Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)#Genres

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 genres in the infobox have no source. So I removed them per general WP:RS and WP:OR statements. This edit was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1289531823 reverted] stating there were pulled from "Marvel/Disney genres, as is standard for TV series." Per MOS:TVGENRE, {{gt|All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead, should be reliably sourced and comply with Wikipedia's due weight policy and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.}} So even if this source was provided, we would require more sources to balance it out per WP:WEIGHT. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:No where in there does it say that third-party sources are required, as you claimed in your edits. These genres are covered by the primary source of the series itself, just like the rest of the infobox is. We only need third-party sources for additional genres that are not already covered. That has always been the case for TV articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Several rules that you know state that genres and most material require third-party source.

::* WP:SUBJECTIVE, "{{gt|Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations.}}. Genre is subjective and an interpretation of work.

::* Per WP:UNDUE "{{gt|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources}}. In short, we are required to look at it from a broader picture, this is something MOS:TVGENRE itself states.

::* While the rest of the information in the article might be applicable from the credits of a series, that's technical information and unless debated or proven wrong, is probably acceptable. Even if this show did promote its own genre, this would be against WP:INDEPENDENT as it "{{gt| helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views.}}

::I do not see anything in the MOS on television that backs up your claim so I'm afraid you can't just say its been done for years as form of breaking several wiki rules above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You keep talking about "rules" and linking to random policies, guidelines, and essays. I am telling you that it is well established that the primary genres for a series can be sourced to the series / network / streaming service themselves, which does not violate any of the relevant "rules". If the people who make the series tell us that it is an action/adventure, science fiction, spy show, we don't need additional third-party sources in the infobox. We could add some if we really felt it was needed, but not having them is not enough for you to delete the information. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've requested third-party comments about this at WP:TV as I believe we've reached an impasse. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The point of MOS:TVGENRE is to avoid putting niche or very fringe genres that may not cover a series in its entirety (for example, we wouldn't call Community (TV series) an action series because of its paintball episodes). WP:COMMONSENSE applies here, since the series is based off of a comic book character published by Marvel, a super hero comic publisher, so "Superhero" is an appropriate genre for this, in addition to the other genres already listed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Its not simple because different people will have different interpretations of what a genre is and how it should be applied. A publisher of a material is not a good way to know what a genre mifht be and if I"ve known people unfamiliar with who or what Batman is let alone Marvel. This is why sources matter. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If there is disagreement about what genres are appropriate then yes, third-party sources would be useful. However, there has been no disagreement about the genres for this series which premiered a decade ago. And you haven't even taken issue with the genres, as far as I can tell, just the fact that there is no third-party in-line citations for them. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is a completely different argument. A lack of awareness or understanding of one subject does not mean the same for another. I disagree with removing "Superhero" as a genre, because this series clearly has superhero fictional elements in it and is more similar to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in that regard than to a comic book adaptation that is not in the superhero genre like The Punisher. If sourcing is the issue, then those can be found and added, rather than outright removing valid material. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For the record, when it removed the genres, I kept superhero, it only because it was in the prose. As for a "lack of knowledge", per WP:Audience, we have to write to the audience who are unfamilair. In this case, we can all it a television program and be comfortable that they know what that is. However, most television doesn't go out of the way to explain its genre and how often do we hear people say different things for genres and what encompasses them. Often, there are entire books written on the subject. That's why it requires a source as it's not obvious. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::We don't remove sourced information because the average audience member wouldn't be able to deduce it themselves when watching the show. "we have to write to the audience who are unfamilair" means explaining things to them, not shielding them from the truth. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What truth? Genre is subjective and an interpretation of it is broad. it's not like math where we accept oen voice on it over an another. I feel we aren't making much of a headway herez but other than interpretations of rulings here, the current status is that there is no formal rule or even unspoken rule at WP:TV as stated that genres are organized the way suggested dwhen they are reverted and no one has shown any evidence of how it the current situation follows the rules of WP:Weight. Even looking at Disney+ for me it just says "Science fiction, Espionage | Spies, Action and adventure" Not only is this genre interpretation not attributed to any person, it's also does not state superhero or "spy-fi" and we shouldn't have those if we were justed one source per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I feel we are going circles and probably need a third party discussion to clarify this at this point. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You keep making different arguments and linking to random policies and guidelines. If you want to have a discussion about whether genres require third-party sources then you should stick to the WP:TV discussion. If you think the specific genres listed here are wrong then you should make that clear and propose an alternative. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::My issue is that they are unsourced and do not comply with wp:weight. Which is how I opened with this discussion. The topic on WP:TV was to ask whether or not there was a standard that genres do not require sources. There appears to be no consensus that you suggested existed. I'm bringing up different rules because even the suggestion you had that the source was Disney+, the sources not specifically state what you said. So your ideas and follow-up suggestions have not even matched what you said and break new rules.

