Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Production split[edit]

@Favre1fan93: I disagree with your partial revert there, so I would like to discuss why I made the changes I did. At the moment, we have more production/behind-the-scenes information than we ever have, and I do think that it is time we follow the general pattern of big franchise templates an split off the production information. There are numerous examples of this working really well: Template:Star Wars, Template:Star Trek, even Template:Mission: Impossible pretty much does this. It means we can clearly have the films/TV shows/etc. that are set in the universe, then any really in-universe stuff (in our case, just the characters), and then we can have all the production information, with related stuff at the end.

Having this logical separation seems particularly important now when we have things like the Production of Avengers 3 & 4, which does not belong in a list of films. It is supplemental to two film articles that we will be adding soon, which means that it won't even be able to come under a film article like the Avengers accolades, for example, does. If we had a production section then that would be the obvious place to put it—it is about production, and it covers more than one MCU project. I would say the same for something like an article about all the Netflix shows filming in New York. And it obviously won't be the only thing in the section, since the cast lists and music all come under production as well.

The video games may have some influence from the movies, but the real reason they are listed where they are is because they were released as marketing for the films, so they sort of come under them. But we now have a section that is dedicated to works that are kind of inspired by the films and are definitely not part of the MCU, and so are segregated off at the bottom of the template. Not only that, but the section already includes another video game that is inspired by the films and definitely not part of the MCU. Why would we not group these together? It makes sense for navigation, because someone reading about all the MCU-inspired video games can easily find them all, together, in a clearly labeled video games section at the bottom. It also removes some undue weight that we are giving to them by putting them up with other, actual MCU stuff; down the bottom, we are clearly stating that they are related to the MCU in some way, and so are on the template, but aren't part of the MCU and so are separated from the actual MCU projects.

If we have these separate segments (projects, in-universe, production, related) like I am asking, the only other major thing that is out of place, is all the TV series character lists. By moving them to the character section, which already exists, we can clean this up and essential have a simple list of films, a simple list of TV shows, a simple list of other projects, a simple list of characters, a simple list of production articles, etc. Rather than a list of films with irrelevant video games mixed in, a list of TV shows with with character lists mixed in ... and then a character section? It is just cleaner, and simpler. Navigation wise, I can understand the thinking, again, that they come under the shows so that is where people will look. But if everything is separated as I have suggested, then these lists will also be logically found in the clearly marked character section.

I see this as sorting everything by the individual projects, or by the universe as a whole, and I sincerely believe that we are at a point where the latter option is better. I know it is a bit of a change, but making this adjustment now will make it simple in future for us to add more production stuff in one dedicated section, and eventually have a reception section with articles on the critcal response, cultural impact, etc. I'm happy to discuss all of this, but I do think that it is the way to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Production of Infinity War article, once the actual film articles are moved to the mainspace, I saw this becoming like The Avengers accolades and being in parenthesis after each title as "production". For the video games, I'm pretty sure they are part of the MCU, though tangentially, much like the novelizations. So it makes sense to keep them where they are. If they aren't, then yes the "Outside media" section is best. As for the TV series character pages, I don't think those should go with the Film cast and TV cast articles because those are the lists for all in the universe. The TV series casts are specific to each series, so they should stay with the listing of the series and their seasons, etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I had thought about that for the production article, but the two films will be separate, and we shouldn't link to an article twice. That's why a separate section that can cover production for multiple projects seems like the right move for me. The cast lists and music come under that as well. I was pretty sure the video games took a wee bit of inspiration from the films, but weren't beholden to canon and went way off track, so I had a look for confirmation and found this discussion on twitter: "@willgrem Oh cool! I have them all then, yay! Would the video games go under "inspired by" too?", "@wyokid in a sense, yes. @cbake76 and the fellas over in Marvel Games like to use a term coined by TQ Jefferson as 'Film Agnostic'". So the games are inspired by, and take plenty of liberties, like the Lego game. I agree with your point about keeping the cross-project cast lists and single-project character lists separate, so I propose another section that is neither for the TV series nor the overall universe production - a character section, that includes the series' character lists and any article for an MCU character. Having this separate character section means that the film/TV/other sections are basically just for the final products, then there is a more in-universe section that has the characters (and other articles about in-universe things could eventually go there), and then a behind-the-scenes production section. Like I said, I think we are in a good place with the number and quality of articles we are making to now have these separations here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Given what you said about the video games, I'm fine with those moving below with the Lego game and will make that change. I still think the TV series cast lists should stay with the series links, so a reader can easily navigate through all of the articles related to the series if they chose. And I don't really see the Film and TV cast lists as the "big headers" to necessitate moving all of the content together like we just did with the music. As for the Infinity War production article, at this time, I think it should still stay up where it is, at least until the main articles are in the mainspace. I don't think it would be a problem to double link them up there, but we can possibly revisit it at that point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I can understand keeping the production article up there for now, but I do think it makes the most sense to move it down once we add the main articles. We can discuss it then. My thing with the character lists is that I don't think we should have all of the production articles split off except some, and there is a logical place for them to be split off to in the character section. But again, we can talk about that once we make the Avengers moves. Otherwise, I think it is looking good, and we're doing a great job with all our articles at the moment :) - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Video games[edit]

