Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series

Cancellation analysis

I've been sitting on this for a bit, and don't know if there's any insight or value to be added. Matthew Ball, former strategist at Amazon Studios, had this long thread about the Netflix cancellations. Original tweets started here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably some useful stuff in there. Are we able to use Thread reader as a source? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If anything wanted to be used, I think so, because it is simply compiling all of the tweets together. We could also add "via [original first tweet here]" so that's included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Turk Barrett

The Table for Recurring Characters seems to have neglected Rob Morgan as Turk Barrett.

He has made an appearance on all six Marvel Netflix shows.

He doesn't meet the inclusion criteria defined for the table. But as the only actor to appear as he did across many of the series, perhaps we should include him as an exception. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I most eagerly agree. If you want to also talk about the inclusion criteria, keep in mind that he has appeared in all six shows, several times on Daredevil, at least three episodes of Luke Cage, once on Jessica Jones, once on Iron Fist, once on Defenders, and two episodes of The Punisher which makes him a recurring character. Besides if we can include Stephen Rider as Blake Tower we can include Rob Morgan as Turk Barret. Maxcardun (talk) 9:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

As Favre already explained, he does not meet the criteria and comparing him to characters that you feel are less important has no effect on that. However, I agree that an argument could be made for including him since he does appear in every series, we would just want to add a note to the criteria that explains the exception. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename?

All of these shows are leaving Netflix on March 1, 2022. As they will no longer be 'Netflix series', should the name of the article reflect that? --Sricsi (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. The fact that these shows were originally released on Netflix won't change, so the article title will still be accurate regardless of where they are currently available for streaming. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's right. This name will always be correct, because we are going off of the original release info, not where they currently may be available. See Marvel's ABC television series, as all three of those series are no longer available on ABC to watch. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Defenders series are coming to Disney+ in mid-March

It was just announced that at least beginning in Canada, the former Netflix Marvel series are going straight to Disney+ on March 16. Now that it looks like the shows are migrating to a new home, the article might be eligible for a rename like previously discussed. Even if in the US it doesn't end up on Disney+, they're absolutely putting it on a new streaming service after they leave Netflix. RebelYasha (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It could be something to note in prose, but I don't know if the source for this is all that great, and we definitely need more info on the U.S. plans before going further. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, the best we can do is to put this in the "Release" sections at each series stating they'll start to appear on the Canadian Disney+. Once again, there is no need to rename this article. Please understand that the fact the series are moving has nothing to do with their original networks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Marvel Netflix lineup officially confirmed for WORLDWIDE Disney+ launch on March 16. It'll actually be on the Marvel hub and not just Hulu/D+ Star

https://twitter.com/Marvel/status/1498689524347510789?cxt=HHwWioCp9dKLtcwpAAAA

RebelYasha (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Distributor: Netflix Streaming Services

