# Talk:Daredevil season 2

Be on the lookout for a reliable source for the start of filming.  There are unofficial photos starting to show up here. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It has too many subsections which are short in content, all mostly a line or two. In that case I think it is best to merge all the subsections into a single level two section called "Production". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to remove subsections for development, writing or casting. The others can be combined, either before the development subsection, or within/at the bottom of development and can branch out later when more info arises. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with merging the subsections if the development, writing, and casting sections weren't as they are. I know having only a line for several subsections doesn't look great, but I think it is better than putting content where it does not belong. I feel like we should leave it as is and wait to see if more information comes out; remember, it is still early days and we are in no rush. It is a pattern for us to split the page when we feel we have enough content and end up with some short sections that take some time to fill out. If everything quiets down after the season is released and nothing else has come out, then maybe we could look at some other options. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source for, presumably, the US premiere on March 10, if we need it, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing actor; not even listed on the IMBb page. Pretty important character too, in multiple episodes. Page is locked otherwise I'd add it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD01:A930:D5A6:46BC:B583:4E89 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 

Oscar Clemons was killed by Will Simpson (the show's version of Nuke) in Jessica Jones, not by Kilgrave as stated in the article.
2604:2000:F085:EC00:2C08:DA0D:A01B:72A8 (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I fixed it. -- S talk/contribs 07:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think each episode should have its breif premise of what happens in it, as all episodes section has (Daredevil's season one's episodes has a premise for each episode so why doesn't season two have them too?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 

The episodes were released only three days ago. I am sure if you give it some time someone will be able to write the short summaries...patience. TeamGale (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as i could see wilson fisk, during season two, is a recurring character not a main one. He appears from episode 8 on till episode 11. That doesn't sound like a main character to me.I'll change it, so please don't delete it as the recurring character section edit says Recurring characters (4 episodes or more).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 

