Talk:Helstrom (TV series)

Gabriel

@Voicebox64: You can't take two characters with similar names and say they are meant to be the same character. You need a reliable, non-Wikipedia source explicitly making that connection for you. If there isn't one but you are certain that there should, just be patient, one will show up eventually. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It may seem very clear that Gabriella is based on Gabriel, but we can't officially confirm it yet. --Bold Clone 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur as well. Without a reliable source, it would be original research. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree this may be the case when the name has something as drastically different as the last name or first being changed but when the difference is just adding an l and an a in the end of the first name, we don’t really need a source to confirm that as again his names literally there just with la added on the end to show it’s a female version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.209 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

About the edit dispute

An IP user was adding a link to Gabriel the Devil Hunter for the character Gabriella Rossetti, which had been previously done by other editors beforehand and reverted. The editor claimed it was confirmed to be a female adaptation of Gabriel the Devil Hunter, although the Deadline source that confirmed the casting of Gabriella Rossetti does not mention or confirm that the character is adapted from Gabriel the Devil Hunter. It may be very likely that the character is a female adaptation, although it has not been officially confirmed as such, so we cannot link to the page until it is confirmed by Hulu or Marvel. The editor also replaced the wording of the series being a "standalone story set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)" with the wording from the other pages, although this was previously decided to not be used as Hulu refers to it as a "standalone story" in the MCU. I've only been restoring the proper versions of the page from the edits that were previously reverted. This is a similar case to the linking to Iron Maiden on the Black Widow (2020 film), it may be likely to be the same character, but it has not yet been confirmed. It is best not to link to the character until an official source states it as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Dude at this point it’s just gotten out to control you don’t need confirmation when the name is exactly the same besides like two letters and who also has exactly the same role and relation to the main characters as in the comics, let’s go over why Gabriella Rossetti is Gabriel the Devil Hunter and why it wasn’t reported.

1. Firstly Gabriel is such a minor character to begin with I doubt deadline would go out of their way to state the obvious I mean come on it’s prettu clear she’s a gender swapped version.

2. If you did your research you would know there is only one character in marvel comics with the name Gabriel Rossetti and that’s Gabriel the Devil Hunter, again I can see why your confused because the article says Gabriel The Devil Hunter but you have to understand that is his alias like Namor The Sub-Mariner, his real name is Gabriel Rossetti.

3. Additionally Gabriel Rossetti in the comics was a exorcist and member of the Vatican like Gabriella is described as in the synopsis for the series, in addition it states she has a strong link to the helstroms, and the only member of the Vatican strongly linked to the Helstrom twins is Gabriel Rossetti, so unless you can source someone else it’s unlikely this character is Anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.209 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia, we do happen to need confirmation that the character is an adaptation of a character with a similar name. Per the discussion on here above, it has been decided that you need an official source to confirm that the character is an adaptation, and that if it is added without such a source, it is WP:OR. It is very likely that she's a gender-swapped version, but that's not been officially stated by Marvel or Hulu, so we can't add it. In this case, it is best to be patient and wait until Marvel or Hulu officially confirm the character is a female adaptation, but as of now, that is not confirmed, so we can't add it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That may be the case if the character has a different last name but when the difference is just 1 Letter I think that it’s just a little silly to have to cite a source for something which is pretty obvious, going by your logic Daimon Helstrom isn’t Daimon Hellstrom because his name is missing one l, which again is something which is pretty ridiculous, anyway Gabriel the Devil hunters names already there it’s Gabriel Rossetti with an a added on and before you talk about the last name Rossetti can be spelt either as that or as Rosetti, again your acting very immature and warping Wikipedia rules to suit your argument because I’ve read original research and that only applies for like charcters where there’s no info at all but at this point multiple sites have already stated her to be an apdatation of Gabriel the Devil Hunter, and before you shout unreliable I’ve looked at Wikipedia’s list of unreliable sites to cite and the one I linked earlier didn’t appear on it so as far as I’m concerned it’s is ok as the information on it is accurate and matches up and even cites the deadline one, adding more to its credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.209 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Here’s the article again for your viewing pleasure and anyway there was a version of Gabriel the Devil Hunter who was female and also called Gabriella as an alternate university counterpart to Gabriel it was from the counter earth reality where there was a female Bucky Barnes also called Rebecca “Rikki” Barnes so this ain’t a new concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.209 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlike with Damion Hellstrom to Damion Helstrom, which was confirmed by Marvel and Hulu, Gabriella Rosetti being the same as Gabriel Rosetti / The Devil Hunter has not been confirmed by Marvel or Hulu. It is very likely to be such, but since it has not been confirmed, we can't add it. That's the policy. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but I'm just enforcing it with what's been officially confirmed. Please be patient and wait until an official source confirms it. Blogs can say all they want, but just be patient. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve tried explaining myself but your just being unreasonable look His name is Gabriel Rossetti. Her name is Gabriella Rossetti. They’ve both part of Vatican. They’ve both exorcists. They’ve both related closely to Daimon / Satana which was elaborated on in the deadline report. It’s not that they’ve names are similar they’ve exactly the same besides the la on the end and Rossetti can either be spelled like that or with one s (Rosetti) so it the s is the thing which is influencing your argument well news flash it can either be spelled Rosetti or Rossetti they mean the same thing which is relating to the colour red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.145 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears the IP is performing a bit of WP:SYNTH. We're in no rush, let's wait for the reliable sources to come to confirm this, not use our or a sources speculation on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Again I’ll say this again this is not speculation Gabriel the Devil hunters real name is Gabriel Rossetti and they just added an la on the end to show that it’s a female interpretation it’s not that hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.22.153 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season article and template

