Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Phil Coulson the character with most appearances...

"Clark Gregg has appeared the most in the franchise, portraying Phil Coulson, a character original to the MCU."

Well, I disagree with that, Bold Clone has stated it's because he's appeared in 54 episodes from Agents of SHIELD. So, could we say Daisy Johnson is a more recurrent character than Tony Stark or Steve Rogers in the MCU because she has appeared in two seasons of Agents of SHIELD?

I strongly disagree with this. I think every season of a TV show should be considered as a single appearance, otherwise, this is ridiculous.

Based on that, I think we can agree Nick Fury is the character with more appearances in the MCU. Magegg (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed before: Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe/Archive_6#Recurring_cast_and_characters_2. Gregg has appeared the most, as an episode is an appearance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

One other datapoint: user ninewheels0 on IMDB has calculated total screen time by character, and it's Coulson by far: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076512076/?start=1&view=detail&sort=listorian:asc -- Personally, I think the phrase "appeared the most" is a bit ambiguous, but I'm still in the Coulson camp.

As with the previous discussion, the wording was questioned and opened to suggestions to adjust to be more clear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we definitely should use another wording. If Agents of SHIELD is renewed for another season, then Coulson will still be "the character that appeared the most in the franchise" until Phase 10 or so, but he only appeared in 3 movies. It gets ridiculous. Magegg (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Four movies, two One-shots, and AoS. Fury was in six movies + AoS. FWIW, Chris Evans as Captain America has been in six movies (counting Thor: The Dark World and the Ant-man stinger) plus archival footage in the Agent Carter One-shot and series.

I would like to add that Coulson has appeared more than anyone else on SHIELD--including Daisy Johnson--in the MCU as a whole, crossing over from Iron Man and Iron Man 2 to Thor to Avengers before settling down in SHIELD. --Bold Clone (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember that this article is about the universe, not just the films, and so something like this has to be representative of everything that comes under the MCU. That means we must avoid bias and not try to balance which media means more based on personal preference. The obvious way to avoid this is to go on overall screen time, regardless of media, and from that we came to the conclusion that Coulson has appeared the most. Given that Coulson is an original character to the MCU, Gregg is seen as the major "glue" that connects the Phase One films together, he starred in the original One-Shots, and he headlines Marvel TV's flagship series, this also seems like an appropriate statement to make when considering the universe as a whole. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the fact Coulson is a main character on a spin-off TV show makes him more relevant than the rest of the characters, no matter if he has more screen time that doesn't mean he's a much prominent character. And he completely vanished after phase 2, unlike Nick Fury. Magegg (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is about the whole universe, not just the movies. And your opinion doesn't matter, or this would just be a big fight over opinions, of which everyone has one. The fact is that Coulson has literally appeared the most throughout the universe, and, as I said just above, "is an original character to the MCU, Gregg is seen as the major "glue" that connects the Phase One films together, he starred in the original One-Shots, and he headlines Marvel TV's flagship series". - adamstom97 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD is a very little piece of the universe. Even if it has 100 episodes or so, it's still just a single TV show. Also, it's barely relevant to the continuity. Magegg (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't make any claim about its relevance to continuity. 100 episodes is close to 60+ hours of content, moreso then all the films combined at this point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The show's irrelevant, IIRC the showrunners and Clark Gregg have said that the movies won't necessarily have to follow whatever the ideas the show sets. Magegg (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thought this might help: it's written in this article, below the cast list, that "Stan Lee, creator or co-creator of many of the characters seen in the MCU, has cameo appearances in all of the feature films and television series." This sentence implies that in order to be considered having appeared in a given work from the MCU, one only needs to have appeared once in the entirety of that work (indeed, Stan Lee has only been in one episode of AoS S1 and one episode of Carter S1, and in pictures seen in DD S1 and JJ S1). The length of time one appears in that work seems to be irrelevant. TV shows still a part of the MCU, certainly, but to count each individual episode of a show as an "appearance" gives the TV actors an incredibly unfair advantage. Clark Gregg has appeared in 54 episodes of AoS and 4 films, bringing his appearances to 58, by my count. If Gregg quit right now (hypothetically) and never appeared in the MCU again, it would still take YEARS for any of the movie actors to catch up to him. I would argue that appearing in a show constitutes a single appearance in that show. Rmaynardjr (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Feature Films table

Anyone know why the films table has not been updated with Ryan Coogler's name? I thought that if the tables are updated on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page the table on this page would be updated too. Richiekim (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It should do. Have you tried purging the page (either through dummy edit or the time in the top right hand corner if you have that) and see if that updates it? Sometimes templates or transluded items don't update straight away.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's appearing for me. As Ditto said, you may need to purge your cache in order for it to update. I generally have purging issues when we upload new versions of film posters or TV title screens. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, the purge worked. Thanks, guys. Richiekim (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Created a draft for Black Panther

This is a long shot but i created a draft for the 2018 film Black panther. As of now, its at Panther (2018 film) and may require moving.

The Winter of Steppes (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an existing draft at Draft:Black Panther (film). I've redirected your creation to that draft. Reach Out to the Truth 03:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the new draft for deletion. Making it a redirect does not serve the reader, nor will it be of any benefit once the article is move to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: @Reach Out to the Truth: Alright thank you. Edit 1. Please delete it. Its obvious that other fans are on it faster than i am. The Winter of Steppes (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ant-Man's link to Doctor Strange

This is a source on the topic: [1]. I think it's reliable, isn't it? Hula Hup (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is, but what exactly are you looking to add to this article? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It was actually a mistake adding this section to this talk page, I should have created it on the talk pages of the two films' articles, which I will do right away. Hula Hup (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lobbying for role

Someone is interested in playing a role: [2]. Hula Hup (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Many people do. That's not notable in and of itself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

TV Special missing

Please add Marvel's Captain America: 75 Heroic Years (2016) and information about it to the TV Specials section.

info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5281414/

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Captain_America:_75_Heroic_Years

63.85.214.4 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

We decided to leave this since it doesn't have a whole lot of MCU specifics in it, just some Captain America specifics. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

I felt like letting you know that Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. are making a new cinematic universe, the Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe. It was officially announced last year with Godzilla being the start of this universe. The next few films in the franchise is Kong: Skull Island, Godzilla 2 and Godzilla vs Kong. I just want to let you know because it should be listed. 108.248.163.33 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of obvious that this guy wants the universe to be mentioned under Cultural Impact#Other Studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.232.121 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters

