Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Why ABC and Netflix series isn't in the main MCU timeline?

According to this article, series produced by ABC and Netflix belongs in the MCU, but why they aren't in the timeline? XT RedZone (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

For simplicity, only Marvel Studios projects are in the timeline. — SirDot (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a hatnote in the timeline section stating this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@XT RedZone Because we're following the Disney+ Timeline, and it doesn't include these shows... 2001:8A0:DF58:401:C8B7:538E:E9A:BFFE (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Fisk from Daredevil appeared in Hawkeye and Matt Murdock appeared in Spider-Man: No Way Home and She-Hulk: Attorney at Law and is scheduled for a new series, Daredevil: Born Again. I believe its time to include Daredevil, Jessica Jones  Luke Cage  Iron Fist, The Defenders, and The Punisher into the timeline. Each article states the following.

"It is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), acknowledging the continuity of the franchise's films"

So, if all of the series acknowledged they are part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, they should be included in the timeline.

Also, with Deadpool 3 scheduled to be in the MCU, Deadpool and Deadpool 2 should also be included. LA (T) @ 06:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

none of those were produced by Marvel Studios and their placement in the MCU is questionable at best. Daredevil and Fisk may well be multiverse versions of those characters, it’s too soon to tell. And it’s certainly far too soon to tell if the MCU’s Deadpool will have any connection to the Fox films. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

We may have a way to include all Marvel Netflix TV shows in the timeline if their placement is ever made explicit, but it's almost certain that there won't be a way to place Deadpool 1 and 2. —El Millo (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Until those series are explicitly confirmed as existing in the MCU Marvel Studios recognizes, they are excluded, as are every other non-Marvel Studios project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

For when the time comes, There's this source I used in the MCU DD article that has seasons 1 and 2 around 2014–2015 and season 3 in late2 2017/winter 2018 — SirDot (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

She-Hulk timeline

Is the show set between Moon Knight and Ms. Marvel (per Disney+) as shown in the graphic, or shortly after Shang-Chi, as it's stated in the text? Isn't a bit confusing for readers? AxGRvS (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any contradiction there, both appear to be true. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Episode 2 ends with Abomination's fight in Shang-Chi being "leaked", which as a practical matter would presumably happen shortly after the event, but in theory could be any amount of time afterwards. BD2412 T 20:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

True. I was just saying because the graphic shows Shang-Chi in 2024 and both Moon Knight and Ms. Marvel in 2025, which is cleary not a short amount of time between one thing and the others. That's what I tought was confusing for anyone who reads the Timeline section. Maybe we should change it to "She-Hulk takes place after Shang-Chi" without giving any specific timeframe. AxGRvS (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The She-Hulk origin flashback in the first episode which was said to be "a few months ago" is the one that takes place "shortly" after Shang-Chi. In Shang-Chi, Bruce is still using the inhibitor to keep him in human form but that gets destroyed in the She-Hulk flashback, so the flashback is definitely after Shang-Chi. And a few months after that could totally push it to Jan/Feb 2025 when the present-time events of She-Hulk begin. — Starforce¹³ 01:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the onscreen text of Jen's website searching mentioned the Celestial in the ocean, so "present day" of the series is definitely at least after Eternals. Any dialogue Jen and Emil have next regarding the fighting will probably provide more info, but I took it that the leaked footage wasn't happening "right" then, but that someone leaked it knowing he was up for parole. That's my own personal interpretation, which means the Disney+ placement isn't necessarily wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The original timeframe quote was from TVLine, and here's what they said since: This week’s episode also drove home that which head writer/EP Jessica Gao told TVLine, that She-Hulk is set not too long after Shang-Chi and the Legends of the Ten Rings, seeing as the closing scene revolves around the reveal that Emil Blonksy’s Abomination once broke out of prison to participate in a fight club. You can count on getting more details about what exactly that was all about in Episode 3….. I'm interpreting that as the footage was revealed in "present day", not that the fight actually just happened then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my interpretation of the footage leak as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That was also my interpretation of the footage leak. Episode 3 clarifies Shang-Chi was sometime ago, early 2025 can also be right (which I agree with). — SirDot (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Also based on what Wong stated, it's 100% after No Way Home for certain, and we have nothing else concretely placing it around that part of the timeline, so the Disney+ placement seems accurate still. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I also get the impression, based on recent interviews, that the showrunner doesn't care that much about where in the timeline the series fits so I think we should be putting more emphasis on Disney+ and other reliable sources than on her casual "shortly after" statement. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If the showrunner does not care maybe it is not important. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 I think the producers of almost everything in Phase 4 don't care about the placement. But the Timeline is right after all... 2001:8A0:DF58:401:C8B7:538E:E9A:BFFE (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Timeline Placement of Doctor Strange

I think doctor strange starts in 2016 and ends in 2017. I mean that kind of sorcery training takes a long time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.233.37.163 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@223.233.37.163 Kindly provide a source supporting your claim instead of doing an original research, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Centcom08 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@223.233.37.163 SOURCE PLS 2001:8A0:DF58:401:C8B7:538E:E9A:BFFE (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Recurring characters table

I don't know if this has been talked before, but I recently saw Angela Basset, Tessa Thompson, Evangeline Lilly, Jaimie Alexander, and Sean Gunn were added to the table of recurring characters. On Alexander and Gunn, they only received main billing in the Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy franchises so they shouldn't be included. On the former three, I'm assuming they were included per their credit in Avengers: Endgame which someone considered a "main billing" credit, although I don't know if there's already an agreement on that. If we follow this, other actors like Rene Russo, Michael Douglas or Michelle Pfeiffer should be included as well. AxGRvS (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Now that an article exists on Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it would be useful to mention somewhere in this article that the MCU has basically redefined concepts about the use of such scenes. BD2412 T 20:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Consultant in Timeline links to wrong page