:::::::::So yes. Its not that genres are "wrong", which I do not care about one way or another. Its that they do not comply with WP:WEIGHT and do not even follow the source referred to by you on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::They are not unsourced, as has been explained numerous times, and they do follow WP:WEIGHT because the creative team carries far more weight in this discussion than third-party sources do. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Two points on this:

:::::::::::# The sources you mention do not follow exactly what you are citing. There is no superhero genre there, and you've combined several genres they list which is against WP:STICKTOSOURCE. They do not mention "Spy-fi" for example. I imagine you are combining the terms given, but per the previous rule, that is exactly what we should not be doing.

:::::::::::# I've stated rules above that simply state what you are saying untrue and you can tell me it's been explained but you have shown me nothing to back it up, and if anything, the source you cite does not even state what you are saying.

:::::::::::Again, I feel we've reached an impasse as you've said there is a community consensus that this how genre is handled (per the talk page, no one seemed to speak of this, and you have not shown and previous discussion that backs this up), I am citing policy because that is how we should base our decisions on. I feel like it's time to bring a third party involved as I don't think we are able to convince each other and should not be going on like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'd like to add that "the creative team carries far more weight in this discussion than third-party sources do" is a very dubious claim in my eyes. Tduk (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The discussion at WT:TV supports the points that I have been trying to make here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::What specifically was your point? I was about to say that there appears to be no consensus about how it is handled. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The basic genres for a show, usually the ones listed by the broadcaster, tend to be added without additional third-party sources and I feel that is perfectly fine unless someone feels that additional sources are required (i.e. someone disagrees with the list / it is controversial in some way). - adamstom97 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Please correct me if I am wrong, but I did go through the comments, and nobody has suggested the broadcaster is the one we usually go by but you. As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=1289770061 my comment here], I checked the Disney+ listing (which states "Science fiction, Espionage | Spies, Action and adventure" which does not match the current infobox says. I'm sorry but your comments about what has been established, how WP:WEIGHT applies, are not what is presented in the article. While they are close, they fail WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I have explained my position multiple times, and the other comments at the discussion line up with my thoughts. You are the one who doesn't agree, and keeps linking to irrelevant policies and guidelines to try convince us that some vague change is required. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Maybe it would help if you pointed out which comments you thought agreed with you, maybe they are easily overlooked somehow? Thanks... Tduk (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I'm sorry adamstom but that's not true. There are the three of the users who are not us who have responded:

:::::::::::::::::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television&diff=prev&oldid=1290056752 GoneIn60] said "Genre classification is a type of interpretation. Sometimes it coincides with the creator's intentions, and other times it does not. But how a film is ultimately classified is not up to the creator(s)."

:::::::::::::::::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television&diff=prev&oldid=1289604273 TheDoctorWho] wrote "From a technical standpoint, I think that it's generally understood that the Infobox doesn't need citations per MOS:INFOBOXREF [...] "However, the instructions at {{tl|Infobox television}} explicitly "{{tq|Genres must be reliably sourced.}}" That said, I can definitely see both sides of this and how confusion could arise."}}"

:::::::::::::::::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television&diff=prev&oldid=1289592301 RunningTiger] stated "the general trend is that genres generally do not need to be sourced if they are the broad, top-level genres that we would describe in the lead sentence (i.e., " is a television series..."). "

:::::::::::::::::* And of course, yours and mine which we've stated.