The "Recurring cast and characters" list needs Tony Stark and General Thunderbolt Ross as they were in One-Shots as well as Films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.232.121 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That was archival footage, not "new" appearances. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Release and marketing

@Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, Ditto51, and Richiekim: It has been pointed out to me that we are listing release information before marketing information in all of our film and television articles, which is not right chronologically, and for our articles without home media information yet we are ending up with single subsections (Marketing), which we should also apparently be avoiding. Do you guys have any thoughts on this? Perhaps adding another subheading for the actual release information and ordering the subsections chronologically? Or giving the marketing information its own section? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Marketing is part of the release of the film, so it should be a subsection of Release, as WP:FILMMARKETING suggests. However, the overarching MOS somewhere says something about avoiding single subsections, which I don't think really applies, especially if everything from Release to Marketing, is separate info. I think the overarching MOS things is in order to avoid doing this: ==Release==<br />===Marketing== At that point, having "Release" is unnecessary. But in this case, it is, and I don't think we should do anything different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD renewed for a fourth season

http://marvel.com/news/tv/25831/marvels_agents_of_shield_renewed_for_season_4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Colums wrong in table

In the Pase One table US release date and producers are switched and I don't get why. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone was playing around with them over at the list of films article. They should be back to normal now, but if not you can try WP:PURGEing the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Most Wanted" is casting -- time to add it to the table?

The most recent episode of Agents of SHIELD was pretty much a back-door pilot for Most Wanted, and Marvel has started casting the show -- https://marvel.com/news/tv/25953/oded_fehr_and_fernanda_andrade_join_marvels_most_wanted ; https://marvel.com/news/tv/25676/delroy_lindo_joins_marvels_most_wanted -- time to add it to the Television table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 02:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would not consider it to be a back door pilot. They were simply written off of the show to allow them to make the pilot. We need to wait until the series is picked up to add it where you suggest. - DinoSlider (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The article currently doesn't mention Most Wanted at all, the name isn't mentioned in the page. At the same time Damage Control is even included in the table, when they both have as much reason to be included. Even if you don't include Most Wanted in the tables, there should be some mention in the television overview, that this is a series being worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.252.57 (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Damage Control has a put pilot which is practically guaranteed to air. Most Wanted does not. But it is covered at the list of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. Reach Out to the Truth 14:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

The franchise has been seen as an impressive and groundbreaking success in terms of a multimedia shared universe, though critics have found that some of its films and television series have suffered in service of the wider universe.

Doesn't belong at the top of the article, belongs near the "Critical reception" area near the bottom. 172.242.98.255 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The lead is meant to summarize the article, which includes critical reception. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Earth" Title

According to the official Marvel Database, the official Multiverse title of the MCU, is titled Earth-199999. Example: The Marvel Cinematic Universe (also known as Earth-199999) is an Amer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:835D:4CA0:D574:895A:257C:A822 (talk) 04:11, 04 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not lead material. It is noted in the development film subsection (end of the third paragraph). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Marvel's Captain America: 75 Heroic Years

This special has aired twice now on ABC, is hosted by "Sharon Carter" and has footage from the MCU movies and a preview of Civil War. It is just as much of an MCU special as the other 2 specials listed in Outside Material section. Can we get this added please?

It most definitely isn't as much an MCU special as the others. It is wholly a Captain America special, showing how the character has been portrayed in the MCU. Unlike the Marvel 75 Years special, this one does not include new production-type material as that one did. As such, it will not, and should not be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"As such, it will not, and should not be included." I am Favre1fan93 and all shall bow down to me as I have the final say on all things MCU wiki!" Seriously, could you sound any more pretentious? Not only did you not provide any facts to base your argument on, you then immediately dispose of the conversation like it's a waste of your precious time. Here are some actual facts for anyone reading this page to consider before making a final hasty decision. 1. The special aired twice so far; once in place of agents of shield/agent carter on the same channel, in the same Tuesday night time slot as both of those shows, which are both a part of the MCU. The second time, directly preceding Agents of Shield. 2. It has interviews from Haley Altwell of Agent Carter, Clarg Greg and Chloe Bennet of Agents of Shield, Chris Evans of the Captain America movies, also in the MCU, as well as other MCU actors/contributors. 3. It shows footage of Captain America in multiple MCU movies along with a little bit of footage from the older movies, but clearly promoting the MCU Captain America, which leads me to my final point. 4. Let's use some common sense here. This special aired twice on ABC during the Agents of SHIELD season which ties into Captain America Civil War, and during the Agent Carter season, which is a spinoff off the 1st Captain America mcu movie. To say it was used to help gain viewers for Agent Carter and to promote Captain America Civil War is just as valid as your entire original argument and, as such, should be considered by your standards of relevancy. Sure, it was Captain America's 75th anniversary this year, but Marvel is celebrating that in a myriad of ways, including their comic books, so a tv special, one that included much mcu footage and many mcu actors/contributers nonetheless, was not necessary unless to promote the MCU's shows and upcoming Captain America movie. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant unless you have some factual information to counter with. Thx.

Correction: First actor to portray multiple characters in the MCU

The wiki currently states that “Paul Bettany was the first actor to portray multiple characters in the universe” however that is not technically correct.

Paul Bettany character #1 = J.A.R.V.I.S. in Iron Man - May 2, 2008

Enver Gjokaj character #1 = Young Cop in The Avengers - May 4, 2012

Enver Gjokaj character #2 = Daniel Sousa in Agent Carter - January 6, 2015

Paul Bettany character #2 = Vision in Avengers: Age of Ultron - May 1, 2015

JAllenRager (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the choice was made to base it on named characters only, and not some actor who was an extra in an unnamed role who then went on to get cast in another role within the same universe. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, release dates are only one way to look at it. Technically speaking, Bettany portrayed his second character during principal photography from February to August, 2014, while Agent Carter did not begin filming until September. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Haddock character #1 = Autograph Seeker in Captain America: The First Avenger - July 22, 2011

Laura Haddock character #2 = Meredith Quill in Guardians of the Galaxy - August 1, 2014

If you really want to talk about the first actor to play multiple characters. But it's clear that only a named character should qualify for this attribute.