It links to the upcoming tv show starring Christoph Waltz instead of the 2011 Marvel One-Shot Gurubavan (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. —El Millo (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Delay

disney+ japan released an updated release schedule for 2023 and it does not include Echo, What if season 2 and Agatha: Coven of Chaos. any thoughts. and i am not lying. the direct wrote an article on this subject.223.233.27.215 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@223.233.27.215 The Direct website is not a reliable source (except for exclusive interviews), per WP:MCURS. Echo, What If?... (season 2), and Agatha: Coven of Chaos are American-made series so we follow the U.S. release date (if there is a new announcement), see MOS:TVRELEASE for more details. Centcom08 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

D23 reaffirmed Echo is releasing in 2023. We do not go by Disney's international sites as they have been wrong in the past. Rumors of delays have been swirling but nothing has been officially confirmed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Studios Animation

On this article, Marvel Studios' animation division is called "Marvel Studios Animation". And not like other times were it saud "Marvel Studios Animation Panel" or "Marvel Studios Animation Announcements". Its just "Marvel Studios Animation". Seeing as it came from a quite prolific site (Vulture) and featured quotes from both VFX specialists and people who worked in-house at the animation studio, should this be taken as a sign of being the division's official name? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's the best indication we've had that that is indeed the name of the animation arm of Marvel Studios. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So should we move Draft:Marvel Studios' animation division? I think we should. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yondu

Should we add Yondu Udonta in the Recurring casts and characters list? He has been named main cast in three MCU projects. I know that it also requires to be main cast for two franchises and he has been man cast for the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, but does it count for the television special as well? Movieknower59 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Holiday Special is part of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, not a franchise on its own. —El Millo (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

In the "Disney Wish" section, Disney Wish is described as a cruise line when it should be described as a cruise ship. "Disney Cruise Line" is the name of the line. 24.29.210.35 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP QUANTUMANIA

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP QUANTUMANIA IS NOT THERE IN TIMELINE.PLEASE ADD IT. 103.211.43.96 (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Quantumania's timeline details are discussed in that section. It's just not in the timeline table infographic because it is not clear where its exact placement is. That will be determined once it releases on Disney+. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU 103.211.43.96 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU 103.211.43.96 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

TELEVISION SERIES

WHY MARVEL TELEVISION SERIES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN MCU TIMELINE 103.211.43.96 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@103.211.43.96 It is in the section's hatnote that says only works that are released by Marvel Studios. Centcom08 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Guardians 3

You forgot to mention the placement of Guardians 3 in timeline section. Besides, Ant-Man 3 is in Disney+ now, isn't it placed chronologically? (I do not have DIsney+ so I do not know) JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Quantumania is not on Disney+ yet. It will be on May 17. At that time, we'll be able to have sources for its placement in the timeline navigation box. Guardians is noted as being set after the Holiday Special with that information, although we do not yet know what year it is in for the timeline. The movie just came out so it will be a while before sources gather information to make such a determination. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting Guardians 3 after Holiday Special as next year since the Christmas has passed, except that becomes WP: Original Research. Therefore, we will wait and receive confirmations once released on Disney+. BTW, how you actually know the DIsney+ dates for the movies playing in theaters? I keep checking Disney+ youtube account for the official date. (I know you use reliable sources, but how you actually know) JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Marvel Studios tweeted the Quantumania D+ date, and they typically do for other movies as well, and dates are sent out in press releases that reliable websites obtain from Disney via emails. Disney+'s YT account doesn't always include everything. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

ANt-Man 3 is set after GOTGHS but there is a problem, If it is after HS, then it should be 2026 as we see no indication that Christmas was still on in Quantumania. In fact, it doesn't look like winter is there at all. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No irl timeline

generally franchises have wikiboxes that show the timeline of releases in our world, this article has something resembling it but it's actually an in-universe timeline of the events the movies depict which is misleading Anothracountiges (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is clear that the Timeline section is for in-universe information via the "As depicted in the MCU" header. If that's not the case, then we can add to the note to clarify this is for the in-universe timeline of events. I have seen wikiboxes for timeline of releases for video game series articles. We do have tables for the MCU content in their defined groups located at the Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well. I could see a wikibox of releases be a useful tool on the side of the content sections, although I'm not too certain it would be necessary as we denote the years of each release in order in their sections per what group they are in. Such a wikibox would be rather long and continue to increase in length as more content releases, some of which have overlapped. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not necessarily mean it ought to be included here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

QUANTUMANIA

IN THAT SECTION ANT-MAN AND THE WASP QUANTUMANIA IS SET AFTER THE EVENTS OF BLACK PANTHER WAKANDA FOREVER AND BEGINNING OF MS MARVEL BUT IN TIMELINE QUANTUMANIA IS SET AFTER GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY HOLIDAY SPECIAL WHICH ONE IS CORRECT 103.211.43.112 (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Both are correct per the sources present in the article. Also, an entire bolded message is not necessary. Please refrain from asking generic questions here, as this talk page is for making improvements to the article, not basic questions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

OK I REFRAIN FROM ASKING GENERIC QUESTIONS.THANK YOU 103.211.43.112 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 to the timeline