If Disney is “regaining the rights” of the shows, what company distributes them ? Disney, or Netflix (according to sources) ? --92.184.117.195 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The distributor in the infobox is the original distributor, the change to Disney+ now doesn't change that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I'm actually curious about this. If the shows were actually licensed out to Netflix all those years ago (which we were not aware of until recently), I wonder if their distributor is indeed Disney–ABC Television Group. I felt I saw a source that used wording that helped indicate as such but I can't seem to find it at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno, this article and this article think Netflix was the original distributor. This THR article from 2013 says Disney/ABC are the production companies, but nothing specifically about distribution. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we know if the license fee that Netflix paid was for distribution rights? Perhaps that is where the grey area is. If in doubt we could have nothing in the parameter. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we do. I was just curious because if Disney is getting the rights back, obviously they have some sort of distribution skin in the game, but I don't know what that means for how we convey any info in the respective infoboxes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus. Reasons that were convincing to the responding editor base included the origin of the episodes, production history, and unclear PRIMARY by the sources. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Marvel's Netflix television series → The Defenders Saga – Marvel has renamed these six series as "The Defenders Saga". It seems better to use this title rather than to tie it to a network it's no longer on, and to use a title that doesn't preclude other Marvel shows on Netflix.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussions that occurred before the arrival on Disney+ for such a request. These series were still Marvel's Netflix series, same as Marvel's ABC television series. Where any of the Marvel Television series can be viewed now is irrelevant to their original locations. That's key. The series could stay on Disney+, move exclusively to HBO Max, move to Amazon Prime, it won't matter because they were produced for Netflix. The grouping title of "The Defenders Saga" is noted in the article appropriately. Now if this move to Disney+ happened when any of these series were still releasing, that'd be a different story (and possibly a discussion that would need to be had in the future if any individual series get revived explicitly as a continuation (ie Daredevil season 4). But since they've come and gone, they are still "Marvel's Netflix television series". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Favre's reasoning. The fact that they have moved to Disney+ now does not change that these series were made for Netflix and have been on that platform for years. We also do not know yet if this new heading will be considered a common title for them, especially when there is already a different title that Marvel have also used that has more support from reliable sources as being a genuine common name. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Favre. These are Marvel's series originally made for Netflix, as such, the title used is a general one for the group, while "The Defenders Saga" is one way to refer to them, just like Marvel Television used "Marvel Stree-Level Heroes" or "Marvel Knights". The fact that they are now streaming on Disney+ instead of Netflix doesn't change the fact that they were made for Netflix first. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – in addition to Favre's comments, I see three officially designated names for the six series in the lede, so it is unclear which name is the primary one. Thus, we should stick to a more generic and WP:CONCISE name like Marvel's Netflix series. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now – we'll have to wait and see if The Defenders Saga is how reliable sources mainly refer to this group of series from now on. Until that becomes a WP:COMMONNAME, it should stay where it is. —El Millo (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Favre. Also, I have a feeling that if any of these series were to ever be revived they would be under slightly different names to explicitly differentiate between the Netflix seasons from Marvel TV and the Disney+ seasons from Marvel Studios, and thus would not be added to the series table in this article. - Brojam (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a fresh rebranding by Disney and the collection of series will not be known as "The Defenders Saga" for the foreseeable future. If we do reconsider this down the line, I believe we would run into the hurdle that Favre1fan93 laid out; this is originally known as the Netflix series - it's for this reason that the Skywalker Saga has different naming conventions for its three trilogies. BOTTO _(T•C) 01:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I would lend strong support if The Punisher's storyline was part of the "saga", instead of a spin-off. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Might support in the future. While I agree with Favre's points about these shows being Netflix shows, the title of this article changing does not change that. It just moves it from one descriptive, Wikipedia-decided, title, to a new title which is what the production company has retroactively decided to call these. However, I am not supporting for now since we should wait and see if this does become the common name these shows will be known as. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Outside of that name just recently being known, I think it should be considered too that at the moment that name is only associated with its move to Disney+, and was never given while they were still on Netflix. So if reconsidered in the future, that seems like false classification. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Favre. — SirDot (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Marvel's Netflix television series

Do we really need this new navbox? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, we have all the relevant links covered already in the series navboxes and the MCU navbox. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope. I've boldly redirected it to Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe. Given the vast majority of the links wouldn't be there anyways, I don't see the need to separate what would have remained out from the current template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Feelings of as user Favre1fan93 puts it questionable sources...

Is not a valid reason to undo my edit I should think. SeriesTotaal.nl is a trusted news source in the Netherlands for tv and movie franchises, they have direct lines with the press representatives of most if not all large outlets, same holds true for the Belgian site. as such I've reverted the revert by Favre1fan93 and replaced the meprhysvesrse link for one to an official tweet from Disney about the delayed availability of the Netflix marvel series to disney+ in Belgium and the Netherlands. (tweet is in dutch tho)

and as a side note, I've left the daredevil reversion alone at this point as indeed the info as to wether it'll be a fourth season or a reboot is scarce at this point, however, a lot of speculation is that it indeed is not a reboot but a proper continuation of daredevil in a fourth season where it left off when Netflix pulled the plug, which to me seems the only logical and reasonable course of action for this particular part of the franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveFlash (talk • contribs)

@DaveFlash: I've reverted the addition again because it's still WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. We don't need to be listing each new territory release as it happens. Stating, as we do, that they will be added continually until the end of 2022 is sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Chronology in the lead

