Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Archive 3

I've had this in the back of my mind for a while that at the very least "Save this City" could get its own article much like Agatha All Along and now with the announcement that Disneyland is getting a one act version of the musical, does anyone else think the article should be Rogers: The Musical? There's definitely enough sourcing out there for it, we'd just need to hunt it down between what's already on Never Meet Your Heroes and then supplemental stuff, but I think we should consider this for an article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I too have thought this could qualify for an article akin to Agatha All Along. With the Disneyland act of it, I definitely think we can flesh out an article at the "Rogers: The Musical" title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess the question until the Disneyland premiere is how do we structure this? Ultimately I think there would be a "Plot" summary for the actual one act, but then maybe a "Background" for all the production info, and then a dedicated "Save the City" section (with a "Reception" obviously)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like

Draft:Rogers: The Musical. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 02:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice. I do believe "Background and production" that is there is a good, same for the "Depictions" and "Live performances". I think the former can have sections devoted to "Save the City" and the reception can cover that, as well as the reception to the live performance, if we can dig any up once that happens. A plot section could be of use given its' contents and intentional inaccurate portrayal of the events. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in the middle of copying the relevant stuff from Never Meet Your Heroes and Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe over to the draft, but had to pop out before I could finish. It looks like you've got that taken care of! InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

And now I've moved over the remaining info from Features. All we need to fill out is the critical response section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The on-screen depictions fall very close to

WP:TRIVIA. Gonnym (talk

) 07:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think outside the Hawkeye appearances, we can reduce the other poster appearances to a single sentence. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about this too last night. I agree with this arrangement. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I recently moved the draft on

It's a stretch to suggest my edit was a disruption when I was eliminating an unneeded repetition, and I refuse to pretend that having multiple pages for the same character isn't fancruft. The sheer number of references discussing them is irrelevant when we can include the crucial information on one page dedicated to them (or maybe some plot/production points in movie articles). Stuffing them with excessive detail cannot mask how many pages are just plain redundant. Wikipedia is supposed to be professional encyclopedia, not a fan wiki for comic books, so let's not treat it as the latter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Your characterization of your edit is mistaken. Virtually all of the material that your removed was not repeated in the article to which you redirected the title, nor should it be, as comic book characters are not cast, do not require special effects, do not have uniquely cinematic story arcs, are not reviewed by film critics, and do not receive acting awards, among other things. Nor are the editors here "stuffing them with excessive detail"; this is exactly the same sort of detail that should be included in an article on a notable film character with no comic book originating counterpart, such as Dominic Toretto, Apollo Creed, Daniel LaRusso, Inspector Clouseau, or Sarah Connor. BD2412 T 06:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that by "an unneeded repetition" I meant the very notion of even having a secondary page for Mystique. Anyway, whether comic book characters get cast or have special effects is a moot point, and plot differences could be discussed within movie articles when critics focus on them. Accolades can go in film/TV pages too and maybe a brief note could be left in character page saying a certain portrayal was awarded. Not to get too far into WP:WAX, but original characters made specifically for a film are fine to give their own articles as there's no redundancy with that. Am I the only one concerned with this place coming off as a Marvel/DC fansite by maintaining extra character pages? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 07:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing things for which you personally have contempt—multi-film character arcs, special effects, critical analysis of such performances—for things that are trivial to the rest of the world. In this scenario, that makes you Andy, in the cerulean blue sweater. BD2412 T 18:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be professional encyclopedia, not a fan wiki for comic books - did I miss where Mystique (character) was actually a professional article? Most of it is all plot and you wish to add even more plot to it? Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, as I noted a year ago, Mystique is not an MCU character and is beyond the scope of this task force. Secondly, there was a centralized discussion on this way back when, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 78#Superhero film character articles, and there was no consensus to purge these articles. As for our MCU character articles, there's clear consensus just from this taskforce alone that they are notable for mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: I am aware that Mystique is not MCU; the assertion addressed is that no articles should exist on film adaptations of comic-book charcters. BD2412 T 19:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That has been discussed before, see the WT:FILM discussion I linked. If necessary, I'm open to making