I understand the above sentiment of separating video games from the films, but it logically can't be discribed as outside media since video games are a form of media. It more appropriately belongs with other media or excluded all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The outside media means media outside the MCU, rather than stuff outside of media. That is how we have been using the term at the main MCU page to refer to things that are just inspired by the MCU like the Lego game or that Coke ad. Perhaps you can think of a better heading for us to use? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If it is truly outside, does it belong here? Perhaps "Related topics", but that might be too general and encourage even more creep.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really mind whether we keep it here or not myself. I think the reason for including it was so readers of these related articles can easily navigate to the actual MCU stuff. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this for MCU-only articles, and just adding some see also links to these pages instead of the template. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If they are to be listed, it should be reorganized or relabeled. Outside media doesn't work because it was listed with a live attraction which is truly a non-media. Also the fewer groups, the cleaner the template. It's not so choppy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, but if the video games are going to be listed here, then it must be in an outside or related section, other wise we are giving undue weight to media that isn't actually part of the universe, and therefore giving readers the idea that they are part of the MCU, or significant to the MCU in someway. And if we aren't including the video games because they aren't part of the MCU, then we shouldn't be including the theme park ride either. Also, the music isn't another part of the MCU in a different medium, it is behind-the-scenes information about the making of the universe. Putting the music in the other media section would be like having an article on the costume design of the universe and putting it under other media; yes, it is technically another medium, but it isn't a part of the MCU, it is about the MCU. That is why I proposed a production section above, for all the behind the scenes information that is separate from the actual projects set in the universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe they should all go then. Also music section lists a bunch of soundtrack articles, which is a different medium from films and television. Costume design isn't a medium but albums are. Now if Marvel released a book about the costumes like they released albums of the music, then it would a medium.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't have a problem with the way it was listed previously, unless "Outside media" needed another change. I don't think we should group the One-Shots and music as subheadings to "Other media". If we did, then the TV series should go too, because they are technically "other media" to the original feature films. But because those two have their own "top" article (Marvel One-Shots and Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe) plus sub articles, I think the previous formatting was best for them. And since the comics and WHIH are the only items for each, they fit nicely under "Other media". I'm indifferent to the inclusion or exclusion of the GotG attraction and the video games, only I know users will definitely keep trying to readd them if we decide to remove them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Costumes are definitely a medium, but that's not the point. We should be listing all the things set in the MCU, and I think Favre is right in that we should use the "top" articles as sub headings for films, TV, and short films, with the other under an other media heading. Then there is the music, which is obviously not a new project set in the shared universe, it is behind-the-scenes/production information that applies to all of the universe, so it should get its own section that will expand to a broader production section when needed. And then we can include other inspired-by things, such as the video games and attraction, or we don't include them at all. If we do include them, we can use the outside media heading, or something else if someone comes up with something better. However, I'm starting to think that we should remove that section due to how vague it is being a general related section. There are quite a few things, including the current animated series and even some of the actual comics, that take inspiration from the films and could be seen as related to the MCU in someway. Perhaps it is best to just remove the section and be prepared to revert any unwanted additions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Again soundtrack albums are not "behind-the-scenes/production information". Perhaps the information in the music article is, but the soundtrack albums are not. They are their own medium that is released, sold and reviewed separately. Anyway I grouped the video games under "Related articles" for now unless you all decide to remove it all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
What makes you think that the soundtracks to films and TV shows are completely separate from them, and are just another individual story set in the MCU? That doesn't make any sense to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Who said anything about a story? Soundtrack albums are distinct individually sold entities seperate from the films and series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've just made "video games" a 'first class' header. Is there anything wrong with that? --Izno (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This is going way off track now. This template is about the MCU, not anything kind of MCU related. Only the projects that are set in the MCU should be listed as such. Then other related real world things can be listed below. The way you guys have managed to make it, during this discussion, just doesn't make sense. The soundtracks and video games are not set in the MCU, we shouldn't be tricking people into thinking they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This should be really simple. Either they're a apart of the franchise or they're not. If they're not then they don't belong in this template at all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The video games and that attraction aren't part of the franchise, they're just based on it, so they can go. And maybe the soundtracks shouldn't be here either, as there is enough of them to have their own template. The music article would still go here though, under a production header at the bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
