Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series

“Marvel Knights” vs Defenders Saga.

There is no practical reason to use the term Marvel Knights as the main name to refer to the Netflix series. The term was never used officially by Marvel or Netflix, rather internally by Loeb. The official name used is The Defenders Saga. That is how it is most recognized. I propose changing it to reflect the official branding. It just makes sense. The alternative does not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

AGREED: There is no official branding calling the series part of anything named Marvel Knights. Most reports before and after call them simply the Marvel Netflix shows. Other than mentioning that some of the stories refer to stories originally told in comic books published under Marvel's Marvel Knights imprint, there should be no mention of Marvel Knights in the lead. What the producers called the shows amongst themselves has no relevance here. NJZombie (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Defenders Saga name was only used later by Disney+. If override what the original producers referred to the shows as with that name then that would be WP:RECENT. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The shows were never marketed under those names. Loeb merely stated that’s how they’re referred to behind the scenes, but that serves no use. The way the shows are officially referred as should supersede what somebody says they were unofficially called behind the scenes. That’s not WP:RECENT because time isn’t the factor, practicality is. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As they were produced and developed by Marvel Television, it is best practice to refer to them by what Marvel TV's head Jeph Loeb confirmed they were internally referred to as, and should not be swept under the rub because something recent is another thing they are called. The Defenders Saga branding was only introduced on Disney+ and has not been used by any creatives, producers, or Marvel Studios, etc. to refer to them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not “best”. It’s not remotely practical. The shows were only ever referred to that *unofficially* by Loeb, saying that was how they were casually referred to behind the scenes. This interview was after all of the shows were cancelled and no utterance of the phrase Marvel Knights has been made by any official Marvel outlet either prior to or following the replacement of Loeb. The only official name they have *ever* used is Defenders Saga. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The name used by the people who made the show is more relevant than the name used by a different group of people later on. The Defenders Saga is noted in the appropriate place. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No. The official name used by the brand on a perpetual basis matters far more than an unofficial name, never used officially, mentioned once in an interview after all the shows had ended. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Defenders Saga" is a recently created name by Disney+, who are not the originators of this material: Marvel Television was. Thus, using a name that Jeph Loeb, the head of Marvel TV and EP on all these shows, that he stated was what they themselves classified these grouping of shows, should be used. We appropriately note about "The Defenders Saga" in the section for the Netflix shows. I do think, however, we should not be linking "Marvel Heroes" series or "Marvel Knights" series in the lead, since the articles are not titled such, but those terms should remain there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Disney/Marvel are in fact the originators of this material and they share a close connection in terms of overseeing the Disney+ section. We use Disney+’s Marvel section as a source for most things, including a timeline of the MCU films. It is therefore an official and, in general, beyond merely Wikipedia’s scope, reliable source as far as it pertains to Marvel. Marvel Knights was never used officially. An unofficial pet name used once in an interview after the shows were cancelled, which was never used in the marketing of the shows and was never used again after that interview, should not ever supersede the official name for these shows that is used by the company. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I will update the page accordingly. Including the removal of the Helstrom section per consensus on Talk:Helstrom_(TV_series). ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at WP:RECENT, the proposal to exclusively use Defenders Saga in the heading alongside Marvel Netflix television series would not be in violation whatsoever. In fact, it seems to be called for. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

YES is my vote. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring after already being warned about it. As for this matter, there is no "majority vote" here as you said in your most recent edit, and no consensus has been reached on this terminology or your other edits here. Consensus is also not formed through voting, rather through civil discussion, see WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:PNSD. Voting tends to get in the way of the natural discussion process. I for one am open to using a more generalized term to refer to these series as in passing links and mentions, such as the lead, though an outright removal or preference for one or the other probably should be avoided. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not edit-warring, and I haven’t violated Wikipedia policy. Please don’t use that argument to shut down any constructive edits. Please stop obstructing. Discussion isn’t working. Either people show up inconsistently, don’t show up at all, or don’t even engage to find a solution consistent with the facts. We need to get intervention in here with an RFC, and we need to build consensus after what is decided. As you recall during last RFC, I didn’t treat the consensus which we arrived at as merely a poll, but I took into account the perspectives of everyone who came to join that discussion to craft a solution. That solution was acknowledged as the consensus. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You were bold, and have consistently been reverted, so even if you aren't in violation for 3RR, stick to discussions. It has been consistently stated to you that "The Defenders Saga" is not the original name for these collection of series, as Netflix nor Marvel Television - the two original creators - ever referred to them as such. We don't really have any knowledge as to why Disney/Disney+ chose that name specifically once they arrived on that service, but that name is noted appropriately in the Netflix section so readers coming to this article are still informed of it. Now, that said, I suggested in an above comment that linking to the ABC and Netflix articles with the "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" names is actually probably in bad form, since neither of those articles are titled as such. For the purposes of the lead, the following edit should be made which I think will solve this issue: The main ABC series were inspired by the films and featured film characters, and were referred to as the "Marvel Heroes" series by Marvel Television. A connected group of series for Netflix were known as the "Marvel Knights" series by Marvel Television, and crossed over with each other. I will address the Helstrom parts below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Marvel Knights shouldn’t even be invoked. It’s never been used officially, the only name that has been and that people will recognize the show by beyond “Marvel Netflix shows” is Defenders Saga. It needs to be stated that the shows are officially known as the Defenders Saga. Marvel Knights has no practical use, because it’s never been any sort of official name for these shows. Your reverting is obstructive and not helpful. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We could include either both names they were referred to as, or do away with the alias naming for these series in the lead and leave those to be addressed in the paragraphs. An outright removal of that info is intentionally limiting reliable information from being provided to our readers. One came before the other, and both were used within the same company overall, so both can and have been used to refer to this. We don't pick favorites with official names (which these both are), we go by the sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Or we should use the proper alias: the one official one, Defenders Saga. Marvel Knights is not, and never has been, the official alias of the block. As stated before, a never-before-used pet name stated once in an article several months after the cancellations of all of the shows does not an official name make. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Except, as pointed out to you already, Marvel Knights was used by the head of Marvel TV and an executive producer of all these shows. It is definitely official. Just because Disney+ uses something different now does not change the fact of the first names' origin and officiality. To state Marvel Knights was "never-before-used" is wrong and willfully ignoring the direct quotes from the Marvel TV head Loeb. Both are official, and to interpret otherwise is misleading and presenting incomplete information to our readers. We have offered up two options for a compromise on this. We can simply explain what each party refers to these Netflix series as, and not choose one over the other in headings, links, and the lead, to balance it out. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't even use "Marvel Knights" the way you are insinuating we do. We use the common name of "Marvel Netflix series" and clearly point out that "Marvel Knights" was an internal name and "Defenders Saga" was created for Disney+. I don't even know why we are arguing about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

None of the pages I was editing specified that. It states that the name they are referred to is the Marvel Knights series, which simply is not the case in any medium. I suggest removing all the so-called “internal” aliases, designating them by their network name, and in the case of the Defenders Saga, referring to those shows with that name and making the original network an A.K.A. note in parentheticals. Defenders Saga was the only ever official name. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We are not going to remove the names that Marvel TV used for the shows, there is literally zero good arguments for doing that. The name used by the people who made the shows is entirely relevant and noteworthy. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Marvel Knights can go into parenthetical with Marvel Netflix Shows but Defenders Saga should be the primary name they will be referred as. The owners of the material officially call them that. They’ve never officially called them anything else. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

but Defenders Saga should be the primary name they will be referred as Definitely not. That's just a subheading name on Disney+, never one used by the series while they released. I'm not advocating "Marvel Knights" as an "official name" either, but that should at least have more WP:WEIGHT in its use and mention because it was what the original created referred to the series as. Given we get the "YA" name classification from the same Loeb article, it makes sense in turn for the lead to make note of the "Heroes" and "Knights" classifications. I still propose my adjustment comments back is the solution. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And Infinity Saga is just a name on merchandise. The point is both names are used officially, in the public eye, in the marketing. They have more weight, rightly, than “Marvel Knights”. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No public figure or creative at Marvel or Disney has ever used "The Defenders Saga", it's only been on Disney+. The Infinity Saga has been used on Blu-ray box sets, official books, and by Feige on numerous occasions. Those are not the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been used on Marvel.com. Here and here.ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Marvel.com is just using the name that was from Disney+, and in past discussions, it has been determined that Marvel.com is not as in sync with Marvel Studios on certain matters. That is still not a public figure in charge of Marvel Studios using that term. It supports it being one term this group of series is referred to as, but does not prove that it is the primary name. The Marvel Knights term was also used bysome reputable news outlets: Screen Rant and IGN, while Deadline calls them the six Defenders universe shows. To note, Loeb did also refer to the Netflix series as "Marvel Street-Level Heroes", which is already noted at the Netflix series article and should be noted elsewhere. This still shows that not one is proven to be the primary name used, so all should be noted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What matters pertinent to this discussion would Marvel.com not be in sync with Marvel Studios with? I see no reason why official marketing by both Marvel.com and Disney+ should be discredited, especially when it’s clear that Marvel Studios has a hand in the organization of content on the Disney+ hub. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Defenders Saga is just a name on a tab in a streaming service. Unlike The Infinity Saga, there was never any logo or official marketing for it. The Marvel.com article just uses it as a name in text, as well. The Marvel Knights and Street-Level Heroes names are also only just names in text. The sources note these are used interchangeably, and as such, we should follow that. There is no primary "official name" here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Defenders Saga is the only name used in official mediums. It is the official name. There doesn’t have to be a logo for it to be the official name. That’s silly reasoning. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that ScreenRant is not a reliable source and instead pays its contributors to make baseless speculation. Compared to marvel.com it simply has no value. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Informal straw poll

While this is not meant to replace discussion, nor are changes made through a strict count of votes, I am hoping to present my proposed lead rewording to !votes. Consensus is very clear that the franchise names in the lead are not the "official" names for these series groupings by any stretch, as well consensus currently in favor that for what is known as the "Marvel Knights" series, we should not be using the more recent "Defenders Saga" as it was not a term coined for the series while released (though we do make mention of such name in the article for readers' benefit). In my comment above, I noted some of the issue I currently see is linking to the Marvel's ABC television series and Marvel's Netflix television series articles through these "Heroes" and "Knights" names. Thus, I propose the following change to the second paragraph:

• Option 1: The main ABC series were inspired by the films and featured film characters, and were referred to as the "Marvel Heroes" series by Marvel Television. A connected group of series for Netflix were known as the "Marvel Knights" series by Marvel Television, and crossed over with each other.
• Option 2: The main ABC series were inspired by the films and featured film characters, while a connected group of series for Netflix crossed over with each other; they were known as the "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" series, respectively, by Marvel Television.