:::::::::::::::::Your statement that there is consensus among WP:TV that genres should be taken from the creators is something I'm going to assume you have mistaken as no evidence has been brought forward to suggest this. My debate is not so much that genres should be cited in the infobox, but that should at least be cited somewhere in the article. Currently, they are not cited and do not match the source you have provided on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Your statement that there is consensus among WP:TV that genres should be taken from the creators}} -- I never stated this. And I have been very clear that I am not against adding sources if other editors feel they are needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::You stated here in your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1289531823 "these are the official Marvel/Disney genres, as is standard for TV series."] and that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=1289533596 "This has been accepted for years and is standard practice across all TV articles.] in two seperate reverts. If I'm wrong to interpret this from your edits, can you clarify what you mean? Also, as I've proven these genres do not match the source you cite, I will change them accordingly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I'm getting pretty sick of you intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying, and it is clear that you are not interested in working collaboratively since you keep bludgeoning the talk page with irrelevant links and making changes to the article without consensus. I have very clearly explained my position and received support from other editors who agree with me. Not sure what else I can do here. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I respectfully disagree as I've asked you to clarify and you keep saying you are tired of discussing it. I've tried to clarify my stance, but for the record, I do not see where you are coming from and other editors such as {{ping|Tduk}} have also suggested they do not seem to know where you are coming from with this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::If you want to have a good-faith discussion, how about you start by reverting the article back to the WP:STATUSQUO rather than imposing your preferred changes, without consensus, while we are still discussing them? - adamstom97 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::The status quo should probably be reverted to while pending this discussion; however, I would still like to understand why @Adamstom.97 claimed "I have explained my position multiple times, and the other comments at the discussion line up with my thoughts. " What did I miss? Tduk (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|::::::::::::::::::::::}} This has been my issue too. Adamstom, you have claimed several things and can not shown us anything to back it up, and when I have tried to find it via discussion or checking the rules, they do not seem to be there. Please provide it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. You seem to be obsessed with discussing everything except the article and what should be in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not sure why I am doing this when the onus is really on you, but I have gone through the history of the article to check how we got to these genres. While the series was in production / being released, the genres in the infobox were "Action / Adventure, Superhero fiction, Drama". In 2018, some IP editors changed the genres to "Action, Adventure, Science fiction, Superhero, Period drama". In 2019, another IP editor added "Spy fiction" to the list before combining it with "Science fiction" to get "Spy-Fi". In 2021, another IP editor simplified the list to "Action-adventure, Period drama, Spy-fi, Superhero". In 2023, an IP editor renamed "Period drama" to "Historical drama", and that is how we got the list that is there today: "Action-adventure, Historical drama, Spy-fi, Superhero". Though it was changed all those times without discussion, there was no pushback from regular editors so a level of IMPLICITCONSENSUS does apply. Now, looking at the listing on Disney+ we get "Action, Adventure, Science fiction, Espionage / Spies".

::Based on this discussion and the one at WT:TV, I am still of the opinion that third-party sources are not required for the basic, obvious genres. As I have said many, many times, we can add third-party sources if we need to, but that is generally only necessary for controversial interpretations or genres that are only listed in some third-party sources (i.e. a genre listed by a couple critics but no one else). My feeling is that:

::* "Action-adventure" -- should not be controversial, this has always been listed here, is pretty obvious, and is in the Disney+ listing

::* "Historical drama" / "Period drama" -- this should also not be controversial, it is well sourced in the article that this series is set in the 1940s

::* "Spy-fi" -- I am dubious about this one, I feel like we should have sources that actually use this term. Alternatively, we could split this back out to:

::** "Science fiction" -- on the Disney+ listing and another obvious one

::** "Spy fiction" -- supported by the Disney+ listing, clearly sourced in the article

::* "Superhero" -- obviously

::Any concerns with this breakdown / logic? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::A few points

:::* Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In short, if you want it included (which you do as I initially removed it as it was not cited), than its up to you to have it.

:::* You suggest it had Implicit consensus, that rule states though {{gt|An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.}} Which is what I had done.

:::* My idea is not to add third-party sources, its to clarify what the sources are based on third-party sources. I have nothing. As I've said above, I do not want to add/remove anything and no push for what the genres should be.

:::I will play ball with you on "base genres" but I do not think this makes things as easy as you or some member of the community suggest.