No-body in any discussion has shown why they shouldn't be included simply because they aren't quote "in the universe", and I will steadfastly disagree to removing them. There are literally hundreds of templates that include the video games, whether canon or not, in their templates. Speaking of which, we're not here to document what's canon, we're here to provide navigation for the users--and I would bet that the vast majority of users would like to know a video game exists of their particular film of interest. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, usually canon isn't relevant for Wikipedia. But in this day and age of big, multi-media shared universes it is important to differentiate between what is part of the franchise (and is set in the continuity and therefore goes out of its way to conform to it) and what isn't part of the franchise, but has been made to look like it for marketing reasons. Marvel's animated shows are not part of the MCU franchise, but they do copy things from the films to trick kids into thinking it is the same. The video games aren't part of the franchise either, but their release ties in with the respective film's release, so the games copy some things from the film so players think it is an extension of the film when it isn't. Now, a navbox is meant to provide links between related articles, and it is feasible that a reader would be interested in these video game articles. But we have to make it clear that the games are included because they are related, not because they are actually MCU games. That's why a related section at the bottom seemed logical. Removing them all together as Triiiple said would also make sense, as long as we are internally consistent and remove all non-MCU articles. I don't know if that is necessary or not though. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Nav boxes aren't meant to show what is and isn't part of a franchise–it is meant to help readers navigate to relevant and appropriate articles about the given subject matter for the template, per everything stated at WP:NAV#Properties. The soundtracks, video games and live attraction all belong in the nav box because of that principle. As the template exists here is fine at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If we were supposed to just link to all the related pages that users might want to navigate to then we wouldn't use any groupings or headings, we would just leave everything for them to figure out. But we don't, we link to all the relevant pages, and we organise it in a way so that the readers can find certain articles and know why/how they are related. So we use a subheading to let people know which articles are about MCU films. We use another for MCU TV series. We use parenthesis to indicate the individual seasons of a TV series. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense, and would be really unhelpful for something that is supposed to aide navigation. This template is for MCU articles, plus any other article that we think a user may want to navigate to. Mixing those two different things together is literally the same as having just one section for films and TV series—yes, the reader would eventually figure out what all the articles are and how they fit together after visiting them all, but they shouldn't have to. We are supposed to be making it easier for them to find the pages that they are looking for.
First we have a whole lot of films, TV shows, and other projects that are set in the MCU that it makes sense readers may want to navigate between. To make that easy for them, we have some obvious headings that we can use to break them up (Films, TV shows, Other Media; and further, with Phase #, Network). Then we have some articles that aren't about MCU projects, but are related to the MCU and so it is feasible that users would again want to navigate to/between them. But we don't want a user who is trying to find every MCU article accidentally getting to these and getting confused or getting the wrong idea (remember, this is a source of knowledge, we want people to get the right idea), so we make that clear with an appropriate heading (Outside Media, Related articles, something else?) as well. And then we have some articles that aren't about things set in the MCU, but they are still about the franchise and don't belong in that related section at the bottom. They fall in the middle, and also have some obvious headings to break them up (Cast and characters, music).
I'm not trying to be in-universe focused or anything like that. I understand what Wikipedia finds trivial and irrelevant, and what it does not. But the basic function of these templates, which is for easy, visual navigation, just doesn't work if the links aren't grouped and ordered in logical ways, and the way that they currently are is not logical or the best for navigation. Remember, most of our readers do not have an ingrained understanding of all these articles, their functions, and their subjects like we do. For many people, finding this template at the bottom of an article will be their first discovery of a lot of these other articles. If we give them the wrong idea from the start, it's just going to cause problems down the line. The focus should be on helping our readers get where they most likely want to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────I know that was a lot of text, but I don't think I am being unreasonable here. This is all I suggest we change the template to at this time:

- adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding before. I'm fine with that, though slightly altered. The title should be adjusted if we use "MCU-inspired media" at the bottom, the video games can be a sublist, and a   then next to the GotG attraction so it formats correctly. So this:
- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I just changed the video games from a sublist because it was screwing up the alternating backgrounds, but that isn't a big deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Production[edit]

Triiiple, could we discuss the version of the template I suggested? I think the production article, cast, and music links all naturally fit together, and I don't think putting it under "related" is a viable option. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny, cause I was thinking the opposite. The music is produced separately from the film and cast fits better with the cast and characters. The Related group is the same as the one used at Template:Harry Potter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I just think we shouldn't stick the production article in a "related" section if we don't have to, as it implies that the link is to something only tangentially related that doesn't fit in with anything else. Instead of having it on its own under related, could we just have it on its own under production? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Why can't we just put it as a sublink under both IW and the sequel? Are we trying to avoid it being linked twice? To me, this would be the best formatting, per how other related articles are handled, despite it being linked twice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a rule against linking twice, but it feels like bad practice. If we can do that, then that would be fine, but otherwise I think we should give it its own production section since the only difference between that and what it is now is it would have a more specific heading. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell (and from experience) there is nothing stating a link can't be used twice. And in this case it isn't being added twice for the sake of it. It is related to both of these films, and once more Phase 3 films get added, the space between them will increase, so having them in both places will be helpful for readers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I had at first. As for it being "related" all it means is that it is not a film article but related to films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to boldly restore the edit as Triiiple had it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with having two links to the same article. I think it is better that we keep it separated since the production is for two films.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── WP:OVERLINK does not apply to infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and hatnotes. It makes sense to repeat after both films since the article applies to both films and its easier than having the full title of the article written out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why it would be harder to have a separate section for it. What does having the same link twice do except make people think that there would be two separate articles. It's misleading.★Trekker (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no reason to have it completely separated out as the production is directly related to these two films, nor is it misleading to think that there would be two separate articles. Readers will be expecting to be taken to an article on the production of the film, which happens to be for the two of them. Additionally, there will be two addition links between the two once AMWasp and Captain Marvel articles are created, so it is necessary to have the production link both places. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I still think it's misleading even if you don't think it is.★Trekker (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Compacting[edit]