The MCU Wiki lists it as 2026 and it’s been confirmed to take place after the Holiday Special 68.200.214.170 (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@68.200.214.170 MCU Wiki (and other wiki websites) is not a reliable source, per WP:USERG. If you are saying that the timeline placement was been confirmed to take place after the Holiday Special then kindly provide reliable sources confirming it. Centcom08 (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The film itself confirms it, but that doesn't explicitly place it in 2026. If I recall correctly, the Holiday Special takes place during Christmas, so there are still a few days of 2025 left. The film seems to pick up right after the Special. I'm not saying it's not 2026, it's clearly what's most likely, but we cannot outright confirm it without making an, albeit small, leap. —El Millo (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Stan Lee

New evidence that this is a Marvel Studios production, but I'm fine with waiting for the actual credits if we're still not confident enough. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It may ultimately be appropriate for the Marvel Studios page, not here, because we should consider the what the documentary actually covers as well. If there is only passing mentions of his cameos in the MCU, but the main focus is on him, his life, and his comic work, this is not the right article for the documentary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

@Cody Fairless-Lee: Goody day to you. Any particular reason as to why you add a detailed information about the connection between Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023) and the Marvel Cinematic Universe in this article despite the same exact details (and wordings) are already available in the Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article? Similar to Trailblazer101's reason on reverting your first adding of those information, we are only giving an overview in this article. The MCU Multiverse article is where a detailed information can be added. Centcom08 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I realized that the one Trail reverted is from Cody Fearless-Lee. Two different editors but they have related edits about adding the detailed information about Across the Spider-Verse and MCU connection in this article, which were reverted due to reasons above. Centcom08 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Batman shared universe

in cultural impact section, under DC entertainment and Warner Bros. Pictures,I think we should add The Batman shared universe since they are similar to Marvel shared universe. Ashokkumar047 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That shared universe is only intended and does not exist yet. Only one film released for it with another and one series currently in some stages of production. It's too early for inclusion, plus not everything needs to be noted here as there is not a direct connection between the MCU and what Matt Reeves is doing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The cultural impact section is not meant to be a list of every shared universe ever made, it is an overview of some of the key ones where we have sources discussing the influence of the MCU on them. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Add Loki series to the Timeline

I was consulting the proposed and compiled timeline for the MCU but currently it does not include the Loki series, which in the Disney+ is placed right after Endgame. Is there any reason for this, or is this just an overlook? Arturoagal (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's placed after Endgame by Disney+ because of the opening scene. After that, the series takes place before and after Endgame depending on the episode, or out of traditional time entirely. -- ZooBlazer^talk 16:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Arturoagal As ZooBlazer mentioned, Disney+ placed Loki after Avengers: Endgame because of the show's opening scene in episode 1. After that, the series pretty much takes place outside the timeline (already stated in the article). Centcom08 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is noted on our timeline for why it is excluded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that it is noted, as I read the article

I was pointing out that from the eyes of a simple reader who wishes to watch all the MCU in order, the table in the article poses that such person does not watch the Loki series. Proposing to include in such a way it makes more sense.

Also, when second seasons of the shows start to come out, it's gonna be hard to follow along which seasons to watch before other things. Maybe a new way to put it.

That was the motivation behind my comments. Arturoagal (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There are other articles/wikis etc. out there that can provide an interested reader with watch orders. We even include one such one ourselves in the Disney+ order section (with Disney+ being another tool readers can use). But for the purposes of this encyclopedia, where the timeline infograph is meant to show where each title occurs in the ficitional timeline, as depicted by the titles themselves, Loki, What If, and Werewolf by Night all do not belong and have been noted as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Timeline wrong

The timeline section chart has the years and film release dates all misaligned. 174.82.228.98 (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That section is not for when the films released. Those dates are for when the events occurred in-universe, which are all accurately sourced. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Timeline article

As the § Timeline section continues to grow in size and interest in the MCU's timeline continues to grow as well (look at the four talk page sections above), perhaps it should be split into a standalone article. Normally, I would call that fancruft, but since we have so much real-world coverage and external commentary, an article might satisfy GNG. And as a bonus, we would have enough space to create multiple timeline graphs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Such a timeline article is worth consideration given the number of variables to it and how much contents it currently has at this article. There have been prior attempts at Draft:Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline, though I think we can carve out a more constructive approach if enough commentary. I think we should establish from the start that this should not meant to be a complete breakdown of every specific event in the MCU media, as some are likely to attempt. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a hypothetical article would be similar to the current § Timeline section structure-wise, I think. If I remember correctly, the prior contents of the draft were textbook fancruft, which is a vastly different approach than what we are envisioning. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that any article like this should be structured pretty similarly to the current section, but I think it is too early for such a split. The article would not be that big, and even if we added all of the known projects to it over the next few years it would still not get much bigger (the timeline chart would get slightly longer and the paragraph on the Disney+ timeline would get slightly larger, but that's it). We would need more discussion in the "codifying attempts" subsection and more reception-style info from commentators discussing the timeline to justify the split, imo. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur. While I would not oppose work on a potential article being started in a sandbox, I do not believe a split needs to be made at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If no one else works on it before, I'll maybe attempt it after the new timeline book releases later in the year. -- ZooBlazer^talk 16:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We should probably come back to and discuss this in terms of our approach once that releases to see if a split is warranted with any changes or new information it presents, just so we can all be on the same page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Restarting this thread, I think a split of this content would be beneficial to reducing the size of this article. Make a summary of info here, and move the section as it exists now to its own article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems fair. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should start a draft of it at Draft:Timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and work through that collectively before making such a content move. I agree it would help. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've started it now by importing the contents from the section there. I don't have adequate time to work on it right now, though I will go through everything as I am able to. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely. Wasn't planning to just hastily make a split. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait, did something happen? Why the sudden change of heart? By the way, I've moved the draft to Draft:Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline, because Timeline of ... articles have a very specific definition and format on Wikipedia (i.e. "Timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" would mean a chronological list of the behind-the-scenes developments of the MCU). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The draft is so we can map out a potential split, which I don't think should be anything imminent at all. It's just a natural progression so the information can be compiled and refined if the article (inevitably) becomes excessive with its coverage. I still think the updated timeline will change a bit of the content we currently have, but this draft isn't us saying we're going to make major changes anytime soon. I've never seen specifications on how to use "Timeline of" before, though I could have missed something. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There is also Timeline of Pokémon and Timeline of Star Trek that exist, so there is precedence for that formatting. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NCLL#Basic naming. Timeline of... is almost exclusively used for list articles (which I don't think is what we're going for) and for real-world events. For example, Timeline of the Walt Disney Company. The Pokemon timeline does this right, but the Star Trek one really needs to be moved. I guess Fictional timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe would also work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I would actually prefer the shorter, current title, though the others could be viable redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with the move, but I wonder if Wikipedia at large might prefer Fictional timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: A user tagged the article as {{too long}}, and while that was reverted because it appeared they were doing that to many articles with no rhyme or reason, this article is getting lengthy with readable prose. So I felt it was a good idea to restart this discussion about possibly splitting the timeline section off because it currently is one of the larger sections here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Informal RfD