PhilCoulson20 As a new user, I strongly urge you to slow down a bit and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To both of your creations, the season article is WP:TOOSOON, given a) the series has not even premiered yet, b) WP:SIZESPLIT applies, and c) moves to individual season articles are not even considered until a series has been renewed for a second season. And with this series' case, that seems highly unlikely. For the template, you need at least a handful of articles to justify a navigational template, and the only other related article to this is the Adventure into Fear, of which it is linked in article already at this time. Again, I suggest you slow down a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this still part of the MCU?

Besides the lack of a Marvel logo, as well as sources saying there are no MCU connections, including from the showerunner. Is it still appropriate to say the show is part of the MCU? - Richiekim (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. In the EW article, Paul Zbyszewski said: "We are siloed off [from the MCU]". The article still lists Helstrom in the same group as other MCU-Marvel TV shows: "...which purposefully lacks the ownership signifier "Marvel's" that every other show in the universe carries." YgorD3 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there's a better way we can handle it though? Because it's like barely part of it, in-universe reasons not withstanding. Maybe we transition to more "related" status rather than fully visible in tables and group articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. YgorD3 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that would be the best course of action. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok here are my suggestions. For this article:

• Remove the MCU TV series link from the infobox
• Move the sentence in the first paragraph about "It tells a standalone story within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)" to the second production paragraph, with wording adjusted how it started as a MCU show, but shifted away from that.
• Change "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" section to "Relationship to the Marvel Cinematic Universe"

For the MCU nav box:

• Switch the row heading from AitF to "Related" and put AitF in the row with Helstrom

For the list of TV series:

• Remove the table and subsection under Marvel Television
• Move the prose to a new level 2 heading after Marvel Studios called "Related"

For the TV series actor list:

• Remove Helstrom from it and make the series a "See also" link

For the Adventure into Fear article

• Not sure at the moment, but that should probably be reformatted.