(and of course, not even counting the various Stan Lee cameos). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Television section

The Agents of Shield#Spin-off page talks about a coming spinoff called Marvel's Most Wanted, but I don't see it listed on this page. Is it the same thing as the Damage Control show? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a different series. It's not on this page as it hasn't been picked up yet, but it's covered on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. Reach Out to the Truth 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

WHIH

I believe a section on the WHIH online materials should be featured in the main MCU article, as it has now spanned two films and now has its own Twitter account as well as online videos. - Richiekim (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that they are not standalone works. They only exist in conjunction with the films that they are promoting. The most I could see is a mention as a viral marketing campaign in the Business practices section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Business practices would be good, something along the lines of how Marvel created this faux news network as marketing campaigns used for Ant-Man and Civil War. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I see this as a similar case to the tie-in comics: marketing for individual films that we can combine in one place to have a single decent set of information. I propose a standalone article for WHIH Newsfront, which I have been working on in my sandbox. I have based it on articles for real current affair programmes, but I made sure to emphasise that it is fictional, and that it is part of a series of viral marketing campaigns. If we create this, then the Ant-Man and Civil War articles only have to mention the videos, with a link to the main article which has all the information. Likewise, we would only need a small section here with a link to the article (I would create a Marketing subsection within the Development section, rather than adding it to the business practices subsection, but I am happy to discuss that), with the section here briefly discussing how Marvel has further developed the MCU using this viral marketing technique, which I do think is now notable enough for us to cover here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice page. Even if it doesn't make it to Wikipedia proper, it's clear that you've done some good work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in support of adam's page moving to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days now, so I'm going to go ahead and make the changes that I proposed above. If there are any issues, I am happy to come back and continue this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, would it be better to place the content as a subsection of "Feature films" (still titled Marketing), instead of where it is now? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

They do make reference to the TV shows. It's weak, but it's there. Otherwise the section would probably just go at the list of films page. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

But looking at it now, contrary to my comment above, it really isn't a "development" of the universe. It should either be a subsection of the films since it originates as filming marketing, or its own level 2 header between recurring cast and reception. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

How about as a web series section between the comic and cast sections, with a mention in the expansion to other media section? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'd be okay with that. Maybe it can be named "Web marketing" or "Viral marketing" so we are not saying it is standalone works, as Triiiple pointed out above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Gabriella Graves

• Why do you view Graves as not important enough to mention when Gerard Sanders is? I have given reasons why it is important and you have not replied!
  • How is it unnotable that Paul Rudd and Corey Stoll made their Marvvel Cinematic Universe deubuts outside of film? This is the first time anything like this has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalTruthTeller24 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at my talk page. Please choose one place to discuss and stick to it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Studios Origin Myth

If you read the contemporary coverage of the founding of Marvel Studios (reference 4), Kevin Feige is not mentioned. In fact, the original second-in-command of Marvel Studios (President and COO of Marvel Entertainment) was David Maisel. He is thanked as "Marvel Studios Founding Chairman" in the credits to Age of Ultron.

A long story in the May 13, 2016 issue of The Hollywood Reporter gives the true story in some detail. Maisel approached Avi Arad in 2003 and was hired as COO. Maisel claims to have already had the idea for an MCU where Marvel would own the character rights, but it also seems as if he did not begin acting on this idea until he became friendly with Feige, with whom he acknowledges having "late-night talks" about the studio's future. He blocked pending sales of rights for Captain America to Warner's and Thor to Sony and negotiated funding for a series of 5 films, was promoted to vice-charrman and then chairman when Arad left, struck a deal with Universal to acquire rights to use the Hulk as a secondary character, and is credited with the decision to begin the MCU with Downey as Iron Man. Feige succeeded him as chairman when the company was sold to Disney in 2009. I'd rewrite the entry myself if I had the time and expertise. Emvan (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of this pertains more to Marvel Studios than the MCU. This info is currently on that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

Under "TV Shows" the show Marvel's Most Wanted is not listed, despite getting an ABC pilot order. It isn't guaranteed yet, but neither is Damage Control, and that is listed.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/marvel-mockingbird-spinoff-series-most-wanted-adrianne-palicki-nick-blood-abc-1201574713/ Linklazer8 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Most Wanted was passed on, Damage Control was ordered on a put pilot and so is basically guaranteed to at least air the pilot.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

Superhero costumes inspired from Marvel movies. Zyanahault (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016

In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Television_series, Marvel's Daredevil Season 3 has some HTML/CSS visible. Please fix. 93.104.123.125 (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is transcluded from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was an error in the table over at the TV page. I've fixed it now, so if you are still having the issue you might just need to refresh the page or something. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Grammar Error

In the article, it says:

"Actor's contracts also feature clauses that allows Marvel to use up to three minutes of an actor's performance from one film for another, which Marvel describes as 'bridging materal'."

It should be:

"Actors' contracts also feature clauses that allow Marvel to use up to three minutes of an actor's performance from one film for anther, which Marvel describes as 'bridging material'."

Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adevens6 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Marvel's Most Wanted

Should Marvels Most Wanted be included in the ABC section of TV shows instead of listed in a Pilot section? Three reasons: 1. All the other shows are organized based on tv company, i.e. ABC, Netflix, Freeform. 2. The show was created for ABC. 3. It is a spin-off of the show Marvel's Agents of SHIELD. Thanks for reading!

It never aired and never received a series order. It is an unaired pilot. The network sections are for any series that is airing, or did air, or is in development with some form of guarantee to air (ie being picked up for series, or a put-pilot order in Damage Control's case). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

TV Series section table

There has been a disagreement between me and 2 other wikipedians on whether the cancelled TV pilot for Marvel's Most Wanted should exists in the "Television Series" section. As far as I am concerned, the table should only include the aired/to be aired series, any cancelled pilot or unaired pilot (not series) should be removed entirely (be it on a separate table header or not) plus it is not a TV Series yet (and supposedly will not be) to be put under the "TV Series" section but shall remain intact in the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series article.

My other point is on the notability of the main article itself which I am less concerned with, but still need to be mentioned here though since one of their argument for inclusion in the TV Series section is it has its own article. According to WP:TVSERIES guideline, television pilots which have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for wikipedia articles, and this clearly made Most Wanted pilot article not notable. I've been asked to send the article to AfD but I am reluctant to since I am not really a fan of article deletion plus I don't want to drag all of this into complexities. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 06:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, concerning the notability of the article, WP:TVSERIES says that to stop people from creating non-notable stub articles about TV series don't even get picked up and are forgotten about several months later. But there can be exceptions to that, especially if the editors put in the work and make a high quality article. I think the outcome of any AfD would agree with me, when I say that the pilot is clearly notable enough to have its own article from the number of high quality sources in the article, and the article as it is deserves to exist due to its own high quality. So in general you would be right in suggesting that an unaired pilot not get its own article, but this is one of the few exceptions.