Okay, so although I still support the removal outright of the titles from the lead, I will play ball right now and entertain them being there temporarily until that discussion is resolved. My question for right now is @Trailblazer101 - the placement of the titles in your last edit is questionable to me because, relative to everything else, the usage of the names is not a notable event in the chronology of things. The placement I propose is the one in my original edit. It’s connected to the Defenders Saga in-context as it’s referring to the names used to refer to the show. On its own, though, it just doesn’t justify an earlier placement in the lead. What do you think? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I just saw your message here and was going to respond before you reverted my edit, which I find a bit premature. There is no "only way" to do things on Wikipedia. My thought process with my edit was an attempt at a compromise by including the names Loeb used (which is notable as it is from the head of the studio behind the shows) alongside the cancelation and Disney+ transfer and rebrand. Chronology is not a big deal from my perspective for this, although it does aid in a natural flow and transition of when the names were used. There is not that much space between the names used, and I think my approach puts it into more perspective for readers with two contrasting sides: the Marvel TV handling of the names and streaming, and then the Disney+ naming/rebranding and service info, that way, we are not going back and forth from the Marvel TV/Netflix info and the Disney+ info. Some names came first, before The Defenders Saga, so it should be ordered as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I did give you over five hours and tagged you, so I don’t agree it was premature. If chronology doesn’t matter then we shouldn’t have to compromise on it. The way it is highlights the contrast the most by juxtaposing them next to each other and putting them in context. The timeline approach doesn’t make sense because a single insignificant interview doesn’t warrant a place in the lead to begin with. If we’re insistent that the names belong there, it is only in the context it’s in now that it makes sense. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

And some people have lives and commitments outside of Wikipedia..... I have a message on my userpage and talk page on that. It is bad form to jump the gun within a 24 hour period. I never said chronology didn't matter, just that it shouldn't be made such a big deal over the placement here. The terms are in close proximity for readers to view, and your repeated disregard for Marvel Television's head Jeph Loeb's credibility and notability is just not backed up with any valid claims. Continuing to push for your preferred versions of articles is not constructive, as is ignoring other editors' points and standard practice. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it needs stating that we all have lives outside of here, though your passive aggressive tone is noted. If the only reason the edit is being made is to adhere to a chronology you state isn’t a big deal, and one that frankly doesn’t make any sense given how irrelevant the one-off interview is, then the edit shouldn’t be made when the information has a clearer lead in and context in the placement we were using not too long ago this evening. I value Jeph Loeb in the role he served which was an influential one for a long time. That does not mean every word he has ever said needs to have a ton of weight attached to it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Trail, your approach is in violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of content. My edits are not being reverted because they are detrimental but as a matter of appeasing members of a task force that insists I have to consult them before making any changes. The edits I am reverting are clearly detrimental. There is no rationale to having the titles placed as a significant chronological event prior to the Defenders Saga’s title and they are making a mess of the lead and giving undue weight to completely unimportant details. Those names ought to be dropped from the lead altogether because of how insignificant the interview is and how the titles have never been used by Loeb or anyone else outside of that one interview. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

ChimaFan12, you are an extremely new editor, and I would recommend against making accusations against editors who, quite simply, know what they're doing after years of experience, and instead try to attempt to work with them and take on their advice. Wikipedia is not your sandbox where your edits must be accepted, and if multiple editors disagree with your edits across multiple pages, then the situation of who the edit warrior is becomes clear. As far as I can see, your edits have had little to no support. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I’m happy to set the record straight. My edits and proposals have actually had a good deal of support. Much of the discussion we are engaged in now actually traces back to an RFC which came to the conclusion that all the sources don’t paint a clear picture to support the show being part of the MCU. If you look here [1], you’ll see that the other major conversation I’ve been a part of has arrived at a workable compromise that uses a lot of my ideas and has a large amount of support. I’m under no illusion that I’m a dictator or that what I say goes. I am, however, entitled to criticize behaviors that exemplify Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The Taskforce does not own these pages, and the dissent of a few whose approach is at odds with Wikipedia protocol, does not mean that I am in the wrong. Your behavior here also constitutes Ownership, specifically pulling rank. I violate no rules by editing and certainly am not committing any punishable offenses. You may continue, as many have here, to fix in on my reputation as a means to discourage me from editing, but that approach will not work. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the one trying to make mass changes to articles against consensus as if you own the place, so stop accusing the rest of us (who are all working in together) of WP:OWN. The order of the names in the lead of this article is the logical order, we use the common name for the title and start of the lead, then we note the names used internally by Marvel TV, and finally we use the name from Disney+ at the point where we explain that the series moved to Disney+. Not too difficult to understand. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

