Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Second Season of Iron Fist

This link confirms that the second season has entered production, with set photos: http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/iron-fist/news/a845355/iron-fist-marvel-netflix-season-2-first-look-danny-rand-finn-jones/.

I had already tried to post this in this talk page by clicking on the "Add Discussion" button, but apparently that either didn't work or did something else. I apologize if I caused any trouble. Uglyguy26 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Shows in Development

There are more than just 3 shows in development (and no rumors are included in that). In the article there are 6 specific instances of shows "in various stages of development" cited in the article. There is also a seventh (the female-focused show that doesn't seem to be mentioned, but probably should be[1]). -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be fine to just say there are several shows in development, especially since we know they keep trying different things with ABC that don't move forward. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Color codes on seasons meanings

hi. What does the color codes in the season tables mean? I could not find a legend or use to it, so I suggest adding an explanation or removing the colors to make the article cleaner.

this also affects this other article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

rgds Mauriciorpp (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

See the season articles. Per MOS:TV, colours are picked for television series' seasons based on their promotional art and home media cover art. -- Alex^TW 17:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, these tables are a modification of {{Series overview}}, which uses this formatting as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

'The Punisher' Season 2 Has Started Filming

Photos have surfaced from where star Jon Bernthal has returned to work playing Frank Castle. The Punisher is currently filming in the Bellmores in New York. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.222.1 (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

References

^ http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/03/10/the-punisher-season-2-begins-production/

Drafts for upcoming television series

A listing of all current draft articles for upcoming MCU television series or seasons, can be found at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Drafts. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Punisher Season 2 is Still Filming

On this link (https://wnyt.com/news/jason-moore-the-punisher-netflix-albany/4992081/) Jason Moore confirms that they're shooting in Albany this week. Uglyguy26 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Iron Fist Season 2 Episode Count

Netflix has confirmed to IGN that the season will have 10 episodes (http://m.ign.com/articles/2018/07/30/marvels-iron-fist-season-2-will-only-have-10-episodes). Uglyguy26 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Added -- Alex^TW 07:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Series' titles

I wonder why it is that each television series is listed on a Marvel Cinematic Universe article, with the unnecessary introductory word of "Marvel's". For a periodical, commercial, or even network to call the series such in advertising makes sense in that it alerts the general public that "this is a Marvel property" (I.E.: people who don't know Marvel find interest by the franchise moniker). With a page that is specifically about Marvel television shows, to list every single TV series, with the introductory word is needless, and quite useless. It's redundant. It's like listing every Disney film as "Disney's" before it. It's also like listing every single WB film as "Warner Bros.'".... I changed it per WP:BOLD, and editors immediately deleted it. Bringing discussion here to clear up this mess.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Those are the WP:OFFICIALNAMES of each TV series. They are used in the headers, table cells and first prose use of each series. It is not the same as listing every Disney film as "Disney's" before it... [or] listing every single WB film as "Warner Bros.'".

Key for series

I cannot see a guide or key or legend for what the blocks of colours mean beside every series for every show.

Is someone going to add one? --5.80.223.130 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The colours are just assigned to each season for identification, they do not mean anything unto themselves. If you check out one of the individual season pages, such as Daredevil (season 1), you'll see that the blue colour from this page is used in the infobox and episode table there. This is something that is commonly done for TV articles on Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the benefit of this practice, though? It certainly comes across as confusing on a page like this. Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Separating the individual seasons. See MOS:TV#Formatting. Barely confusing. As Adam said, This is something that is commonly done for TV articles on Wikipedia. If you want to overall that for the wider TV community, then this is not the place. -- Alex^TW 01:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Rumored section

Should we add a "rumored tv shows section" ? For example Rocket & Groot, Hawkeye or Nick Fury Buckythewintersoldier (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has always and will always rely on reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:RS; rumours are not reliable. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Vision and the Scarlet Witch

Where did the title Vision and the Scarlet Witch come from? Do we have source for that? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The next month, Deadline Hollywood reported the series would be called Vision and the Scarlet Witch and that it would debut in 2019 during the streaming service's launch — from this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read what the article says. But do we have a Deadline article we can cite for that statement? The article at the end of that paragraph makes no mention of the title. -AnonWikiEditor (talk)

It certainly did, but it now seems to be removed. The content is still in the archive link: Also getting an upgrade: Marvel Studios star Elizabeth Olsen has played Scarlet Witch as a supporting character in four films to date. The character will be a title character for the first time next year with the launch of Vision and the Scarlet Witch, a Disney+ streaming series. -- Alex^TW 02:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we revert back then since Deadline seeming retracted their "reveal" of the title? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems like it's going to be best for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no issue with keeping it, and just marking the source as a "dead link", to prominently display the archive link instead. -- Alex^TW 23:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It just isn't great if our reliable source has retracted their statement. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my feeling with it too. Especially since the title was just thrown in to the article that it was. This is similar to on Black Panther where there was an interview with Sterling K. Brown that seemed to confirm Phylicia Rashad for the film, and then the source retracted that, and eventually confirmed it was a misquote/mis-information. So I'd say we at least revert the title here and elsewhere in the mainspace, but maybe keep the draft where it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the title "Vision and the Scarlet Witch" or "The Vision and Scarlet Witch" ? I'm confused Buckythewintersoldier (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It's "Vision and the Scarlet Witch" - http://web.archive.org/web/20190110011254/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvels-vision-scarlet-witch-disney-series-lands-captain-marvel-writer-1174937 Lado85 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Netfix series

I added info into seasons of Netflix Marvel TV shows about what season of another show was released after, however these edits were reverted and were found to be 'trivial'. I get the other editors point but I feel that all of the shows are connected in some way with crossovers and guest appearances, maybe a passing mention to other shows may help? The Optimistic One (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, characters that have appeared across multiple series have been listed in a characters table on the article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the "connectivity"/order of release is mention in the main article of each series. That's where it's most appropriate, not the individual seasons. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 April 2019

This edit request to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove {{portal bar|Marvel Cinematic Universe}} - Portal:Marvel Cinematic Universe was deleted. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 April 2019

This edit request to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Cloak & Dagger: Please change season 2 last aired date to May 30, 2019. Source - http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/marvels-cloak-and-dagger/listings/ Lado85 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Done no opposition, so changes made — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 April 2019

This edit request to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You should add that WandaVision will start filming in Fall 2019. After all, Elizabeth Olsen said to Variety that filming for WandaVision will begin in Fall 2019.^[1] BestDaysofMusic (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/disney-wandavision-details-elizabeth-olsen-1203197323/

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Continuity

I know that this has been discussed before at other talk pages, but after recent developments I would like to suggest some new wording for the leads of MCU TV shows. This will affect a lot of shows, so I thought I would bring it up here first rather than simply going ahead with mass changes.