As for its inclusion in this article, there is no established rule saying that the table can only include happening series, we get to create the criteria for inclusion ourselves. And I feel that an episode that actually exists, and is notable enough to have its own article, really should be listed here where everyone can find it. We clearly note that it didn't go beyond the pilot stage and that it is unaired, and we keep it separate from all the actual TV series, so I really don't see the harm in having it here, and in fact, I think we are doing a disservice to the pilot article and to our readers if we hide it away from then. Basically, if we have it in the TV article, but separate from the TV series, why shouldn't we have it in the TV article's overview table, but separate from the TV series? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't really add much else to what Adam said. The pilot passes WP:GNG to have its own article; WP:TVSERIES is to prevent someone from creating an article about a pilot that gets ordered and subsequently passed on, and the only info may be those two pieces of news, and maybe an actor. The info for this passed pilot far exceeds that info, and has enough coverage, on par with Aquaman (TV pilot) and Wonder Woman (TV pilot) to have an article. As for including in the table, the episode was to be part of the MCU so there needs to be a mention of it somewhere. Since it was another TV series (albeit just the pilot and passed on), it is best to be included in the TV series section, clearly defined that it was a pilot only that did not air. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

hmm, what was said seemed equitable Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A bit off topic but I just realized that Adrianne Palicki is in all of these failed pilots mentioned here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Look at that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. There are already three editors, so I am declining the Third Opinion request, which would be a Fourth Opinion. Try the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

requesting for telugu

Hi i am narendra. I'm a big fan of marvel films. I want this total mater and fictional charecters in telugu language. Saladi narendra (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the folks over at the Telugu Wikipedia for that. This is the English Wikipedia and we don't create anything here in other languages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Other studios

It seems clear to me that, although only studios that are making shared universes of superhero films are included, the impact is going beyond that. As such, I think we should add Godzilla-Kong (film series) and Universal Monsters (2017 film series) to this section. I ask for your thoughts since I don't have specific sources.Mumbai0618 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618

We limited this because it gets a bit sketchy when people can add any shared universe in here. My thoughts would be that if we have reliable sources connecting these non-comic based universes to the MCU, then perhaps we should just mention them here with a link, before going into a bit more detail with the comic-based ones. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Future of the film series

Kevin Feige on future films: [3]. Hula Hup (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Already mentioned at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Other potential projects, where it is more appropriate at this time since it still speculative. When something is more concrete, more could probably be added to the Development section on this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Marvel's The Inhumans on TV

Well, this happened: http://marvel.com/news/tv/26993/marvels_the_inhumans_coming_to_imax_abc_in_2017?linkId=31155907

So should we put this under the movies and the tv shows or just tv show since it is being released in theaters

Just TV shows. The first two episodes will premiere in IMAX theaters, but it's episodes from the series that are playing. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly state that it will be set in the MCU. While it most likely will be, it is original research to assume that it is. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

IMAX co-producing The Inhumans

Is there some way on the chart listings of MCU TV series, that we can indicate that IMAX Corporation is co-producing The Inhumans? Not only is this key info regarding the TV series itself, this is key historical information for the company itself. It has never been involved in debuting a new TV series, nor been a vital part of the funding of a TV series. The company is one of the major reasons that the show will debut in theaters, AND have a larger budget. Read about it here, on their own webpage. Sure, the series will play on ABC Network, but the series differentiates slightly from the other shows with its IMAX Corp. production, as well. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the prose here, and discussed where it is more appropriate elsewhere. We shouldn't be adding information like this to the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Adam. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Television franchise

So. Is the MCU a television franchise too or not? Why not added to the category of television franchises?OscarFercho (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This page is about a multi-media franchise, not a television franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016

Please list Avengers: Infinity War and its untitled sequel as having begun filming. Source: https://twitter.com/AtlantaFilming/status/799796416017268736 92.20.45.142 (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The source is an unconfirmed twitter account. -RM (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Television series chart

So as an overall question/suggestion -- wouldn't it be easier to give each TV series a designated color, and not have to change the color in the chart for every single season that is released? Just a thought. The MCU is continuously growing, and as the more come about the different shades of color are and will become more difficult to distinguish. In fact, why is there a color scheme block, at all?! --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Slingshot

New web series, coming December 13: http://abc.go.com/shows/marvels-agents-of-shield-slingshot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Working on it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the "Viral marketing" section should be changed to a "Web series" section and include both WHIH Newsfront and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot. FBISD (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WHIH is not a web series. It will either get its own section or be added to the TV series section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's currently listed as a web series in the main info box of the article. It is the first web series of the MCU. - FBISD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because "viral marketing" is not a field for this infobox and "web series" is the next closest to that, given how it is released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "web series" was added per an adjustable label. This will all be sorted out soon, because as I said, it may be more applicable to list it as a TV series debuting online than with WHIH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, from the first line of the WHIH Newsfront article: "WHIH Newsfront is a faux American current affairs web series..." It can be both promotional/marketing and a web series (as it is).

Series	Season		Episodes	First aired	Last aired	Status
WHIH Newsfront		1	5	July 2, 2015 (2015-07-02)	July 16, 2015 (2015-07-16)	Released
		2	5	April 22, 2016 (2016-04-22)	May 3, 2016 (2016-05-03)
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot		1	6	December 13, 2016 (2016-12-13)	TBA	Released

I was thinking something along these lines (very rough mock-up). - FBISD (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

But WHIH is not a web series in the same sense as a "traditional television" series is, or what Slingshot will be. That's why I don't think they should be grouped together, since WHIH is really marketing, and is noted as such by the heading in this article. So these two should definitely not be grouped together. It is less relevant of how they are released and more of what they actually are (marketing, versus an actual series). That's why I questioned whether Slingshot should get its own "Web series" heading, or be combined with the TV series. I'm lean more towards the latter than the former at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

How they are released is completely relevant to how we name them and how we group them. WHIH Newsfront and Slingshot are both web series ("series of scripted... videos, generally in episodic form, released on the Internet and part of the web television medium"). Both series of WHIH videos:

• contain five episodes (webisodes) that all relate to one another in an episodic form with overarching story-lines, including established beginnings, middles, and endings
• were released on the Internet
• are part of the web television medium ("original television content produced for broadcast via the World Wide Web")

Using the faux-news segment format is just another form of storytelling. The fact that the WHIH videos are used as a specific marketing campaign does not take anything away from their status as a web series. These WHIH videos are not a group of unrelated commercials or advertisements. They are two series that are meant to tell complete stories. Slingshot is also marketing. We need to look no further than the title, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot to know what it's promoting.