In other tangential articles like the Marvel Television and list of television series based on Marvel Comics, maybe we make the notes say "Related to the MCU" with this EW link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever and Adamstom.97: You both are some of the other top editors of this article. Do you have any thoughts on the situation as a whole, and then my proposed changes here and on related articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I agree with all your proposed changes for this article and related articles as I believe the series is more of "related to the MCU" than full-blown share in-universe based on the reliable source above. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I largely agree that the significance of it being only loosely connected to the larger MCU needs to be noted more clearly, however, to say the series is not within the MCU at all is a bit of a stretch based on these very inexplicit wordings. His use of the word "silo" could genuinely mean not a part of the MCU, but it could just as easily mean that it's an isolated section of the universe, something we already knew was true of the series before its canonicity was put into question. I don't think that quote changes very much about its status. It would be far better to keep the "standalone story within the MCU" with a note that addresses the dubious canonicity. I especially oppose the changing of the word 'within' to 'outside of', because that doesn't fix the issue at all. It just moves in the opposite direction in terms of positive claims. The goal here should be to avoid positive claims about canonicity when we have very ambiguous quotes like this. Rman41 (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This... is kind of surprising that you guys have shifted from this approach. Because this is more or less exactly what I've been proposing for months, obviously not including comments about the show being "related" to the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"We are siloed off [from the MCU]" doesn't sound like the series is not part of the MCU, it sounds like the series is "siloed off" from the films and is telling its own story separate from other projects. In my opinion there is no new information here. I definitely don't think we should go around removing the series from MCU articles or anything like that, but I would support adjusting the wording to make it clear that the series has few actual connections to the rest of the universe. Ultimately it seems likely that this series will be considered just as canon to the MCU as other Marvel TV shows (meaning not really), but for now we don't know that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine holding off on the larger changes I suggested, and clarifying here in the lead and MCU section (which could maybe still change its heading?) its relationship to the larger MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I think a note is the best way to handle this, since official statements from within the last few days contradict each other immensely and are very vague, but this is a bit too complicated and sidetracked from the lead. Largely, the series was still produced as, and does actually have a few references to the MCU; namely the appearance of Roxxon Corp. Rman41 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

'We are siloed off' might be ambigious, the following seems pretty clear: 'We are not tied to the MCU. We are our own seperate thing.' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foHSyy8np4U&feature=youtu.be&t=46) Seems pretty clear that it isn't part of the MCU and even 'loosely connected' to the MCU is too strong of a wording. Sure, even 'not tied to' can be viewed as different from something like 'we are not part of', but even that's stretching it, to me. In my view, the interview I linked makes it clear that it is not part of the MCU, not even loosely connected. UnderIrae (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The thinking too was, as soon as "Marvel's" was removed from the title, it probably indicated very little connection, if at all. But yes, including some sort of note or something would be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, moderator on the MCU Wiki here. Just to say, a few things:

• The show was connected to Ghost Rider. Jeph Loeb made clear Ghost Rider was set in the same world as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (the MCU), thereby making Helstrom also MCU. While Ghost Rider did not go ahead, that doesn't change things, and Episode 1 even includes an apparent reference to that show as if it had gone ahead, with the Caretaker character (from Ghost Rider comics) referencing events he has been involved in over in Texas.
• Loeb even says in the above quote that these shows are treated as their own thing, not spin-offs - but are nonetheless the same world. It seems that has always been the attitude. Wikipedia currently puts it very nicely with, "It tells a standalone story within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)." And all Paul Zbyszewski has been saying is it doesn't tie into the MCU and does its own separate thing. When you're working from a position that Helstrom is officially set in the MCU and those quotes come along, particularly when the position has always been that it's standalone, they're not damning/explicit enough to completely overturn everything.
• There's the Roxxon Easter egg. Sure, some might want to argue that it's just a comics Easter egg that could be this show referencing Roxxon from the comics in its own way, but that seems unlikely given Roxxon has no particular relevance to this show beyond as a potential way to tie it to the other shows.
• I have only seen Episode 1, but towards the end, O'Harren's Scotch Whisky appears to be featured. I have been informed by someone who is further ahead than me that it is more clearly shown later in the show, though cannot confirm this myself yet. This is an MCU-specific Easter egg, something not featured in the comics definitely placed to tie it in with the rest of the MCU shows.
• Bonus: tweets like this and this.