The leads of many MCU TV articles currently say It is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), sharing continuity with the films and other television series of the franchise. There have been various concerns with this wording in the past, but never any consensus to change it. Now, Marvel Studios are making their own MCU TV shows and Feige has said the films will actually be influenced by them unlike their current relationship with Marvel Television's series. This creates a distinction between the two types of series that I think should be reflected in how we word this continuity sentence in each lead. I propose this change in wording:

For Marvel Studios series, It is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and shares continuity with the films of the franchise.
For Marvel Television series, It is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and acknowledges the continuity of the films and other television series of the franchise.

These can of course be adjusted from article to article as required, but I think the base distinction of "shares" and "acknowledges" should be made. Does anyone watching here have any concerns with this proposal? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. - Brojam (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No thanks, seems very needless.★Trekker (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your concerns Trekker? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I now feel more strongly about this, especially following the confusion regarding the new Hulu series and the implications of what is about to happen with AoS regarding the snap. Unless someone wants to explain to me why this shouldn't happen, I will be bold and start making this change soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ghost Rider & Helstrom

Are we certain these shows will take place in the MCU? The Ghost Rider section references the EW article saying "this isn’t a traditional spin-off of S.H.I.E.L.D. but will focus on the “same character with [a] new story that lives unto its own.”", but can be interpreted differently. And there are conflicting statements, like Variety which was the first to break Gabriel Luna reprising his role, stated that: "Luna has played Ghost Rider, previously appearing as the character in the ABC-Marvel series “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” However, sources stress that this will be a completely new iteration of the character in no way connected to the “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” storyline."[2] And on CNBC, which is titled "Hulu green lights ‘Ghost Rider’ and ‘Helstrom’ shows, but they won’t crossover with the Marvel Cinematic Universe", it is stated that: "[U]nlike their Disney+ counterparts, “Ghost Rider” and “Helstrom” will not cross over with other Marvel shows or films, although it will exist within the same universe, Marvel said." And also states that: "Reyes will be played by Gabriel Luna, who played the character on “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D” on ABC. However, Marvel has stated that this will be a new iteration of the character and not related to Luna’s work on the TV series."[3] This would mean that since it's not the AoS version that Luna is portraying, as in the one in the MCU, then that means neither the Ghost Rider or Helstrom shows will take place in the MCU, unless plans are changed later on once they near production.Mountnstream (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

it will exist within the same universe, Marvel said. Per your source Marvel said it is. The other stuff, whether they create new storylines, do retconning, or treat him as a new iteration of Robbie would not change that. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's too vague of a statement. The 2018 Venom movie was said to in the same reality/universe as the MCU and Spider-Man: Homecoming, but we know that's not the case, and was later clarified as being its own (Sony's Marvel Universe/Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters).

Mountnstream (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Marvel has never said Venom was in the same universe as Spider-man: Homecoming. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, Marvel never said that. Sony, I think, was trying to position Venom as part of the MCU. The Ghost Rider show sounds like it's a new story unconnected from the Agents of SHIELD plot and won't end up crossing-over to the wider MCU. --Bold Clone 17:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hulu’s Statement (EW): This isn’t a traditional spin-off of S.H.I.E.L.D. but will focus on the “same character with [a] new story that lives unto its own

Marvel's Statement (CNBC): “Unlike their Disney+ counterparts, Ghost Rider” and “Helstrom” will not cross over with other Marvel shows or films, although it will exist within the same universe.

"New iteration of the character" does not necessarily mean that it is non-canon. These TV series are set in the MCU because Marvel says so (Marvel is not Sony) YgorD3 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

They exist in the same universe because Marvel said they do. Produced by Marvel, so they have the rights, although it seems largely independent. Faromics (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing article to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Television properties

Since it seems like the Disney+ shows will be directly connected to the films, I propose grouping together only the shows produced by Marvel Television and moving the Disney+ shows, produced by Marvel Studios, to a new page: "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Studios properties". TdanTce (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

To avoid repeating a similar conversation, don't respond here and please see Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Changing article to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Studios properties. Equineducklings (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Falcon and the Winter Soldier Release

The release date for Falcon and the Winter Soldier should be Late 2020. Why? Because that's what Marvel themselves announced. I'm not sure what other reason there needs to be. An older source claimed the series would air in summer 2020, but then Marvel themselves announced just a few weeks ago at SDCC that the show would be out in fall 2020. Once Marvel themselves officially announced fall (they had not previously announced any date), we go with fall. -Vrobowp (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another source specifies an actual month rather than a generic season, so we go with that. Gain a consensus for your statement before changing it again. 193.115.86.204 (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Once source from earlier this year said the summer month. Marvel themselves very recently announced that the show is coming in the fall. You need to explain why you insist on overriding Marvel on their own (widely citable) announced release. -Vrobowp (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Disney announced when they are releasing the show - fall 2020 (or “late 2020” in the season agnostic format). Using an earlier date that directly conflicts with what Disney just announced makes no sense. Fall/Late 2020 can be thoroughly cited so that’s not an issue. It’s also not a case of one date being more specific than the other, as they are two different dates. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What if?

Is What if? meant to be in the MCU as it doesn't seem to be canon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.136.15 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What If...? is a TV show dealing exclusively with MCU what-if scenarios. It is essentially the MCU version of "What If." Obviously Peggy Carter never took the Super Soldier Serum, but that's not important. The show's canonicity is irrelevant. You mean to tell me "this is the MCU version of "What If", therefore it's not part of the MCU"? That just doesn't make any sense. If the show is dealing with the MCU, then it is by definition part of the MCU, even if its stories tell alternative histories. --Bold Clone 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not canon to the MCU since its whole premise is to contradict MCU canon, but it is definitely connected to the franchise which is why it is mentioned in the "Outside media" section here which is for related stuff that is not canon. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If the show is related to the MCU, then it belongs on the MCU TV show page. Simple enough. You might as well argue that the Marvel Comic “What If” isn’t actually part of the Marvel Comics Universe. That’s obviously not true, simply because the Marvel Comics “What If” ‘’are a Marvel Comic’’. Their canonicity is irrelevant. They are telling Marvel Comics stories that are not within the main timeline, but they are just as clearly part of the multi-timeline fictional “Marvel Comics Universe”. The same goes for the MCU “What If...?” It is clearly not part of the main MCU timeline, but it is just as clearly part of the multi-faceted world of the MCU. --Bold Clone 06:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, just because it's not "canon" to the current MCU timeline doesn't make it not part of the MCU, especially considering the MCU film actors are reprising their roles. What If...? should be listed with the other Disney+ series. - Brojam (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I do want to clarify something here quickly. I'm not basing my position of "Marvel's What If is part of the MCU" on the fact that Marvel Studios is producing it, or because that Kevin Feige is overseeing it, or because the MCU actors are possibly reprising their roles for the show. That would violate the "No synthesis" or "no original research rule." I'm basing off of the Marvel website press release, which says "Marvel’s What If…?," the first animated series from Marvel Studios and takes inspiration from the comic books of the same name. Each episode will explore a pivotal moment from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and turn it on its head, leading the audience into uncharted territory." Here is the press release. Hope that helps. --Bold Clone 01:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I also support adding the series to this page. I’ve wondered for a while now why it was missing. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, we currently have three editors who support keeping the ‘’What If?’’ material on the page, and no dissenting voices in this conversation. I’m not foolish enough to assume this is definitive consensus, but for anyone else who wishes to step ino the discussion, this is where matters stand.