As far as a section title goes, perhaps "Digital series" would be a better title than "Web series", as "digital series" is what both the promo and website for Slingshot use. - FBISD (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, and Richiekim: What are your thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I would classify it as web series, digital series sounds like it is primarily downloadable content from iTunes or some other provider.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Should it be included with WHIH as FBISD is suggesting, or should that stay as "Viral marketing" and we add a new "Web series" section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say WHIH is more a kin to an advertising campaign than a web series as there is no overarching narrative, silmilar to Verizon's "Can you hear me now?" campaign.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That was my feeling, too. I'll see if Adam or Richie have any thoughts, but I think we can add Slingshot under a new heading "Web series" and make adjustments elsewhere in the article as necessary for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Throwing my two cents in. While I think WHIH is very clearly designed as viral marketing, it was a series and it was released on the web. The dividing line between a viral marketing series and a purely for-entertainment series is very thin and often subjective. I think "Web series" as a heading for both WHIH and Slingshot would be perfectly legitimate and even preferable. We can make it clear in the opening sentence in the description of WHIH that it was primarily intended as a viral marketing series - but nobody can deny that it was a web series as well. Kimpire (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Kimpire. WHIH is an in-universe canon series -- yes, it's marketing, but it still tells a story in its form. Compare with the Hulk/Ant-man Coke commercial (although that's not a particular exact comparison, but you get the idea). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been going back and forth on this one, and I'm not quite sure what direction to take this. I think the way to go may be to create a new web series section that includes both WHIH and Slingshot, and makes it clear what format they are in (WHIH is presented as an in-universe current affairs show, Slingshot is a more traditional spin-off from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) I think readers will be able to tell the difference. Note that the WHIH article is about the web series itself, not the larger marketing campaign, we just listed it as such here because it felt appropriate at the time, but this new series now may be reason enough to change. This would also line up with how we are using "web series" in the cast table here. I also think we should differentiate these web series from web television series, which is how we refer to the Netflix shows. If that means changing to digital series then I would support that. The big thing I think is to make it clear what all the different formats are, whether we are listing them together or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this, and have come around a bit to this with what everyone else has said. I'm going to work something up so we can see it and discuss further if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's the implementation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: RE you changing the WHIH "seasons" to numerals and not the "[film] campaign" wording I used: I don't think having season numerals are appropriate, given that isn't what they are. For Slingshot, yes, but not WHIH. So maybe we can come up with another option that's agreeable to represent what it actually is? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I definitely think we shouldn't be writing out the full name like that, and they are the first and second of something, so perhaps going back to saying season/campaign in the header, or something like that? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• I think that using numbers for WHIH works. They are definitely the first (1) and second (2) series of videos for WHIH.
• I do not think that the table needs the current note for WHIH Newsfront. That information is in the article. There may be many different versions and forms of digital series in the future, and each one does not need its own note, particularly when the article is linked right next to the citation.

• As a possible future example, when asked about future Blu-ray and DVD sales, Anthony Russo told Forbes: "We have gone through a little bit of a transition with that content, We can’t go into too many details about this but we are thinking, very specifically, about to do new ways of what you are talking about with Avengers: Infinity War. We’re just in the beginning phases of figuring them out. Yes, DVDs are gone but there is this wonderful internet platform out there called YouTube. It can make money by creating anticipation for a movie in the same way that a trailer does. There could do more elaborate versions of trailers, for instance, that are shot specifically for online that will never appear in the movie but that may appear as a kind of short film." Now I realize that without much concrete information, I am getting ahead of myself, but those promotional trailers for Infinity War would also be classified as a series of webisodes (despite Russo using the term "short film"). In such a case, we do not need to have notes for each digital series, especially, again, as their corresponding articles are linked right in the table.

• What was the reasoning behind the ordering of the sections for "Feature films", "Television series", "Short films", "Digital series", and "Comic books" in the article? I noticed that "Digital series" was moved ahead of "Comic books" with the reasoning "putting the video ones before the comic book's table". Was there some previously established order discussed in one of the older Talk pages? If not, the only order that I have thought of that does not include conjecture or opinion would be to order the articles based on release/publication order of the first entry in said section. Therefore, it should be:

• "Feature films" (Iron Man, May 2, 2008)
• "Comic books" (Iron Man: I Am Iron Man! #1, January 27, 2010)
• "Short films" (The Consultant, September 13, 2011)
• "Television series" (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Season 1, September 24, 2013)
• "Digital series" (WHIH Newsfront, July 2, 2015) - FBISD (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, the note for WHIH should stay because, as noted here, it is in-universe content, which is not the same as the films or TV series, etc. If more digital series arise, we can readjust then. And the order of the subsection are per WP:WEIGHT. Films are the most prominent, followed by the TV series, then the One-shots. Those are all followed by the new digital series, and comics having the least weight of the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "in-universe" content, as both the films and TV series are also content "in" the Marvel Cinematic "Universe". Let me give another example to see if this is what you mean. Had the Captain America Adventure Program happened, would that be the "in-universe" content that you're talking about? If so, we still do not need any notes that state that one series is "in-universe" while the other is not "in-universe". These are just different forms of storytelling. All of the detailed information is in the individual articles. Also, thank you for the information about WP:WEIGHT. - FBISD (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Captain America Program would be the same as WHIH. The reason for the note is that we are grouping them together here, so we should have a wee note as a disclaimer for people discovering the different MCU projects through this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"In-universe" in this context isn't referring to whether it's part of the MCU or not (which it all is of course), but rather it's presentation style. The movies, shows, etc. are for all of us (in the "real world") to watch the lives of these characters play out. You would never see Tony Stark watching "Iron Man 3", for example, because Iron Man 3 doesn't exist to him - it's just his everyday life as he's living it. "WHIH Newsfront", however, is presented as being an actual show within the MCU. Something that Tony Stark himself could be sitting on the couch watching in just the same way us real world viewers would be watching. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man Homecoming 2 coming July 5, 2019