Thanks.BEJT1 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if no source has explicitly confirmed that Helstrom is not set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I feel we can't jump the gun and say it is only "related" to it or something similar to that. I was all for this move, but after recounting the posts above, it doesn't appear to me that anyone involved (including Jeph Loeb, Paul Zbyszewski, etc.) is saying it is not in the MCU, just that it is merely it's own part of that universe that deals with a darker corner that isn't really explored by the films and other shows, as explained by Marvel themselves in why they removed "Marvel's" from the title so it wasn't in-line with searches for the rest of the content. As Paul Zbyszewski said, the show was "siloed off" from the rest of the MCU, meaning it was isolated to be its own sector, its own part of the franchise, as evident by the planned Adventure into Fear banner that went in flux when the Ghost Rider series was shelved and Marvel Television was shuttered. Putting any and all in-universe connections aside, there doesn't appear to be any constructive firm source close to the production of Helstrom confirming it is no longer an MCU series, just that it is standalone, as we've already listed it to be. I wouldn't say there's any need to include a note about the canonical status of the series as that delves into more technical and in-universe terms and we don't appear to have a source backing up any reason for an explanation outside of what can already be explained in the "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" section on the page, which are minimal but present at the least. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also just add that I have been shown a screenshot that the San Francisco Tribune from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., with the same logo and everything (as discussed here, the papers are intentionally used as crossover pieces between the shows), appears in an episode, as well as New Orleans Gazette from Cloak & Dagger being shown, both tying it further into the MCU with MCU-only references. Edit: And The Dallas Record from Iron Man 2.BEJT1 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This may have the answer whether the series is part of the MCU or not. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added Zbyszewki's quotes. We already have about Roxxon, and the newspaper titles are such a thin connection, it's not something we really need to state. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that at least an edit just clarifying that Roxxon isn't the only connection, even just a mention of "other Easter eggs" would be relevant. Also of note, Alain Uy has also stated it's MCU. It seems very much that Paul Zbyszewski is just using the term "MCU" the way many do, to mean "the central bundle of MCU-branded content", effectively the brand "MCU" and not to describe the world itself the way it should be.BEJT1 (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this. Firstly, as mentioned in that article linked by Kailash, Roxxon is a long-time comics entity, and the article as a whole reinforces that the show is not tied to the MCU and is in fact, its own separate thing. Secondly, production companies reuse assets all the time. The initial trailer for Morbius used both an image of Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and the Daily Bugle logo from his universe, while simultaneously using the Oscorp building from Andrew Garfield's universe. It does not seem like strong enough evidence to warrant the claim that they share the same universe.

Also, MCU defined "the way it should be" is unclear. From what I understand, a majority of the discussion surrounding the MCU is the shared universe and what falls into it. For a long time, shows were branded as part of the MCU, including Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. The show was stated by the showrunner not to be in the MCU and the show was not branded as such. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Disney+

Helstrom is now available internationally as part of Disney+'s new content section Star. I know we are usually wary of adding international broadcasters due to WP:TVGUIDE but I was wondering if we think it may be noteworthy to add this since it covers so many territories and Hulu is only available in the US. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this should be fine, because it's covering a large global territory, many of which are primarily English speaking per WP:TVINTL. And also since Star is more or less Disney's international Hulu entity, that can be covered here since it's a Hulu original. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Not on the Infobox, but in the body prose. Hulu is the only original network. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think due to the scope of Star's reach for international availability, especially for Hulu-specific content, is noteworthy to bring up in the "Release" section only. If we do get any other details about it's Star release (like if viewership, etc.) those could be expanded on, but I doubt we'll get anything else. So,yes, it should be added. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a press release from Disney confirming Helstrom as a Star original if it's every needed to replace or supplement the source we used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Series is officially not MCU

Per this quote from the creator, along with the quote previously discussed up thread. It seems fairly unambiguous to me. In the first quote, he says not only that it isn't in the MCU, but that it isn't canon. I know there are minor details in the show that some argue make it MCU canon, but given the fact that Loeb is no longer with the company, and when he was he only publicly stated that the cancelled "Adventure into Fear" block and the Ghost Rider series in particular would have acknowledged the past, which was a source of confusion when the show was announced, I don't think his quotes are particularly relevant. I move that we remove the Marvel Cinematic Universe mentions from this page and any other pages that tie Helstrom to the MCU, which simply is not accurate.

To summarize, my reasoning is as follows:

1. The showrunner has said explicitly and repeatedly that the show is not part of or tied to the MCU, and that it is not bound to its canon.

2. Jeph Loeb is no longer with the company. While his single comment at the Comic-Con panel about how Ghost Rider would acknowledge A.O.S. is often cited as proof that this series is canon, plans have changed. Ghost Rider was cancelled, notably due to arriving at a "creative impasse" with Hulu, and the Adventure into Fear block never came into fruition. By the time the series was released, Kevin Feige was in charge of creative output for the Marvel brand.

3. The show was decidedly not branded as part of the MCU. Both in the original announcement for the show linked above, in which sources "[stressed] 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" (S.H.I.E.L.D. is cited by proponents of canonicity as the connective tissue that ties the Adventure Into Fear shows to the MCU, based solely off of Loeb's quote above,) and in the lack of any Marvel branding at the time of the show's release, it does not meet the criteria of being marketed as part of the MCU.

ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. Per the past discussions on this, nothing has changed in that time frame. And quotes like "It's not in the MCU" don't mean as much any more with Marvel taking a multiverse approach. It might not be in the "sacred timeline"/main universe, but it still can be telling a standalone story in the MCU, which we're stating. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that argument does not hold up. The showrunner specifically said it was not in the MCU and the show was never marketed as being part of it. This is a separate quote from him saying the show was not "tied" to the MCU, and has not been discussed in this thread. In this quote, he explicitly states that it is not part of it. The multiverse does not suddenly make every Marvel-inspired content MCU, and per Wikipedia's core content policies, specifically on verifiability and no original reserch, we cannot include "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." If the show is not branded as part of the MCU and is stated not to be a part of it, the show cannot be unequivocally stated to be part of the MCU without violating Wikipedia policy. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources of the same individual make contradictory claims about the series' ties to the MCU. Every source up until the release said without ambiguity that the series was part of the MCU. Many of the people who worked on Helstrom backed that up, including Loeb when the series was announced. Paul has said opposite things in different instances, so we have a source dispute. We have more to say it is than it isn't, and that has nothing to do with WP:NOR. That's why the consensus is what it currently is. Rman41 (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain where the contradictions lie? Frankly, between the full quotes of both sources we have from Zbyszewski, there is no doubt that the series at the time of release was not part of the MCU, and I cannot find anything from him, or any press releases from Marvel, tying it to the MCU at any point before then. Could you provide some sources, please? ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If you read the conversations above, you will see sources that are WP:RS that acknowledge that Helstrom is part of the MCU, and that it was intended to be from the beginning. In one of those sources from ComicBook, while Paul does explicitly state the series is not connected to the MCU, he then goes on clarifying that with a statement that uses the word "universe" in a context different from continuity itself. So that statement means nothing and doesn't explicitly contradict Helstrom being part of the MCU. The previous record of the show being in the same continuity as Ghost Rider, set in the same continuity as Agents of SHIELD, both of which we acknowledge to be MCU, thus still stands. Certainly, as the sources above also state, the show does present evidence of being set in the MCU continuity in itself. Original research plays no role here. Rman41 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As Favre said, nothing has changed here. The show was announced as being part of the MCU, made by people whose works were all part of the MCU, and definitely originally intended to have connections to the MCU. It ended up not having many of those connections and being reasonably standalone, but Marvel has never come out and said whether any of the Marvel TV shows are non-canon or not. The showrunner may have said it is separate, but he was mostly talking about connectiveness, and he is not involved with Marvel Studios who are the actual arbiters on what is and is not MCU canon. Add to all of that the whole multiverse side of things (not in the main marvel universe does not necessarily mean not in the main "MCU" franchise) and we are left with a slightly complicated situation that needs further clarification before we make any changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've read the conversations and the sources. Only three, from what I've seen, come from Zbyszewski: this quote, which is the one that you're referring to which was mentioned in ComicBook.com, this one from EW, and this one from Looper. The full quotes in question are, from each respective source:

"There are easter eggs in the show, for sure, but they're more towards that Helstrom universe, and that Ghost Rider universe, and sort of the darker sort of part. We are not tied to the MCU, we are our own separate thing. It's freeing, honestly."

"Now, the House of Ideas bounds into horror with Hulu’s Helstrom — which purposefully lacks the ownership signifier 'Marvel's' that every other show in the universe carries. 'Not having the red box over the title is a way of telling the audience that this is something different,' says showrunner Paul Zbyszewski. 'We are siloed off [from the Marvel Cinematic Universe]. Part of it is [because] it’s a darker-themed show than the other Marvel shows on other platforms.'”

"'It's not part of the MCU,' showrunner Paul Zbyszeweski clarifies to Looper while promoting the release of Helstrom's debut season. 'We are our own thing.'"

and from the Looper source once again:

"Far from being a hindrance, the complete exclusion from the MCU made Zbyszewski's work easier. 'There was a freeing sort of feeling about it because canon can be heavy. It is a weight on your shoulders,' the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. veteran explains. 'And to have just this little pocket of the universe, because of what it is — the style and tone and thematic sort of darkness of it—- it needed to be its own thing.'"