This change removes the piped links over the "Heroes" and "Knights" names, as well as add additional wording clarifying that Marvel Television were the ones to refer to these groupings as such. I'm hoping this informal poll will resolve the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support either option as nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: As to avoid unneeded repetition with the Marvel Television mentions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thinking this through further after bringing up the Marvel Street-Level Heroes name Loeb also used, I think it may be best to just not mention them in the lead and keep them in prose, as I suggested given there is no clear primary name for them. Disney uses one, and Loeb used two other ones. We can't pick favorites here as there are three different names being used by different parties involved at different times. Each one is an alias whereas "Marvel's Netflix television series" remains the WP:COMMONNAME to remain neutral in what we present to readers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Defenders Saga, through its official usage through official Disney and Marvel mediums, is a primary name. I support Marvel’s Netflix television series and Defenders Saga (which likewise falls under WP:COMMONNAME) being the primary names. Not Marvel Knights or Street-Level Heroes. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Trailblazer101: I didn't suggest outright removal because we got the "Heroes" and "Knights" names from Loeb in the same interview we got the "YA" and "AoF" names, so for consistency sake it felt appropriate to have them all featured in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  We also got "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" from that interview. I am fine with noting all terms, as long as we clarify their coinage as we do for the lead at Marvel's Netflix television series. 20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no evidence for Marvel Knights being the name the series were referred to as while they were being produced. In fact, there is no official usage of the terms either before or after the shows were cancelled. We have one interview with Jeph Loeb after the shows were cancelled in which he invokes that name. Marvel nor Disney ever referred to the shows as such. They have referred to them as the Defenders Saga. Marvel.com also refers to them as the Defenders Saga. It’s open and shut. Defenders Saga is the officially used name and takes precedence. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: I agree that we should still use the Marvel TV names to be consistent with the YA and "Adventure into Fear" groupings, but this wording favours the common names and explains the Marvel TV usage of the names so should resolve the concerns from this discussion. Prefer Option 2 as a bit less repetitive. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  In response to the "compromise" suggestions below, I just want to reiterate that we should be consistent with how we are using the Marvel TV names. I also don't see justification for this "compromise" when there is only one user who wants to remove these names completely and they have made no effort to work in with everyone else or justify their position with guidelines or policies. Just because they have been relentlessly fighting to remove this content that they personally do not like does not mean we should give in and remove it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  That is entirely true. I think for the Netflix series, if we use one name, we ought to mention the others ("Marvel Street-Level Heroes" right alongside the former, and then "The Defenders Saga" further below. I think an outright removal would be a nuclear option and something best to avoid. Noting all the relevant names as opposed to only one or the other is the ideal compromise as it covers everything we know. I suppose this is just getting a bit out of hand and trigger happy. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  But the point was that the names aren’t relevant. I’ve worked through the process not because I don’t like the names. I think Marvel Knights is kick-ass. It just has no place in the lead and an outright removal is ideal, not as a matter of personal preference but of practicality. Marvel Knights has effectively never been practically used. It’s objectively not a common name. The Marvel NetflixShows and Defenders Saga are the only commonplace names used to refer to those shows and both have the benefit of being officially used names. It’s not a nuclear option if we can build consensus and like it or not this is the closest we’ve come to one. I’m willing to work with the compromise. Just because one didn’t come up earlier, in part because it was up to me to lead the conversation when you guys wouldn’t, doesn’t mean one that does is not preferable. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Compromise Since it's contentious, why not just remove both "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" from the lead? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support. Very much agreed. I still believe we should use Defenders Saga as that is a name that is used in official capacities and is more commonly recognized as a result. I support removing the names used in the interview from the lead in all cases and solely referring to the shows by the network. The Deadline article doesn’t treat “Marvel Heroes” as an official title designated by Loeb, and presents it as though Loeb is just calling the characters in those shows the Marvel heroes (not capitalized, not a proper noun.) The only one that should stay is probably the young adult ones because those aren’t on the same network, but are thematically linked and do overlap to an extent. If we are adamant that they should be listed together, that is the only name that is fitting. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Compromise as InfiniteNexus suggests. Neither of these names is common anyway, so its presence in the lead doesn't help make anything clearer or easier for a reader. Their relevance is in their use by Marvel, but these aren't names by which the franchises are widely known. —El Millo (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Compromise: I already suggested this very thing above, and will go back and remain firm with this. We can still go with the slightly adjusted wording, although these names are not that descriptive or reflective of the sub-groups and can be easily done away with in the lead and left to be better explained in prose at the relevant articles. Just because we can use them everywhere does not mean we should. Also maintaining that since Loeb also used "Marvel Street-Level Heroes", we cannot and should not pick favorites in these names. Removing them is the best course to compromise this. We can still retain the YA and AiF names as these are not mutually exclusive. The ABC and Netflix series descriptions are sufficient in conveying to readers what these are, and if we need to explain more, we can do so. In the end, these are just different ways various parties refer to these shows. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies if this was already suggested above, I only read Favre's two options and glanced at the discussion before commenting, as I had no interest in reading that massive wall of text above and just wanted to weigh in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Adventure into Fear ought to be removed from its placement and completely repurposed not into a list of shows but a description of planned programming that never surfaced. Helstrom should not be a part of any list of MCU TV shows and in fact needs to be made explicit that it is a separate thing entirely. Including it on a list of MCU TV shoes does not do that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  One thing at a time, ChimaFan. This discussion is about something else. No need to rebut every time Adventure into Fear comes up. —El Millo (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  No need to bring it up if it’s known to be a contentious subject. It would be unfair for Trail to make a decision on AIF that’s against the consensus that was already arrived at and try to sneak it into the consensus we’re arriving at now. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  These are separate matters and separate discussions. While you are free to have an opinion of others (including myself), I am free to provide my input and comments in this discussion and others as it is a collaborative encyclopedia. What is "unfair" is subjective. This is strictly for the Marvel Television names for the ABC and Netflix series. I'm not deciding on AiF in this discussion, and was not the first to bring it up, and it holds no influence on my decision here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I get that we’re all exercising our rights and I’m not taking that from you. I’m just exercising mine as well. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm walking back on some of my firmness on this, per my comment above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12: Once again, please stop assuming consensus has been reached and implementing changes with your recent edits. I do believe your edits are partially correct, as I was about to come to this section specifically and ask if everyone involved is okay moving forward with removing the "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" name from the lead, which is what this discussion was specifically discussing. We do not have any change of consensus yet regarding Adventure into Fear, which is still be discussed below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Adventure into Fear is not still being discussed (and everything I changed was literally in line with what everyone supports down there.) But that doesn’t really matter and I find it hypocritical that others continue to bring up AIF in this section while getting mad at me for responding, so let’s forgo it in this section and have everyone return to that discussion.

2) We have good indication that yes, all are in favor of that. It would be far more productive for you to ask then to make a big deal about it and tell me what you were going to do (while completely neglecting to do it.) I also don’t think consensus is reached merely when you ask, as everyone else has made clear that would be okay. As a courtesy though, @Facu-el Millo, @InfiniteNexus, @Trailblazer101, @Adamstom.97, pinging before we implement these changes. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe we should mention the other names, such as "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" and The Defenders Saga similar to our approach in the lead at Marvel's Netflix television series, in addition to "Marvel Knights", that way we are not picking any one over another, and not excluding all that we know. I think with the right wording, we are not calling any of those three terms the main one, while also not discounting their official usage from different parties involved. I think "Marvel Heroes" should remain, as well, per Loeb's interview. The nuclear option to remove them doesn't seem to really stick the landing with me anymore, for reasons adam and I addressed above in this discussion. Outright removing those while keeping the others would be inconsistent with the other two Marvel Television groups' names being included. With mine and adam's comments in mind, no, we are not all in favor of it. What I think we should do is provide further explanation on what each group of series is about, such as noting the tone for each ala horror for AiF and the grounded approach to the Netflix and YA-focused series, and to include a trimmed mention of AiF's real world connection to the MCU per wording in the articles already, as a general attempt to expand the readers' information at the start of the article. (Full disclosure: I am not attempting to sway or stir discussion here for the discussion below with this mention or others, and am mentioning it for the context of this list article alone.)

It is typically unsatisfactory to make changes to content that is under discussion, as while BOLD edits to do so are allowed, per WP:BRD, once a bold edit is reverted, editing should be halted and the WP:STATUSQUO before the contested editing ought to remain until a discussion concludes, which we are in the process of. Hence why we have not edited the content ourselves, so we can hopefully come to some form of an agreement on what to include and how to include it. I do think that the Marvel TV introduction in this article is lacking and that the additions I suggested could alleviate some concerns, though I still believe removing the group names is a disservice to our readers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to have the three terms included in the lead section, or are you simply talking about keeping them in its dedicated section? —El Millo (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion. The Netflix series' three different terms are not textbook WP:COMMONNAMES, the page title is, hence it's the name of the article. The two names used by Marvel Television to refer to the series and the one name by Disney+ do not mean there is a single main name/term. As such, I think the expanded explanation can be used in the lead and we can then explain the different names in the designated section. I'm indifferent on if Marvel Heroes stays in the lead or if it remains solely in the section. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting that you think we should only call them Marvel Netflix shows in the lead and only use the other names in the specific section, but I don't know what you mean by expanded explanation for the lead, so I'm still not completely sure what you're proposing we do. —El Millo (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, that is essentially correct, and to leave the different names to be explained in the section. I think an "expanded explanation" would be to cover what the series groups are about, in terms of the type of characters, tone, etc., if others feel such an explanation would suffice. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying Trail, but I think adding more explanation to the lead to cover these terms from Marvel TV and then mention Disney+'s Defender Saga would make the lead a lot longer than it necessarily needs to be. Just considering the purpose of this list, I think just adjusting the ABC and Netflix links while removing "Heroes" and "Knights" is the cleanest way to go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two main terms: the one used by the company and the one used by many people. That would be Defenders Saga and Marvel Netflix shows, respectively. That would not be one used in a solitary interview after the shows were all ending or had ended and never used since. Nobody is disserviced by the omission of that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t work. The “internal names” exist only in one source and exist nowhere else. They are obscure names with undue weight placed upon them even though they’re not relevant and their presence only confuses the readers. We should remove the Marvel Heroes name as well, as it’s not even presented as an official title in the only article it’s used in. “Marvel Heroes” is not treated as a proper noun and we can’t infer it to be one. The compromise is ideal, with the only practical addition to it, if any, being the inclusion of Defenders Saga as that is a common name. Marvel Knights, Marvel Heroes, etc, are not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been following all of this discussion over the last few weeks but based on what I have seen I was going to suggest the following wording be used in the lead. This moves the links away from the internal names, still keeps the internal names for consistency with the other groupings, and adds in "The Defenders Saga". Let me know thoughts.