Should Marvel Studios: The First Ten Years (and its sibling, Marvel Studios: The First 10 Years) really redirect to § Marvel Studios: The First 10 Years timeline? Yes, there was a book with that title, but this was also the name of the decennial celebration as a whole, as well as an IMAX festival, a magazine special, and a bunch of other things. It doesn't seem there's a dedicated section for the 10th anniversary, but it feels more appropriate to point the redirect to just Marvel Cinematic Universe or Marvel Studios. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't point to Marvel Studios, and I'm neutral on just making it point to this article as a whole. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean, what's the rationale for pointing to Marvel Cinematic Universe#Marvel Studios: The First 10 Years timeline rather than Marvel Cinematic Universe#Literary material, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#IMAX 10th anniversary festival, Marvel Studios#Logo, or even List of Marvel Legends Hasbro action figures#Marvel Studios: The First Ten Years (2018)? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

My rationale for changing the redirect to the First 10 Years timeline is because it has the most information on the contents of the book with the timeline information. While the Literary material section does include other little details such as the authors, I figured it would be beneficial to guide readers to the header dubbed "First 10 Years" with more details over a one-liner in Literary material. I don't think Marvel Studios#Logo or the IMAX anniversary festival are that necessary targets given "First 10 Years" is never used at those. If creating a dedicated 10th anniversary section would help quell concerns, that could be a viable option, especially since the Hasbro toyline and the magazine special, among others, are not discussed in this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

James Gunn on the timeline

See what you can add. Pinging Favre1fan93 and InfiniteNexus. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

All Gunn has said is that he is unaware of any Marvel timeline keeper and never spoke to anyone about that. I'm not sure him saying "But I guess that’s why I think Vol 3 is now and everyone keeps saying 2030 or something" is a worthwhile inclusion or any direct confirmation of a differing timeline. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So this info seems better fitted at DC Universe (franchise). But I thought Gunn not being aware of a timeline keeper at Marvel suggests there isn't one as Screen Rant notes. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Except there is, as sourced in Marvel Cinematic Universe#The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline, "By August 2022, Marvel Studios had hired an individual to keep track of the placement of the studio's projects in the MCU timeline." Gunn not being in contact with this individual and not being aware of them does not mean their role is non-existent. This is speculation on Screen Rant's part. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Darcy Lewis

New character article at Darcy Lewis. Gonnym (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

While the character fits the bill of the taskforce as an original creation, that article is severely underdeveloped and does not remotely pass WP:GNG. I have WP:BOLDly moved it back to draftspace until it significantly improves, at which point its mainspace eligibility should be discussed among the MCU taskforce editors, and not an AfC, per WP:MCUCHARACTERS. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

What! I saw that the draft was under review, but decided not to intervene because I assumed it would be a quick-fail. (Also, it's Robert.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Lego Code Red

Not sure where we should put mention of this special currently. It should be noted here. My thinking is change "Live-action specials" to "Television specials" and just add it there? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this being produced by Marvel Studios? The connection to the MCU seems tenuous at best. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

All of the articles on it do not specify which Marvel unit is working on it, and both Marvel Entertainment and Marvel Studios posted the announcement on their social media accounts. I'm not sure it should be included in this article as I have not seen sources state it was for the MCU, but rather for Marvel's series of Lego television specials that they've done in the past. Without anything officially disputing these facts or confirming an MCU connection, I do not think we can include it in this article, let alone at Marvel Studios or Marvel Studios Animation, the latter of which where it was already addressed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