No word yet if it'll be in the MCU: https://deadline.com/2016/12/spider-man-homecoming-2-bad-boys-4-1201867983/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I know we can't assume things, but to be fair, we've never wondered whether Star Wars Episode VIII will be set in the same universe as The Force Awakens... Lucasfilm hasn't explicitly said that it will, but that doesn't mean we question its continuity: it's a sequel. I know the Marvel/Sony deal messes things up a bit, but if Homecoming is set in the MCU I don't think it's really a leap to say that Homecoming 2 is also. Just saying. -RM (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If it was just revealed as an untitled Spider-Man film or sequel, then we could question. But by calling it by the placeholder Spider-Man: Homecoming 2 we know it is a direct sequel to the 2017 film and will be in the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I just posted this over at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Spider-Man sequel and then I noticed this thread. It does not really help with the name debate, but it is a good read and might be useful to this article. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, instead of just wording it "untitled Spider-Man Sequel" as you proposed, wouldn't it work if it was worded "untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming Sequel'? that way we know that it is still a sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming, but at the same time not "assuming" that it will be called Spider-Man: Homecoming 2 (as that is what we currently have on the page), as we do not yet know the title of the film. just a thought

76.174.163.150 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We have been told that the film is currently referred to as Spider-Man: Homecoming 2, so that is what we will use for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware that that was the case, would you mind providing the evidence of it being referred to as Spider-Man: Homecoming 2, as the only link provided on the actual page (the one attached to the date of the film in the listing of all the films) simply calls it that without providing evidence of it actually being called that (it states that the studio called it that, yet provides no evidence to show that the studio called it that), not to mention Spider-Man: Homecoming 2 has tended to be a fan name of the sequel since the original film was revealed to be Spider-Man: Homecoming, which is likely why the site refers to it as such, as it is the most well known and least confusing name for the sequel because of it being a fan name. I don't know the rules of it, but I don't think Wikipedia appreciates fan names or the like being used for articles and would rather prefer something like I proposed earlier of "untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming Sequel" as that is all the evidence we currently know about it, that it is a Sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming and does not yet have an actual title, just a fan one.

76.174.163.150 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

How is the Deadline source reporting on the information Sony released that the film, "Spider-Man: Homecoming 2" is coming at the date provided, not evidence of it being called that? That is its current title for the time being and not a fan name. I believe you have it backwards, as fans called the film "Homecoming 2" because of this announcement, not Deadline, a reputable reporting site, calling it that because the internet decided it. Had it not been the title Sony revealed, they would have not worded it that way, using something along the lines of "Sony announced a sequel for Spider-Man: Homecoming today for a release..." etc. We are in no rush and are using the verifiable info we have at this time, with the understanding that there is no deadline on Wikipedia and will be updated accordingly has new info is revealed. Not calling the film by this title would be you assuming it is not the title at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't evidence, what I was saying was that they don't provide evidence to confirm there evidence, if that makes any sense, basically what I was saying is that while the article states that they don't actually provide like a tweet or an interview statement or video or something of a person who works with the films saying so. think of it this way, I can say something like "the studio confirmed that Avengers 4: Whatever the most recognizable title to get people to understand what film I'm talking about is releasing at X date" all that I want, but unless I provide a tweet from Kevin Feige or someone from Marvel or some kind of interview from them or something saying that people will assume its just false or hearsay or something like that, thats what I was getting at, they can say that all they want, but they didn't back up there statement with any further evidence, if that makes sense. it is actually both a title and a fan name, before the listed article fans were automatically calling a possible sequel (as Marvel had already said before that that they had already been planning multiple sequels) "Homecoming 2" therefore making it a fan name, similar to how Logan was called Wolverine 3 for all that time, people were calling a possible 3rd Wolverine Solo movie Wolverine 3 and many news sites (including Deadline, Variety, the ones linked with them and other reliable sites) were calling it that as well not because it was the correct title (as we now know) but because it was the most familiar title to people due to it being a fan name and people knew what was being talked about when "Wolverine 3" was said, if that makes any sense. I think you may not have been paying attention when fans were talking about it, but "Homecoming 2" was used as a title for it basically since the title of "Spider-Man: Homecoming" was revealed, as we already knew/assumed with a high certainty that Marvel was already working on a sequel, the Deadline article is only a week or 2 old if I remember correctly, so it can't possibly be the cause of people calling it that, just because you hadn't seen or heard it called that before this article doesn't mean that it wasn't. I'm not saying Deadline isn't reputable, what I'm saying is that the way the article is worded and done and stuff isn't reputable, not the site, just that specific article, people and computers aren't perfect, even very reliable people and websites and such make mistakes or word things weirdly or whatever, so just because its a reliable site doesn't automatically mean every single thing the site says is gospel, they are capable of making mistakes, however few and far between they may be. they would have worded it that way even if Sony hadn't revealed that as the title as that is the most popular title the sequel is known by (as stated and further clarified above and stuff). also, the article didn't say Sony if I recall, I think it said something about a lesser studio that isn't very well known, I don't recall Sony ever being used in the article at all. I'm not saying we are in any rush and I'm not sure where you got the idea I was saying we were in a rush, I was simply saying that all we actually know is that its a Spider-Man Homecoming Sequel and we don't have an absolute 100% confirmation on an official title and as such it should be reverted/changed to "untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming Sequel", while I feel the current title of "Spider-Man: Homecoming 2" is rushing and that your statements feel as though you are trying to rush things (note that I am not saying that you actually are trying to rush things, simply that it comes across as though you are). its not exactly verified/verifiable (as they didn't actually provide verification for it and simply stated it, which as I stated previously can come across as hear say or whatever), I am also not saying there is a deadline and I am also not sure where you got the idea I was saying that. calling the film the current title that is on the site can actually come across as you assuming its the title due to reasons stated previously, I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply saying it isn't absolute and until it is confirmed as absolute or whatever that it should be the "untitled" title that I previously proposed (I think there is something on wikipedia about things not being absolute being counted as original research or something, so technically if I wanted to I could potentially say you are arguing orignal research and knowing that Wikipedia doesn't like original research it would likely be reverted). not meaning to come across as rude or anything (I have found that I unintentionally do that sometimes), I'm simply stating my argument in a way that makes sense to me and I feel would make sense to you (which is partially why its so long, I apologize for that as well)

76.174.163.150 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We understand what you are saying, but we don't need to see proof from a big reliable site like Deadline as long as it is clear where they are getting their information from. In this case, Deadline is getting its information straight from Sony, and we trust it as a reliable source to represent that information accurately. And it isn't like this is a far fetched claim, all they are saying is that the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming is being referred to as Spider-Man: Homecoming 2, likely just for now, until they figure out what they are actually going to do for it sometime down the track. That is completely logical. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Cloak & Dagger; Runaways to begin filming February 13

http://myentertainmentworld.com/tv-production/

Should Cloak & Dagger's TV entry be changed to "pre-production" or "in production"? Should Runaways be added to the TV Pilot section?