The MCU first expanded to television after the creation of Marvel Television in 2010, with that studio producing 12 series with ABC Studios and its production division ABC Signature Studios. These premiered across broadcast (ABC), streaming (Netflix and Hulu), and cable (Freeform) from September 2013 to October 2020. The main ABC series were inspired by the films and feature film characters, and were referred to internally by Marvel Television as the "Marvel Heroes" series. A connected group of series for Netflix were referred to as the "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" or "Marvel Knights" series, and later collected under the title "The Defenders Saga". Young adult-focused series were produced for Freeform and Hulu, while the latter also had a group of series called "Adventure into Fear" in development before Marvel Television was shut down in December 2019.

- adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

A minor nitpick is I think the wording's a bit clunky, but that's not a big obstacle. The two biggest problems are that the series were not referred to by that name for the large part, outside of one obscure interview, and we don't have concrete proof that the series was developed for the MCU, as our sources from the time contradict. I think the consensus we arrived at upthread is workable and we should stick with that. It's a good compromise. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, this is an oppose. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I find that to be a constructive option and viable solution, although we could swap the parenthesis for using "on ABC, streaming on Netflix and Freeform, and cable on Freeform, from September 2013 to October 2020." as I don't think it would be confusing and flows a bit more clearly. We can still address the names Loeb said they referred to the series as alongside The Defenders Saga, as they are in equal proximity. Loeb's usage still matters as it was used internally and thus not as publicized, especially during their runs. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we know that concretely? All he said is they sometimes referred to the series as such. We don’t know if it was an official internal name or a cute pet name used over dinner. We don’t know if it was used during production that had any practical or significant use. Why should it go in the lead when we know next to nothing about their significance and we only know they exist at all through a single article? ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this change Adam. Still also ok with outright removing the Heroes, Street-Level, and Knights names, but this seems fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of just removing all those names, as none are common names and thus undue to include in the lead as they don't orient the reader in any way. They can be names in the leads of the specific article on each of these. —El Millo (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for this compromise, since so many have voiced their support? ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear with what you mean by this compromise, do you mean the wording/option Adam presented? If so, then I am still in support of that option. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought the compromise was just removing the three names. For that we had five in favor (Favre1fan, InfiniteNexus, ChimaFan, Trailblazer and me) and one opposed (Adamstom). —El Millo (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

El Millo is correct, that is the compromise I am referring to. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That was unclear by your comment/indenting, hence my ask. I still am okay with outright removal as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I would support the changes in wording as Adam and I suggested, and the alt name removals from this article to leave their coverage at the series' group articles. I still think some descriptors of each group's scope would be useful if there is sourcing for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is not consensus to use the wording I proposed then I think we should just remove the Marvel TV internal names and "Defenders Saga" from the lead. I don't support removing them from the summary sections or individual articles though. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m not in favor of removing the Defenders Saga name as that is a name the shows are publicized by. Unlike Marvel Knights, it makes no sense to forgo it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It can't be partial removal otherwise that's adds serious undue weight if we keep that over the others. It's a full removal or the wording Adam suggest, those are the options it appears we are down to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not undue weight. It’s literally the official publicized name. The other ones are not that. I don’t appreciate you pinning us to a false dichotomy either.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Break

Wait a minute, because this is getting confusing with all the different discussions and changes. Currently, lhe lead includes the name "Marvel Heroes" for ABC series and the name "Marvel Knights" for Netflix series. Neither "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" nor "The Defenders Saga" appear in the lead. I thought it was agreed that we could remove both these names from the lead section, as neither of them were common names and it was best to just say ABC series and Netflix series. Now, in the specific #Netflix series section, the three names (Marvel Knights, Marvel Street-Level Heroes, and Defenders Saga) are included, which we also seemed to agree was okay given that it was in its dedicated section. What is this about a partial removal and a false dichotomy we're talking here? This seems to be more simple than we're making it out to be. —El Millo (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve always been in favor of replacing Marvel Knights with Defenders Saga. (Look at what this discussion is called.) The reason being it’s a common name and an official, publicized name used by the company and the media, unlike the others. I am also in favor of removing Marvel Knights and rewording Street Level Heroes to not be a proper noun in the lead of the individual article. That is my stance. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

And most others are against removing some names but not others, and "Defenders Saga" is still not considered the WP:COMMONNAME. Now, we already have a consensus on removing all of the alternative names currently included in the lead (Defenders Saga has never been included in the lead). We can start by simply doing that. —El Millo (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there appears to be consensus to remove all names from the lead and leave all names in the specific sections. We should not replace the Marvel TV names with the Disney+ name in either place. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing all the alternative names currently included. Defenders Saga should be considered a common name, as it certainly is that in reality, and my next step will be laying out that case, but that will be another discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. - 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion we had at Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series found that stating the Street-Level Heroes and Marvel Knights names were used internally by Marvel Television and Jeph Loeb was acceptable wording there. I don't see why we should then be inconsistent and go with one of the names (Knights or Defenders Saga) over the others on this article then. As I mentioned before, I would support removing the names from the lead in this article for the wording Adam suggested (with the minor tweaks I suggested) and note the names and their use in each series group's dedicated sections here and at their article for more in-depth commentary and explanation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change. We should allow a full discussion to transpire about this. Just because something has been stated before is not a reason to shut down a discussion. I will pursue this discussion and a new solution. I can accept their inclusion in the article but their placement in the lead, including the current phrasing of Street-Level Heroes, is WP:UNDUE because of how insignificant those names are. They can be placed in development, there’s no reason to include them in the lead.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's already consensus for removing the names from this article's lead section so there's no more use in arguing about that. Where you're not finding consensus is on adding Defenders saga and only that name. Consensus can change is meant to be about long-standing consensus changing, not about recently obtained consensus; that same section also states that proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. —El Millo (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we’re talking about two different consensuses here. I’m talking about this quote when I invoke CCC: “The discussion we had at Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series found that stating the Street-Level Heroes and Marvel Knights names were used internally by Marvel Television and Jeph Loeb was acceptable wording there.” Certainly no conversation I was a part of came to the conclusion that they should stay in the lead. I framed the conversation I was a part of on that page as an interim solution while we sorted everything else out. Read my opening message: “I will play ball right now and entertain them being there temporarily until that discussion is resolved.”

I will open an RFC regarding the Defenders Saga situation as I do not believe that it should be an issue limited to the scope of reinforcing the taskforce’s previous approaches instead of considering the best way forward in accordance with Wikipedia policy. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series

I Am Groot is a short-form television series developed for Disney+, much like Forky Asks a Question and The Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse on the same platform. Would it be appropriate to create a section on this page dedicated to covering I Am Groot, appropriately noting that it is a short-form series distinct from the other shows included? ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC) :EDIT I meant to suggest including them in the list of television shows in phases four and five rather than giving them their own section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to disregard this edit. It only served to add confusion and I apologize sincerely for that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• No as stated above on this talk page and in other past discussions as noted above in the FAQ, they are animated shorts and it is not a television series. Hence, it's inclusion does not fit the scope of this article. It is more similar to the Marvel One-Shots live action shorts and thus is noted appropriately at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Shorts. Because of I Am Groot's release on Disney+, a mention in the "See also" section was suggested by myself in the above discussion to still assist readers in getting to that page from here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just as a note: whether it’s animated or not (or how long the episodes are) has no bearing on whether it’s a television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• No It's never been referred to as a series by Marvel when shows like Loki are referred to as "an original series" in places like YouTube video descriptions and elsewhere. I think listing it in the "see also" section is fine for this article. -- ZooBlazer^talk 03:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, it has been referred to by Marvel as an original series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @ZooBlazer - I have edited the original RFC with a clarification as to my proposal. Please be aware. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. As mentioned before, a television series is not dictated by terms used in press releases. The fact of the matter is that I Am Groot is a series. That is an objective fact and the precedent set by other Disney+ original television series of short films means supports the phrasing of the show as “a television series of short films”. See discussion above.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral and Comment While I can understand and respect past consensus and some points from ChimaFan, would it be simpler to briefly note I Am Groot in this article under the "Expansion to animation" header? A table is not really necessary as prose can easily cover the bit of the 5 episodes/shorts per season written and directed by Kirsten Lepore, which is all that would be used to display. The reason I am not casting a solid yay or nay here is that I believe there ought to be some wiggle room for a compromise to satisfy all parties concerned to some degree. As I have suggested above, noting in the lead "and seasons of the I Am Groot series of animated short films" right after the mention of Special Presentations can be helpful to the readers while not disrupting the list's intended scope. If a brief overview section does not garner a warm response, couldn't a prose mention with the rest of Marvel Studios' animation expansion be a viable solution, along the lines of the shorts being their second animated work after What If...? and that it is their first animated short films? I believe there is a work around here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I support adding it to the Phases Four and Five tables, the sections for which feature no prose, while also adding it to the Expansion into Animation area. I don’t think the episodes need to be listed out, as none of the other shows get that treatment. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, as I think I was not asking for what I had really wanted originally (and I will go back to the beginning of the RFC to reflect this) my goal is for inclusion, rather than its own section. It could be noted in the table that it is a series of short films. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Reversing course and moving them into the Phase tables would simply mean moving them from their individual "Shorts" sections in the Phase articles to be with the rest of the series, as it had been previously. That may be an easier path. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Would what you’re proposing look similar to this:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_Cinematic_Universe:_Phase_Four&oldid=1174695738

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_Cinematic_Universe:_Phase_Five&oldid=1174695844