Also, in regards to the FAQ at the top of the page, I firmly believe the ‘’What If?’’ series really is part of the MCU. This is simply because I believe we can have multiple alternate timelines within the single MCU. ‘’Avengers: Endgame’’ has proven as much. Having present-day Cap interacting with an alt-timeline past version of himself means you have two equally-valid MCU versions of Cap. Now, the alternate timeline Cap and his adventures are not “canon” in the main MCU timeline, but they are still real and valid. Honestly, the only way to describe ‘’What If’’ is non-canon in the MCU, simply to emphasize that their what-if stories have no bearing on the ongoing main story of the MCU, just like how an escaped version of Loki has no bearing on the ongoing story of either Endgame or beyond. The escaped Loki is canon in his timeline, but not in the main timeline, since events played out differently there. TL;DR — ‘’Marvel’s What If’’ is non-canon in the main timeline, but still part of the greater MCU family of timelines. —Bold Clone 06:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that backs any of that up, or was it entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? 193.115.107.233 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to. A non-canon MCU tv show is still an MCU tv show. There is a difference between a non-canon MCU tv show and a non-MCU show. We don't cover non-MCU show like Legion, but we can still cover non-canonical shows. --Bold Clone 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, all the timeline stuff you made up was indeed entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Thanks for confirming. 193.115.107.233 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The timeline stuff is irrelevant, though. It is my fan explanation, not my editing justification; but such nuance is clearly lost on the likes of you.

My editing justification is that even though the show’s events are non-canonical, they are still part of the MCU. You seem to be operating on the mistaken assumption that simply because it is a non-canon story, it cannot be part of a larger franchise. I would explain this to you using an illustration, but you would probably dismiss that as OR and SYNTH as well. —Bold Clone 05:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to remember that Wikipedia is not a fan site for you to express your wishes and desires. Wikipedia is based on facts only. Your personal theories should be struck out, as they do not contribute to this article. None of your timeline conjectures are based in any reliable sources. 203.63.83.122 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to remember that I am not using Wikipedia as a fan site to express my wishes and desires. The SlashFilm source specifically, clearly, and explicitly states that the "What If" series will not be canon in the MCU, and that the film actors are likely to reprise their roles. What the SlashFilm sources does not specifically, clearly, and explicitly state is that the show is non-MCU, only that it is non-canon. There is a difference. A non-canon MCU tv show is still an MCU tv show. Again, such nuance is clearly lost on the likes of you. --Bold Clone 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Except you are using Wikipedia as a fan site, because there are a total of zero sources that support your timeline theory. If nothing supports your timeline theory, then that means you made it up, and is thus nothing more than a fan theory. If not, then backup your timeline theory. I'll be waiting. 203.63.83.122 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait no more. Forget the timeline theory, IP. I told you that before, and you refused to listen. I will explain to you a second time: the timeline theory is not relevant. What is relevant is that the SlashFilm source cited specifically, explicitly, unambiguously and definitely describes the "What If" show as not canon in the MCU. That is not questionable or disputable. And I quote: "The new animated show will be overseen by Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios, but the stories will not be canon in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." What I dispute is that a non-canon MCU series is by default non-MCU. Again, such nuance is clearly lost on the likes of you. What the SlashFilm source specifically, explicitly, unambiguously and definitely does not claim is that the "What If" show is not in the MCU. In fact, the SlashFilm source claims that the film actors are likely to reprise their roles for this series: "The idea is that they could potentially have some of the main actors from the live-action Marvel Cinematic Universe movies reprise their roles in the animated series, which would imagine alternate possibilities from another dimension." That sounds to me like this is still MCU content. --Bold Clone 23:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How can I forget it? You posted it to validate your explanation. Do you have a source backing up your timeline theory? No? It's therefore not a theory and completely made up. Also funny how you said [4] "The Deadline source makes no mention of whether the show is non-canon." Shows you don't even read other sources. Timeline theory is fake. 115.64.196.215 (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Again. The timeline theory is irrelevant. (Redacted)

Again. The timeline theory is irrelevant because I am not using it as a justification for my edit. (Redacted)

What I am using as a justification for my edit are the two sources cited in the article.

I have read both the SlashFilm and the Deadline article

I quoted the SlashFilm article twice in my previous comment.

This shows you don’t even read other comments.

The SlashFilm article reveals two facts.

Fact one...Marvel’s What If...? is non-canon as far as the greater MCU is concerned.

Fact two...Marvel’s What If...? will have MCU actors reprise their MCU roles in this show.

Conclusion...This show will be non-canon, but still part of the MCU.

Forget my theory. (Redacted) —Bold Clone 16:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You posted the theory. You used it to justify your edits. Now, supply a source for it. I don't care if it's canon or not. Clearly the content is remaining there. My issue is with you posting your fan theories here. What place does it have in this discussion? Answer that for me, if you can. 115.64.196.215 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

My theory has no place in this discussion. I have told you that multiple times, and you have refused to listen. I agree with you.' I am not using my theory to justify my edits. I am using the SlashFilm and Deadline sources, and I have quoted them multiple times in this argument, and you have refused to listen. --Bold Clone 02:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly I'm listening, as I've kept the content in the article. My question is, if you know it has no place in this discussion, then why did you post it? It's nothing more than fan content. 115.64.196.215 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The "multiple timeline" theory served two purposes. First purpose: it acted as an illustration. Namely, we already saw multiple timelines in Avengers: Endgame. In other words, "multiple timelines" are at least possible. Second purpose: it acted as a fan-rationale for the facts established by the SlashFilm source used in the article. Namely, that the show would not be canonical in the MCU, but MCU actors are still going to reprise their roles. That was it. If you want to keep harping on that, then whine away. If I were going to post fan theories...you would just find me at the Endgame page arguing about however the heck the time travel stuff worked in that movie. I might be headstrong, but I'm still not foolish enough to dive into the age-old "time machine" can of worms. --Bold Clone 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A "fan-rationale" and "fan theory" for established facts from a source... So, the definition of WP:SYNTH. Okay, thanks for confirming that. 115.64.196.215 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you paid no attention? The fan-rationale and fan theory are irrelevant. How many times do I need to explain that to you? They are my way of explaining the established facts. The established facts are that the show would not be canonical in the MCU, but MCU actors are still going to reprise their roles. Nothing more and nothing less. Deal with the facts, IP, not my theory. The theory is irrelevant. Only the facts are. --Bold Clone 04:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I know they're irrelevant. I understand that. Which is why they shouldn't have been posted here. This is not a place to discuss irrelevant fan theories. That's what you need to understand. I stopped arguing about the canonicity ages ago. You really need to catch up. 193.115.85.133 (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

