# Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)

Stop removing the Middle Eastern and Asian broadcasts. They air the series in English. English is an official language in several countries like the Philippines and Singapore and an "unofficial langugae" in the UAE (due to number of foreign workers). I suggest a change to WP:TVINTL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcbanners (talk • contribs) 06:55, January 8, 2015 (UTC–5)

The "Cancellation" tab is all copy pasted from the cited sources. Who is "Ryan"? Who is "Fazekas"? Who is "Loeb"?
You wouldn't know from reading this article! YasujiroBrozu (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't re-introduce every key person in every subsection, that would be ridiculous. All of those people are clearly introduced in the appropriate places. For anyone choosing to jump to random parts of the article, they will need to put a bit more effort in to understand what is clear to those who read the whole thing. That is how all Wikipedia articles work. Nothing to do with copy-and-paste. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. If one is skipping ahead to a certain section for various reasons (research, etc), it can be very difficult at first to determine who the person is or if they have an article. "We" should at least be following MOS:LINKONCE; it sounds like you don't agree with this, am I misunderstanding? This article does not appear to follow it. Tduk (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you are misunderstanding. This discussion is not about MOS:LINKONCE, which the article does follow by the way. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Where is the link for Fazekas in the Cancellation section, am I missing it? Tduk (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
There is none, as there is no consensus that the Cancellation section counts as a "major section" where everyone needs to be re-introduced. You will need to gain consensus for that before this is changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
The hatnote at MOS:LINKONCE seems to imply at a bare minimum a level 2 heading starts a major section, and that, if anything, lower level headings can also imply it through consensus. It seems like you'd need consensus _not_ to have Cancellation count as a major section, unless, again, I'm missing something. Tduk (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
You can interpret it that way, but that is not how it is usually interpreted. It is not true that terms are re-introduced / re-linked after every level 2 heading in every Wikipedia article. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
You saying that is hardly helpful and is kind of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (even though this isn't a deletion discussion). It seems that two people here disagree with you on this here. The policy seems pretty clearly stated (maybe it should be improved) and the fact that other pages also ignore it is not all that relevant. Tduk (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth, I never said we should do it because other articles do it. I am explaining to you that it is ridiculous to suggest that the key people involved in the series need to be re-introduced and re-linked in every section. It doesn't matter how you twist my words, that is still a ridiculous suggestion. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
If people are jumping around an article and need to know who a person is, they can always just use a search function (ie Ctrl / Command + F). It should not be up to us to adjust every article just because some people may read an article out of order. This article is adequately following the Manual of Style, so I really do not see enough justification for altering it to accommodate what a select few might do with an article. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Again, I am referring to policy on the matter, which seems fairly clear. There are probably many reasons the MOS says what it does, accessibility for one. Tduk (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
If you think there is an issue with the application of the MOS, then it may be worth raising your concerns there, rather than in one of the countless articles. I have typically seen links not be repeatedly linked in such short articles but more frequently linked in longer articles where there is much more material and separation in the link instances. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I didn't raise the concern, someone else did, and I realize they have a point. The MOS clearly states the rule and as I see it clearly stated there it's not being applied here. Are you saying I should ask for clarification? Tduk (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding MOS:LINKONCE. It does not say that terms should be relinked in every major section. It says that they should be linked at most once per major section. Zero is compliant with "at most once". Normally terms are linked once per article. MOS:LINKONCE allows for less common cases where it makes sense to link a term again. --Srleffler (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this section is not well written. It appears to be a continuation of an essay, it is overly detailed, it refers to "Ryan" when the article mentions both an actor named Ryan and a reporter named Ryan. It names the author of a magazine article (Ryan) as if this person should be known the reader.
I think the first sentence of the section on Cancellation should be something like
On May 12, 2016, ABC canceled the series.
Absent an official ABC announced reason, the next topic should be something that introduces the remaining content as speculation. The relationship of the pundits to the show should be mentioned because that is important for readers to judge the value of their commentary. The content currently attributed to "Ryan" should either just be said and sourced or attributed to Variety (magazine).
I don't have any expertise in this topic, I am only commenting as reader to try to help. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
There is only one person with the surname Ryan mentioned in the article, and the cancellation information is presented in chronological order as is standard when talking about production history. There was commentary and debate about the series' chances of renewal, then it was cancelled, and since then there was more commentary and debate. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I encourage you to listen to the complaints of other editors and seek ways of making this article even better. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
We do have three editors who favor more elaboration in the section, versus two who do not. Rather than start an edit war I would like to confirm that making some of these changes will not be undone. Tduk (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Decisions on Wikipedia are not based on vote counts, I see no proof that there is consensus to change how this section is written. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Adding in some of my thoughts, I agree with Srleffler's interpretation of MOS:LINKONCE. We should not be relinking names and terms more than once, especially since many are used throughout the article (Fazekas and Loeb being two of them). I do think we should re title and fully name Maureen Ryan again in "Cancellation" because she is only used previously for a short blurb in the "Ratings" section, which could easily be missed. Given much of her content is in "Cancellation", that makes since to give more context again there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)