  Please look at all relevant edits involving I Am Groot on these pages. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Regardless of animation or not and regardless of the creative ways one can describe this. This is a Disney+ (TV) series. It may be more in the format of an anthology series, but those are still TV series by en.wikipedia guidelines. The fact that everyone including Disney uses the words episodes and seasons (see [1]) to describe the different "items" and "sets" is an even stronger indication that this is a TV series (short films are not episodes, nor are they released in seasons). Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes References indicate it is a series. And including it in the list implies to readers that it is part of the Marvel canonical as a whole, which it is. It should be listed alongside the others. Penguino35 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin ChimaFan12 is already performing edits related to this RFC, citing "per consensus" despite this RFC still being active and not yet closed: [2][3][4] -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  This was due to a misunderstanding that the RFC had concluded, given extended inactivity (over 48 hours had passed since the last response) and the fact that an agreed-upon solution had been proposed nearly 4 days earlier, which lead me to believe that we had reached consensus through discussion. I will be removing the RFC tag now to reflect this. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's not how RfCs work at all. The RfC was not even open three days! The tag has been restored. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  For the record: it had been open for about 6 days, actually. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  When I saw you removed the RfC tag, I was foolishly expecting you weren't going to actually try to do this. No one could claim that consensus was achieved after a mere three days and with three Yes vs. two No. This looks a lot like WP:GAMING. —El Millo (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I should add - I highly recommend an outside party formally close this once the RfC runs its natural course. No one involved should be the arbiter of this in my opinion.- Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also I see now there's a new "EDIT"/clarification text above that drastically changes the intent of this RfC. No existing editors who commented were notified about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Two yeses were posted after the edit, only my yes was posted before and everything stated in the edit was conveyed to Trailblazer in my reply to him. If you're concerned that the people who voted no, including yourself, did so misunderstanding the situation, I apologize and hope that you see now what I am proposing and are willing to vote based upon that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize, I was acting off of a false assumption (RFCs are able to be closed by any one involved if a solution arises, and I falsely assumed that solution was agreed upon) but I meant well. I'll leave the tag up and will not attempt to make any further edits until such a time when it is deemed appropriate. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I realize I did not ask for agreement to close the RFC and acknowledge that is where my error lies. Apologies. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  It should be noted also that I did not cite any “vote counts” in my edits. I was operating under the parameters of the proposal from Trailblazer, so I deny firmly any charges of WP:GAMING. Please ascribe my actions to ignorance rather than malice. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to point out that your edits to the Phase Four and Five article are not actually what Trailblazer proposed in their sandbox, nor were those edits the original crux of your RfC question. As I noted above, I only saw last night your "EDIT" below the original question, yet no one was notified of that. That edit is a vastly different request than what you originally were trying to get comments on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Trailblazer never mentioned a sandbox, and your link is to a random Deadpool article, so neither are relevant to the discussion. The edit I proposed was mentioned directly to Trailblazer and visible to the two affirming opinions, so a majority of the people here have in fact been made aware. You see it now and have every opportunity to amend your vote if you see fit, and I’ll notify the single other person who opined prior to the edit, but their rationale does not seem to significantly change with the context. I have not attempted to reinstate the edits on the phase four or five pages since the RFC reopened and I’m willing to continue this discussion, including with trailblazer, to see if the solution is in the spirit that was intended. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, my stored copy/paste was incorrect. I meant to link to this (fixed above as well). Trail noted this in the discussion above with this comment which is what I assumed you were referring to (in addition to their initial comment here) about operating under the parameters of the proposal from Trailblazer. They never indicated changing the Phase articles, and that was not part of the original RfC question for everyone to weigh in on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  That discussion is separate from this one. The proposal that I was operating under the assumption we were going with is in this thread, not a different one. “Reversing course and moving them into the Phase tables would simply mean moving them from their individual "Shorts" sections in the Phase articles to be with the rest of the series, as it had been previously. That may be an easier path.” That’s what I was said and what I was working with. Please keep up with the discussion before making false assertions. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Courtesy pings @Favre1fan93 and ChimaFan12: Woah, I was unaware my statements were under discussion here. (I've been a bit busy off-wiki, so I haven't had adequate time to catch up on certain things until now.) Allow me to clarify/elaborate:

  I was initially floating the idea of covering I Am Groot through prose in the lead of this list and in "Expansion to animation" (which I am still shooting for), I then addressed ChimaFan's suggestion at implementing I Am Groot into the Phase TV tables, thinking it "may be an easier path", which I meant as in it could provide a smoother transition and inclusion of the content for navigation from the Phase articles to this list and the outline (which could still be used to include a note above the table of IAG being a "series of animated short films" or probably go with "animated series of short films" as it conveys the same) as IAG is considered a series and is listed as such by Disney (which I have found increasingly difficult to counter as I've looked into the streaming content, official press, interviews, websites, etc.), although I have acknowledged that there has been prior consensus that undid including IAG in the TV table at the Phase articles a long while ago, while they were recently moved up from "Tie-in media" to right under the TV tables at those Phase articles. My comment in the above discussion with a compromise proposal was delineating this approach with a separate "Shorts" section and table (with the summary explaining what IAG is) directly after the TV series table to maintain it as an overview of the Phase articles, to avoid unnecessary duplication of the IAG section's paragraphs there.

  I am not solid on where, or if, a table is needed on this list, although, as I outlined in my sandbox, I was trying to see what a hypothetical "Shorts" section and overview summary here would be in addition to the lead additions I mentioned earlier. I have not solidly cast a vote on this matter or any of these potential approaches under the belief that a compromise can be made here, and I was not intending a fraction of my suggestions to be implemented without further discussion, either. I honestly don't see much harm in listing I Am Groot in the same table and section as the other series, though that was not what my sandbox was being used to convey, despite my addressing it above and now here. I don't think the "longform vs shortform" narrative will necessarily hold up, given we're going to have content such as Marvel Zombies (which is only 4 episodes, less than Groot). I think either introducing the "Shorts" section or merging IAG's table into the wider Phase TV tables are viable options, though either way, I strongly urge the lead and "Expansion to animation" additions of IAG to this list, and the summary overview above whatever table IAG is displayed in here, as I suggested in my sandbox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I support adding those also. I apologize for making only a partial edit if that sent the message that the rest of the proposal didn’t matter. I just did the part of the edit I was prepared to do (it’s worth noting I was really struggling with the table, if you look at the visual preview of my edits) and wanted to allow leeway for others or time for myself to contribute the rest. ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, @Trailblazer101 - could I suggest adding the information in the summary as a note, either in the table or in a bracket (I Am Groot season one^[a]; [a] could state exactly that, etc.), and we could just include I Am Groot in the phase tables like I was doing in my edits? ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  That would convey the same intended approach, and could lend an easier transclusion within the tables. I do know that, from what I am aware, there is no way to span the "Head writer" parameter into the "Director" parameter to avoid duplication (unlike how the current IAG tables are), though I am not concerned about that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would be in agreement with conveying I Am Groot as a separate table (or prose) under a "Shorts" subheading here as presented in Trail's sandbox and keeping them as is at the Phase articles. I think there should still be distinction between these and the live-action series (plus What If). Lumping them all together because they debut on Disney+ doesn't seem right to me. And I'm not saying that to discredit the whole "is it a television series". We can still note such with the prose so that will be clear, but at the end of the day, they are still a series of shorts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not in favor of that approach. All the information we're trying to convey that makes Groot distinct from the others can be done simply, much easier and just as clearly, by placing that information on the table. I don't think "shorts" is tenable to be its own section because it's an arbitrary separation between I Am Groot and everything else based on nothing but your preference. It's a television show. Plain and simple. Why not keep it simple? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing about that is arbitrary nor [my] preference. It was literally announced as "a series of shorts" (bolding mine) from Feige on the Disney Investor Day 2020 stream. I found an upload of the investor day stream. So there should still be that distinction here and on the Phase articles of not being in with the long-form series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you pay attention to the conversation, you’ll see that we’ve discussed putting all the information in a note on the chart rather than making it a separate chart. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Not everyone will choose to look at a note, which in this case, I don't feel is the correct usage of trying to present this info, as placing it among the non-shorts television content would infer that these are not shorts. We have a clear separation by format already, so that makes a clear presentation for readers by having these presented under a "Shorts" heading here and as they are on the Phase articles. We wouldn't integrate the One-Shots into the films table with a note because those are also technically films. Same rationale should apply here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  That has to be the worst argument I’ve ever heard. For one, the information that these are short films would be included both in the table via a superscript note AND the I Am Groot section in the list of series. Are you worried that people will not read beyond what’s included in the tables? ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  We still should not mixing unlike formats in a singular table. Shorts ≠ long form television series. That's is what I am stating. We can include the info here, that's fine, but it should still be separated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  The point is that they’re not unlike and it’s an arbitrary distinction. A series of shorts, a series of half-hour episodes, a series of hour-long episodes, episodes which are feature length, all of those are different but they are all television series. There simply isn’t support, either literally or even on a logical level, for keeping them separate. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Given the contentiousness of the discussions happening here, it is best in a situation like this for neither party to close the RfC. Let it run its course. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Given that the discussion surrounding the proposal itself was not remotely contentious, might I ask that we move to close this RFC? Trailblazer and I have arrived at a potential solution that I believe is workable and has some level of assent. I acknowledge that there are a couple of dissents from early on in the conversation, so I want to openly ask if we have consensus and if we should close this, especially given the lack of activity beyond elaborating on the agreement between Trail and myself. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I interpret consensus as being that we should include IAG in the prose lists and series tables with the note that the series is comprised of short episodes, and adding IAG into the Expansion into Animation section. Would this be appropriate? @Penguino35 @Gonnym @Trailblazer101 @Loriendrew @RunningTiger123. @InfiniteNexus @ZooBlazer and @Favre1fan93. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12: no one participating in this discussion should close it given the past contentious nature. A formal closure request should be made so an uninvolved editor can determine consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the way. (#oops.. wrong universe). ChimaFan12, please note the section following this in order to educate yourself into how RFCs work. As a participant, you have an inherent bias. Closures should be done by uninvolved neutral parties.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To echo my colleagues above, it is not for us to determine what the consensus is or if the discussion has concluded. I remain firm in my proposal on how to handle and arrange the I Am Groot content for this article as I have detailed below, and I think it is the most optimal approach for a compromise (which does mean all parties ought to hold off on certain points in contention in order to reach an agreement). Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case, would it be okay for me to submit the closure request at this stage? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, because 30 days have not elapsed since the RfC was initiated. The "normal" time for an RfC to remain open is 30 days, unless consensus is overwhelmingly obvious. I see no clear consensus in this case, and I suspect that is what the closer will find as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a really clear, workable solution that an overwhelming majority of people are generally supportive of, but I'll await more input. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no "overwhelming majority", but in any case, this is not a majority-rule situation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, and I'm not working on getting a vote. I'm saying there's a workable solution, and I'm awaiting input. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• @ChimaFan12 Please read WP:RFC and educate yourself on how RFC's work, and how they are to be closed properly, as well as editing them after they are opened. I would note to the closing admin that this RFC be closed as no consensus due to inproper creation. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is really pointless as the only thing that will achive is an immediate reopning with the same people voting the same way. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I also don’t believe this RFC should be disregarded or considered non-conclusive. Most people that have opined are open to what I’ve proposed thus far, and the people trying to discredit me have ample opportunity to give their own comment on the matter if they disagree. A proposal was laid out in this RFC by Trailblazer that works. I’d rather it be fairly considered and evaluated rather than have the whole discussion thrown out. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• (Notified via WT:TV) I think the series merits mention here; Marvel's website lists the series alongside other MCU TV series, and (reportedly) some executives thinks it's part of the MCU. That being said, since the Marvel Studios Special Presentations are listed differently, I could see this series getting the same treatment, as it's more of a marketing gimmick than a standalone series (my opinion). Trailblazer101's solution seems reasonable. So call my !vote neutral, leaning yes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Disney+ now clumps them into a series, whereas when "series 1" was first released they were individual titles. It is now possible to watchlist the series rather than having to add each short.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• No A short film is not the same as a feature film; a series of shorts is not the same as a television series. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  All of these are rhetorical questions: Why do we not make the distinction between hour-long and half-hour shows when listing television series? Is one more of a television show than the other due to its length? Why do we include limited series? After all, they don’t operate the same way ongoing series do and have a different narrative structure. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying break