My fan theory served a point. It was not speculation for the sake of speculation. I used my theory as an illustration and an explanation to prove my point. My point was that the show is apparently non-canon, but still in the MCU somehow. It served no greater purpose than that, and was irrelevant as far was hard cold facts were concerned. You should have been able to figure that out after the first couple times I explained it to you. You really do need to catch up. --Bold Clone 15:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: has this discussion amounted to "agree to disagree," or was there another talking point we missed? --Bold Clone 18:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I agree, it's an "MCU inspired work" not an MCU TV series. It belongs in the same category as the video games.★Trekker (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Since it was announced as part of Phase Four, I think that makes it officially part of the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What If...?' is definitively an MCU TV series. Marvel's SDCC statement says, "the first animated series in the MCU,". It is also is part of Phase Four along with the movies and the other Disney + shows from Marvel Studios, and clearly it will be part of the MCU canon (exploring alternate universes/realities). YgorD3 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Hawkeye (2020 TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hawkeye (2020 TV series). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Disney+ Section

All the other content on this list has been produced by Marvel Television before it was a subsidiary of Marvel Studios like it is now. I think that this list should just contain the content produced by Marvel Television, NOT by Marvel Studios as that is completely separate from what was/is done under Jeph Loeb. It makes more sense to separate it that way, since what's being done under Feige is more connected to the MCU and will interplay with the movies whereas what Marvel Television has produced is basically in its own bubble. I would like to hear everyone's feedback on this.

Thanks, B91302 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this article List of Marvel Television television series? No. It's List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. That is, all TV series that are held within the MCU. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a page for all of the MCU-based tv shows, not just the Marvel TV-produced ones. --Bold Clone 05:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Netflix series split

This section seems to have been split to it's own article, I don't know if this was done with consensus but I don't see any topic on it here on the talk page. I'm not 100% against it (since much like the film list this page risks becoming too big) but maybe it should be discussed first.★Trekker (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

See #Split Marvel Television content from Marvel Studios content to new articles, where the discussion evolved into splitting by network. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, stupid me didn't notice the section there.★Trekker (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Split Marvel Television content from Marvel Studios content to new articles

Given what is happening with Disney+, I think it might be beneficial to split the TV content into 2 new articles:

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series (Marvel Television)
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series (Marvel Studios)
this article would become a "housing" page to direct readers to the two new split pages

Recent info has all but confirmed that Marvel Television's contributions to their remaining airing series and their new ones will be "MCU adjacent", and the Marvel Studios series are fully integrated with the films. I've done a quick split mock up in my sandbox, here. It's also possible that this split might not need to happen until the Studios series start streaming next year, and we could fill out the proposed new article more with reception etc. Also, I am still not currently actively editing, but will try to pop on more to check in with this discussion. Cheers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that will be necessary. By the time they start streaming we will likely already have split the MCU films article by Phases, in which case we will be able to just move the Disney+ series to the Phase Four page. Then, we could just rename this article "List of Marvel Television television series" or something that sounds better than that. El Millo (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a better split than by Phases. That would be a very WP:INUNIVERSE grouping. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

But as I said, I haven't been on here much, so if that's where split consensus is going, so be it. @Facu-el Millo and Brojam: since you both seem to be actively editing those drafts, could either of you put a blurb on my talk page getting me up to speed on the plan for them? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't use phases as the primary source for the Marvel Studios Disney+ TV content. It's almost guaranteed a lot of the shows will be renewed for more seasons which are likely to take place in phase 5, phase 6 etc. Our model would then break. We shouldn't assume that they will never get renewed or that they will remain phase 4 even ten years from now. So, while the phases will mention their respective shows/seasons, we'll need a central place for all the Marvel Studios shows regardless of the season or phase. Starforce¹³ 19:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Doing this will make things confusing. There are a lot of folks who watch the films but are only acquainted in passing with the shows - the difference between Marvel Television and Marvel Studios would be lost on them. Also, while I'm not taking a position on grouping by phases, I don't think there would be any inuniverse concerns with that, for the simple reason that phases are not in the universe - no storyline at any point mentions the "phase" of ongoing events; they are something that the Marvel producers and directors talk about in the real world. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

But, Starforce, in case we eventually have confirmation that they won't be renewed, would you still be against putting these Disney+ shows in the Phase Four page? El Millo (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes El Millo, if it became clear that each of these was truly a "limited" series, I'd be fine with that. The thing with TV shows is that even some the ones that start as limited series get renewed depending on their popularity. I also agree with Airbornemihir that a lot of casual readers won't understand the distinction between Marvel Studios and Marvel Television tv shows. Bottom line is, it's confusing either way.