Cloak & Dagger can get changed to "Filming" on Feb 13. Unfortunately Runaways isn't listed because there is still hesitation with some in regards to whether it is part of the MCU despite it being a live-action "Marvel's..." property. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Currently that is an unreliable source, but it is good to know the general dates filming may start. Nothing will change unless it can be reliably sourced. Also, yes, at the moment there is no concrete evidence to suggest Runaways is in the MCU. All signs do point to that it is, but that would be WP:OR on our parts if we said so without the confirmation. If and when it is confirmed, the tables will be adjusted accordingly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That site is the first I've seen in regards to a specific date, but not the first time in regards to February. February was more widely reported more recently based on documentation filed to begin filmed in New Orleans. In regards to Runaways, there are sources (sources that are already used to cite multiple other things) that can be cited stating Runaways is MCU. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you give specific sources for this claim? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

C&D: Here's sources regarding February shooting: [4][5][6] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

R: Here's a few from sites used to source other info within MCU articles: ScreenRant(one of several articles), CinemaBlend, Comicbook.com, IGN (albeit by not identifying it as non-MCU in their list of Marvel shows as they do with the X-men ones). There's also other sites like Nerdist, though the sites are not currently being used as sources elsewhere in the articles (not that that necessarily matters, but I thought I'd stick with established sources). -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No new info from Marvel or Hulu has been released since the pilot announcement to indicate it is in the MCU. The sites you listed, while generally reliable, are speculating on the fact that it is indeed in the MCU. In situations like this, where it is unclear if the series are in the MCU (such as when the Netflix series were first announced), it is best to get a comment or announcement from Marvel or someone involved with the production on the matter. WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How are any of us in a position to that sources are just speculating or only reliable in certain instances, but not others. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

When we know exactly what was announced by Marvel and Hulu initially, and these other sources you provided are commenting on that announcement. When no wording was included in the initial announcements about the MCU, it then indicates that the other sources are speculating as such. Much like we are doing here, because the title has "Marvel's" in it, and the film was previously in development from the film studio. Again, while the verifiability can be questionable regarding this, there is nothing wrong in waiting to claim this as such. The article is currently a draft and being crafted as any other MCU article, so when it is confirmed, it will be simple additions in the draft and here as necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Still no confirmation that it's MCU, but there is an official cast announcement: https://news.marvel.com/tv/59021/marvels-runaways-finds-cast/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The cast has been added to the Runaways draft, as well as formatted and hidden on the TV series page and TV series actor list, for easy addition once the confirmation comes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

According to this article here the show "follows a group of six teenagers in the Marvel universe".... Does this verify that the show is a part of the MCU, well enough?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That article is referencing Marvel, who do not use that wording. Regardless, it doesn't specify which Marvel universe, so we wouldn't be able to use it to source the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Some interesting bits in this press release: http://www.disneyabcpress.com/freeform/shows/marvels-cloak-and-dagger/ -- "Marvel Television’s upcoming projects include “Marvel’s Iron Fist and the culminating Marvel’s The Defenders” for NETFLIX as well as “Marvel’s The Punisher” (NETFLIX), “Marvel’s Cloak & Dagger” (Freeform), “Legion” (FX), and “Marvel’s Runaways” (Hulu)." -- well, that doesn't help the Runaways/MCU question at all, as it lists Cloak & Dagger (definitely MCU), then Legion (definitely NOT MCU), and then Runaways. Still a mystery. But there is one more interesting bit in the PR: "Marvel Studios and ABC Signature are also in pre-production on straight-to-series “Marvel’s Runaways” for Hulu." "Straight-to-series", cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Currently it's 14-0 in terms of live-action Marvel productions titled "Marvel's..." being set in the MCU. At some point does it not just become established on its own that "Marvel's..." is MCU? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the fact that Marvel working with 20th Century Fox on TV series muddies this a bit. Yes, Legion is not "Marvel's Legion", but knowing that Marvel now does work on series definitively set outside the MCU, it is very possible they could decide to make a series in its own bubble world. Why they would do this? I don't know, but it is more of a devil's advocate situation, that it is better we don't assume if there is some doubt surrounding it. (For the record, I 100% believe Runaways is in the MCU given the evidence around it. I am just being cautious to not prematurely jump to conclusions.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thor mockumentary

I know this is not "canon" material, but the announcement of the Doctor Strange home media revealed that a second one of these is going to be released. I think as such, a mentioned should be done here. Perhaps in the "Outside media" section as a subsection "Mocumentaries" or "Satirical short films"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, with either title. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It could also be Team Thor since that is the name of both shorts. But I'm also thinking now, I don't want this to be too much of a duplication of the Ragnarok marketing section, because this is covered pretty well there. I don't know if there is any more info out there not already covered in that marketing section. Perhaps some reviews of it? That would justify it in my eyes. Maybe I'll try making a sandbox markup of it, if I can get around to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't that think we need a separate section for these "Team Thor" shorts. If we start opening up "Outside media", that would include many novels, junior novels, novelizations, non-canon comics, non-canon web series, etc. that are often currently listed elsewhere in articles that are more relevant. For example, Double Agent and Academy are listed in the "Marketing" section of the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. article. I completely agree that keeping the "Team Thor" videos under the Thor: Ragnarok "Marketing" section as well as mentioning Part 1 in the Captain America: Civil War "Home media" section and Part 2 in the Doctor Strange "Home media" section makes the most sense, so that the main MCU article doesn't become overly cluttered. -- FBISD (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We only include things that are notable. This has been covered a lot by reliable sources, so a small section with some background information and reviews is perfectly fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually check this article a lot as it has a good summary for me whats been happening in the MCU. I think Favre1fan93's original suggestion was actually very helpful. You, the people doing a great job of writing and maintaining these articles, know that in the Captain America: Civil War "Home media" section there is a mention of the Team Thor short, but to most other readers who don't, this information is really not accessible. I did not know about it until I just read it here. Could I have known if from other sources on the web? Of course. But that is besides the issue. I believe that we should add another table for the growing digital promotional shorts and series including this, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Double Agent and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Academy, which will help new readers learn about them, and point them to the the main article talking about them. Gonnym (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Mackie on MCU films and TV

According to an interview with Anthony Mackie, he states that an MCU film and TV series crossover would never work, since Marvel Studios and Marvel Television are separate entities. I wonder if this should be included in this article under Business Practices. - Richiekim (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Richiekim: Already ahead of you - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