None of these quotes state or even imply that the show is a part of the MCU. Furthermore, the show was not, in fact, announced or even marketed as being part of the MCU. Here are links to the show's announcement, from Marvel, from Deadline, and from Variety, the lattermost of which states that the Ghost Rider show would in fact not be connected to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and none of which make any mention of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As for the other arguments, I would direct you to points 2 and 3 of my initial post in this thread. There is no proof that the show is part of the MCU, and certainly all the sources I have discussed in this post contradict that notion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Addressing specifically the claim from Variety, this source from Entertainment Weekly went on to contradict that: https://ew.com/tv/2019/05/01/hulu-ghost-rider-helstrom-series/

That's not really relevant to this discussion, as I've mentioned, but it is yet another contradicted claim to add to the pile here. The way this show was marketed is pretty consistent with the rest of Marvel Television, save for the exclusion of the Marvel logo. That includes not being specifically branded as "Marvel Cinematic Universe", but that doesn't matter because we have RS to support that anyway. Rman41 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The quote regarding the cancelled Ghost Rider show is as follows: "Marvel fans will know Gabriel Luna plays Robbie on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.,and EW has confirmed Luna will also star in Ghost Rider, which will also be executive produced by S.H.I.E.L.D. EPs Paul Zbyszewski and Jeph Loeb. 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.'" That does not contradict what was said by Variety, and certainly has nothing to do with Helstrom's connection with the MCU following the cancellation of Adventure into Fear and the recalibration of Marvel Television in general.

Unlike with shows such as Runaways and Cloak and Dagger, we have been told explicitly by the showrunner in this instance that the show is not a part of the MCU. While I am in favor of re-evaluating the MCU status of those shows, in this isolated case we simply do not have enough evidence to make a positive claim that the show is MCU canon. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We also know why the branding was removed, and it has nothing to do with the series not being set in the MCU, as explained by this source: https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/helstrom-no-marvel-logo-reason-revealed/ Rman41 (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I will leave these sources here just so that it is known for the record that Helstrom was known publicly to be MCU long before the showrunner's odd contradictory statements became a factor: [1][2] Rman41 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Public speculation is not equivalent to confirmed information. From my understanding, the reference to the Marvel Cinematic Universe is not based on any sources, the sort that are present in both the Entertainment Weekly and Variety articles. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am not presenting these as evidence of public speculation. They aren't particularly good evidence of that. These are sources that say Helstrom is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, showing that sources knew that to be true during this timeframe. These *are* the sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned, just as Variety and Entertainment Weekly are. These are not simply individual accounts. Rman41 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The articles aren't comparable. Variety and EW are reporting based off of their direct sources and mention this fact. EW name-drops the sources for each claim, be it Hulu or Ingrid Escajeda. Variety refers to unnamed sources for their claims. Indiewire makes no such reference to any source when asserting the show is branded a Marvel Cinematic Universe show and is not pretending to have inside knowledge. If something is branded any certain way, that is a matter of public observation. Anybody would be able to see it if it happened, or it would be obvious if it did not. In this case, it is obvious that the show was not branded as part of the MCU at any point by Marvel. Slashfilm likewise merely asserts that the show is the "next Marvel Cinematic Universe entry" without any reference to a source. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure you understand how sources work in context of Wikipedia. These *are* sources and the claims they make are considered as such. They are media outlets reporting something to be the case. On Wikipedia, the only consideration given from there is whether they are reliable sources, and these sources are not currently listed in Wikipedia's perennial sources list, nor its deprecated sources list. They thus are entirely valid, not to say that there aren't others that contradict them. I know there are, although every single one of those ones is favoring a very specific interpretation of what Paul says on the matter, which I disputed above in its original context. Rman41 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this situation is similar to I Am Groot; executive producer James Gunn indicated that I Am Groot was not part of the MCU canon, but it later became clear that Gunn's personal thought was not shared by others involved with I Am Groot. In relation to Helstrom, we have Zbyszewski indicating that the show is not part of the MCU. However, not to mention Loeb's statements, the easter eggs within the show itself indicates that other people involved in the production saw the show as part of the Marvel TV shared universe (by extension, the MCU) in some way. YgorD3 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I redirect you to point 2 of my original post in this thread. Separately, this quote from a separate discussion on this page:

