

MarioFan78's edit looks fine in terms of wording. — Lbtocth^talk 17:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I've been vocally against you promoting false information by telling the readers it's still airing in 2018. I'm perfectly fine with the current wording of the article. There is no official release date as of December 2018, and come January 2019 it will automatically be updated to say that. MARIO^Fan78 17:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarioFan78: Your proposed change is not great at all, since it is relying on "as of" info to update every single month, which is just poor wording, not to mention not really factually accurate since every month we are not getting an update on this series. I want to help adjust this wording, but you're making it really difficult to have a discussion about this. Have you even looked at the edits I want to make? What I created I felt addressed everyone's issues, but I did not just want to implement them without discussing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: If you believe in WP:STATUSQUO so much, then please lead by example and allow the current revision to stay until a better one if found. You are just being disruptive by continually promoting false information. MARIO^Fan78 17:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarioFan78: That's NOT how status quo works!!! You use the version before the contention began. I am trying to find a better version, you just don't want to hear it or, you know, actually discuss! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please can we just discuss! I'm told you I also am working to adjust the wording, have presented my version, told you why I don't feel your version is good/will work, yet you're the one not participating or trying to work this out. It's your way or no way, which is not good faith editing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Then lead by example. I am willing to discuss, but only if you stop promoting false information. Change the wording, it doesn't bother me. Reverting to promote false information when you are the only one contending it is what bothers me. It doesn't have to be my version, but do not say it's still airing in 2018. MARIO^Fan78 17:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I've used my wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've requested full protection of the page until the New Year, I can't imagine either of you want to see yourselves hit with WP:3RR over something like this. Esuka323 (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No need, I'm over it. @Favre1fan93: I don't care which version is used. You seem to have the wrong idea about me. Your version is fine, I don't have a problem with it and I'm not trying to "own" the page. I only had a problem with saying it is definitively still airing in 2018 which is false information. MARIO^Fan78 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No need either. I'm sorry to get the wrong impression, but when you just kept reverting and didn't just state here Your version is fine, I don't have a problem with it, I think we all would have avoided much of this. I was trying to follow proper discussion procedure, even if the information that was the status quo was incorrect (which I fully acknowledged). That's why I wanted to present my wording, get opinion, and implement quickly so we could removed the wording everyone had issue with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, this talk page discussion has gotten quite long and it's not like I was following this the entire time, so to be honest I didn't see your version @Favre1fan93: ... As far as I knew your "version" was "it's still airing in 2018." That is the only thing I have been against from the get go. If you had just changed it to the version now that doesn't state false information then I wouldn't have reverted anything. Oh well though, it's over :) MARIO^Fan78 18:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to point out that when Esuka323 & I removed The Original air date on the Episode Table of 2018 to set it to TBD, we were reverted. — Lbtocth^talk 18:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Should this article remain?

It seems the show isn't going to air, so... Why is there even an article any more?Undead Herle King (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should remain. No one has announced that the series is completely dead yet though. As the creators and executive producers, are still trying to find a network. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be shocked if they announced at some point this year that the show was joining the Disney+ streaming service. No doubt they'll make extensive use of the Marvel brand on the service. Esuka (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Disney+ set to launch coming this fall though? — YoungForever^(talk) 01:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It is amazing how many times my edit " By that November, Freeform was no longer airing the series, and it was being shopped around to other networks, with Marvel hoping to still be able to premiere the series in 2018, however this developmental hell was never overcome and it is 2019 already and no one knows when it will air" is reverted under the pretense that it is not neutral, the only way for something to exist in the neutral-biased spectrum is for it to be open to interpretation or uncertainty, but facts are such due to their rigid nature, "2+2=4" can be worded in many ways, some more formal (like "2+2=4") and some more informal (like "so you see, four is what you get when two is added to two"), but ALL ARE NEUTRAL, NONE CAN BE BIASED. The most objectable terms, "developmental hell", are standard language in the movie industry and not a non-neutral view on what it has been for the producersUndead Herle King (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't say things like "no one knows when it will air", this is a professional encyclopaedia. As for whether the article should exist, there is no reason to delete it. The series still exists in some form, there is still potential for it to be released in the future, and even if it never is this article already justifies its own existence as much as any other. It is not unheard of for an article to exist on an unreleased project, or for one to even become a good article or more. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Article has already met WP:GNG so likely will remain, no matter the fate of the series. When we get an announcement we can add the information to the article even if the announcement says series is not going to air. Right now the people who know what is going on haven't announced anything. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it ever airs or not, to be honest. There are many articles for cancelled projects, unaired pilot episodes, etc. It's a notable series (that will almost certainly air eventually) and the article is well made and sourced. MARIO^Fan78 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Are there articles for unreleased projects? Really? For unaired pilot episodes? For cancelled projects? Let me guess... All from the US? Well, in any case, some acknowledgement must be given that the show didn't air last year, just so readers can be informed that they didn't miss it, just so they don't end dumbfound about where it is airing, and so they know that there still is need for the producers to pronounce themselves about not meeting release date and what they are going to do. (It is not a silly thing to say no one knows that, it is not silly to state facts) Undead Herle King (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