I think for now, I would say let's wait about 2 years from now after like 3 of them have aired and we have enough content. By then, we'll probably have more information to help decide on the split. Starforce¹³ 22:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We should definitely wait. Mike210381 (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a real "wait and see" situation. I don't really think it is that necessary as splitting them into two separate pages just determined bythe company is kinda overkill seeing as how Marvel Studios' shows are only on one network while Marvel Television's are on multiple networks. My current stance as of now is not to split the pages, but maybe having two sections on the page, i.e. "Marvel Television series" and "Marvel Studios series", and then list the network sub-headers, i.e. under "Marvel Television series" there is "Netflix series" and a "Disney+ series", and under "Marvel Studios series" there would just be "Disney+ series". Or we can just keep it how it is as of now, I'm fine with all options, however, but am somewhat concerned for a split like this when one of the pages will only have content from one network. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we can get away with keeping them together for now, especially with the Phase Four article looking close to be moved to the mainspace (and the Phase Four Disney+ shows absolutely need to be included in the Phase Four article). Additionally, I have been preparing my own split proposal that would see this page become even more of a generic overview than it is, with more details in separate articles for each network. You guys can see my progress so far here: Netflix shows, Hulu shows, and ABC shows, with the beginnings of a more minimalist overall list. I will definitely be pushing for the Netflix shows to get there own article given how interconnected they are without crossing over with any of the other networks, and due to all the shared development, reception, and cancellation information we have for them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm much more in favor of a split like you suggested and I think the Netflix article is pretty much good to go and could be split already in my opinion (and even the ABC one honestly looks very good and ready to split as well). - Brojam (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with splitting by network especially for Netflix and Disney+. (I am kind of biased towards keeping Runaways and Cloak & Dagger together, though. Runaways is closer to C&D than it is to the new Hulu animated shows. But that's another topic.) But my official call is let's wait for the Disney+ shows to premiere first and then bring back the split discussion. I think it's too early. Starforce¹³ 22:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with splitting them how adamstrom suggested it. That's akin to the Phase page splits, and I think they'll work better. A page for all the MCU series on each network sounds great! I'd be fine too if the Netflix and ABC pages were moved to the mainspace now or soon, as they seem ready, but it might just be best with good intent to wait until after the Disney+ series premiere until we do something official. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I take my "wait" back. I think it's fine to split them by network now... especially while the Netflix shows are still relevant. It will also give us a clean slate for Disney+ shows without scrolling through all these. Starforce¹³ 23:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam let me know about his proposed splits, and I think by network would work well, doing the splits now, or shortly in the future. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I think we can go ahead and move at least the Netflix page to mainspace now. - Brojam (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've done this now. I'll have another look at the other potential pages and reassess them before doing anything else. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Great! When you are ready with the ABC page, you could go ahead and move that one as well. Then, we can see what we do with the Hulu one. - Brojam (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't think splitting them by company makes much sense, especially at this point where the Disney+ shows aren't even released yet. That would be a terribly short article. I think it's a good idea to look into how this article can be split, as it is getting quite long. Splitting them by phases doesn't sound like a good idea to me either, though, since it's sometimes hard to say to which phase the Marvel Television series belong. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., for example, has been around since phase 2 and it's currently unclear whether the last season will be part of phase 4, or any phase at all. Agent Carter takes place in the past, so simply looking at the timeline won't be very practical either.. Splitting by network would mean very short Hulu and Freeform articles. I don't know what would be best, but I think for now we should just wait. --Benimation (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The idea of the split by Phase was only regarding the Disney+ shows. I suggested moving those to the Phase Four article once moved to mainspace. Not for the Marvel Television shows though. El Millo (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Making a split by production company (either Marvel Television or Marvel Studios) can be confusing and hard to understand for new readers. If the articles should be split than I support a split by network so individual pages for series on Disney+, Hulu, Freeform and Netflix like user:Adamstom97 has made. However, with Disney+ not launching its first series until 2020, I think it's too early too split the pages. Virin1009 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Doesn't make sense to split them up based on production company, as Marvel Studios has yet to say Marvel Television's projects are no longer canon so. —Jman "not a dude" 98 04:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should split by Network.★Trekker (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

ABC series cast is unnecessarily hard to read

Only Peggy Carter is the same in both series and organizing by year then by series makes following which characters are in which seasons more difficult than it needs to be.

I propose changing to Agents of SHIELD Seasons 1-6 first, then Agent Carter - with a note or something about years. 65.127.183.235 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Reexamine split - Marvel TV folding

With the news of Marvel TV folding, and Helstrom being "produced" now by Marvel Studios, I think it's worth considering again examining this article and how the content is split up, particularly by everything not on Disney+ (Marvel TV stuff) and everything that is (Marvel Studios stuff). Especially considering Feige has just said Falcon and Winter Soldier will be the first time the MCU is on TV, I think that's pretty clear real world info along with the folding of the Marvel TV unit, that everything from them (maybe outside the ABC shows, kind of), are not considered part of the MCU, at least properly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas? I would still go with splitting off the ABC series (whenever Adam's sandbox draft is ready) and just leaving Runaways and Cloak & Dagger on this list for now until we get a few more Marvel Studios series on those respective networks. - Brojam (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel like splinting ABC and Netflix shows into separate articles would be the best way froward. Or making Disney+ MCU only article. LoreMaster22 (talk) 3:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to reassess the work that I have done in my sandbox and how it is sitting with this latest news, before deciding what my preferred approach is here. I don't have time right now to do that, but I am happy to do some more work on this over the next week or so. People seem to have responded positively to the work I was already doing, and I don't think it will take much to get that ABC page ready. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the split would need to stay in place considering finished series were still finished under Marvel Television?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of letting Adam reassess his sandbox work for the main page and split them up into separate pages grouping the series. The fact the Marvel Television is now folded into Marvel Studios does not change the fact that the Marvel TV shows were produced for the MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. - Brojam (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think network splits are still good, but I guess my thought process for this article, the "housing" list as it were, could be more branched as either two new lists (one for all non-Disney+ series and one for Disney+ series), or keep them all together, but group ABC, Netflix, Freeform, and Hulu (including Helstrom) under a Marvel Television subheading and then Disney+ under a Marvel Studios subheading, if that makes sense. Marvel Television series are still MCU, but this news just makes the divide that much clearer going forward for how Marvel Studios is treating those series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also one thing I think is important also going forward is the Actors. We should make a Disney+ Actors article and have it separate from the other shows.LoreMaster22 (talk) 5:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Split by Network, not by production studio. That should apply to both spinoff articles as well as grouping the lists here. "Common" readers are likely to look by specific networks because they recognize that more than Marvel Television vs Marvel Studios. And yeah, even though we know the Marvel TV shows haven't been fully connected, they're still "technically" in MCU. (They might work around it by saying this is a different earth within the multiverse.) I think for now, the main spinoff articles we need are for Netflix (already created), ABC and Hulu animations. Disney+ shows can remain in their phases for now. Runaways and Cloak & Dagger can remain here. We'll see about Helstrom.Starforce¹³ 17:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox update

As discussed above, I have made some updates to the sandbox articles I was already working on and would like to re-present what I have. I haven't really changed what I was already working on, just made some updates based on the new Marvel TV news. I believe my proposed new version of this list article aligns with what Favre1fan93 is envisioning, with a Marvel TV section and then a Marvel Studios section. I have added some development information to explain the differences between the two, as well as the recent corporate restructuring. You can see how it is currently sitting here. At the moment I haven't tried to include a separate cast and character section as I feel like it would be a bit redundant, plus there is more discussion required there regarding what should become of the TV actors list. There is also probably room for a critical response section, possibly focusing on the Marvel TV vs. Marvel Studios issue.

My new approach also splits out all the sections that Loeb discussed in an interview a few months ago to their own articles: ABC series, which I think is ready for the mainspace now; Netflix series, which is already in the mainspace; YA series, which is Runaways and Cloak & Dagger; and Adventure into Fear. The latter two may seem less deserving of articles since they cover less actual shows (two and one, respectively). However, I think they both have enough development and abandoned projects discussion to justify their existence, and I think they can both be expanded with some good critical discussion as well. I also think this list will be served better by keeping it as a simple overview of series that have actually been made and not trying to include things like abandoned projects for only specific networks.