When people are working with me, you accuse them of trying to execute a nuclear option. The so-called internal names aren't justified to be used there as they're just confusing. Per @Facu-el Millo's comment, "Neither of these names is common anyway, so its presence in the lead doesn't help make anything clearer or easier for a reader." (I am not invoking this opinion to suggest it is the official opinion or consensus on its own, but in the context of that discussion I believe we have reached the consensus we can short of an RFC. If our consensus is not acceptable, we need to start an RFC.) I think it would be beneficial if all parties who have opined continued this conversation with the desire to find an outcome rather than continuing ad hominem. I'll admit my quickness to point to OWN could be seen as hostile (but I have only done that after numerous false accusations from other users), and I can agree to focus on finding a solution rather than discussing behaviors. ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Simply disagreeing with your edits is not grounds for accusing everyone against you of OWN. You are being antagonistic for the sake of it. You are edit-warring; that is a punishable offense. And yes, I've seen the other discussions; all I see there is a textbook case of replying to every single comment that doesn't support you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not accusing everyone against me of that. I am suggesting that anyone who is saying I have to defer to the opinion of taskforce members or who is pulling rank (saying I'm new, therefore my edits are disruptive) is in fact doing OWN. These two in particular are occurring on this very page:

1. An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
2. An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

I have not said that everyone who disagrees with me is doing OWN. I admit I'm replying to a lot of messages. I admit that in one case on a different page, I did not need to tie two different issues together (AIF and Defenders Saga, for instance, I was rightly called out on arguing one in a thread about another). I do not believe that my behavior overall constitutes bludgeoning -- I am not doing it to silence anybody or to force everybody into a line. I am replying because I believe that a lot of replies are completely disregarding key elements of the conversation and I want to be able to include everybody in the conversation. I believe it would be most beneficial if we returned to the conversation at hand. ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My approach only slightly differed from what an implicit consensus agreed upon. Trying to force edits and content on here multiple times via edit warring is a cause for concern as if you control how these articles work and what is on them. Not a single person editing them controls everything or anything in them. Taskforces are designed by the community to communicate constructive approaches to formatting and organizing the articles of their subject, and to establish consensus on said approaches, not to control everything. It is difficult to come to a consensus when you accuse anyone who disagrees and tries to compromise with you of OWN behavior when you persistently reinstate your contested edits. We are having a conversation on the approach to the usage of the names in this article, although your behavior in the editing and discussion here (and on others) has become quite rampant to ignore within this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You say it’s difficult to come to a consensus but we’ve come to one here, we came to one on Helstrom, I’ve actually made good progress on talking with people and working towards outcomes we can agree upon. If we have the consensus why don’t we stick with that consensus? The fact that you can admit we had a consensus, even implicitly, and still edit warred over out of hand — the edit reason you gave was this: “Not a valid reason for changing to your preference” while changing it to your own, without any sort of a discussion or claiming my edits were detrimental. Regardless, if you’d like to discuss my behavior, it may be more fruitful and beneficial if it were in a channel more specifically devoted to that. We can wikilawyer each other all day about why we don’t like the other person’s behavior but if I’m not actually found to be in violation of wiki policy, there’s no real reason to fixate so deeply on it. If I’m breaking punishable rules, petition to have me punished in the appropriate channels and we can avoid the argument altogether here, or I can do the same. I’m intentionally not bringing up OWN here because I’m trying to be fair about this and practice what I’m preaching, so I won’t be bringing it up again in these discussions. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus from other editors to keep the names in this article with the adjusted order via the compromise that was offered up, and yet you persist to challenge and edit war over it to have the article reflect your preferred placement of the text, backlogging progression and implementing the consensus you talk about sticking to. Currently, the WP:STATUSQUO from before the discussion is in place as an agreement has yet to be had on slight placing concerns. It is bad form to accuse someone who just got involved in this discussion and restored the STATUSQUO, namely Alex 21, of OWN. As for the placement of the names, there is no strong rationale for why the names used and revealed prior to the Disney+ transfer can not be placed before it, and I think the wording that was suggested is a good mark to use, as it keeps the different names together in the same paragraph with just the transition to D+ in between them as an explanatory bit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

“There is consensus from other editors to keep the names in this article with the adjusted order via the compromise that was offered up” No there is not. Consensus is not two out of three people in a dispute silently agree with one another and hope the third person goes away. Consensus takes the arguments into account and finds something workable. I also never contested Alex restoring the article to status quo or accused him of OWN on those grounds.