some acknowledgement must be given that the show didn't air last year -> Directly in the "Release" section: It was originally planned to premiere in 2018. Secondarily, in "Development" section: Marvel wanted the series to air in 2018... In June 2018, Loeb said Marvel was still looking for a network to air the series. which all equate to, with no other confirmation of an air date in the article, that it didn't air in 2018. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

GWW, which has the "exclusive" on New Warriors being dead, is an unreliable source. While I personally believe the writing's been on the wall for this series, I think we should evaluate using this to source its ultimate demise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

So... I was right? See? See? Told ya all! This page should dieUndead Herle King (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Undead Herle King, what? This article isn't dying, it's a valid article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't dying because no one is taking it out of life support, but the show never came to exist, it ws never broadcasted, this article is a waste of wikipedia's resources which aren't endless.Undead Herle King (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What policy dictates that the article cannot exist because the show never came to exist? And what's the limit on Wikipedia's "resources"? I'd love to see whatever backs up this... claim(?). -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability, this show failed so badly, it lacks any notability. You know how many failed shows exist worldwide? They lack notability so they don't get any articlesUndead Herle King (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There's 13 references. That clearly meets GNG. I can name a multitude of articles that didn't air and have articles - take a look at Category:Unaired television pilots and Category:Television pilots not picked up as a series - that second one has 230 articles! I mean, you're more than welcome to nominate it for deletion at AFD, but I can guarantee that your proposal would never pass. So... try again? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In this source from The Hollywood Reporter that is used on the page for the cancelation statement, it states: "Ghost Rider is also the third straight-to-series Marvel show to be scrapped, joining Donald Glover's animated Deadpool, which was set up at the now-Disney-owned FX, and Freeform's New Warriors." I think this is credible enough to confirm that it is scrapped. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101:, yeah, we added that source in. That's the one now being used to cite the series being dead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Adamstom.97: Can't say I agree with your revert of this edit. My changes were good to the lede - see WP:OFTHESAMENAME (it's less clear and weirdly meta to say that). The old lead also weirdly bounces back between topics - the old second paragraph starts by talking about the actual pilot, then pivots to a long sentence about the business side. I put all the date / business stuff in the first paragraph, and left the second paragraph to solely describe the pilot, so that paragraphs have a consistent topic. (Plus things like the date should probably be in the first paragraph anyway.) "Abilities very different" doesn't actually say much - *how* were they different? And I presume the "changes to the standard layout" was removing the Guest subsection, but does that really need any explanation? It's obvious, isn't it? There's only a single entry there. There is absolutely no need for a pointless section bloating up the table of contents that is so short. The standard layout is a fine start, but it clearly doesn't make sense in such a circumstance as this. Finally, yes, the Wikipedia article talks about the potential spinoffs, but as a matter of editorial judgment, I'd argue it over-focuses the issue. I looked at the main source [2]: it has a single sentence that says "New Warriors, sources say, could be Marvel TV 2.0, with the ability to feature multiple spinoffs similar to the company’s Netflix arrangement." The other source [3] is just an interview with a vice president where it's a single hypey question. Anyway, the article over-focuses on these minor, passing sentences of wild guesses ("we like our product so much, we think it'll make spinoffs!"). It makes about as much sense as picking on any other single sentence similarly - something in the lede that says that said "Dan Buckley, president of Marvel Entertainment, said that he was 'extremely excited about Marvel’s New Warriors'." It's just corporate promotion.