WT:NFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 19:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we actually need to go a step beyond that. Occasionally criticism revolves around a claim that the removal of "trivial" content from these articles would leave just a few paragraphs to merged elsewhere, or spread around the various film and other media articles. I have yet to see a coherent explanation of what content in these articles is, in fact, trivial, but I think that we should codify what is appropriate to include in these articles: background and development of the character, casting of the actor(s) playing the role, costume design/appearance/special effects used to portray the character, a synopsis of the characters storyline throughout the media, critical reviews of the performance and the adaptation, significant variations from comic book depictions of the characters, and awards won for performances in these roles. A trivial item properly excluded from such an article would be something like a list of other popular culture references to the character (for example, if Robert Downey Jr.'s performance as Iron Man was discussed by characters on The Big Bang Theory), or a list of all the foods Thor eats over the course of the films. BD2412 T 20:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say basically the whole of Mystique (character)#Accolades is trivial awards that shouldn't be added. BuzzFeed ranked Mystique 20th in their "95 X-Men Members Ranked From Worst To Best" list... Gonnym (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps that could be consolidated into a few lines indicating that numerous sources have ranked Mystique highly among comic book characters, with a handful of examples, but I also think that such rankings are qualitatively different from the juried awards described in the film article,

Mystique (film series character)#Accolades. BD2412 T

22:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't at all have contempt for things like arcs, effects, or analysis. What I do hate is how certain Wikipedians have given too much lenience to unnecessarily having extra articles (and seem to think MCU characters are entitled to special treatment) when they instead could consolidate the essentials into one character page. It honestly feels like BD2412 is grasping at straws to defend fancruft creations. Whether Marvel/DC fans like this or not, the truth is that the only meaningful differences (plot and maybe what critics thought of a film incarnation) aren't enough to warrant separate pages. Popcornfud previously summed up my thoughts pretty well, and to answer Gonnym's question: no I wasn't thinking of adding more plot to the original Mystique page when that already seems to do an adequate job of covering her film appearances. Having sections like "Reception" as well as "Powers and abilities" thankfully add some focus to other aspects. While that page itself still isn't by any means perfect, splitting off the movie incarnation certainly doesn't help matters. Furthermore, when we only have one general page for a comic book character (regardless of how many films they appear in), it overall is easier to maintain the quality of that compared to the task of keeping multiple pages in good shape. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

All of this discussion thus far has revolved around a new and relatively undeveloped 28K article that is still very much under construction. How would this possibly work with an article like Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe), which is 125K with 135 sources, describing the cultural phenomenon of a character with an overall story arc unique to the film series? Merge that into the 176K Iron Man article? BD2412 T 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Being "under construction" isn't relevant to whether the page is warranted, and as for Iron Man, the main page (which shockingly has nothing on reception) could probably include a paragraph or two on what film critics thought of his use in the MCU. How much of his plot should be added is debatable, but I personally wouldn't go beyond a paragraph per movie. It regardless is also unnecessary to split off a film incarnation there no matter how many citations are used or what the article size might be. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. I will request that in the future you not redirect without discussion substantial and well-cited articles created by the cooperative effort of numerous editors. We are all working together here to avoid actual duplication of content, and to maintain completeness and consistency across articles in this set. BD2412 T 04:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well this is funny:

WT:FILM#Useless superhero character articles. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 04:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that the Marvel Cinematic Universe cannot be a singular Good Topic (at least according to Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe films/archive2) I think we should try and get the individual phases nominated once the Phase articles reach GA. Also, WandaVision really only needs List of accolades received by WandaVision to be FL to be nominated. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WandaVision is definitely do-able and I've been contemplating nominating the accolades list. I've just been not active as much as I have been to get around to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What needs to be done to get the WandaVision accolades promoted to FL? I've never worked extensively with list articles and it seems pretty comparable already to the Avengers accolades which is a FL. -- Zoo (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also make sense to get Wanda and Vision to GAs? I plan on working on the Wanda page regardless. -- Zoo (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not think getting the characters in is necessary. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We have a substantial number of articles on characters now. I'd like to think at least one of them could achieve GA status. BD2412 T 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Well Thanos is nominated and Spidey is probably the next closest, but has some work to do still. The previous GAN page is a helpful starting spot for improvements to that article.

I guess on a side note, would we be able to nominate the Avengers as a GT if that page gets to GA? That would be the main page of the GT theoretically, and then we have the 4 movies and 3 accolades pages. The IW one would need to get to FL first obviously. I've been working on the Avengers article off and on for a while in a sandbox, but it has a ways to go still. -- Zoo (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously we'll need to see what happens for the shows already in development, but should we preemptively remove her in drafts for projects that have yet to start filming? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

For context, I see that it is being reported that Victoria Alonso has been fired from Marvel. BD2412 T 19:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Victoria Alonso. She was #3 in line at Marvel Studios behind Feige and Louis D'Esposito. She was also in charge of the VFX side of things and got fired a week ago. I think we should leave her listed for now until we learn more. -- Zoo (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412: Right, that's not in question. But she still worked on all the projects that were filming up to her firing last week and likely will still be credited. We'll know once Secret Invasion releases for those project, but the question was more about those that have yet to enter production because she's likely not to get any credit on those. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