Because it is becoming way too confusing to keep track of this discussion with its various threads, Trailblazer101, would you mind restating or linking to a visual, in part or full, of what you have proposed for this? Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure. The way my proposal was constructed was to make some additions to the lede in mentioning I Am Groot, and to incorporate a "Shorts" table covering what I Am Groot is and its terminology in a brief overview. The way I see it, there are two options for the lede addition, and I have outlined my concrete proposal at my sandbox here for further review. Please note the emphasis that I Am Groot is an animated series of short films wording, which I believe is a workable solution as that is truly what it is, per all the sources and the exact notion of what is a television series has shifted in recent years with streaming (hell, stuff like the 8-episode event The Defenders, the 3-episode event The Continental: From the World of John Wick, and the animated 4-episode "event" (as Marvel recently reportedly said they intended all their upcoming series to be) Marvel Zombies are still television series just with different classification terms, and any of the Marvel Studios series presently classified as "miniseries" automatically become long-form television series upon a renewal, but the fact that these are all still television series cannot be disputed. There are a variety of Disney animated shorts series that exist and are classified as animated series with similar formats as short films arranged by seasons and episode numbers, this is truly no different. I do hope this sheds some light and clarity and sets the record straight. I truly believe this is an effective compromise here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This was not what you communicated to me earlier in this RFC, which was placing Groot in the existing tables and prose lists, and adding it to the expansion into animation section, not adding a separate section for shorts, which is just messy and unnecessary when we could just specify within the existing lists that the episodes are short episodes. I also do not agree on the animated series phrasing in place of animated television series. What you’re suggesting here is not the workable solution we had agreed on and that others were in favor of. ChimaFan12 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The "Expansion into animation" addition is still my intention, I just forgot to include it. It would just include roughly the same text we have for I Am Groot at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Other media expansion. As for the others, I could do with or without including I Am Groot with the rest of the series tables, although that was not my initial suggestion and rather something you suggested which I agreed could work if others saw fit. It was my mistake to not include that originally before posting my response, I got side tracked, and this is not me dismissing it in any way. As I am proposing a compromise, it addresses points from both sides while conceding on others. I can add what the combined series tables would look like to better weigh our options here with those. I personally think either options are viable, it all comes down to where each party is willing to meet in the middle on. If you look at the animated series article, it describes and supports that an animated series "is a type of animated television works with a common series title, usually related to one another. These episodes should typically share the same main characters, some different secondary characters and a basic theme. Series can have either a finite number of episodes like a miniseries, a definite end, or be open-ended, without a predetermined number of episodes. They can be broadcast on television, shown in movie theatres, released direct-to-video or on the internet." It is in no way saying it is not an animated television series. If stating directly animated television series quells concerns that this is not being conveyed adequately, then that can be made as they imply the same understanding. I can get behind that slight adjustment. The adjustments and available options are not present in my sandbox here. All of these options are what I have proposed in one way or another. Bear in mind, with a compromise, all sides will have to agree in the middle and give a little on some parts. Not everything one party wants will necessarily or definitively go, though I believe all of these options I have proposed already are viable compromises. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I have incorporated the "Expansion to animation" additions with the latest sandbox version here, pulling some from Marvel Studios Animation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your agreement that it could work is noted as well as the support for that from four others after that exact proposal was made clear in the thread and added to the initial RFC post. I’m leery of the current conversation completely sidestepping that for arbitrary purposes. Most of us are coming from a place where the solution that you and I were talking about was workable. I don’t think it should be ignored out of hand as certain parties seem eager for it to be. Table addition 2 has garnered a large amount of support with 2/3s of people generally in favor. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not discounting what we have already established. I merely forgot to include everything in my sandbox and jumped the gun a little bit. This proposal outline is to ensure those who got lost in communication may better understand what we've hashed out upfront. I am all for implementing what is agreed upon, I just want to ensure everyone is on the same page here and complied with a request to lay it all out. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for making that clear. ChimaFan12 (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you. The location in Overview Option B for noting I Am Groot (at least that part), and then Table addition 1 are what I would support. The "Expansion to animation" is fine as well as would be necessary following the lead and table additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I was thinking we could ask Alex if there was a way to implement colspan for the A and B params in Series overview, which would better help avoid the duplication of Lepore if possible. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but as I've stated above, I'm not in favor of including these with the non-shorts TV series. They should still be separated as they are on the phase articles, which in turn separates them here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, as you note, it would by default have to be changed on those pages. I don't think we should be beholden to maintaining a certain version of things just because it's the current version. Such a change is what is currently largely supported (noting this here as it's under the clarity break and important information for readers). ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not rehashing any further comments from above, but I'd argue because your original RfC comment was to create a section on this page dedicated to covering I Am Groot and you've changed your stance on this after that posting, we don't actually know what each editors' support is for since they presumably were responding that that original statement. And that's been my issue of late, that things have gotten quite unclear as to what any one is actually !voting on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Favre, I was the only yes on the page at the time I made the edit. All users who had voted prior (two nos and trail) have been pinged and made aware of what is going on. The rationales of everyone who voted yes are clear too. RunningTiger explicitly says Trailblazer’s solution works. Penguino35 says it should be included alongside others on the list. Trailblazer has obviously explained what he meant, as have I. Gonnym cites the use of television terms such as seasons and episodes and states that they’re not merely a collection of short films, but actual episodes. Loriendrew, who arrived after all of the conversation and has had ample opportunity to follow along with what’s happening, also says that its formatting as seasons is why they support the proposal. And, fact of the matter, the edit right below my original post is really hard to miss. So if you’re wondering why a lot of people aren’t agreeing with you, before you call doubt on the one word they put in bold, maybe read the rest of the words in their comment. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been a month since this RFC was opened and we need to regroup. From my understanding there is more support for adding I Am Groot to the existing television series tables, the existing list of prose summaries, and the Expansion into Animation section, from myself, @Penguino35 @Gonnym @Trailblazer101 @Loriendrew and @RunningTiger123 (neutral, leaning yes); there was dissent from @InfiniteNexus @ZooBlazer and @Favre1fan93. Is this an accurate recap? Please, everybody, speak for yourself to reduce confusion. Everyone deserves their stances recorded accurately. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(None of your pings delivered because you added them retroactively.) It does not matter how many people !voted support and how many !voted oppose; Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is factually incorrect and illogical to group I Am Groot on an article together with WandaVision and Loki, just as it would be factually incorrect and illogical to group Item 47 on an article together with Iron Man and Avengers: Endgame. You can argue by the technical definition of "television" and "series", but we should use WP:COMMONSENSE here. It would be foolish to pretend something like I Am Groot is the same thing as something like WandaVision; while the article title says "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series", there's an implication of long-form content as opposed to a collection of short films, just like how "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films" implies feature films only and not short films or television specials (one could argue the latter two can be classified as "films" in a sense). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting my words, I am not going for a vote count. I'm trying to get a sense of what a workable solution is and some sense of consensus, which requires people to at least be on the same page. I asked to regroup, not to tally numbers. Excluding Groot from the table is not common sense. It's your preferred outcome, it is not the singular reasonable approach. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty logical just by looking at the runtimes of each project:

• I Am Groot: 4–6 minutes
• Marvel One-Shots: 4–15 minutes
• Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot: 3–6 minutes
• WandaVision: 30–50 minutes
• Loki: 41–54 minutes
• Moon Knight: 45–53 minutes

Although all of the projects above are (relatively) short-form episodic content designed for a small screen, it would be more reasonable to group I Am Groot together with the One-Shots and Slingshot than with WandaVision and Loki. It's the same thing with non-episodic content:

• All Hail the King: 14 minutes
• Agent Carter: 15 minutes
• The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special: 42 minutes
• Werewolf by Night: 53 minutes
• Iron Man 3: 131 minutes
• Avengers: Endgame: 181 minutes

We can see three distinct categories above: there are the 15-minute short films, the 45-minute TV specials, and the two-hour feature films. Although they are all non-episodic content that could arguably meet the definition of "film", we do not include them on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films because we only mean feature films. For List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, we are referring to shows with 45-minute episodes, not series of five-minute shorts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Groot is a television series and the one-shots and even Slingshot are not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

What If... and She-Hulk have no episodes near or at 45 minutes, either, half of WandaVision's episodes are below 45 minutes. Let's not pretend a runtime is required for inclusion on this page. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe directly importing I Am Groot with the rest of the series' tables is the right path to go here (and never said that was what I was pushing for, only that it was a possibility). I believe mentioning it among the rest of Marvel Studios' approach to their series is notable. As long as the information is conveyed (and it is properly conveyed in many articles, such as at Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Phase articles), I don't see much issue in where I Am Groot is included, whether it be in prose, a table, etc., though if there is not much support for a full inclusion, I will side with that consensus. There is nothing beholding I Am Groot to be coupled within the same series overview tables as the long-form series. We don't include Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot in the Marvel's ABC television series table, but rather with the rest of the digital series at Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Digital series because it is not a long-form series, similar to I Am Groot. While I still believe there is room to meet in the middle for addressing I Am Groot within this list from my sandbox (linking again here for reference), I agree with Favre that Option B for the lead and Table addition 1 are the most optimal propositions from that which I will support, as well as including I Am Groot in "Expansion to animation" in this list for consistency. However, I do not firmly believe that a table for I Am Groot is necessary in this list, as prose can easily cover the same bases just fine. I will note that I doubt another RfC would see differing responses, and I strongly encourage other contributors to weigh the sandbox proposals and to meet in the middle to some degree. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll support table addition 1. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort to compromise, I do not think I Am Groot is appropriate anywhere on this article except for the See also section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Acknowleding again that Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus does not seem to be where you are at. We can't just disregard consensus to appease one person, and while we are trying to figure out what the exact details of it are going to be, we should certainly prepare to include IAG on this page. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No clear consensus has emerged from this discussion. We can't just disregard consensus to appease one person – you got that right, and that's exactly what the compromise is proposing to do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, consensus isn't totally figured out just yet, and as I said, we're hashing it out. A clear majority of people are supportive of IAG being on the page, we haven't figured out what that should look like. I've shifted from the way that I preferred previously to a way that would still be workable, so I promise you this isn't to appease me. Even people that opposed IAG being on the page previously support a proposed outcome from Trailblazer. I think you're underestimating consensus. It's not clear how it should be on the page, it is clear, though, that it should be. I'm trying to keep that conversation going rather than having it be shut down because one person doesn't like it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think it should 100% be included in a table here, per say. I offered up potential points for a compromise, and I am more lenient and pushing for addressing I Am Groot among the other animated series works in the body of this article than repeating those details in a table with a header. Plus, all of that info is already covered at other articles anyway, namely Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel Studios Animation. I am not voicing my definitive approval for any suggestion outlined in my proposal draft, which was strictly to offer up options to encourage a mediation and potential compromise to be had, which I believe to still be possible. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then let's please get everybody involved to actually discuss the merits and decide what we're going to do. Let's stop debating, is there consensus/no consensus, let's actually get to a point where we are all talking about what's happening because it's frustrating to just have a bunch of people come to insert their opinions and then leave to have those opinions disregarded. We're 5-3 in favor (again, not saying this is a binding agreement), 1 opposed is open to an option presented by a neutral party, which is in line with the general attitude of everybody here. Let's not just decide, "well I personally think this, therefore it must be this way." Even I've been able to shift from a hardline stance on how it should be included in favor of what seemed to be a fair compromise that was workable with what people have been saying. Let's get talking about that compromise in a meaningful way. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose plans in the preceding/last comment as it differs from the now unclear original RFC and subsequent "edit" which makes this RFC seem like it was only about that edit statement. Start over with a clear suggestion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Alternatively, could you explain what you were supporting when you voted yes? I want to know what you would support and meet you where you're at if possible and reduce confusion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Loriendrew - I apologize for the edit. It added unnecessary confusion and you’re right it should have been its own thing. I support including Groot on this page as a television show and am flexible on how it will be included, and would support even if it was included in its own section of shorts, as long as it’s included on this page and referred to as a television series of shorts on its own page. Would that be workable for you? ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging again @Loriendrew ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Season 1 did not become a season until Season 2 was released, at which point Disney+ lumped the first five shorts together into a season, with the next five then being Season 2. They are numbered which suggests an order of watching. Marvel calls them seasons. They were made for television (broad term) rather than cinema airings or DVD–type inclusions. Officially, do not think they should be included due, but sourcing disagrees. Unless there is a duration guideline, something the TV taskforce may want to explore, there is no valid reason to exclude. That said, do not support adding them to the table of Phases, weak support of sandbox Table 1, include in animation prose.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I can completely get behind adding it to sandbox table 1 and including it in prose in the animation section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Reconvening - the latest update so far.