The main cast is decided by the producers, and are credited in the opening credits. Recurring cast members are guest actors who make 4 or more appearances. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I find that guest criteria unfair. Actors like Tony Curran and Clancy Brown appeared this season and yet we can't list them because someone restricted the additions to the guest section. Perhaps there should be a "Reprisals" section for any returning MCU characters. Rusted AutoParts 17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While on the topic of guest stars, some guest stars (like Scott Glenn who plays Stick, as an example) are credited as Special Guest Star while others are just regular guest stars. Worth mentioning? -- S talk/contribs 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
We can't just add every guest character. A list of guest characters that aren't recurring but are still important is always made for our seasons, and listed at the character lists such as List of Daredevil characters. But that list is itself general too long still, so we narrow the criteria down further for this page and just list the reprisals here. So Curran and Brown are listed for the season, just over at the character list. This system has worked really well for all of our seasons so far.
The 'Special Guest Star' is mostly a contractual thing, sometimes because the actor is reprising their role from another show of which we do make note. If it really is significant, like D'Onofrio being billed as a 'Special Guest Star' for one episode of this season, then we do mention it (also at the character list). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Re this edit. My point was that all summarization involves picking out and emphasizing certain points over others. When I first edited the summary, it didn't make sense internally, as Daredevil was fighting "the Yakuza" and then suddenly he is fighting "the Hand", and it was nowhere explained that these two were the same entities. I figured it would be undue weight in a brief plot summary to explain that the chubby old guy with the bad Japanese revealed at the end of such-and-such episode that he was not Yakuza and the following episode they were revealed to be the Hand, and figured it was better just not to mention the Yakuza at all and simply refer to them as the Hand throughout. The plot summary would become bloated if we explained every little detail and plot twist that was necessary to keep our summary both internally consistent and accurate.
I am not sure if you or someone else has fixed this problem since, but I know your blank reverting me must have reintroduced it.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In a much shorter summary, I would agree to just use the Hand, but for a break down of each individual episode, albeit briefly, it makes sense to say Yakuza until Stick reveals the Hand, which is a significant moment that basically reveals much of the series endgame in terms of the Elektra half and so doesn't really come under "every little detail and plot twist". I will add this clarification at some point, but you can do it if you want it done now. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone other than Adamstom.97 (who I know doesn't understand how to correctly read sources for this information) answer this: do we have any sources that actually describe D'Onofrio as a member of the main cast? One of the current sources calls it "what might be a one-episode Season 2 stint" and the other source doesn't mention D'Onofrio at all! He probably had less overall screen time than Glenn, Shinkoda or the other other "Yakuza" guy who asks who said he was Yakuza, or the dirty accountant whose son was taken to whom he was talking (sorry, I don't recall either of these characters being named, so it's tough to find the actors' names). And all of his brief screen time was concentrated in one or two episodes. I know someone is going to say that if he was only in two episodes it's not "recurring", but then we should remove Garon and refer to her as a "guest". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Simply put, D'Onfrio was credited in the main credits during each of his appearances, minus his cameo at the end of one. Marvel and the makers of the show consider him main cast, so we do not need a source to verify it. Rusted AutoParts 14:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: Thank you for providing a straightforward, easily verifiable and polite reply to my query. Would that the rest of the editors on this article were as helpful and pleasant as you (which is as close as I'm going to get to touching the latest collapsed comment below with a ten-foot pole). I will check myself later whether your explanation actually works in relation to the other actors who had more screen time and lines than D'Onofrio, but if it does then I am satisfied. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: No one is going to accuse this article of OR because it calls D'Onofrio's character both Fist and Kingpin, and if we are going to be nitpicky the source given for Fox's casting never refers to his character as Daredevil either. So far all three seasons of MCU Netflix (and even most of the MCU films -- see Favreau's commentary on Iron Man 2 where he discusses the brief, jokey reference go "War Machine") have been very conservative with using the superhero/villain monikers of most of the characters, and most of the sources match this. In 26 hours of television I think "Daredevil" was named three or four times in total, "Kingpin" once, "Punisher" ... significantly less than he was referred to as "Castle". For this reason I would say we should keep the "Wilson Fisk / Kingpin" stuff to a minimum, as wikilinks are the standard way of telling our readers that these characters have alternate names, it looks clunky, and it doesn't accurately reflect the way these characters are described in the sources.
A much bigger problem with the Cox source, though, is that it doesn't directly state that Cox would definitely be playing Murdock this season. But how could it? It dates from months before production took place, and Cox could have been killed in a car crash for all the author of that source knew. I brought this up on RSN a while ago, but old sources that say or imply that something will probably happen in the future from the sources' point of view probably can't be used when we say they did happen in the intervening time. The Cox source has Cox saying he would favour Bullseye being in season two, and doesn't mention the Punisher at all, which is actually what the source is about in the first place, rather than verifying that Cox would appear in season two.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Some good info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: WP:NOTBROKEN specifically says, "Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links." This is exactly this situation. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Prior to this edit the redirect, which has only just been created, wasn't in the article. WP:STATUSQUO specifically says "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor." The edit that you made here was quite contrary to that and goes against WP:BRD, especially after I said take it to the talk page. You don't post on the talk page, bulldoze your edit into the article saying "check the talk page". You discuss it on the talk page first, gain consensus for the change and then make the edit, if that is the consensus, leaving the status quo up while the edit is being discussed. Since the status quo is the version prior to your edit you should have left that version up while it is being discussed. You've been here for 7 years so you should know that. Because the status quo was not using the redirect, the redirect isn't being bypassed, the article was just being restored to the status quo version, which is entirely appropriate. Now to WP:NOTBROKEN itself, the actual title of the section is "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" but, as I indicated in my edit summary, that works both ways. If the link isn't broken there is no need to "fix" it by changing it to a redirect. Sometimes it may be appropriate to do that if the redirect is a redirect with possibilities. This one is not; there is never likely to be an article on the character so using the redirect serves no practical purpose.
This is exactly this situation - Actually, it's not. There are only 3 links to the redirect and there are not "dozens of piped links" that would need updating. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for not taking it to the talk page sooner, but I assumed that this would be uncontroversial since I guessed that you had simply not read past the title of the guideline due to your edit summary. "Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles ... should never be bypassed" seems pretty unambiguous. The number of links to the redirect does not seem relevant. The reference to dozens is an example used to illustrate the rationale, not a measuring stick for when it should be applied. The redirect exists, so what is the harm of following the guideline and using it? If nothing else, it is a convenience. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Never assume. I've been here for 12 years. I'm well aware of what NOTBROKEN says and the logic behind it after more than 145,000 edits. Here are examples of uses of the direct link and the redirect:
Elliot "Grotto" Grote
Elliot "Grotto" Grote
How is the redirect a convenience to our readers in its present form? It's not even being used properly as a redirect. It's still a piped link. A redirect would be [[Elliot "Grotto" Grote]]. I suggest you look at WP:NOTBROKEN again. Your edit didn't change [[target|text]] to [[redirect]], which is what happens when you use a redirect, it changed [[target|text]] to [[redirect|text]]. NOTBROKEN talks about replacing redirects with piped links. What happened here was the piped link was replaced with another piped link to a redirect. It's a pointless edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not that using one link or the other will make a difference to the reader, the issue is that if a change is made to the target, then you just have to fix the redirect article and all the links will still work. But if we aren't using a redirect, then we have to go around every use and fix the link to make sure that people are being directed to the correct place. That is why we prefer redirects over the direct links. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
To put this in context there are 3 links. That's it. 3. For such a small number it's not worth the effort. Two of those links refer to the character as "Elliot "Grotto" Grote", and the other uses "Grotto". --AussieLegend (✉) 09:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This sounds more like an argument for why the redirect should not exist. As long as the redirect exists, this seems like a valid use for it. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