All articles I have seen reporting on the announcement steered clear of saying "Marvel Studios", just that "Marvel" is involved. So I think while we can say that Marvel Studios announced the special, I don't think we can say definitively that they are involved in any capacity. The poster does use the MCU's Avengers logo and references the Endgame teaser poster, but so far that's all speculation and OR. (FYI, I don't know if the special will ever meet GNG, but in case it does, I've created Draft:Avengers: Code Red. In the event it doesn't end up getting enough coverage to meet GNG, we can redirect it like we did with MPower.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think even emphasizing that Marvel Studios announced it may be a bit WP:UNDUEWEIGHT as they did not exclusively announce it and no articles are saying such. The Ent/Studios tweets were posted at the same time. The poster and logo are rather similar to the Lego Marvel's Avengers game, and just like Spidey and his Amazing Friends and Moon Girl, it only uses the standard Marvel logo. It is rather ambiguous on whose project this is from, despite the likelihood it could be from Studios, which is just pure conjecture at this stage. The draft is a good call, though I would expect a similar MPower-situation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Lego Marvel's Avengers is an MCU game. I'm half-expecting the special to feature MCU-themed minifigures and set pieces, in which case it would be appropriate to discuss here even if Marvel Studios isn't technically involved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thinking upon seeing the poster and (very limited) info released, that it would be as connected as the video game. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur. I just think we need more details to cover all bases before we were to concretely include it here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

About the Timeline book

Some things:

• Are none of the Marvel One-Shots included in the book? I don't have it but I've seen pages of it and at least the events of The Consultant are mentioned. Shouldn't this be added?
• Why haven't the years in the "As depicted in the MCU" section been changed according to what the book says? such as Iron Man set in 2008 or Iron Man 3 in 2013. The book also gives a specific year to Werewolf by Night for the first time.
• I think the correction of the placement for Shang-Chi on Disney+ with the release of the book should be noted, since there is a paragraph that reads "In November 2022, Bacon noted how Far From Home's appearance in the Disney+ timeline between The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Shang-Chi could not be correct given story points in each of those projects indicating where they fell in the timeline, and hoped Marvel would correct these mistakes as it had done previously with Black Widow and Black Panther". The correction was done so it would be coherent to mention it.

AxGRvS (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the correction of the placement for Shang-Chi on Disney+ with the release of the book should be noted

It has already been updated in the timeline. ZooBlazer 04:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, the timeline draft has been worked on and discussions are occurring over there how to approach a new timeline display. The draft is very close to moving, and once it does, that display will transclude back to here. In the meantime, someone can WP:BEBOLD and update this display if they choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline fallout

Kevin Feige has officially stated that any pre-phase 4 films and series not included in the book are not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's sacred timeline but are canonical to Marvel. How should we go about treating the series? We can't say alone that "they are part of the MCU," because there's a huge caveat to that. Should we state that the show was originally part of the MCU, but exists outside of the sacred timeline? ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have the entire quote? We have to analyse this in context. —El Millo (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the quote:

"On the Multiverse note, we recognize that there are stories—movies and series that are canonical to Marvel but were created by different storytellers during different periods of Marvel's history. The timeline presented in this book is specific to the MCU's Sacred Timeline through Phase 4. But, as we move forward and dive deeper into the Multiverse Saga, you never know when timelines may just crash or converge (hint, hint/spoiler alert)." -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(I knew this was going to happen the moment I saw the quote ...) Simultaneous discussion happening at WT:MCU#All Marvel productions are now from Marvel Cinematic Universe?. When we are dealing with things as tricky as canonicity, we must examine sources carefully and not make any inferences. WP:STICKTOSOURCE. We must interpret quotes exactly as they are written, we can't draw conclusions and make connections that aren't there — even if some sources decide to make those connections. This is what happened with the supposed X-Men film Feige teased at SDCC, and when people tried to claim that the DCEU was being renamed the DCU.

Feige did not say anything about Marvel Television shows not being canon to the MCU, or that pre-MCU films are canon to the MCU. He specifically said there are stories, not everything we didn't produce. And then he said canonical to Marvel, not canonical to the MCU. That does not somehow translate to "Marvel Television shows are not canon, and all non-MCU content exists in the MCU multiverse". InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

NWH did establish though that Tobey and Andrew’s films and the SSU exist in the MCU multiverse. That’s all we have though. Additionally some Marvel Television stuff has been stated to be adjacent to the MCU or in a separate universe as stated by those shows’ creators. Deadpool 3 should hopefully tie things up with some of the older non-MCU stuff (though we will not know for probably another year given it’s no longer making the May date next year). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

NWH did establish though that Tobey and Andrew’s films and the SSU exist in the MCU multiverse. It seems you are once again rehashing arguments that have been refuted many times at Talk:Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe). The film established that in the MCU multiverse, there is another Spider-Man portrayed by Tobey Maguire and another portrayed by Andrew Garfield, both of whom happen to have portrayed the character in the past, and these characters reference plot points from their other films. It did not establish that Tobey and Andrew's films are canon to the MCU via the multiverse. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Refuted =/= debunked. A credible source with ties to the creation of the book makes the claim that all of the adaptations utilizing MCU characters are canon to the MCU multiverse. Other credible sources back up the existence of the Marvel Cinematic Multiverse including the Spider-Verse films. This page itself reflects the fact that they occupy the same multiverse. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ATSV’s stuff is a mess because Sony does what Sony wants and that Collider article appears to fill in blanks not officially stated. As for the source close to the book, I’m not sure how that will work considering they also could’ve filled blanks in. As for Nexus’s claim, the film all but confirms they’re basically the same worlds we last saw (Andrew’s dialogue about his rhino fight at the end of ASM2, and then explaining what happened after is the biggest piece yet). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just gonna say, this taskforce has filled in a lot of blanks with articles that are filling in the blanks also. At the end of the day, we do reflect that all of the Sony stuff is part of the MCU multiverse on the page literally right now. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because Nerdist's EiC co-wrote the timeline book does not mean that the perspective from a different individual who writes on their site is somehow reputable. That tweet in the source you are referring to says "seems to acknowledge that Marvel's other movies and TV shows (Sony/Netflix/Fox) can be canon to the MCU and will merge into the Sacred Timeline." This is an opinion and not a concrete fact, let alone a confirmation from the co-author or from Feige himself, and yet another blog site interpretation of Feige's statement. We are not going to rehash past MCU multiverse discussions here, to save everyone's time and to not deter from the actual focus of these concurrent discussions. We take Feige's statement word for word, without spinning it one way or another. We go by the sources, not opinions or perspectives, which differ among such large fanbases. None of the content presently included in the MCU articles as officially recognized MCU content will be removed, regardless of what some may want to interpret or push for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re doing a remarkably bad job at taking it word for word. 1) Feige says the non-included series by other storytellers are not part of the sacred timeline. There is no credible alternative interpretation. 2) Nerdist is in fact a reputable source. 3) Some listed content on the MCU pages have never been officially or credibly recognized as MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "All but confirms" is the key — we are still waiting for the missing piece, for Marvel Studios to come out and confirm that Sony's Spider-Man films are part of the MCU multiverse. Marvel Comics did this in 2008 when they explicitly declared that the MCU was part of the comics multiverse, but notice how Marvel Studios has not acknowledged that the MCU is part of the comics multiverse. It doesn't work both ways; as you said, Sony can say whatever they want about the SSU and Spider-Verse, but none of that matters to the MCU. Marvel Studios, as the author of the MCU, is the sole authority on what is canon.