The names used prior to Disney+ were revealed to us in one interview. We don’t know the significance of the names. Loeb says they sometimes call them that. He never says when, why, or how. Are they internal names for production purposes? Why is there such significance on them? That’s one half of it and frankly a good reason why they should be removed outright, but the other half is this: these names, without any concrete significance, aren’t a significant enough event in the chronology to warrant a placement of its own in the lead. The only reason the names are maybe relevant is that we’re highlighting the name used now and showing that the guy at Marvel TV once said they used other names sometimes too. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Back to this discussion. I propose temporarily keeping the names in the lead but in the place I had put them before and which was workable for a couple of us. Can I hear a rationalized opposition to that? ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The Marvel TV names should not go after the Disney+ naming. I don't know if I'm completely sold with the Marvel TV names being in the first lead paragraph, and would be open to finding a spot to move them, but then should not be placed after Defenders Saga. For the readers, we should be presenting the info and layout of the article that the lead is supposed to serve in a generally chronological order so they can see how things have come about and developed. These names specifically were revealed post cancellation of all the series, but could still be mentioned at any point before we discuss the series moving to Disney+. And it is not correct to link them in a sentence with the move to Disney+ as the two are not related in that sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think if we specify that it was prior to the shutdown of Marvel Television, then using the reference to Defenders Saga as a mean to tie other names in contextually makes perfect sense. That way, it’s not suggesting that it was after Disney+. Personally I think the best fix is just removing those names from the lead and putting them in the development section, as its placement anywhere in the lead given the relative insignificance of those names is awkward. But if they are to be in the lead temporarily, then placing them after the Defenders Saga while noting they were effective internally before would be a workable solution, no? After all, every version of the edit where it was set after Defenders Saga used the word “previously” which suggested in no uncertain terms that, in one specific context, those names predated that one. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

All three need to stay in the lead per WP:RASTONISH and MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. So in doing so, given what each name is linked to, the Street Level and Knights names should be presented before a reader would get to Defenders Saga. So again, the way it is now is fine, but it could move the Street Level and Knights names out of the first paragraph but before we introduce Defenders Saga. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Here’s the relevant text on both of those articles:

BOLDALTNAMES: “When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article.”

and

“The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all.”

(Readability, FYI, is part of what we’re struggling with here. It does explicitly state that we don’t need all alternative names in the lead.)

RASTONISH: “ Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.”

Neither the Marvel Knights name nor the Street Level Heroes name are COMMONNAME, nor should redirects be a problem. If we remove them from the lead here and move them to development, and remove them from anything directing people to this page (a no-brainer, this has been proposed before in perhaps the only place the name is used to direct people here), then it will be resolved. As is, the alt names are insignificant and ought to be removed. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

None of them are the WP:COMMONNAME, otherwise that would be the article's title. While you could argue the insignificance of the "Marvel Knights" name used to refer to these group of TV series, the "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" seems much more significant, as "street-level heroes" was a term pretty commonly used to refer to these shows. —El Millo (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I can cede that point somewhat, however Defenders Saga definitely is a common name worth keeping in the lead. Marvel Knights is not, street level heroes is dubious but I’m receptive to discussing it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Defenders Saga definitely is a common name worth keeping in the lead. Marvel Knights is not As I've described below, that's not the point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)COMMONNAME is not a factor here. That only applies to the article's title. It's a matter of them being valid redirects, of which all three are and are significant alternate names. You seem to fail to grasp the purpose of redirects by stating If we [...] remove them from anything directing people to this page (a no-brainer, this has been proposed before in perhaps the only place the name is used to direct people here), then it will be resolved. These terms don't have to appear as wikilinks within Wikipedia (and none of the redirect links have any use on Wikipedia), but the terms are still valid for search purpose and redirects have been made for such terms. Thus, since all three redirect to the article and not a specific section, their inclusion in the lead and bolding is needed. Outright removal is 100% a non-starter per WP:RASTONISH and MOS:BOLDALTNAMES which I've already stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Except, reading those policies, nothing within them makes what I’m proposing a non-starter. Marvel Knights is simply not a significant alternative name. Street level heroes, sure, I’m willing to hear that out, but Marvel Knights belongs in development only and shouldn’t be used as a redirect or placed in the lead. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I can honestly get behind removing Marvel Knights. I've searched for sources that refer to these series this way and I frankly found nothing conclusive. The only instances where that name was mentioned was when referring to the comics that inspired the series. "Street-level heroes", on the other hand, I've searched and found many sources using it. —El Millo (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right about that and I'm content keeping that there. I do wonder if we could phrase it differently, because that phrase is also applied to Spider-Man and occasionally Moon Knight nowadays. Perhaps we could state that these series were notable, perhaps even uniquely identifiable for their focus on street-level heroes? Most sources that utilized that term did not tend to use it as a proper noun, if I recall correctly. If I'm wrong, let me know. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Head of Marvel Television Jeph Loeb