:::** I have issues with Action-adventure its source in question says the genres seperately.

:::** I take Umbridge with "Historical drama" as per the description of the genre on the page itself, it implies more than just a film set in the past. If that was the case, Westerns would also be included in this genre, and generally they are not. Its also not in the source you mentioned.

:::* Spy-fi I also do not agree with per WP:SYNTH. The sources seperates them and does not call them this.

:::The other issue is, so many of these genres link directly to a "film" equivilant, which I'll agree appears to be a standard among television wiki articles, is problematic as they go on the assumption that its the same genre across both mediums and often carry no information on the genres as they apply to television (in terms of history, scope, and if there is any differences or not).

:::Now, as you have done your work on it, I might as well pony up my side an go along with what my understanding of WP:WEIGHT is, and look for third-party sources discussing the genre.

:::* New York Times "conglomeration of nostalgia, postwar intrigue, comic-book science fiction and screwball comedy" [https://web.archive.org/web/20150106064850/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/arts/television/marvels-agent-carter-debuts-on-abc.html here]

:::* Hollywood Reporter "Marvel and ABC finally get it right with this fun, entertaining period piece" [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-reviews/marvels-agent-carter-tv-review-761413/ here]

:::* Slate "Instead of riffing on noir or screwball, or really any genre with dialogue and great outfits, Agent Carter dedicates huge portions of both episodes to incoherent action sequences that at their very best look like they belong in a laughable B-movie, and at their worst serve as a surprisingly effective soporific." [https://slate.com/culture/2015/01/agent-carter-review-abc-superhero-show-is-boring-and-mostly-about-men.html here]

:::* AV Club "Hour-long action-adventure drama" [https://web.archive.org/web/20150109021528/http://www.avclub.com/review/marvels-agent-carter-snazzy-retro-and-super-cool-213419 here]

:::* Vox "Despite the premise of espionage, Atwell tackles a lot of comedy — more than enough of it physical." [https://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507545/agent-carter-abc-marvel here]

:::If anything, a lot of the genres that exist apply, but perhaps comedy would be appropriate to add as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Adamstom.97 how are we defining "superhero"? and @Andrzejbanas what are you actually suggesting should be there? Tduk (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I mean, this is just a small handful of research. Personally, I'm iffy on hybrid genres like "action-adventure". While this study is based in film, the Action film article states "films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances [...] both the action and adventure are often used in hybrid or as interchangeable terms." and that listing something as a hybrid is problematic as the sources listing them as hybrids generally "make no claims beyond on how these elements combine." Personally from that, I would keep action per the above, adventure seems to be implied through espionage and from what I gather, the show isn't about exotic lands, it's about espionage. So potentially action, science fiction, spy, superhero and perhaps comedy? I'm not too particular, but if we do add these, we should follow them up with citations to back them up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As per usual, Andrzejbanas is insisting that there is a major problem that must be addressed but is being rather vague and unhelpful when it comes to putting together a solution. {{tq|I do not want to add/remove anything and no push for what the genres should be}} this is blatantly untrue, as you have removed genres from / added genres to this article multiple times. {{tq|I do not think this makes things as easy as you or some member of the community suggest}} that is because you want to make things harder than they should be, this whole discussion is really making a mountain out of a mole hill.

:::::We should not be making decisions based on your arbitrary feelings, the wording at other Wikipedia articles, or on a random small selection of reviews. If you do think we should be adding a genre that is not on the Disney+ list, such as comedy, we will need to do a more comprehensive review of the sources to ensure it is WP:DUE to do so. Action and adventure are very often presented together, I don't see why this series should be treated any differently in that regard, and this series definitely aligns with the explanation at Historical drama and this is a defining aspect of the series.

:::::As far as "superhero" goes Tduk, we are using it in the sense that this is a Marvel show set in a world of superheroes, and often elite agents like Carter are considered to be superheroes even though they don't have superpowers (see also Black Widow and Hawkeye). There are also sources in the article that categorise this as a superhero show. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think that @Andrzejbanas raises valid points about the potential unsuitability of the genres - and there are discussions elsewhere that suggest following third-party sources for genres as opposed to primary is preferred (do you need a link?). Personally I'm not sure having the field is as helpful as we want it to be in general. Re: superhero, yes, there are sources that put it into that category - mostly I was confused by your '"Superhero" -- obviously' -- it's not obvious to me. Tduk (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Raising valid points doesn't change the fact that they are being vague and frustrating. If I found an issue with an article that I cared this much about, my focus would be on finding a solution that the community agrees with so the article can be improved. If that is what Andrzejbanas is doing, they have a funny way of showing it.