If others are happy with this approach then I can make final improvements (including grabbing all the missing references) before pushing everything into the mainspace. Interested to hear what everyone's thoughts on this are. My expectation for any future network series is that they would be added under the Marvel Studios section rather than any of the Marvel TV sub pages, but that would have to be figured out properly at the time when we have more information. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel it would be better to just put "ABC" and "Netflix" as the section headers rather than "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights". Those aren't the common names, as far as I know. El Millo (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm new here and came to have a look at what was happening with the TV series after the news of Marvel Television ending. I've just been looking through your sandbox pages adamstom97 and I think they look fantastic! They're so much clearer and easier to understand than the current wikipedia pages are! My only suggestion would be to use "Young Adult" as the section header rather than "YA" as I'm not so sure that's a common abbreviation. Otherwise though, they seem great to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.23.249 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes Adam, your mock up is exactly what I was thinking! While I did initially feel 2 separate articles could be considered in my initial post, further discussion and thought made me believe sectioning out things would work, and your formatting is what my intent was. I also agree with Facu-el Millo that the headings should probably be just "ABC", "Netflix", and with the IP about "Young adult". And I guess if we make that an article, it should also be spelled out, considering the Wikipedia article on the genre is Young adult fiction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for Adam's versions and agree with the points made by others above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I like it very much as well. User:LoreMaster22 5:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the positive feedback everyone! I am going to go ahead and start making final touches before moving things over to the mainspace. Once the pages are live, there may be some technical updates required that others will be able to help with, such as getting the tables into the right place and transcluding correctly. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

All of my sandbox work is now in the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Great work! We might need to rethink the main table at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Television series since it's throwing an error with the YA series having the network field in their table. - Brojam (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into that now. Alex 21, with {{Series overview}}, is there an easy way we could have "no transclude" tags around the network parameter, at least for the ABC and Netflix tables, when they are generated on their respective pages? I'm thinking of a way to use those parameters for the Marvel Cinematic Universe transclude, but they wouldn't be needed on the actual pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, sorry I took so long to get back to you on this, but

Done. Simply set the |networktranscludeonly= parameter to the title of the article of the table's location (as seen [5][6]), and the network won't appear on that article, but will anywhere else it's transcluded to (in the same fashion of the summary in {{Episode list/sublist}} appearing/not appearing between articles). -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Thanks Alex. Realizing too, we'll probably need it for "Status" as well, since, like the complete Phase MCU articles, the Netflix and Young Adult articles don't need to have "Released" shown on their pages (only the transclusion needs that). This one isn't as big of a deal though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, also

done! Updating the template documentation now. So, ABC hides the network, Netflix hides the network and status, YA hides the status, and AIF hides none. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one, that thinks that spliting is to early? I don't get the point of spliting one TV series into Adventure into Fear or two into Young adult series. There clearly won't be more of them. It was Loeb idea, so I don't think that they move forward with that. We don't know exacly are they in the MCU or it was only intention of producers? If Feige will reboot all characters that appeared in Marvel Television series, what next then? I think that we should wait with any changes at least to next SDCC. Maybe we will get any statement from Feige or anything. That work this time don't seem to be right for encyclopedia. Mike210381 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Television table at main MCU article

There is currently discussion on what the Marvel Television series table headers should be to identify each of the four split off pages we have created. That discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Addition of 3 more episodes for WandaVision

Marvel Studios has announced that three more episodes are made for WandaVision. Check the news on Google User45887522268 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done Please provide a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Disney+ table

Does it make sense to have all the series in one table like they are at the moment? We could have one for Phase Four and one for Future for now? I think the way we have it at the moment with the Phase Four column but one in the middle that is TBA looks kind of weird. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

From this discussion, we did it this way because of the realization once production info leaked that Loki would have a season 2, having tables split by phases wouldn't work in instances such as that, where Loki info for season one would be in a phase 4 table, whereas season two could be in a phase 5/future table. Thus, it was decided to keep the series as much like a "normal" overview table with series having multiple seasons, and adding the column to indicate which phase it's in. I think this is the best solution we have at the moment regarding how to handle these series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah I remember. All good for now. I wonder once we get more info on Loki season 2 and future phases if this will still make sense. I am curious to see whether it is actually a traditional season 2 or if it is a sequel event series. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My guess is we'll probably end up going the divide-by-Phase route, but it's still too early to tell. El Millo (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well that's part of the whole thing that's making this a bit weird. If we get "additional" Loki content, will it be Loki (season 2), or will it be called say Young Loki or Lady Loki? We'll have to cross that bridge when it comes to that, because it will affect not just the table, but the series' articles themselves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We can include season 1 in one table and season 2 in a different table, see my sandbox for a mock-up of the two tables as they would be now, with What If...? season 1 in the first table and season 2 in the second one. El Millo (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I like that table format, El Millo, although, if we do go ahead and move all but What If season 2 over to Phase 4 per this discussion, What If season 2 would just be in its own table in the "Future" section, and we could do the same for Loki season 2 when that's official. And if any of these seasons become sequel event series as adam described, this could easily enable us to swap them out for the new series. Plus, the shows in Phase 4 would all be transcluded from that article, meaning we would move those to the Phase Four header and have What If season 2's own table under "Future". Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If we break down by Phase/Future again, we don't need separate tables and can transclude everything and use headers. I still feel "like" content should be grouped together as we have it now for here and the main MCU page, which is why we swapped formats in the first place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I Am Groot

Just wanted to start a discussion about this. Everything I've seen about this is it's a collection of animated shorts/short films. Based on that, I put the info at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Short films. I feel at this moment, that's the best place, but I could see it moving here to this table if it's more like short episodes. Wanted to get others thoughts on it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's series of shorts, an it must be here. And holiday special isn't series. Lado85 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Disney - I Am Groot, an Original Series from @MarvelStudios, is coming to #DisneyPlus. Lado85 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- As stated, many of third party sources I've seen seem to call these "short films", which even though it's animated, I would classify like the One-Shots. Additionally, though it's a special, the Guardians Holiday Special should be included here as well, assuming its canon, which it appears to be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  - It makes no sense for the GotG holiday special to be included in this page. It being canon is irrelevant when it's not a "TV series", but a one off special. On the other hand, I Am Groot clearly belongs here since it is a TV series, whether it be shortform or longform. It shouldn't matter if third party sourcesa call it short films when Disney/Marvel called it an "original series" in the announcement tweet.

Long story short, I am Groot belongs on this page, GotG holiday special doesn't. --Babar Suhail (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

- - Per Marvel this is a "Series of Shorts" which sounds like the other series of shorts that can already be found on Disney+ for other franchises. We don't usually treat those as actual TV series, and we do usually consider television specials to be in the same category as TV series, so I agree with Favre for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
    - On Marvel.com "I am Groot" is in Tv Shows section. I think it must be in tv series here too. Lado85 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
      - I'm wondering if this would be like Forky Asks a Question, not withstanding if its animated or not, but like the concept where Forky Asks a Question/I Am Groot is the "container" name for a group of related shorts. But again, the fact that it was explicitly call short films, not "shorts" or "episodes", I'm still hesitant at this time to include it with the other TV series until we get some more information. @TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Trailblazer101, and Alex 21: @Facu-el Millo: any additional thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
        Neither Marvel nor Disney called it "short films" but "original series" on their official twitter, and "series of shorts" on Marvel.com.--Babar Suhail (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
        
        Forgot to respond to this. I'm no the same page with you Favre in the thinking this may end up being like Forky Asks a Question as a grouping of shorts in an episodic streaming format, though I feel it's not clear enough if it will be officially formatted that way like a television series/short or if they are just a few short films on a streaming service. I'd say it'd be safe for now to keep it out of any table and refer to it just as a series of shorts as that's what Marvel is commonly calling it until we get more concrete information about the format. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Coogler series in Phase 4?