Last time we got together, a proposal came about that had momentum. Given support for adding I Am Groot to this page from a large amount of users, a compromise has become a necessity. Trailblazer101 proposed two options. The current leading option is adding I Am Groot to the page through prose option B in the first section of Trail's sandbox and adding a table for I Am Groot under a "shorts" section, known as table addition 1. This combination of options have been described as the optimal compromise by Trail, Favre1fan93 (who initially voted no to Groot's inclusion but found this to be a workable compromise), and later myself. It has also received tentative support from Loriendrew. Runningtiger123 has remained neutral, leaning yes to adding Groot to the page, stating that they found Trailblazer's proposal "reasonable". Penguino35 voted yes to including it on this page, saying it should be listed alongside other series. Gonnym also voted yes, stating unequivocally that it is an episodic TV series. Two other users voted no, InfiniteNexus and ZooBlazer. As such, it seems reasonable to assume that consensus is for I Am Groot to be added. Pending commentary from RunningTiger123, Gonnym and Penguino35, who all voted yes but did not state a preference to how its inclusion should be implemented, I believe table addition 1 and prose option b are the optimal way to move forward on this subject. ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101, @Favre1fan93, @Loriendrew, @RunningTiger123, @Penguino35, @Gonnym, @InfiniteNexus, @ZooBlazer. Pinging all of you as courtesy. To sum, seven out of nine of us have voiced some degree of support for placing I Am Groot on this page, whether as an enthusiastic yes, a tentative one, or in support for a compromise. Gonnym, RunningTiger123, and Penguino35, your input would be appreciated especially. ChimaFan12 (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is too much for me to read, I'm sorry. Is there a proposal so I can voice my opinion on? Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a proposal outlined in my sandbox here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think based on the choices in your sandbox, I'd go with Option B. -- ZooBlazer^talk 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Support table 2 and I guess prose option B, though I hate mixing terminology, short films do not have seasons and I still say we should call them what they are, and that is episodes. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The sandbox proposals are linked within my post under the current subheading. Please read that post, you don’t have to read anything before then. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about the prose options. I prefer table option 2 because it provides better context and makes it easy to see how the shorts fit chronologically with other series while still noting that they are shorts. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I also prefer 2. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support prose B and table 1; strong oppose table 2. The shorts should not be integrated alongside Marvel Studios' long-form TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: shifting my support away from table 1. It is now a strong oppose. Strong support table 2. There's no reason not to include it in the list given structurally it is a television series, and people like @Favre1fan93 have never proposed separating She-Hulk or WandaVision from the other series just because they have shorter runtimes. This may be a surprise to people like Favre some, but people can actually read, and if we include that I Am Groot is a series of shorts both on the table and in the prose section, there will be absolutely no confusion for the much simpler and more accurate arrangement of placing I Am Groot with the rest of the shows. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at how Forky Asks a Question is placed here. It is included alongside longer television series. Do you want to know why? Because it's a television series. I concur with @RunningTiger123. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please tone down your rhetoric. There is no reason to attack other users just because they disagree on how articles should be structured. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted, striking that part of the comment. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Adventure Into Fear

Adventure into Fear was a planned programming block for Hulu before it was cancelled, with sources conflicting on whether it would be tied to Agents of SHIELD at the time and with no source marketing the show as part of the MCU. The sole show produced for it, Helstrom, was described by its showrunner as being "not part of the MCU" or its canon, and saying that its exclusion from the MCU allowed the creative team to "focus on our people, our characters, our story." As this list is exclusively for series that are part of the MCU, would there be support for removing all information regarding Adventure into Fear from this page and leaving a link to that page (which will have all relevant information added) in the See Also section? ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment this user has been trying to enact their intended outcome (full outright removal) multiple times now, despite the many discussion attempts here (as can currently be seen above) to resolve this, given there is currently no consensus to outright remove this info fully (as has been explained to them countless time). I would like to point to a proposal I have previously suggested here that did have a small amount of support, which will keep the real world/historical nature of this intended grouping of shows for the article (as should be here in my opinion), while still moving away from the current formatting that does suggest the sole series was connected to the MCU (as one could call the Marvel Television series by the end of their existence). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: I fail to see how this is relevant. I'm awaiting the RFC to take any further action. If you look in the previous discussions, you will be able to see that the timestamps of my edits took place only after discussion had ceased and my response was the last on the page. There were extended periods of time where I would not receive a response, and I feel as though I was the only one in earnest trying to resolve this situation in a fair way in accordance with the facts. Perhaps this is annoying, but this is no crime and certainly should have no bearing on the RFC. Furthermore, it is silly to portray this as a mere matter of preference. I do not have anything against Helstrom, Ghost Rider, or Adventure into Fear. I simply find the current layout unintentionally (at least I hope so) deceptive and believe it implies things that are untrue. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's very relevant. Sometime discussions naturally end and go stale. That happens. That doesn't then mean you can interpret no responses as editors agreeing with your desired outcome, when it never had consensus to start with. If anything, with the past discussions, we are just back to where we started. Hence, my comment to make note of those discussions, plus my attempt at a resolution which did receive editor support. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have to disagree fully. If you have a grievance with my behavior, please file it at the appropriate locations. For the purposes of this RFC, which I have not attempted to circumvent at all and am literally only filing as an attempt to resolve the dispute, please focus on the discussion at hand. It is not fruitful whatsoever or in the spirit of conflict resolution to turn the matter into a personal one rather than treat it as the dispute resolution that it is supposed to be. I have mentioned concerns regarding ownership among taskforce members and lack of communication as reasons why I still fervently oppose the informal straw poll above, which was not intended to replace discussion, and discussion has continued as such. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  My reasons for opposing your proposal are listed in both of the threads on the subject above this. Namely, no piece of coverage on the show is or ever has been clear on the series being part of the MCU. We do, however, have clear statements that separate it from the MCU. Please see the above discussions. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nom. This is the only source we have that states that the shows even occupy the “same universe,” but even the article is unclear, never saying outright that the show is in the MCU while going out of its way to say it won’t cross over with the MCU, something which is reiterated in numerous reports. The only quote directly from Marvel that we have on the page refers to the show inhabiting the “Marvel Universe” (the term is frequently by the company including for properties which are not MCU) does not strictly refer to the MCU and it’s wholly possible that CNBC misinterpreted it. It also states that the Ghost Rider show will have no connection to Agents of SHIELD: “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.” Variety backs this up also.
• We have people on the Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur show referring to that show as complementary to the MCU, and it features crossovers with characters who have appeared in it, but that is not considered enough to list the show as part of the MCU on this page — rightly so, as it has never been stated by anyone from Marvel to be explicitly part of the MCU. I ask that we hold that same standard to Adventure into Fear, which not only does not have that support but is explicitly not part of the MCU. We don’t have enough consistent details to confirm that it was even developed for the MCU and the details we do have, which conflict, would be better suited for the shows’ page on Adventure into Fear, which we can appropriately link here in the See Also section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also: shows like Spider-Man: Freshman Year are included explicitly because they have MCU branding in press releases. Helstrom does not, three years after its debut. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• No - I don't see conflicting reports. Based on the information we have from the synopsis, Ghost Rider would not be connected or related to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the sense that it would show the Robbie Reyes character in a whole new adventure set in a different place (Texas-Mexico border), instead of an expansion/continuation of the events in Los Angeles depicted in S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 4, but unconnected stand-alone stories does not mean a different continuity or universe, necessarily. When Ghost Rider was announced, Entertainment Weekly wrote: "According to Hulu, 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.” Finally, Marvel Television head Jeph Loeb said that the show would reference the character's role in S.H.I.E.L.D. while telling a story of its own. Considering all things with context, I understand that Adventure into Fear and Ghost Rider still belongs to the Marvel Television section of this article, independent of Helstrom which is a different situation. YgorD3 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Here is the summary that you mention: “Ghost Rider, also known as Robbie Reyes, is consumed by hellfire and supernaturally bound to a demon. He lives on the Texas/Mexico border and when he unleashes the Rider, Robbie brings vengeance for the innocents he encounters, but struggles to control the power he wields.” Nowhere in here does it say anything about standalone story set in the MCU, nor does the quote from EW, which only states that it is the same character — it is true, Robbie Reyes is still Robbie Reyes. A TV show that focuses on him will be focusing on the same character as a comic that focuses on him. CNBC, which is unclear about many things, was not unclear when they said the version in the Ghost Rider show “will be a new iteration of the character and not related to Luna's work on the TV series.” Variety also was not unclear: “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.”

  In no way connected - not related. Those do not leave much to the imagination. Loeb, who is not well quoted in the low quality source you provided, is quoted in full here as saying it will “acknowledge what has happened in the past” but notably does not say anything about whether the show is in the MCU. He does stress it’s not a spin-off but its own original program, that does not mean a standalone story set in the MCU. He also doesn’t talk about what will be acknowledged or in what form. The Spider-Man movies from Marvel Studios prior to No Way Home acknowledged their predecessors without being set in the same continuity. Even if the show were to acknowledge directly the events of Agents of SHIELD, we have nothing, no report at all, no statement from Marvel, saying it was part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe brand or continuity. Aquaman: King of Atlantis and Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur both acknowledge the cinematic universes which inspire them without being a part of them. In any case, his quote does not negate Variety or CNBC’s reporting.