Can you explain your issues? I'd like to restore my version, but maybe there's a compromise version. SnowFire (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The current layout of the lead is the same for all Marvel TV articles (and many non-Marvel TV articles): an introductory paragraph; a summary of the cast and production sections; and a summary of the release, future, and cancelation information. This has been well established across all of the Marvel articles and various GA reviews and GT discussions. The change you made to replace real subheadings with semicolons violates MOS:PSEUDOHEAD and is an accessibility issue. And all we say in the lead about spin-offs is that it "had the potential to launch" them, which I disagree is WP:UNDUE when we have a highly-reliable trade and an executive involved in the series both discussing it (especially in the context of Marvel TV, who were doing the same thing for other series at the time). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

On the cast section: If you don't like the semicolon style, then don't use the headers at all, or use bold (which that page suggests is acceptable... I don't really see the difference, but whatever.). There is no need a separate section for a single sentence fragment. It's worth taking a step back: why is psuedo-headers an accessibility issue? Because it won't show up as a section to screen-readers. But that's precisely the point: there is no need for a section here at all, for both regular rendering nor for screen readers. It's just bloat. If I had replaced a substantial section that should have been a separate section with the semicolon style, then yes, you might have a point. But I'm arguing that there isn't a need for a section here at all. A single "Cast" section is fine.

On the lede structure: I can't speak to what's going on in other Marvel TV articles, just this one. And I'm telling you that the organization of thoughts in this lede isn't great. Maybe the fact that this was never released is the problem. Anyway, basic good writing is to organize paragraphs. I'm fine with something other than what I went with - I certainly don't think my version is perfect - but the old version jumps around randomly.

On spinoffs: Okay, but we have editorial discretion here. The quote I mentioned above about Dan Buckley is also from the same "highly reliable trade"'s article as the bit on spinoffs. Do you think that Dan Buckley saying "this product, which I am making and want to sell, is awesome" is useful or interesting for the lede section? Because you could say the exact same thing about this line, but I hope we would both agree that editorially, someone involved with the product endorsing the product isn't "interesting." I'm claiming that the line about spinoffs is the same thing - it's people involved with the product endorsing their own product, saying it's so amazingly good you'll have spinoffs. These alleged spinoffs never happened. So... what's the point of mentioning this highly optimistic, what-if scenario? Maybe it'd be clearer for an upcoming series rather than a canceled one: suppose we have a reliable source that the producer of Kraven the Hunter (film) thinks that his film is awesome and is going to generate spinoffs based on all the characters in it. Would such a statement be lede-worthy? I'd argue "probably not" without some serious secondary backing. SnowFire (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The whole series didn't happen, does that mean we shouldn't mention it at all? Of course not, they clearly had plans to make a series and potential spin-offs and we need to present those details here along with all of the cancelation details. The fact that there was potential for this to go beyond a pilot and has had plenty of coverage to that effect is the reason that we have this article at all. And the fact that you personally do not like the established formatting style does not trump the consensus of many other editors that was developed over several years and continues to be maintained. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we're going in circles on this. Suffice to say, I do not believe that a self-serving promotional claim about potential spinoffs is worthy to be mentioned in the lede (and think the extensive discussion in the body is also too much focus on a passing line), and I don't believe that a single sentence and a single interview question count as "plenty of coverage", but I'll leave it as is unless a third opinion somewhere wants to weigh in.

For formatting, if you're going to cite the "consensus of many editors", then the majority of "cast" sections on Wikipedia simply have a single section with no subdivisions. Multiple subsections can be fine, of course, but there's no compelling case for them being needed on this specific article, since the "Guest" section was tiny. SnowFire (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: This isn't a huge deal, as the precise wording of a rarely-viewed article is not a huge deal. I stand by my lead changes because "no room in the schedule" is something that should be qualified as "said by XYZ" - it's not a "fact" (of course there's always room in the schedule, just take something else out... what the studio really meant is that they didn't like the project enough anymore to make room for it in their schedule.) However, the real reason I'm pinging you is that since I know you're a heavy editor of TV articles, so let me strongly argue against "of the same name" as a general principle elsewhere. See the essay at WP:OFTHESAMENAME (not written by me). It's a horrible anti-pattern that has spread through Wikipedia but really shouldn't have. You wrote in your edit summary that "'same name' in the lead is acceptable"; do you just mean that you don't think it's a problem and don't get why I changed it? Or do you think that 'of the same name' is Actually Better? If you don't feel strongly about it, then I would want to restore my phrasing. Having blue links that clearly indicate to which article they're going is helpful; "of the same name" is like a piped "click here" as far as useful links. If there's worry that it'll look like a circular link, then add in an extra word or two in the link to make it clear. "Of the same name" just makes the wording less clear and isn't a way that authors write in normal contexts. SnowFire (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)