If we were to go by the logic of "if Film A references Film B, then Film A and Film B must exist in the same universe/multiverse", then the X-Men films must be part of the MCU, Michael Keaton's Batman films must be part of the DCEU, Alien vs. Predator must be canon to the Alien films, all the Pixar films must exist in the same universe, the previous G.I. Joe films must be canon to Transformers, and the Joker in Lego Batman Movie must be the same one as Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger's. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope you realize I'm not saying that they're not MCU. I think that with something like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., it's clear that the intention was there for it to be, and for a time it was affirmed as being such. It's definitely within the brand of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which editors here have made very clear they wish to honor. But in the canon, the quote unfortunately does mean that the timeline covered in the book represents the entirety of the Sacred Timeline. Other projects are canon to Marvel, which I'm not equating with the MCU. I am acknowledging that perhaps we really do need to change our approach to MCU and not MCU down the line, but I'm not ready for any discussion like that today. What I am saying today is that the shows "created by different storytellers during different periods of Marvel's history" are not part of the MCU's sacred timeline, that is how he phrased it. And hey, neither is What If...? but that is part of the MCU. So it's not a black-and-white thing. We can acknowledge that these shows are multiversal and still treat them as part of the MCU brand at one point in time, while emphasizing the distance between them and the MCU's continuity now. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless we have a source or direct details from the book which contextualize the relation of these other Marvel properties and the Sacred Timeline, we cannot insert Feige's quote on whichever article we so please and spin a narrative of non-canonicity to any degree, as that is not what Feige has explicitly stated in his quote here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Except that it is what he said: they’re not on the sacred timeline, the book is specific to projects that are on the sacred timeline. ChimaFan12 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

See my latest comments at WT:MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

See mine. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That reads more like he is talking about the 20th Century Fox X-Men film series and all the Spider-Man films than any of the MCU Marvel Television series, like how actors from those films have been returning in multiverse-focused stories: like how Jennifer Garner will be back as Elektra Natchios from the Daredevil film and Elektra in Deadpool 3. Plus leaks on Echo have said it confirms the Daredevil television series as canon. 113.30.191.65 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Leaks aren’t a credible source, particularly MMTSH/CWGST. They’ve said contradictory things. https://x.com/canwegettoast/status/1650507447490977793?s=46 , https://x.com/canwegettoast/status/1716200421243367859?s=46 ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, no, he’s very clearly talking about Marvel Netflix and ABC too. He said movies and series developed by other storytellers during different eras of Marvel’s history aren’t included. He couldn’t be much clearer than that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was my first thought as well when I read the quote, though I can see why some people are extending his quote to Marvel Television productions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So you’re being a stick in the mud over an interpretation that’s not supported by the text at all? How could you even think that to be the case? ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say Feige wasn't alluding to Marvel Television, I was agreeing with the IP that that was my first instinct as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I should point out that Kevin Feige was very much involved in Agent Carter (TV series). Not-so-different storytellers there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Feige was also involved in the X-Men movies. We’re going to have to wait to see if the Agent Carter series is mentioned in the book because that isn’t a surefire thing that it’s part of the sacred timeline. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but here are my thoughts regarding this quote. I think all we can say is the following:

With the release of The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline in October 2023, Feige wrote in its foreword that Marvel Studios only considered, at that time, projects developed by them in their first four phases as part of their "Sacred Timeline", but acknowledged the history of other Marvel films and series that would exist in the larger multiverse given they were "canonical to Marvel".[ref supporting the foreword quote]