  There are so many details to consider which need to be included in a neutral way, because we don’t have anything conclusively supporting the show ever having been for the MCU, and the Adventure into Fear article is a better place to lay that all out than here, which is intended to be a list of shows that are in the MCU. Adventure into Fear is very clearly not in the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Neither comment/report negates the other. CNBC also reported that it would exist within the same universe; Loeb said it would "acknowledge what has happened in the past". The problem is that you think the CNBC and Variety's comments about it "not being connected" to AoS conflicts with something. Both information may be correct. It would be a TV show about Robbie Reyes living in another city (per the synopsis) and apparently dealing with things unrelated to the AoS stuff, then yes, it makes sense to say that it is not "connected to the AoS storyline" even if it is set in the same universe. And as for the "brand", Loeb rarely used the term "MCU" when discussing Marvel TV shows, especially in recent years, so you're asking a lot. YgorD3 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Re: CNBC - CNBC never said the universe it shared with Marvel’s other shows was the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The only quote directly from Marvel that we see uses the phrase “Marvel Universe,” which is often used by creatives at Marvel to refer to the assortment of characters and storylines that Marvel has created. Without explicitly stating, “this series is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe,” we do not have anything that unambiguously suggests the show is in the MCU. It’s worth noting that CNBC’s report stresses explicitly that it wouldn’t cross over with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which indicates at the very least that the MCU is a separate entity from it.

  Your conclusion about Robbie Reyes is also purely based on SYNTH - no source ever says that it’s set in the same universe as Agents of SHIELD, but just in another city. The only thing we have sources saying is that it’s a brand new iteration that’s not connected or related to Luna’s work on SHIELD “in any way”. The truth is, we cannot affirmatively say it’s in the MCU. We can objectively lay everything out without trying to reach a specific conclusion one way or the other on the Adventure into Fear page, but we can’t go out of our way to say “this show was planned for the MCU” because we don’t have that concrete information.

  Ultimately, I’m not asking for a lot. I’m asking for the bare minimum: someone credible, not even strictly Loeb, to state unambiguously that the series was developed for the MCU. The fact is, we don’t even have that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is what CNBC wrote: "...unlike their Disney+ counterparts, "Ghost Rider" will not cross over with other Marvel shows or films, although it will exist within the same universe, Marvel said.'"

  You are minimizing a specific part of the comment above (the "same universe" phrase) because it's not a direct quote, but there are no direct quotes for everything else. CNBC said that it wouldn’t cross over with the MCU compared to the Disney+ shows specifically, so I don't see how this comment is proof that Adventure into Fear and Ghost Rider weren't in the same boat as the other Marvel Television shows when the *new* Marvel Studios Disney+ shows were used for the comparison. There are also no direct quotes for the comments about "new iteration" or "not connected to S.H.I.E.L.D.". I brought up the "synopsis + Robbie Reyes living in another city" because this seems to provide a bit of context as to why the series would be disconnected from S.H.I.E.L.D. in terms of "storyline", which is not the same thing as "universe/continuity" (and no source stated that the show would not be set in the same universe as S.H.I.E.L.D.). Loeb literally saying that the show would "acknowledge what has happened in the past" is a clear indication of a shared universe. I believe Adventure into Fear and Ghost Rider should remain on this article. YgorD3 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  “CNBC said that it wouldn’t cross over with the MCU compared to the Disney+ shows specifically.” That’s not what was stated. As I said, we don’t know what was meant by “same universe” and the only indication we have is that we know the show wouldn’t cross over with the MCU and that it takes place in the “Marvel Universe”. We can’t say that the show was developed for the MCU, because nobody has said that. We can note CNBC’s phrasing ON the Adventure into Fear page, as we should mention that Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur are “complementary to the MCU” on that show’s page, but neither belong on this page. There is a great deal less ambiguity surrounding the meaning of “this is a brand new iteration in no way related to Luna’s work on Agents of SHIELD” (paraphrasing, but the bold isn’t a paraphrase) than there is about the usage of the word “universe.”

  “ I brought up the "synopsis + Robbie Reyes living in another city" because this seems to provide a bit of context as to why the series would be disconnected from S.H.I.E.L.D. in terms of ‘storyline’.” That’s SYNTH. What you’re doing there is SYNTH. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I never said that the synopsis content should be noted in the article as being evidence of something. You say it's possible that CNBC misinterpreted the "same universe" thing, but the same logic could be applied to any other comment you're using here to justify a removal. You're focusing too much on these "ambiguous" comments and choosing which is the least or most "ambiguous" comment when there are direct quotes from Jeph Loeb clarifying this in a simple way ("Not a spin-off, but still acknowledging what happened before"). I know he didn't use the term "MCU" here, as he has not used in some interviews where he addresses the continuity/universe of Marvel TV. Considering all things, I simply disagree that AiF and GR does not belong on this page. YgorD3 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can you point me to where it is unambiguously said that the show was developed for the MCU? I am more than happy to put on the AiF page everything that is reported. As it is currently, nothing actually states that the show is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity or brand, and CNBC's article is not clear on the subject either. That's what I'm saying. When Variety and CNBC both report that it is unconnected to Luna's performance on Agents of SHIELD, as Variety puts it, "in any way," that is also worth mentioning and I think beyond the possibility of misinterpretation. I think all we can say for the "same universe" quote would be on the Adventure into Fear page, exactly how CNBC reported it: in the same universe, whatever that may mean. As it is we simply have nothing concrete to go off of that the show is actually a part of the MCU, when things that we know are part of it are considered "in no way connected". We have to portray the facts as they are, not as we wish them to be. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• No per Ygor and my rationale in the proposal discussion above. There is not enough evidence that the planned Adventure into Fear franchise and its other television series were not part of the MCU by design or intentions. There is evidence from the press announcements and Loeb confirming Ghost Rider's ties to the MCU series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. while being a story that stands alone from what that series did, which does not confirm it was not going to be in the MCU. As I have noted before, we can lay out all of the facts from these sources from a neutral point of view without trying to push for one perspective or the other and without interpreting different meanings from what is said. The showrunner of Helstrom is only one individual who, as far as we are aware, only worked on Helstrom and was not in control of the continuity decisions of Marvel Television. The words of the Marvel TV head and multi-series executive producer Jeph Loeb and the announcements hold more weight for the AiF franchise than just the showrunner of one of its series. One series having a largely standalone story with very minimal links to the MCU does not mean everything else was not for the MCU by extension. Removing all of the AiF content from this article would be a disservice to our readers, as we ought to explain the details here to provide clear, direct transparency on this disconnect, and not just remove it and relegate it to a singular link at the bottom of the list. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I support (and what this proposal is, fundamentally, is) laying out all of the facts from a neutral point of view, although none of the facts ever ascribe it to being part of the MCU. None of the announcements placed it in the MCU, Loeb himself never described it as being part of the MCU. We can say that originally it was announced to be in no way connected to Agents of SHIELD, per Variety, and then state that Loeb later stated that it would "acknowledge what has happened in the past", which still is not a statement which places the show in any particular universe or brand. We can acknowledge all of the facts on that article, yet literally none of them are "the series is a part of the MCU." Therefore, it does not belong in this one. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is sort of grey, so it really could go either way. However, just a few thoughts I had: (1) Adventure Info Fear as a block/franchise & Ghost Rider as a standalone show were both abandoned projects. This page does not list any abandoned projects (e.g. Damage Control or Most Wanted). As such, it seems odd to include either here. (2) There is fair but not definitive evidence that Ghost Rider would have been part of the MCU. Separately, it seemed Ghost Rider and Helstrom would have been connected similarly to how Runaways and Cloak & Daggar were connected. (3) All comments linking AiF shows to the MCU were made prior to Marvel Studios absorbing Marvel TV, and prior to Helstrom's release. The comment from Zbyszewski about Helstrom not being in the MCU was made after its release.

My belief is that at conception the AiF shows would have been part of MCU continuity, but those plans changed after the restructuring and Helstrom changed to being separate before its release (probably some time in the middle of filming). So, the question is do we base this article on pre-production plans or after release plans? I suppose from a certain point of view it could possibly be said that the MCU Helstrom was cancelled (along with AiF & Ghost Rider) and the Helstrom that was released is a different non-MCU show. At the very least, I think it's a good idea to remove the Helstrom table so as not to make a strong connection to that show. Marquismark79 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• The removal of the Helstrom table was something proposed in an above discussion and to have the section be prose only to help with the points you raised. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  But… why? As the comment mentions there is no definitive evidence that Ghost Rider was going to be in the MCU. Why not place all the information we have just on the Adventure into Fear page. After all, this page does not even invoke Most Wanted even though it was definitively developed for the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thinking further on it, I feel like the heading for the section should be changed. "Adventure into Fear" never really came into being as a named franchise/block/brand and as such seems out of place here. It is also not consistent with the other headings (e.g. "Netflix series" instead of "Defenders Saga"). Whether Helstrom is MCU is still under debate, but having an abandoned project name in such a prominent spot makes it seem more important that it should be. Until that larger debate is settled, I'd propose keeping the table and link to AiF article, maybe a little more detail in the prose, and changing the heading to "Additional series" or "Terror series" ("Hulu series" kinda seems appropriate, but moving Runaways to it doesn't make sense). (also apologies... I couldn't decide if this comment should go here or in the other threads) Marquismark79 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, Helstrom is already settled not to be in the MCU. We’ve already held an RFC on the subject that unequivocally, unanimously, agrees and highlights objectively what I’m pointing out here: there’s never been enough information to definitively state one way or the other what the intent was. (Read thebiguglyalien’s comment there, as well as Indagate’s, which highlights why its inclusion here is a problem.) That’s why I propose merely linking to the Adventure into Fear page and objectively presenting all the information we have there without invoking any claim that cannot be verified (i.e. we can include Loeb’s claim that it would acknowledge the past, include CNBC’s remarks in their entirety, etc.) ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  I only mean the debate here is not settled, however, that RFC doesn't seem quite unanimous to me. And the article it comes from is ambiguous as well. It presents both sets of evidence (these sources say it is, these say it isn't) without making a conclusion (which is probably the correct approach).

  For this discussion, I think we need to consider AiF separate from Helstrom. You can't have a franchise of one season of one show. I don't believe it was ever referenced after the show was released. AiF is a cancelled franchise and as such doesn't deserve a prominent listing here. I recommend the heading to change and we limit mentions of AiF to just the prose.