It's looks like it's in Phase 4 [7]. Mike210381 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mike210381: Copy that. Will make necessary additions and adjustments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossovers to film section

I just moved this over from the main MCU section. If anyone else wants to take a look, maybe some of this info can split out further to one of the Marvel Television series, or the content can be removed outright if it's more individual series specific. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I started making a c/e of the article and decided to play around with a few structural things. What I came up with is in my sandbox, here. I didn't actually get around to doing anything meaningful with the crossovers info, but I think it could probably be condensed a little since some of that info is already at other articles and some of it may be a little repetitive. Before I do put some more work into it, I was wondering if you or anyone else had any thoughts on the other adjustments I made? Basically I just moved the crossovers info into the Marvel TV section as I think that is where it is most appropriate, and I adjust the structure of the Marvel Studios section to be split by Phase Four and Future. I can't remember if we have discussed doing something like this before or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I like it. It makes more sense to separate the table by phase. The info on Marvel Studios series' crossovers with feature films was already present in the development section and it was too short for a section of its own, apart from being much more obvious and self-evident than the info on crossovers between films and Marvel TV shows. —El Millo (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely fine with moving the crossover section where you did. I originally was going to do that, but since there was that little bit on what Marvel Studios is doing, I put it as a level 2 header. At least for the table, our last discussion regarding the formatting (don't know exactly where it took place), was to go with what we have for transclusion reasons to the main article, and because series overviews generally keep multiple seasons together. I can see the merit of how it is now or splitting by Phase. I think the big point, which we don't know, is how connected a season 2 of a series will be to a season 1. If they are pretty connected, then I think how we do it now is the best method. If they are "spiritually" connected, then splitting by Phase seems like the best move. So for now, I'd say keep the table as is until we have more information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as transclusion goes, this change would allow us to transclude to both the Phase Four article and the MCU article, and would simplify the table so that is a bonus. My feeling is that even if a second season is closely related to the first, if Marvel puts them in different phases then it will make the most sense to split them. Our formatting with the series name and season number should help avoid confusion with that. I also think that based on what we know now, it would be beneficial to make this change sooner rather than later and then adjust in the future if needed, as currently we have slightly different tables in different places and are mixing the future series/seasons up with the confirmed Phase Four series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine to have tables simply by Phase if everyone else is in agreement for that. Now that I think about it, it actually fits more or less like our film table convention, so I think this is good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This is slowly creeping closer and closer to the formatting of a film table haha. It makes sense due to Marvel Studios' approach to the series so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Studios table reformat

Jumping off of Adam's idea above, would anyone object to returning back to individual tables by Phase (essentially how it was before it was changed to the current format)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Would that be one table for Phase Four and one table for "Future" including Loki S2, What If S2, and the Echo series? —El Millo (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Formatting in Adam's sandbox here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Great. I support it. —El Millo (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I agree with Adam's sentiments of this slowly becoming like a films table. I'm all for it! Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding directors to Marvel Studios' table

Since it has been further confirmed that Marvel Studios is making each series as if it was a feature film, and the directors of the series play a large part creatively in them, I think it might be worthwhile to add the directors to the series table. Here's a mock up.

Series	Season	Episodes	Originally released			Head writer(s)	Director(s)	Phase	Status
Series	Season	Episodes	First released	Last released	Network	Head writer(s)	Director(s)	Phase	Status
WandaVision	1	9	January 15, 2021 (2021-01-15)	March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05)	Disney+	Jac Schaeffer	Matt Shakman	Phase Four	Released
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier	1	6	March 19, 2021 (2021-03-19)	April 23, 2021 (2021-04-23)		Malcolm Spellman	Kari Skogland		Released
Ms. Marvel	1	6	Late 2021 (2021)	TBA		Bisha K. Ali	Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy Meera Menon		Awaiting release

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing just yesterday. Adding the directors to the table would be beneficial given your points mentioned. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The Variety article basically confirmed all of our theories about Marvel Studios using the film structure... where directors play big role.— Starforce¹³ 20:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have two issues with this: a weak problem which is that we were trying to have some consistency with the Marvel TV tables, and a bigger problem which is the number of directors for each series which is starting to creep up. We know there will always be one or two head writers so we don't need to list all of the writers for the series, but Marvel is moving away from having a "head director" and getting up to three or four a series now. I would feel differently if they were sticking to one director a series/season, or if they made clear who the head director was, but we seem to be trending in the opposite direction. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adamstom. Some series having just one director, but Ms. Marvel for example has three, and some other series also have multiple directors helming different episodes. If all, or at least most of them, had just one director or a team of directors (like the Russos, who kind of count as one), I'd say go ahead and add them, but it seems this approach is not consistent among these series. —El Millo (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought of bringing this up but convinced myself the Ms. Marvel situation might be a one-off. But yes, I agree series with multiple directors could be a problem especially if they get multiple seasons, we could end up with over a dozen directors. — Starforce¹³ 22:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So far, that we know of (counting directing teams as one): WandaVision, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Loki, What If...?, and The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special each have a sole director; Ms. Marvel has a directing team and two other separate directors, totalling three; Hawkeye and Moon Knight each have a directing team and one other director, two in total; She-Hulk and Secret Invasion each have two separate directors; Ironheart, Armor Wars, I Am Groot, and the untitled Wakanda series have no directors announced as of yet. —El Millo (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

With that perspective in mind, I feel as most Marvel Studios series either have 1-2 directors or 2-3 (with duos in mind), and given how Marvel Studios treats their series as films, I feel we could find some formatting to include each director for their respective series, as it is worth noting in the table. It is of best intent to keep this table as much in the same style as the Marvel TV tables to the best of our ability, though I feel we could make an exception with these series as they don't seem (for now) to be going beyond the current amount of directors unlike the Marvel TV ones which had numerous directors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree Trailblazer. I think the difference however, though some projects have multiple directors, it's not like they are only doing a single episode. The ones so far with multiple are breaking out into chunks of episodes in the series, so I don't think we're going to get to a spot where one project is going to have 6 (or 10) individual directors (or teams), like Marvel Television series did and in those instance, yes there's no correlation or reasoning why directors should be listed in that table. Ms. Marvel seems like the outlier, and I'm curious if it's three because of the Thailand shoot. But that's neither here nor there. As the Variety article said, Marvel Studios isn't using the "showrunner" label, so I think we should adapt our table to reflect the directors being a big part of each series creation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you think they should be included in the infobox as well, despite being multiple directors? —El Millo (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