As to where this needs to be stated, since Feige doesn't call out any one specific film or TV project and it is third-party refs who are cherry-picking which projects this makes "non-canon", we should not be placing this info on individual pages. I think there's validity to its inclusion on the television list, film list, and here on the main MCU page. I would add a caveat for the television list that the following be added to the end above: ; Marvel Television's series were not included as part of the timeline.this ref that lists all the timeline projects - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding this as you have described it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You were mad at me for invoking the multiverse similarly to how it is being done here. What gives? ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"mad" is subjective, and I have only taken an objective stance and approach in all of my contributions, especially in this matter. I merely agreed with this wording more. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No you have not. You misrepresented my words and accused me of making up false information when invoking the multiverse, including using words I’ve never said or proposed in any edit. You are not making those same objections here. That’s not objective, and your accusations weren’t either. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support something like that. -- ZooBlazer^talk 16:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal too. YgorD3 (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a suitable outcome per the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. This information is not just relevant to the television shows as a collective entity, but to each individual one, especially if we're trying to note their "tie-ins" to the MCU on their page. It's worth noting that shows weren't included in the timeline. The edit I make suffices perfectly because it never claims Feige says anything about a particular show or an "alternative timeline", it notes that the show was omitted and states precisely why it was. This outcome blocks relevant information from going on individual pages and considering the blatant manipulation and SYNTH going on from particular users like Trailblazer, I don't think the phrasing here is appropriate. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Added per consensus. Done so at the TV series list, this article, and the multiverse page. I did not add it to the films list as we don't really discuss other potential property crossovers outside the official Sony deal so this quote didn't feel relevant there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. Discussion is still ongoing. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimity per Wikipedia:Consensus: Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity. In this discussion there were 4 editors in support (Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, ZooBlazer and YgorD3). 1 editor opposing, you (ChimaFan12) and 5 editors not responding (@Facu-el Millo, @InfiniteNexus, @MarioProtIV, 113.30.191.65, and myself). So pinging them to get their input. Gonnym (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Wikipedia is not a democracy and that is not how consensus is found. Wikipedia:CONACHIEVE suggests that if a consensus is not reached due to well-reasoned objections based on Wikipedia policy (I oppose to this edit on the basis of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:NPOV), it can be seeked through arbitration. This is absolutely against NPOV because we are giving undue weight on the individual wiki pages to the (now clearly contested) POV that these series are part of the MCU without providing the word from Kevin Feige himself that says that they’re not. It’s clear from Favre’s edit that nobody here actually opposes, as they’ve previously said, taking Feige’s words to mean that those series aren’t in the MCU, as Favre’s phrasing says that the “Sacred Timeline” (Feige also uses the phrase MCU to distinguish the projects included from the others) is considered by Feige to only apply to phases 1-4 of content produced by Marvel Studios. We agree in concept, the other shows are not in the MCU. What we cannot agree on, and what it seems the taskforce has trouble with, is just how visible that information should be. The taskforce wants it excluded from the pages of every single project page that says the project is in the MCU even though Feige clearly says here that it isn’t the case.

I have had my words misrepresented with the clear purpose of preventing me from introducing an edit. The party that has done this has completely thrown out the principles he stood upon in his false accusations against me and how I conducted my edit to support this one. I take issue with that for the reason I’ve said before: members of this taskforce seem to object to very similar edits if I’m the one that implements them as opposed to someone else. And to be clear, I don’t consider this edit particularly similar, but the complaints I’ve received should absolutely apply to this one.

Consensus has not been reached. Either we need to continue discussing, or we need to seek arbitration. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, as of October 2023, Marvel Studios and Feige clearly do not consider only phases 1-4 part of the MCU. They consider phase 5 to be as well (as is evident from the Disney+ timeline), they only say that the book only covers phases 1-4. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I sadly see a future in which you are blocked if you continue in the direction you are headed. This is the discussion that was meant to find a consensus for the content to be added. While you made your objections clear, your peers deemed them less convincing. You can continue on your crusade and get more editors here, but reverting edits will mean edit warring. Just consider that before you continue on. Let the above editors I pinged add their thoughts before you continue on. Gonnym (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I sadly see a future in which you are blocked if you continue in the direction you are headed. That ship has sailed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted, Gonnym. But objectively speaking, consensus has not been reached. This is not a matter of personal preference but policy concern. The current popular vote (again, Wikipedia is not a democracy) does not address important wiki policy concerns. I have highlighted them and strongly encourage we all take a look at them before we proceed with any notion of consensus. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12: which part of what Favre1fan93 added to the article did you think was incorrect? It states pretty much exactly what it says in the foreword, only mostly paraphrased. —El Millo (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I could see the part about only the first four phases being considered part of the Sacred Timeline being an issue considering Phases 5 and 6 are MCU canon, which Chima mentioned above. Yes, that is what the book covers, but the info in the article should be worded differently. -- ZooBlazer^talk 21:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What ZooBlazer mentioned, primarily, but I've also highlighted my concerns in accordance with wiki policy. The agreement is basically a very much watered down version of my own completely factual edit, which I don't particularly mind other than the uncharitable accusations thrown at me when I was making mine that suddenly don't arise for similar components of this edit, which gives me ownership concerns. My bigger issue is NPOV. This edit is being limited strictly to a couple of pages. It does not make sense to me why this is, given that it seems to concede that Feige's remark applies to the Marvel Television shows (when that was somehow contested before when it came to my edit) and there are a lot of pages that have relevant "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" sections that only feature sources implying affirmatively that they are in the MCU. If the objection to putting this quote on those pages was that we don't know that it applies to them, well it's clear that a majority of the people now do, which makes it unclear why it cannot go onto those pages. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't seem to find your proposed edit in this discussion or in the article's history. —El Millo (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's the most recent text of it as it would appear on the Inhumans page:

In the book The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline, which was published by DK in collaboration with Marvel Studios, described by Kevin Feige as "the history of the MCU unraveled from end to end", Inhumans was omitted along with other Marvel Television productions. In a foreward, Feige stated that these projects are "canonical to Marvel" in a multiversal capacity with the potential of crossing over with future MCU projects.