“Roxxon is a long-time comics entity, and the article as a whole reinforces that the show is not tied to the MCU and is in fact, its own separate thing. Secondly, production companies reuse assets all the time. The initial trailer for Morbius used both an image of Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and the Daily Bugle logo from his universe, while simultaneously using the Oscorp building from Andrew Garfield's universe. It does not seem like strong enough evidence to warrant the claim that they share the same universe” or brand. See point three in the top post here. No producer with Marvel is claiming the show is set in the MCU.ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Morbius is irrelevant to this discussion; yes its trailers suggested it's MCU, but it's not relevant nor the SSU's connections with the MCU. Roxxon is fine since it also exists in comics, but you're ignoring Loeb's (who was the head of Marvel Television and stayed with the show until MTV dissolved into Marvel Studios, after its writing stage) statement and misinterpreting the showrunner's statements (though, admittedly it's confusing and contradictory). See the above discussions, nothing changed between October 2020 and now, it's still telling a standalone story set in the MCU, which is accurate. You're quite in denial. — SirDot (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The Morbius conversation was strictly referring to the recycled assets from the separate Raimi and Webb Spider-Man universes, and that recycled assets do not guarantee shared continuity. I again direct you to point 2 of my argument. The conclusion that there is enough evidence to describe Helstrom as part of the MCU based off of what was presented was in error, in my eyes, and not supported by Wiki policy. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wiki protocol regarding MCU debate

The connection of this series to the MCU is a topic of debate. Based on the evidence provided above, is there enough to substantiate the series as being a part of the MCU? ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. Rather the opposite. E.g.: "'It's not part of the MCU,' showrunner Paul Zbyszeweski clarifies .... 'We are our own thing.'" and "Far from being a hindrance, the complete exclusion from the MCU made Zbyszewski's work easier."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• No, per above discussion and McCandlish above me. The use of a “multiverse” as evidence is also evidence enough to suggest any media is part of the MCU. Speculation is encouraged at Fandom. — HTGS (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Comment I don't know what to !vote with, but keeping the current a stand-alone story set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the lead, supported by the material in the body in "Development" and "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins", is accurate and correct based on the knowledge we have about the intent of the series pre-release, and then once it released, all of which is sourced. The discussion above doesn't add any new quotes/material that wasn't already known/covered when the previous consensus was formed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  The “not in the MCU” (explicitly stated) quote was not discussed, I don’t think. The notion that it’s in the MCU is based on WP:SYNTH, as no source on its own says what is in the article, while a few say the opposite. Further, meaning is applied to Zbyszewski’s quotes based off of a single quote from somebody else who was not with Marvel at the time of release, and his words are being twisted to imply that he meant to say it’s in the MCU, but stand-alone. That is not the case, however, as his words state explicitly that it is not in the MCU. The previous consensus was faulty and doesn’t form the basis for a strong precedent. The Development section makes no comment on the show’s alleged connection to the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, per discussion above. Wiki protocol is not ambiguous in this regard. There is to be NO synthesis of sources to support a conclusion not stated outright in any individual source. All reliable sources with inside knowledge do not support the conclusion that the show is set in or part of the MCU brand. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• No - Not only is the conclusion that Helstrom is part of the MCU unsupportable in reliable sources, the disassociation of the two unambiguously is.--John Cline (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: This article should not definitively say that it is or is not part of the MCU. After looking at the relevant sources, they only include contradictory and vague statements from different people related to the production. They indicate varying intentions on how closely production should gear toward the MCU and how much creative independence was involved, but none of them explicitly comment on the fictional setting. To conclude that it definitively is or is not would be original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to grant this compromise, if the contradictory statements are seen as too ambiguous to say one or the other. To completely remove mention of the MCU would be wrong even according to the RS that do repeat the showrunner's claims, but perhaps a compromise that notes its ambiguous relation to the franchise, which would also be noted on related MCU pages that mention it (and they *should* mention it regardless). Rman41 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's included in List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Adventure into Fear which suggests it's part of the MCU. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