I can't believe I'm asking this; it literally has not been discussed on this page at all but apparently it's also a source of controversy for which I need to await consensus. Can we change the following phrasing: "Marvel Television referred to the group of shows collectively as the Marvel Street-Level Heroes or Marvel Knights series" to specify "Head of Marvel Television, Jeph Loeb, referred to the group of shows collectively as the Marvel Street-Level Heroes or Marvel Knights series"? Both versions of the edit being discussed above, from myself and the other parties, used a phrasing similar to this. We don't have a quote from Marvel Television with those terms in any medium, we have a quote from an interview with Jeph Loeb with those terms. That is a big difference. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That was what had been part of the proposed wording, although per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:Bold, revert, discuss, the dispute surrounding the placement of the wording prevents us from going back to using any of the contested wording until we reach an agreement on it. No one here is saying you can't contribute and make edits, although if an edit is contested, especially during a discussion of the contents being edited, some view that as a breach of BRD. As such, I propose the following for the third paragraph:
The series are believed to have generated strong viewership for Netflix, who do not release exact viewership details, and received positive reviews for their casts and darker take on the MCU. There were some common criticisms of the series, such as for their pacing. Netflix had cancelled all of the series by February 2019, when Marvel's parent company Disney was preparing its own streaming service, Disney+. Following the series' cancellations, Marvel Television head Jeph Loeb referred to the group of shows collectively as the "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" or "Marvel Knights" series. The series were all removed from Netflix on March 1, 2022, after Disney regained the licenses for them, and they began streaming on Disney+ from March 16, where they were collected under the title "The Defenders Saga".
This puts the different names together in the same paragraph in close proximity with one another, denotes when Loeb mentioned the original aliases for the group in-between the transition to Disney+ and the naming used there Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. You didn’t answer my question either, and I don’t appreciate you combining the two topics and treating them as one. I looked through what you linked and didn’t find anything preventing us from using that wording, either, but since we are here I’d appreciate a yes or no answer on this individual question. I will also be separating the topics again as they are two distinct questions. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

They are the same issue. You don't like the internal Marvel TV wording and are trying to get it changed or removed above, and then you go ahead and change it say Loeb said it (implying that his interview is the only time the terms were ever used). You have literally edited something that we are in the middle of discussing and that you have been warned about edit warring over. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We have no evidence of any other time they were used. Can you answer the question? ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

How about you answer a question: why should we continue to try work around your concerns? You are clearly not acting in good faith. I could maybe see how you thought this specific edit was non-controversial when you first made it, but you have continued to make the edit even after it was reverted and this discussion was taking place. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s rude and hostile. Even after you started reverting the edit and I started this discussion no further discussion has taken place. How am I supposed to do BRD if the only person who has voiced any concern about that edit at all isn’t willing to discuss the edit itself? Per WP:CONSENSUS, we’re supposed to implement what we can agree on, and that phrasing is something everybody in that discussion has agreed on, seeing as every version of the contested edit has used it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You can't just wait a few hours and decide that the discussion is over, people have lives outside Wikipedia you know. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We're having the discussion right now. I'd appreciate if you contributed something other than some accusation about my behavior. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In the source where the names are taken from, Loeb explicitly says: Then the next group is the Marvel Street-Level Heroes, or the Marvel Knights, as we sometimes call them here. That means they were names they regularly used to refer to this group of series. It's not a way "Loeb referred to once", he said they were common names they used internally. —El Millo (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Loeb also said Well, the most exciting thing right now is finding the new corners. When we start talking about Marvel Television, we like to look at the different families. before explaining the group names, as El Millo detailed. He used "we" as in the Marvel Television people. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I see where you’re coming from also. Perhaps we could meet in the middle? Could we add the word internally? Since Loeb is a trustworthy source on what goes on inside Marvel Television, and that’s where these names were used, to me that makes the most sense.