For the series with multiple, I don't think so, and the reason being: at each series' article is where we should be noting which episodes they've actually directed, and simply listing them in the infobox does not provide that info. Yet, I do think for overview purposes, they should be included in this table (and the Phase ones). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is the way that we are leaning then I think I am fine with it, but if we do get a series with more directors than these, such as one director for every episode, I think we would want to consider not including all of them. I can see pros and cons for including the directors in the infoboxes of the series articles, but I would lean towards being consistent with what we decide here and also with what we put in the opening paragraph of each series (i.e if it has too many directors to list here then they shouldn't all be in the infobox, but if we think three directors is fine to have here then they are probably fine for the infobox and opening paragraph as well). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should remain consistent with what we decide here. If a series does have more directors than what we already have, I think it'd be best to not include them. It makes sense to include the directors in the series infoboxes and lede for series that only have one, and I think for series with two or more are fine how they currently handle multiple directors. I can also see the benefits of including all directors in the infobox and top lede for the series articles, but feel we don't necessarily need to as they are better conveyed in the body and second 'development' paragraph on the articles. I've also assembled a mock-up of what a full MCU series overview with the directors included could look like here. Still not sure if we should separate an individual director and a duo like with MK and MM with a commo between them and then regular "and" or have no comma unless it's more and use "&" like with HK. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The current mock-ups for what the overview on the series list, on the MCU article with the network transcluded from the series list one, and for the Phase 4 article are all seen here. A mock-up of what the former two look like with the Phases wrapping is here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: This looks great. I think we're 99% there to implement. The one thing I felt could change is the "Phase" info now. Perhaps we just state "Four", "Five", etc. or "4", "5" in the column since the header already says "Phase". That would save some width. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone with using "Four" for the overview as I didn't see a difference in using numerical values given the three refs for everything from MM to the Wakanda series, but it should still save some width. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice. I'm okay if this is implemented. I understand Adamstom.97's concerns, but at least what we've seen so far, I don't think Marvel Studios is going to bring in 6 (or 10) different directors on a project. If they do, then yes I agree this will be a problem, but I don't for see that happening. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Considering we are updating the overview's formatting, I was wondering if we should use this CNET article (which they seem to update) covering Marvel's full Phase Four release order as of their Celebrates the Movies sizzle which includes everything we know is part of the phase, including Fantastic Four (with the author questioning if it's "Phase Five" but the article states it is among Four) and the Wakanda series. I feel this can help allow us to condense the number of refs we use in this overview and on the MCU films, MCU, and other related articles, as the roster is subject to expand. It's prepped in my mock-ups here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: I think you meant to link this article but I see that's in the mock up, so that's fine. I think we can go ahead and implement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha, yes I did. Copied the wrong one. And alright. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now implemented the updates to the various articles. I also took the liberty to transclude the I Am Groot section from the Phase 4 article to the main MCU article and the outline. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For anyone here who isn't aware, there has just been a discussion at Talk: Ms. Marvel (TV series) about treating Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah as the lead directors of that series even though they have several other directors. This is because we have a source saying they worked as co-showrunners on the series and because they are currently the only directors listed as executive producers. I propose we adjust Trailblazer's additions slightly to only include the directors in this table who have been confirmed to be executive producers as well. We can make a note in the column header to explain that if necessary. That stops us from just listing all directors here since we don't just list all writers, it helps us align with Ms. Marvel, and it also will be cleaner I feel since this is already such a packed table. I would also like to point out that for She-Hulk and Hawkeye we also have one director each who is listed as an executive producer, and at She-Hulk there is extra support for Kat Coiro being the lead director since Anu Valia already basically said that a few months ago. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this proposal? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we can do this if we see that it's going to be a pattern going forward, that there is one director or set of directors who is considered "head director" or something like that for at least most series with more than one director. —El Millo (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We have sources to support this on Ms. Marvel and She-Hulk, plus for Hawkeye there is only one director listed as an executive producer at the moment. I am happy with that as far as patterns go, do you still have concerns? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm for it then. —El Millo (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI, this is what my proposal would look like for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally would say let's wait until Ms. Marvel premieres to implement a reduction, or if Armor Wars or Ironheart announce a whole slew of directors, should that come first. Since we're only speculating what's happening with which directors are EPs and which aren't, we should wait until it pans out to make the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Q

Since Kevin Feige never confirmed Marvel Television (Netflix) series to be part of the MCU, should them be referred to as Marvel Television series in WP articles instead of Marvel Cinematic Universe series? for example:

Iron Fist (comics): "Jones portrayed the character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe live-action television series.."

All the Marvel characters' articles emphasizes that those actors play the characters in the MCU, when there isn't such confirmation from the MCU producer. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no need for explicit confirmatin by Feige, there are multiple reliable and official sources that state the shows are part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. —El Millo (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Are any of those official sources related to Marvel Studios (MCU)? co-presidents? Because the counterpart claiming their series are part of the MCU is convenient. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You may want to read Marvel's ABC television series for example, along with the sources used to back up all the MCU-connections. Until there's word of the contrary, all these shows are part of the MCU. —El Millo (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably not with those exact words but Feige has said "ref Disney+ is going to give us this opportunity to tell even deeper stories about characters you already know and love, it all, for the first time, will interlink." Should articles mark a difference between TV series that are 'part of the MCU' and series that are part of and actually interlink? I keep thinking a difference should be make clear. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's already done here. The last sentence of the lead section already states that the Marvel Studios series interconnect with the films in a way that the Marvel Television series did not —El Millo (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Listings of seperate seasons

Hi @Trailblazer101:

I have never seen anyone list seasons separately ... Having Season one of Loki in one table and season 2 in another table adds NOTHING. That was why I removed it.
Why? because every single column is empty apart from "in development". The column "first released" can ONLY be filled in once it is transferred to the other table.

As for your comments: 1) not an improvement. 2) it is included as we have a reliable source confirming it is in development. TV seasons are displayed like this in these tables, and you can go to the linked article where info on a second season is presently available.)

The whole point is that the addition of the second table IS NOT an improvement.
You would be better off just putting an NB on the first entry if it needs to be mentioned that season 2 is in development.
Anyone can go to the article on Loki and find out that it is if they want to.
Please provide me links to articles that are NOT DC or MCU that do it this way.
Normally these are used for new upcoming series, not new seasons ... Chaosdruid (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This formatting was decided in the #Crossovers to film section section above. Based on the info that we have at the moment, Marvel is treating potential second seasons more like separate projects, and they are only considering certain seasons to be connected to specific Phases, so keeping the seasons together in one table does not necessarily make the most sense. This is different from other non-MCU articles which are not dealing with interconnected films and TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttp://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/03/10/the-punisher-season-2-begins-production/

[2] ttps://variety.com/2019/tv/news/disney-wandavision-details-elizabeth-olsen-1203197323/

[1]

[1]