One of Variety's pieces I read stated she would still be credited for the content that's already been in post and nearing releases. Anything that has yet to begin filming she likely wouldn't be credited for. Despite how much pre-vis work Marvel does, since her work was mainly for post and editing, she shouldn't be listed for those projects. For animation, if she's not already been said to be credited, then she should not be included until we know for certain. Also, turns out her firing was over her breaching her contract by promoting an Argentine film (especially heavily with the Oscars) rather than BP: WF and working with a competing studio. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure others are aware of a recent proposal that was implemented that affects many of the WikiProject quality assessments. More details on this change can be found here and here. I've already noticed some changes with draft and redirect-classes rendering as N/A recently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just been looking into that. I see no issues, except for drafts appearing as "N/A" class. They definitely should be noted as "Draft" class. It might be worthwhile starting a discussion on the shell talk page about it (though from our assessment table, the draft quality parameter does not appear to have changed so it may be a non issue). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello all, there has recently been a discussion on the exact accuracy of the MCU film budgets at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Budgets revisited / Caroline Reid and Forbes.com regarding a Forbes contributor who has been determined to be a subject matter expert. Through that discussion, which stemmed from edits within the past few months at the Quantumania and The Marvels articles with the additions of incomplete budgets, and notably edits here and here. Caroline Reid has reported on publicly available details for Forbes and other websites, and in that discussion, it was divulged that films such as IW and Endgame have much higher budgets than what is presently displayed throughout Wikipedia, with Joe Russo himself stating there are each upwards of $50 million in budget. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Those two specific edits you mention added sources written by contributor Christian Sylt, not by Caroline Reid. Is he considered a subject matter expert as well? —El Millo (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

From what I could quickly gather, Sylt's Forbes bio states he and Reid are colleagues who have worked together (primarily on racing and theme parks), and their article on Thor, TFA, and IW & Endgame cites financial statements and company documents that they gathered through their website FormulaMoney.com. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the budgets with the reference. —El Millo (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I am confused on what counts as an original character. Obviously characters like Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig fit the definition, but ever since Draft:Wenwu was deemed not original enough to not be listed as eligible according to the eligibility tracker, I am wondering how original a character has to be in order to be original. Namely J.A.R.V.I.S. and Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe), who are both composite characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective on original characters, they ought to be created specifically from the MCU with no prior apparent versions from the comics or other media before their inception. Wenwu is clearly based on aspects from several characters, such as Fu Manchu, Zheng Zu from Battleworld who was Shang-Chi's father, and the Mandarin, but was given a different name and appearance to distance from racist connotations.

The exact notion of what defines an original (and a titular/lead role) character in the eligibility tracker, at least to me, has been misinterpreted by some over the years. Composite characters are not in fact purely original as they combine aspects of characters who already existed. While I was not involved when the J.A.R.V.I.S. and Claire Temple articles were made and moved, the former is a start-class and can benefit from Reception, further sourcing, and explanation of how this is notable. Temple's article lacks Reception as well, and does not appear to pass

WP:GNG

with significant coverage on its own, though I presume both were moved given both versions' multiple appearances.

We also have

Layla El-Faouly still have a comics origin, despite a mostly new name being given for the MCU. Bear in mind, being an original or composite character, or even a lead/titular character, does not automatically qualify an article a place in the mainspace, as GNG must be passed, which I think some mainspace articles are not presently doing so. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 19:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. site on abc.go.com is gone. What should be done with external links such as "Turn, Turn, Turn" at ABC? Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym If I remember correctly on a guideline I had read before, it should be replaced with an archive URL of the original one. Centcom08 (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have not seen any notice on various other project talk pages,

Good to know! I think this would help aid navigating to more technical terms in our scope, such as MCU-specific concepts like the Multiverse and the Phase articles (one in the early body of an article if mentioned and another in "Release"). I don't think this should change how we link to locations, though some names for characters or teams could be repeated if the article is extensively long, such as in Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame or the list articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, the Phase articles is a good example of one that should be linked in a "Release" section no matter what. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey all. I just did a big add/expand/reformat of Rogers: The Musical since it premiered a few days ago. Wasn't sure who may have the article on their watchlist, but would love if anyone could just look over what I did for formatting etc. And for what it's worth, there are videos of it already up on YouTube if you are curious. That's also (along with ComicBook.com's review) how I created the plot of the show (another area I'd like eyes on). Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I just looked over the changes, and they look good to me! I did stay away from the new plot paragraph for now, as I'm planning to drive down there later this month, so other editors will have to take a look at that. I also took the liberty to BOLDly rearrange some sections, which I'm happy to discuss if needed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Thanks, I've adjusted/restored some of what you did and made further adjustments. We can start any further content/ordering discussions on that talk page. I just wanted to make sure there were other eyes over there! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work all around. BD2412 T 02:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering if parodies of the MCU (such as "Bart the Bad Guy") should be listed under the inspired media section of the main franchise template? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning no, because it feels different enough from The Good, the Bart, and the Loki. Or if they are similar, then maybe Bart the Bad Guy should be included. Are you thinking of any other type of "parodies"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I just wanted to address this here as three templates for Marvel Television series (