  Helstrom is a special case because it was announced to be MCU but then wasn't. It's inclusion is debatable. We could take it out completely, or include it with an asterisk. Honestly I don't have a strong opinion either way. Marquismark79 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Could you point me to the reliable sources that definitively say it is part of the MCU? Because the utter lack of those is what's driving this proposal. There was never any point where Helstrom (or any of AIF) was announced to be in the MCU, and by release we know that it was not in the MCU (the source I linked is not ambiguous -- here is the quote: "It's not part of the MCU... We are our own thing." -- nor is this ambiguous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foHSyy8np4U&t=46s, which specifically refers to Helstrom and Ghost Rider as separate universes from the MCU.) ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's not definitive, but there are enough pieces here and there that one could make a case for it. That's all been mentioned above. As I said, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other (about Helstrom). The point is there is clearly enough there that an argument can be made. However, there can be a compromise here. You're going for all-or-nothing, but AiF and Helstrom have different circumstances and can be handled separately. Treating AiF more like Ghost Rider is more accurate... mention it in prose if you must but don't promote it as a section heading. Marquismark79 (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  If nothing has ever definitively stated that it’s part of the MCU, then we can’t include it. WP:NOR comes into play here. We shouldn’t include it on this list if it isn’t definitive, especially because we know definitively that it’s not in the MCU. We should objectively lay out all the facts on the AIF page, which will include everything you say supports it and everything which casts it into doubt, without trying to tie anything into a certain narrative that can’t be verified. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Again, I'm not arguing about Helstrom one way or the other. But, there is enough bits of data for other people to make the argument (hence the debate above). In particular, you're debating between the intent at announcement and what it became after release. It's simply two different points of view for the scope of this article ("List of shows announced for MCU (excluding cancelled)" vs "List of shows released under MCU").

  However, I've not seen anyone argue against removing AiF because it was cancelled and cancelled projects aren't included in this article. Marquismark79 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  The argument I've been told is that it has to be included because it was developed for the MCU, despite that being based only on original research, which in my opinion, makes its inclusion on this page inappropriate. I think we should lay out all the facts on the AiF page, not include AiF or Helstrom on this page because they're outside the scope of the page. Do you agree? ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Once again, I don't have an opinion on whether Helstrom is in the MCU. The proponents for that are interpreting sources differently from you. For example, (Jeff Loeb) "...acknowledge what has happened in the past, but it very much is its own show." could be interpreted two ways: (1) in story, Robby will reference things that happened in AoS but never crossover with it, or (2) reference AoS in easter eggs or some other non-story way and tell a story outside the MCU. I think both interpretations are valid, thus you will never get a consensus from your opponents. Hell, that quote could be applied to AoS (where "the past" is the Phase 1 movies) and it would still be accurate.

  My stance, though, is that "Adventures into Fear" as a heading is inappropriate for this article because it elevates the status of a cancelled project. AiF has never been mentioned since Helstrom's release, which puts it in the same boat as the Ghost Rider show. AiF doesn't exist just like The Offenders doesn't exist. If it did, wouldn't you think Werewolf by Night would have been part of it. Whether AiF or Helstrom is MCU is moot. Marquismark79 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not asking your opinion about whether it's MCU, I'm asking if because it depends on interpretation and conclusions not within the articles or quotes themselves, it should even be included on this page. I'm not asking whether you believe it's MCU, I'm asking whether, in accordance with Wiki policy, to describe it in explicit terms as MCU is appropriate:

  "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."

  I don't mind if the people who are arguing that it is MCU walk away with that belief, it's not their minds I'm trying to change. I'm trying to make the content objective and in line with wiki policy. This article's scope is officially shows that are part of the MCU, the notion that it's all shows developed for the MCU is demonstrably untrue as there are shows developed that had pilots filmed that have no coverage on here at all. We shouldn't reserve space for shows which can be interpreted to be MCU, otherwise we're going to have a lot more shows on here that people have already stated they don't want to be included, we should include shows which are confirmed to be in the MCU. The details of the development of Helstrom and AiF, which people can interpret as they please, should be reserved for those series' respective pages. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Question: What series were developed for the MCU but not listed here? A pilot alone is not a series (hence the term "ordered to series"). Marquismark79 (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Could you answer my question first? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Unless you can read the mind of the speaker, all quotes are interpreted to some degree. The point of the debate is to come to a consensus on that interpretation. For example, Moon Girl is "complementary to the MCU" can be interpreted to mean it adds to the MCU and thus part of it (a complementary breakfast adds to and is a part of your hotel experience), but the consensus is to interpret it to mean it enhances the MCU from the outside (the complementary breakfast enhances your stay but is separate from the hotel's main purpose).

  Not all citations are going to be explicit and a certain amount of inference is necessary. Are there official quotes for each and every show here that literally and explicitly say "yes, this is in the MCU"? I would be surprised if that were true.

  So to answer your question, no, I don't agree that interpretations are not appropriate. And again, I don't have a strong opinion on whose interpretation is more correct: yours or theirs.

  As for the scope of this article, I don't know if it is documented anywhere but if it is "a list of TV series that were developed for the MCU (brand or continuity) and were released to the public" then it appears that the majority believe Helstrom fits that. Further, under that definition, if/when they eventually make, say... Inhumans or Iron Fist not canon, those shows would stay on this list (with maybe a note of some kind). In that case, those would be exactly like Helstrom... started off MCU but later wasn't. Can you show where this definition is not correct? Marquismark79 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  The degree of interpretation here is very much original research. When was Helstrom in the MCU, and when did it stop being in the MCU? We have sources that explicitly place all the ABC and Netflix shows in the MCU, without ambiguity or doubt. The fact that there is doubt here, in addition to outright confirmation that, by release, Helstrom was not MCU (and we can’t pinpoint with any certainty when it was, if it ever was, before then) is telling. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is you opinion, and you are welcome to it. But your opponents' opinion is the opposite, and they are welcome to it as well. You are at the point where further debate is getting you nowhere and into WP:BLUDGEON territory

  So, let's look at it another way... This article is a compilation page of sorts... not really the place for new or unique information, therefore it should follow the info on the respective main articles. The article for Helstrom states that it was going to exist in the MCU but after release it was not. As such, this article should not contradict that article and it should include it here (as per the scope as I described above). If you want to debate the scope, then there is merit in doing so (in another RFC) and that could lay the framework for future situations where a show has become non-MCU. Marquismark79 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  If the main article is misleading, we should fix that and fix this article. The truth of the matter is that Zbyszewski's comments do not contradict the announcement. They are consistent with what CNBC reported. We cannot pinpoint or allude to a change in plans when the details of the plans that we know are that the show is not part of the MCU, was not planned to cross over with the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: nowhere on the page or in any of its supplementary materials such as the FAQ does it say that the page is for series which were developed for the MCU. Certainly the lack of coverage on Most Wanted, which dates back to long before this discussion even happened, tells me that this is not actually a matter of policy. My bigger concern, however, is that the arbitrary application of that concept (as we cannot call it policy, clearly), without clear evidence to begin with that Adventure into Fear was developed for the MCU, gives an utterly false impression that the series are part of the MCU, or that we have any concrete evidence at all placing it there. The truth is we don’t, and that much is clear because when I ask anybody for a reliable source unambiguously stating it to be the case that the shows were developed for the MCU, there is a notable lack of a response. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment as mentioned above, there has been a previous RFC touching on this subject. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Indagate @Thebiguglyalien - as you two are invoked in this thread, It would be of importance to allow you guys to assess the proposal in the thread and speak for yourselves on the matter so your words are not portrayed unfairly. If you have an opinion on this matter, feel free to share it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a see also link would be the solution here. Just write what the sources say. If the sources disagree, then write that they disagree. In the meantime, you might want to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:STICK. Editors can get blocked from editing for violating them too much. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that would ideally be done at the appropriate page (Adventure into Fear or Helstrom) rather than on a page reserved for a list of MCU television shows, especially because none of the sources have ever said it’s part of the MCU. I tagged in part because I invoked your comment which was of similar reasoning to my own, and I wanted to see if you had anything to add. The wiki should not say “this was planned for the MCU” or “the series has never ever ever been planned for the MCU,” because no source says either of those things and should instead feature all the details that we do know on the appropriate page, which would be one of those other pages as it fits within the scope of their development rather than on a list of confirmed MCU media. I appreciate your concern regarding the policies you linked, also, however I don’t believe myself to be in violation of either. I’m not trying to intimidate people out of their opinions, but if someone brings up a point, it is fruitful for a discussion-based consensus to hash out the nuances. I'm not trying to get a certain vote count, I'm trying to get a workable outcome. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Outright removing information that is relevant to this article in terms of sources' differing interpretations on Helstrom and Adventure into Fear's connections to the MCU is not a "workable solution" as it favors complete removal, which is not being transparent with our readers and provides less information, which is not our goal here in this encyclopedia. We should state all of the facts and any relevant commentary on this matter, not try to spin it one way or another. When sources disagree, we include all points on such. Allow me to point to WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, and WP:Neutrality, which support this approach. The sources do exist out there for both pro-MCU and anti-MCU stances, it is a matter of including them in the articles where they are relevant and adequately addressing them equally without making a definitive call for one or the other, akin to what has already been done at the Helstrom article and its lead and body. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

But it's not a matter of sources disagreeing: no source at all says it's in the Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity or brand. The only comments ever made related to the MCU regarding this show is that it was not part of the MCU. We do not have an earlier source that says that it is. The pro-MCU stances require a degree of interpretation that makes it original research. We can't verify that it's in the MCU because no credible source has said that. The presence of non-MCU shows on this page, which cannot be verified to be in the MCU by any reliable source that we have, is undue weight. A relevant rule of balance is WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's certainly a minority view that Helstrom is part of the MCU, and there's simply no reliable source that claims it is, which is a requirement of WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTH guidelines. Not only is its presence on this page unsubstantiated, it's inappropriate. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard has been notified of this discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Adventure into Fear “developed for the MCU”?

What proof do we have that Adventure into Fear was ever in development for the MCU. No source says that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is yet another new discussion attempt to counter prior consensus that was reached mere months ago, and is unlikely to progress further away from the consensus. See WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. This has already been explained to you by countless editors and your changes do not have a consensus to implement them here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If what you’re saying is true and you’re not lying to discourage any changes being made so you can uphold an agenda, then surely you can cite where any source has ever credibly said it was developed for the MCU. It’s worth noting that consensus has not been reached and an informal straw poll is all that has ever occurred, limited exclusively to the most active members of the taskforce who have raised ownership concerns in the past. So, where’s the citation that the series was developed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe? ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

ChimaFan, the horse is long dead. You can stop flogging the poor thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

But it’s not. Nobody has ever been able to present a single credible source in all the conversations saying it was made for the MCU and it was even said “well we know that Loeb was never going to say it was in the MCU but it still is,” yet now that the shows are confirmed not to be the same people are mad because they want Feige to explicitly disown every single one by name. The burden of proof is greater than anyone’s ever been able to live up to, and all the evidence shows that there was always a huge distance between the show and the MCU. Per Wiki policy, there’s no SYNTH and no Original Research, and you must STICKTOTHESOURCE. None of the people telling me to drop this conversation have abided to any of those. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)