I would support a blend of the two versions, as I consider the end to end bit choppy. The original version was this, which I think was superior:

In the book The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline, which was published by DK in collaboration with Marvel Studios and lays out every event in the Marvel Cinematic Universe's "sacred timeline", Inhumans was omitted along with other Marvel Television productions. In a foreward, Kevin Feige stated that these projects are "canonical to Marvel" in a multiversal capacity with the potential of crossing over with future MCU projects.

I think there should be a version that blends the original and Favre's version, as both of them are a bit choppy and Favre's version implies that things were stated in the foreward that were not. (Feige does not say only content produced by them is part of the Sacred Timeline, he says the contents of the book only covers projects on the Sacred Timeline, and it just so happens that the contents of the book is only media developed by Marvel Studios.) ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC) ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. We should summarize what independent sources say instead of coming up with an interpretation here. Just here for the facts (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll speak first to your objection to using Feige's quotes, I don't think that's supported by wiki policy. I think they're more than allowed. I think my proposed edit isn't original research, either, but it needs more satisfactory language in order to be implemented. I think Favre's version is right to specify what kind of content is part of the MCU, but Feige speaks more clearly to the kind of content that is not. It stands to reason that we should possibly incorporate the quote about storytellers during other eras of Marvel to illustrate what is not canon rather than just to say "x was omitted". It's helpful to note that something like Inhumans was omitted, as that is important information, but to delineate what is and isn't part of the sacred timeline, it doesn't suffice. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Feige isn't the MCU, so this isn't a SPS or ABOUTSELF case. It's someone involved in the project talking about the project. This is a primary source. It is not our duty to interpret it. Just here for the facts (talk) Just here for the facts (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

He is the chief creative officer of Marvel, has been the President of Marvel Studios, and is the primary producer on all of the MCU's films so under SPS, his quote would be valid and authoritative. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. He is one of several employees at a mega corporation. Anything he says about himself is allowable, but his own thoughts about MCU are not him talking about himself Just here for the facts (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The president and CCO is not "one of several employees", I disagree with that interpretation. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You can disagree, but you will need to find a Wikipedia policy that agrees with your personal beliefs if you want to use this as a reliable source. Just here for the facts (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I had assumed that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" applied to Kevin Feige. Would this be incorrect? ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Anything Kevin Feige says about Kevin Feige is allowable. Anything he says about MCU is wp:primary Just here for the facts (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, per point number 3 I can see where you're coming from now. I agree. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a primary source and shouldn't be used at all in an already huge article. When independent reliable sources are released, those should be summarized. We shouldn't interpret primary sources ourselves. Just here for the facts (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the proposed wording nor the use of a secondary source to support the wording (which is reworked to avoid WP:PARAPHRASE) violates WP:PRIMARY. Feige may be a primary source, but how it is being added to the articles does not violate our policy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Rethinking how the time line is presented to conform to one interview is wp:or Just here for the facts (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, none of what was proposed and has consensus to feature, nor where were were adding it, is OR. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Its not from an interview. It's from the foreward in an official MCU book. ZooBlazer 03:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats still primary. If its notable, someone who isn't paid by the company will write about all of this. Until then, we don't need to interpret primary sources. Just here for the facts (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we're not using the book as the reference... because it was covered by other sites. ZooBlazer 05:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Use those other non-marvel affiliated sites then. Just here for the facts (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That's been the case the whole time for the book coverage. ZooBlazer 05:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This talk section is about how we should edit the article in light of how we interpret a quote. Regardless of the source, our timeline should match what reliable secondary sources say it is. Not what we interpret it to be based on a quote from one of many employees. Just here for the facts (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

We do state what the head of the studio is quoted as saying because it is more concrete and official than reliable secondary sources' own interpretations of it are, as those often speculate on this matter, which should be avoided in this context. We are not introducing speculations or our own inferences of the quote in this article, though it has been paraphrased as necessary. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Negatives are absent?

Skimming through the article, I didn't find any noticeable descriptions of the frequent conflicts the MCU has run into with its collaborators, which - reliable news sources (BBC) had it - got to the point of MCU having a hard time getting Directors to direct their movies because no one wanted to work with them.

Including dropping actors for sequels in favour of cheaper actors and conflicts with writers.

To my knowledge this otherwise negligible norm of any kind of relationships (occasional attrition) had gotten to the point (having a hard time recruiting well-paid Directors for their fame-inducing movies feels extremely significant) where it actually becomes a significant description.

Also, it's probably worth noting the barrage of weak or meh movies they made (with the occasional good or great movie, intertwined into the mix), in terms of feedback and reviews, despite the revenues (which were often at least quite-good).

I only skimmed through the article, but it felt to me like it is carefully absent of negative portrayals in the relationships with its workers/collaborators and movie feedback.

This wiki article feels whitewashed. 109.49.139.84 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a reception section in this article, and separate article on that (Reception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe), you can add your points to those Indagate (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Before we get to that point, can sources be provided for these propositions? I am only aware of a single notable instance of an actor being dropped for a sequel. BD2412 T 15:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

- Hugo Weaving was dropped for someone else cheaper,

- Terrence Howard was dropped for Don Cheadle for cheaper and/or conflicts,

- Edward Norton was dropped for Mark Buffalo for conflicts,

If memory serves me. Haven't looked up any references, as I'm not going to bother. I haven't followed the MCU, these are just memories of things I accidentally ran into while checking daily news(*) over the years from 15~4 years ago.

* sources the likes of BBC, Guardian and SkyNews, which I was following daily when I was still living in England at the time 109.49.139.84 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of those are independent situations with their own circumstances that are discussed and covered at the individual articles they pertain to. Not every decision to no longer work with an actor needs to be documented in this article alone. We already cover some details in the "Business practices" section of this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)