Under "Feature films" "Unknown phase" should be changed to "Phase Four" Also, it says "Planet Hulk August 9, 2019" in "Spider-Man: Homecoming 2" director tab. Also the producers are in the status tab and the status of the movie is in an unnamed tab. There is also no Planet Hulk movie coming. Flipper13130 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Phase Four is speculation. Other info were due to edits on the List of films article that have been taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Venom

Is the new Venom part of the MCU? 82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

While no official confirmation has been made, this source says probably not since the Venom film will be produced entirely by Sony.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not part of the MCU. [7] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

New Warriors -- yet another maybe MCU/maybe not series coming to Freeform

"Freeform, Marvel Television and ABC Signature today announced their second project together, “Marvel’s New Warriors,” a new comedic live-action adaptation of the popular Marvel comic featuring young adult heroes. This marks Marvel’s first foray into comedy for a television series. The network has ordered ten 30-minute episodes slated to debut 2018." Link: https://news.marvel.com/tv/62577/marvels-new-warriors-headed-freeform-straight-series-order/

The MCU or not discussion is ongoing here. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

LEGO

@DisneyMetalhead: Per MOS:TMRULES, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)

• avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, The PLAYERS Championship
• instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus, The Players Championship (Capitalize IBM, IKEA, as initialisms.)" --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting one, but fair enough. Just looks backwards to look at.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"In-universe canonicity" of advertising tie-in materials?

Is WHIH Newsfront really "part" of the universe in a different manner than the video games (in which Aldritch Killian was transformed into "the MCU version of MODOK") and tie-in comics (in which ... I dunno, some stuff that contradicts the events of Thor 2, I think), or even the trailers (in which the Guardians of the Galaxy were trying to prevent the Sovereign from taking over the universe)? I mean, all of them contain pieces of information that aren't in the films they were created to tie into, so why is WHIH any different? (And yes, I am sure some reliable sources describe it as being part of the MCU, while others don't.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

^ A similar question I have, is are the official guidebooks supposed to be taken as canon facts or "just for fun"? Anything can be official if it has the Marvel logo on, but it doesn't mean it's canon. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Meh. There a lot of sources talking about Feige's disagreements with Icahn/Perlmutter (this one for example), which adequately explains why the films have never explicitly referenced any of the ABC and Netflix shows and probably never will. This essentially means those shows should be disregarded as "canon", but it'll probably be a few years (most likely after Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s run ends) before there's any official acknowledgement that they aren't part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And given that (especially prior to 2015) everyone was talking about how those shows are part of the universe, our hands are tied. But I find it hard to believe that there could be more sources treating WHIH as part of the universe than as mere promotional material for Ant-Man. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the way we have the WHIH stuff here means that whether it is properly canon or not isn't too important. The important thing is that it is viral marketing for more than one film, and it references many aspects of the universe (including the TV series) in addition to that. So the idea of including it here is that it is in the scope of the overall universe, even if it may seem like a bit of throwaway marketing.

Also, just because you feel like there are not enough connections between the films and TV shows doesn't mean that the latter are not set in the same universe. Until we hear otherwise, nothing has changed in the last four years regarding this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not just me who feels that. It's everyone. Because it's a demonstrable fact. The films have not directly referenced the TV shows even once since Agents began its run. Joss Whedon explicitly said (even though he is formally involved with Agents) that Coulson was being treated as dead in the films. The TV shows reference the films all the time, but you will almost certainly never see any characters or plot elements originating in any of the ABC/Netflix appear in the films. You will not see the dangling plot threads left by both seasons of Agent Carter filled in by any of the films. The Agents and Defenders will not be appearing in Infinity War. There is (at least there has been since 2015) a very simple reason for that -- the TV shows are run by different people with different (indeed somewhat conflicting) interests. And within a few years (probably after Infinity War) it will at some point almost certainly become "official". The closest thing to a direct influence the TV shows have had on the films so far is that the films haven't introduced their own version of Luke Cage. Believe me: as a religious watcher of the films, Netflix shows (even Iron Fist, which was terrible) and ABC shows (even season three of Agents which was worse), I would love if I was wrong, and if you could present me with a single third party reliable source that explicitly said anything in this comment was wrong, that would be great. But I just don't see it happening.

Anyway, such discussions veer dangerously into WP:NOTFORUM territory at the moment, since I'm not saying we should imply in our that the films are not set in the same universe as the TV shows. It's just a personal opinion that eventually it will be officially acknowledged (and not in the overly narrow "In the films, Coulson is still dead" and/or "The TV and film divisions are separate" sense) that the films do not take place in the TV universe, and at that time it should be added to the article.

Anyway, my feeling about WHIH is similar to the TV shows -- I don't expect the films to ever acknowledge their existence, but if RSes describe them as taking place in the same universe (something that can't be said for, for example, the video games and comics) then they can be included here. I'm just ambivalent as to whether that is the case.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not that I don't have a problem with continuity (like MCU Wikia trying to connect Metro-General from the Netflix shows with Metropolitan General Hospital with Doctor Strange), but my problem is with the guidebooks if they are to be treated as canon or just like some of the non-canon comics Marvel have taken the time to say that they definitely are not canon. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I already questioned the canon on the WHIH page, itself, and was told it was. You've discussed canon before and there's really nothing that can be done about the problems that have been created. Marvel will only try and correct what they want. And I've already said about Agent Carter short and TV series overlapping, creating obvious problems that are being overlooked, that people of Marvel only look at what they want to look, and not see all the glaringly obvious other details like Carter still not getting over Rogers right on top of her being promoted to SHIELD in 1945, when Agents said 1949. The short also has SHIELD already known, but the TV series which even continues after the timeframe the short is set, doesn't acknowledge SHIELD's existence, although I do remember the Kurtwood Smith character saying how SSR was going to do the dinosaurs, but I don't remember him saying anything about SHIELD. If SHIELD did exist, Howard certainly didn't make any mention of it. He looks nowhere near capable of being in charge of SHIELD. In season 1, he's been incriminated and had to go into hiding. The short was done without anyone thinking ahead. The One-Shot was really like Carter's epilogue to First Avenger, with the TV show properly taking its time. But talking about this unfortunately gets nowhere. Maybe a forum would be better. James Gunn said he even looks at them, so maybe someone else from Marvel will see these issues (which they full well know about). Also, since Joss has left Marvel now, his opinion really means nothing. Although, he was credited as executive producer for Slingshot, which I thought was odd. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)