“Marvel Television head Jeph Loeb stated that the group of shows were internally known as the "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" or "Marvel Knights" series.”

Since the subject of that sentence is a group of shows, we don’t need to use the adverb collectively and can replace that with internally. It’s completely accurate, it’s trustworthy, it doesn’t diminish anything. How does that sound? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. I saw the word "internally" thrown around in some other edits, and I will support including that over "collectively". While Loeb revealed that Marvel Television used those names, I think the specific wording in the interview of Marvel Television 'look[ing] at the different families can be a nice foundation for both being tangible for wording, along the lines of say Marvel Television and its head Jeph Loeb... or Marvel Television head Jeph Loeb revealed that the company...

I don't think that any of these names can be considered common, as in WP:COMMONAME, which I presume you were referring to, as that policy details the usage of terms and names commonly used, which in this case would be Marvel's Netflix series, which some sources have addressed, as well. I've done some digging, and there were a group of toys for the Marvel Legends toyline inspired by the Netflix series which did also include parts for Man-Thing, and this source notes this is "because this series is technically "Marvel Knights"-based, not Netflix-based (even though we've all been calling it "the Netflix series" since it was announced)" Former Marvel chief creative officer Joe Quesada discussed in 2016 the influence the Marvel Knights comics had on the Netflix series (something Rotten Tomatoes also noted), as a connective link between the two names, though I'm not saying these explicitly support that term over others. I think these, primarily Quesada's comments of the comics' imprints influence on the series' themes, can be included in the article, which could compliment my suggestion at the TV series list article of noting the themes of the series groups there, as well.

I also think including commentary on the names, for the Marvel Knights, Street-Level Heroes (if any) and The Defenders Saga would greatly aid in presenting information to our readers on each of their usage. I have already found some potential commentary for the Defenders Saga name. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Out of the two phrasings you used, I would prefer the second, which states that Loeb revealed it because that’s the most accurate of the two. I think the word stated has the same impact as revealed, as what he states is not insignificant. Revealed just doesn’t read as well.

Just to clarify, though I think you already know this, the OAFE source, which I don’t believe is a particularly high quality one worth including, is referring to the Marvel Knights Legends series (the series of figures that also includes comics Bullseye and Blade) with that quote, not the shows. When he says “it’s the Marvel Knights series,” that’s what he means. I don’t think that the merchandise of a broad assortment of characters should be indicative of any sort of “official” name for these shows, but should be completely omitted. The Marvel Knights inspiration from Quesada’s quotes should be noted in development, perhaps even as a lead-in for Loeb calling the series Marvel Knights series.

The frequency of the phrase Defenders Saga on social media and in media coverage suggests that it should be treated as WP:COMMONNAME in a way the other names besides Marvel Netflix shows simply can’t claim to compare. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've come around on the phrasing "revealed." I think it was the conjunctive "that" that was throwing me off. If it is okay with you, I believe that as far as that matter goes we do have agreement and I've placed your proposed phrasing (option 2), with some slight adjustments, into the lead. I hope that resolves that particular matter and that we can continue looking into everything else you suggested. I think there's a lot we can work with out of your suggestions. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for actually discussing this with me and I’m happy that an objection has finally been voiced because we can work with this. I see where you are coming from, let me explain where I’m coming from.. We don’t have any information on how those names were used. That quote says nothing about common, he just says “we sometimes call” them that. I’m not trying to imply that they were never ever called that by multiple people at Marvel Television, but we don’t have any instance of Marvel Television as an entity referring to them as such. No documentation or anything from other members of Marvel Television utilizes those terms. We genuinely only have Loeb’s word on it, but seeing as he was the head of Marvel Television, it’s still worth something. It’s not as though he was some random guy. It’s just the most accurate phrasing — one of the most significant people at Marvel Television called it that publicly. That’s not nothing! ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)