:::::::I would also support getting rid of the field entirely, but for now we have it. If there was agreement at WP:TV that all TV series genres should be determined by a thorough review of third-party sources then I would have no problem doing that here, but that is not the standard process and I don't see why this nearly decade-old series is being singled out as needing special treatment.

:::::::I have provided a specific list of genres that I think is appropriate based on the current approach that is taken for most TV series. Andrzejbanas has sort of provided an alternate list based on some dodgy reasoning that follows neither the current approach nor the improved approach that they are advocating for. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It does need to be established from the project community. This is very standard Wiki guide, per WP:RS which states "{{gt|Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.}}" Just because the community has casually ignored this, does not mean its the standard even two or three editors do not seem to mind in WP:TV, when in general, the wikipedia community at large cares about these things. As for my approach of being "dodgy", I'm going by what is what I've understood (and others have backed me up here and elsewhere, whether it was in articles for deletion, saving articles, and more) of WP:WEIGHT stands for. So yes, I will admit my suggestion is complicated and more work, but it would also be "easier" to write an article based without having to find published sources, but we don't do that easier. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Adamstom.97 could you explain "I would also support getting rid of the field entirely, but for now we have it."? I don't see it as a required infobox field at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, what am I missing? Tduk (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Andrzejbanas, if you want to change how the community approaches all TV articles then please stick to the discussion at WT:TV. If you want to change the genre listing at this article specifically then please keep your arguments to this topic. Or are you intending to "fix" every TV article's list of genres one long discussion at a time?

:::::::::Tduk, it is not a required field but it is standard for every TV article I have seen. Again, I do not understand this push to treat this one series differently from every other article. All I'm saying is if there was a discussion at Template:Infobox television about removing this parameter from the infobox entirely, I would support that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::but if it's not a required field, and we can't reach consensus about what should be there, isn't it best just to remove it? As far as your other claim about treating it differently, that sort of claim about the homogeneity of articles seems somehow, honestly, a bit disingenuous, irrelevant, and maybe WP:OTHERTHINGS. Can you suggest a reason that it needs to stay here - and that we need to keep WP:WIKILAWYERing that doesn't sound so WP:OTHERTHINGSy? Thanks. Tduk (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I never said we have to have it, or we should have it because of other articles. I said it is standard to have, and there is no good reason to not have it. This discussion, frustrating as it may be, is no where near a point where it makes sense to just remove it. You are suggesting we jump straight to the nuclear option. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'm confused why you're referring to removing an option field from an infobox as a "nuclear option". Infoboxes for people, for instance, may or may not having "family" entries, which may or may not have all of the family, only those with wiki pages, etc. Again, why are you arguing that we include something that does not help an article, and caused contention, because you claim "there is no good reason not to have it"? Is there a good reason to have it? This doesn't make any sense to me. Tduk (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Basically every series has a definable genre or genres, not every person has family. You are saying this conversation has broken down so much that we may never come to an agreement and therefore we should consider just not listing any genres at all. That is nonsense. There are several obvious genres that can clearly be listed for this series and should not be controversial in the slightest. If certain editors stop trying to derail the discussion and just put a bit of effort into discussing the topic at hand, we could sort through any disagreements and come up with a compromise within a few more comments. Again, mountain out of a mole hill. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::"Basically every series has a definable genre or genres, not every person has family." This has it backwards. Some (many?) series have only vaguely defined genres; this is more complicated when media or primary sources misrepresent their material for any number of reasons (unawareness, advertising, etc). If supplying a genre field does not add anything to an invididual article, then it simply serves to add confusion. Also, did you just claim that not every person has a family in all seriousness? It's hard to take your tone seriously if so, as, as far as I'm aware, everyone has some form of parents. Tduk (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::For goodness sake, you two are going down every rabbit hole except for one that leads to a relevant solution. Of course there are people who don't have families. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::To address your proposal of moving it, is this just for this show? Or for the infobox at large? I don't think this show is so complicated we have to remove it as I've made my suggestions which are not too different from what is already listed. Removing it was what I did initially but only because it was unsourced (at least from what I saw). Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::{{tq|I don't think this show is so complicated we have to remove it}} -- exactly, there is no reason that the genre list should be removed for just this show. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Adam, I'm going to request if I (or anyone) has a question for you, please answer it. When we've asked you to show proof of something being confirmed, you have not shown it, when we ask you to clarify your position, you have not. You took that sentence right out of context of what I was trying to say. If it came down to it, I wouldn't be against removing the genre in the first place as it had no sources (and still does not). Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I have answered your questions. I'm the one who is still waiting for you to have a serious discussion about which genres should be listed. I gave a list with clear reasoning, you responded to some of those points and ignored others. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::We don't choose the genres, we comply with WP:WEIGHT which I've said a few times and I don't think need it bares re-explanation. And clarify, when did you answer the following questions.