We should remove Adventure Into Fear from the MCU page or shift it to be listed as something that has been cancelled or reworked akin to Krypton’s section on the DC Extended Universe page. There is nothing contradictory here in terms of Helstrom’s place in the MCU — as many editors have pointed out, it unequivocally has no place in it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Helstrom aired, it cannot be classified completely the same way as something that was cancelled. Editors have pointed out both that and the opposite. It is not unequivocal. Rman41 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I side with Rman here. Do something similar to @Favre1fan93:'s suggestion here but keep the MCU TV series list in the infobox and note Helstrom's status in the list as ambiguous. — SirDot (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think that compromise is tenable because it’s upholding something which blatantly isn’t true. We have precedent on shows that are no longer part of the franchise they were intended to be in initially (which is arguably too generous of a way to describe Helstrom.) See the Krypton example. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Krypton also aired. It was initially intended to be part of the DCEU and was stated as such, but by the time it was released it was no longer classified that way. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I move that we change the page in accordance with the consensus from editors who came to participate in the RFC. The following will be enacted:

• The show be removed from all infoboxes tying it to the MCU, and any such infoboxes on the shows page will be altered to distinguish it from the MCU or removed outright.
• The only reference to the MCU will be that, though it was initially stated in some sources to be in the same world, this was not true by the time of release.
• Helstrom will be given the same treatment as Krypton on the DCEU page, in that its label, Adventure Into Fear, was cancelled and the show was reworked into a standalone, non-MCU release.

I will enact these changes by day’s end, giving time for comment. I believe consensus has been reached in accordance with Wikipedia procedure, and intend to honor the consensus. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12: All changes will need to be sourced, you can't just add unsourced information to articles just because there is consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with InfiniteNexus here. Without a source confirming the stance, it can not be included as fact. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If you care to read this talk page as well as the sources I provided on the Helstrom page, this is well-sourced information. You can add the exact same sources to the other pages I edited, which I did not the time to do at the moment. But don’t come in here without reading a single thing we’ve said and act like it’s a sudden and unfair change. The previously existing pages went against the policy on SYNTH, so if you want to come at anyone for going against policy, there are a lot of fingers to go around. Anyways, since appropriate sourcing has been added, this can be considered done with. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I for one find the process you have been supervising to be flawed, especially since frequent MCU task force members like myself were not pinged about this in advance, despite being involved in a conversation on this matter two years ago, and I personally did not catch wind of this whole process as I was busy editing several other MCU articles. This is clearly not a resolved issue and not one individual can say it is so. There is no reliable sourcing that has been added in this article to disprove the series as being part of the MCU as a franchise, and even with the showrunner's statements, nothing has been officially stated by Disney or Marvel that confirm this is not part of the MCU, and there are limited in-universe details that lend themselves to debate on this, such as Roxxon, and the initial plans and connections to Ghost Rider and a larger sub-franchise. Noting it was initially developed for the MCU but connections were largely removed is key here and what is reliably sourced. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no interest in reading through years' worth of discussions, but I do know is one thing: the text you added was unsourced. By "unsourced" I don't mean there is no evidence for it, I mean the text you added was not accompanied by an inline citation, which is a requirement for all Wikipedia articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus- Okay I’ll make that adjustment soon. Thank you.

@Trailblazer101 literally just read this discussion and this article. It’s not year’s long and all the citations are there. It is explicitly not part of the MCU. That’s the truth and you did not need to be consulted.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion of this topic above at #Is this still part of the MCU?. Being consulted would have been a courtesy on your part when wanting to weigh the opinions of other editors of this article, some (like myself) who have been editing it and other MCU articles for a good few years now, and, as this article remains covered and supported by the MCU task force, it should have been addressed in some manner to the task force members before claiming a consensus was made and stating this issue was over, which is clearly is not as others still conject with the claims you are firm in enforcing without reliable, adequate sourcing or an official acknowledgement from the studios other than the showrunner's. Your "truth" is highly subjective, and your attitudes and insistence on you being right raises some WP:OWNERSHIP concerns. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

okay. Go add to the conversation LOL. I’m not pretending to have ownership. To be honest, it seems as though you are. I’m confused how I’m raising ownership concerns, allegedly. The truth isn’t subjective, as you can see in the discussion and in accordance to Wiki policy, the consensus is there isn’t enough to substantiate that the show is currently part of the MCU. You can try to make a compelling argument. With the exception of the last couple of articles I edited to reflect the consensus here, everything has been well sourced. The facts I’m adding to the other articles are the same as the ones here, and the same sources apply. They’re literally in this thread. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)