An editor request that I explain supposed unexplained edits. I did explain my edit, so I cannot explain why the unexplained reversals occurred or support for the abuse of Twinkle. Short hand in the original edit summary was "generally shrink navbox; grpw to 6em, wlink TV, create TV series subgroup Other for single subgroups & digital series". Navboxes are for easily to scan, the bigger they are the less useful it is. Thus having groups with one entry such as Hulu with Runaways, Freeform with Cloak & Dagger and Unaired pilot with Most Wanted are just as good group as Other with appropriate tagging (Hulu). Digital series subgroup in Other should be in TV series as Hulu and Netflix shows are "digital series" being online like YouTube and ABC.com that WHIH Newsfront and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot were on. So, Other is not appropriate if Hulu and Netflix is under Television series. Just because they are short form TV online should not matter. Group width was arbitrary, I reduced it such that it allow a group to be on a single line for better visual scanning with out wrapping a group title. --Spshu (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Compacting may be necessary at some point, but at the moment it isn't, as the template is not being overbearing. First, the Digital series are not TV series, so it was not correct, regardless of the compacting, to move them to that heading. After that, there really isn't a need to group Runaways, C&D and MW together either at this time, especially when Freeform will have New Warriors added to its section in the near future. Regarding the other edits, the networks should not be wikilinked in this template, and as for the 8em to 6em, I did not see any noticeable difference in its formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: digital series: then the Hulu and Netflix are not TV series either, but you have them list as TV series. The digital series are just short form TV. Just stating that "Digital series are not TV series" doesn't make them so. Two in one group doesn't seem enough either, so stating that Freeform will have another show shouldn't create a new subgroup, but would then be () group differently. Yes, there are two other group that have 1 but there wasn't a clear merger partner for them.
It is fine with me if you don't want the channels wlinked. Changing em from 8 to 6 allowed the ABC group to fit on one line making it easier to scan. Spshu (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The Hulu and Netflix series are most certainly TV series; it is irrelevant which network those series are released on. And WHIH and Slingshot aren't TV series in the same sense as all the others currently linked in that section, and should not be included with them. This is also per the layout of the content at the Marvel Cinematic Universe article, as there is a clear distinction between both groups and their content that supports them not being the same or listing them together. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I asked to to indicate why "Digital series are not TV series" not for you to tell me in another way that you don't consider them TV series. As I pointed out the "digital series" and the Hulu & Netflix are both internet based, there is just a different length. Re: layout of the MCU article - that does not dictate the form of the Navbox needs to take as some subjects can be cover in the CMU article but be listed in the navbox as they don't have an article. Spshu (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how the series was released, what matters is what it is. The Netflix and Hulu shows are just normal TV shows that happen to be released online. The digital series are not TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Based on what definitions, pardon my ignorance but what is the difference?★Trekker (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
WHIH content is viral marketing pieces for the MCU; Slingshot is short 3-6 minute clips of content. Both are not TV series, which are generally 8-23 episodes, with content ranging from 21 mins to an hour. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Team Thor[edit]

This belongs with the other short films I think. Questionable continuity (not the first time a MCU short has had this) or not it was still produced with the same actors released as an extra feature on a DVD.★Trekker (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the ordering is based on. If it is part of the MCU then it should go with the other short films, if it is just inspired by the MCU then it should go in that section. As far as I can tell, it is only inspired by it. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
What is "only inspired" supposed to even mean? It sure as hell has more connection to it than the ride you moved it next to.★Trekker (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it part of the MCU, or did they just try and make it look sort of like the MCU. If it's actually part of the MCU then that is noteworthy, because efforts need to be made to have it line up. If it is just a fun thing that they did for the DVD that has no bearing on anything else, then we shouldn't make a bigger deal of it than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, what is that supposed to mean?★Trekker (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Adam means, the films, TV series, and films released under the One-Shots, have all been confirmed to be taking place within the fictional MCU universe (and for better or worse "count" towards continuity), along with the digital series and comics. However, there has been "MCU-inspired" material, such as the tie-in video games that utilize MCU characters/concepts, but are not consider "official" continuity furthering material. I also believe "Team Thor" falls into this latter category, because the shorts are not cannon, just fun bits Waititi did to promote Ragnarok. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok but where is it stated what is part and what isn't? Has someone from Disney said "these aren't canon" or something?★Trekker (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
We generally err on the side of trying to prove a positive, rather than a negative.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Why?
WP:BURDEN.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Good thing I have at least some points and you guys have had none so far. Again point out somewhere where it would imply that it shouldn't be MUC more than something like the uncanon Agent Carter short. No ofource you don't want to put in effort to do that. You just gang up three against one per usual or ignore everything I say just like every time I try to have a conversation here.★Trekker (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
What points? Did I miss your source, if I did I apologize. This thread just read as bunch of assumptions. We have sources for Agent Carter.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Also for example with the tie-in video games, they have had press releases or the like that state they are "inspired by" the film on which they are based, or similar wording. And I do seem to recall there being some sourcing for Team Thor in this regards as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Then you should find that.★Trekker (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, calm down. No one is ganging up on you. If you think these are set in the MCU, then a get a source for that. Otherwise, what you have at the Team Thor page does not support putting the link with the One-Shots here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a source about its place in the MCU: technically this isn't part of the official MCU canon, but the Team Thor shorts still made for amusing bonus content at 2016 San Diego Comic-Con and the Doctor Strange home media release, respectively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Venom (2018)[edit]

It is unknown why Venom cannot be part of the MCU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not made by Marvel Studios, so they don't consider it to be part of their universe. I do think there is a place in this template for a link to Sony's Marvel Universe though, when that page exists. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)