My edits were reverted. At first because of being in past instead of present and because of not being understandable (despite being in proper English). After 2nd edit attempt, changes again were reverted, this time for unnecessary detail. However, it's not some trivial detail from the episode missing from the summary, it's details that are very important due to creating wrong or rather incomplete picture of what happened. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daredevil_(season_2)&oldid=prev&diff=1102767765)
All for episode 9:
1. Karen went to medical examiner not alone but with newspaper editor, with whom she started working. Why it's important to have in summary that examiner is jobless now, but saying the character wasn't alone isn't important?
2. Summary suggests Frank mortally wounding Dutton is what caused him to talk, while actually Dutton got killed AFTER confessing.
3. The most wrong one: saying DD killed Nobu - that's wrong on many levels because kill-no kill is major part of DD's character and important point in S1. Yes, DD went to fight Fisk intending to kill him, and didn't mind also killing Nobu who came to  the fight instead of Fisk, BUT Matt, the Daredevil, himself never killed Nobu, his death was never because of DD's actions. Daredevil himself at that point have never killed anyone.
So how can the aforementioned 3 changes be incorporated into summary to feel correct? Gevorg89 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the newspaper editor was with Karen is not relevant to the overall plot summary. The scenes-by-scene breakdown is not important, what is important is conveying the basic information (Dutton is mortally wounded and reveals the information). And Nobu died due to Daredevil's actions, that is what is important here and more details can be found at the first season article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is Elektra being referred to by last name? Pardon my profanity, but this makes no fucking sense. In the 2005 film with Jennifer Garner, she's referred to by first name. Not only that, but her SUPERHERO name is Elektra. No one in the show calls her by her last name. Therefore, I think I should invoke a Wanda/Yelena here and use first name basis. HiGuys69420 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LASTNAME, a MoS guideline, says to use last names. MCU articles are written almost consistently with last names. The characters in the MCU films and TV series are not referred to by their "superhero name", unlike in the comics. If you feel that this should be changed, this post is the first step to get consensus to change it site-wide. I'm opposed to it, so lets wait for other editors. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean yeah, but Yelena and Wanda are referred to by first name (so are Quicksilver, Billy, and Tommy by extension since they all have the same last name as Wanda). I agree we should wait for other editors.  HiGuys69420 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
But I mean, like MOS: LASTNAME doesn't really apply to everything. It's like how we call Chris Redfield from Resident Evil "Chris", and Riley Anderson from Inside Out "Riley", or how we refer to Dexter Morgan by his first name. HiGuys69420 (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, constantly pointing to other examples is not a good argument. It is well established that for MCU characters who have surnames we usually use them. Obviously we don't when there are multiple characters with the same surname. Yelena is not a good example since you are the one who went around changing that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)