::::::::::::::::::::* I asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291298732 here] if you meant for removing genres from the infobox in general or for this article. You did not respond.

::::::::::::::::::::* I asked you to clarify what you meant [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1290687946 here]. Your response to me asking a question was that you said I was not looking to collaborate on a solution. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=1290687946 here]. Correct me if I'm wrong, me, or anyone asking what you meant is hard to misconstrue as someone not trying to collaborate.

::::::::::::::::::::* When tduk asked you about your statement "I would also support getting rid of the field entirely, but for now we have it."?", your response was saying if that's what they wanted, they should move the conversation elsewhere, but they were just asking to clarify what you meant.

::::::::::::::::::::I'm going to ask you to follow WP:CIVIL, specifically that {{gt|Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions.}} Please stop accusing me or tduk of trying to make things complicated. Please do not assume we are against you, because I am not. I am trying to apply the rules that I'm aware of and on asking you to clarify how I'm misinterpreting them or other questions, I have not received a response. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I have answered the questions that you pointed to, and you continue to focus on everything except trying to come up with a solution to the problem that you created. Once again, I am doing all the work even though you are the one insisting that something must be done here. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|:::::::::::::::::::::}}Once again trying to get a solution, here is my proposed new list of genres:

• Action-adventure (both supported by Disney+ and expected as obvious/basic genres)
• Period drama (supported by sources in the article)
• Science fiction (Disney+ and obvious/basic)
• Spy fiction (Disney+ and obvious/basic)
• Superhero (obvious/basic as a Marvel show about characters considered to be Marvel heroes)

Andrzejbanas has taken issue with "adventure" being included because they think it is implied already, I disagree with that interpretation and it is listed on Disney+. Andrzejbanas has taken issue with "action" and "adventure" being listed together, in my experience this is standard across film and television articles. Andrzejbanas has taken issue with period drama because they feel this series does not meet the explanation at Historical drama, I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation and I also don't think we should be making this decision based on the wording at another Wiki article. This series definitely meets the Oxford definition of a period drama ("a television or film production set in a particular historical period and characterized by the use of costumes, sets, and props that are typical or evocative of the era") and there are plenty of reliable sources to support it being a "period drama" or a "period piece" if we want to add more. Andrzejbanas also thinks we should add "comedy" as a category based on a couple of reviews. I feel that we would need to do a much more in-depth analysis of third-party sources to determine whether it would be DUEWEIGHT to add comedy, as nothing in the article indicates that this is a defining feature of the series and a couple reviews mentioning it has comedic elements doesn't feel like enough for me.

I know the length and contentiousness of this discussion is probably going to put other editors off, but it would be great to have some other thoughts on this rather than just the same couple of people restating the same thoughts and going in circles. Thanks all, adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I think the only thing I agree with you here is that we've been going in circles on this, and your suggestions are against a plethora of guidelines we both have gone over more than a few times. I've gone forward to make a RFC on this to help us move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Where is this RfC? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've shared it on your talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::FYI for anyone watching here, Andrzejbanas has opened a dispute resolution so there is no RfC discussion if you were looking to participate in one. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)