I have also started a discussion for the JJ temp at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Template:Jessica Jones (TV series). Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts given at each location. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed in each discussion to merge all of these into a new Template:Marvel television series. BD2412 T 02:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging those who have responded in the discussions. @InfiniteNexus, Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, and BD2412: Except we already have Template:Marvel Comics live-action TV and Template:Marvel Comics animated TV series, so that would be misleading. Perhaps merging some into the corresponding templates for Marvel's Netflix television series and Marvel's young adult television series is now in order? I could see those working hand in hand to provide a navigation hub for the centralized subjects in conjunction with the MCU navbox and the respective comics navboxes while also insuring enough links are present to alleviate concerns on that. I'm heartened on this after seeing others' responses at the discussions. Standalone templates for each of these series (bear in mind, there are none for Iron Fist or The Defenders) do not seem justifiable without any notable episode articles (such as with Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Template:Agent Carter (TV series), and limited character articles can be collected together under this manner, as can any connections to the wider MCU that is present in the current navboxes. I do think its best if we come to a common ground on this and work from there with the TfDs. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I have updated my votes in those discussions to specify a

Template:Cloak & Dagger (TV series). BD2412 T

03:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My thinking was that could become Template:Marvel's young adult television series and ten include content for Runaways (TV series) and the unaired New Warriors (TV pilot). If enough work gets done for the C&D/Runaways crossover episode in draftspace, that could be a worthy addition. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Just bundle them all up as MCU Marvel Television live-action series template. No need to use that stupid "young adult" name which never caught on Gonnym (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking into the mega template, we already have that with {{Marvel Cinematic Universe|TV series}}. Why do we need additional templates for the same exact links? Gonnym (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That was my initial questioning which no one has seemed to provide a reason for. I do not believe these navs were ever discussed in-depth in the first place. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: We already have Template:Marvel Comics live-action TV, which lacks the level of detail provided in the templates for the individual shows. We could add those details to that template, or make a template just for the Netflix show including that level of detail. I don't think we want to get into that level of detail on the mega template. BD2412 T 19:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Any new combined TV templates will just be duplicating what we already have in {{Marvel Cinematic Universe|TV series}} and others. My vote is definitely to have individual series templates if there are enough links to justify them, or have nothing at all and just make sure all of the links that would have been on those templates are included in the appropriate other navboxes. This is the same way that we do it for new Disney+ series before there are enough episode articles to justify a separate series-specific template. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would for the second option. While

WP:NENAN suggests at least four non-primary articles to be linked in a navbox, without any episode articles for these series, I find implementing the relevant articles into already existing templates (such as those for the comics versions) is a good approach until such episode articles manifest. We have clearly defined headers for the Marvel TV side of content and characters in the main MCU template that automatically pop up on these articles, so I don't see navigating there to be an issue other than the Marvel TV characters not immediately being placed with the series themselves, which I don't think should happen there, but can at the other relevant navs. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 22:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that any combined navbox for the Marvel TV groupings would also be duplicating the existing subnav content in the main MCU template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The Netflix series are connected, though. They are their own little universe of interacting characters and plotlines. I can't speak to other "young adult" series, but the Netflix series make sense as a single template. BD2412 T 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and they are all already listed together in the Netflix section of the main MCU template. So a separate one is unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of these have closed as no consensus. Do we want to do anything further with them? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little late on this reply, although now that all of them have closed as no consensus, I was thinking we could continue discussing our approach to this and implementing it. I don't think we would want to make any changes to the MCU navbox's TV series listing as the series and characters should remain separate for consistency. We should definitely include any relevant series and MCU version links in the comics navs. The Netflix series could just be redirected to the main MCU nav. For the Cloak & Dagger nav, those links are already included in {{

Runaways (season 3) (albeit a redirect), so we could probably just replace that season link with Marvel's young adult television series and include that at {{Runaways (comics)}}, with the series nav being redirected as well to avoid unneeded duplication of links. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 15:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already adjusted the comics C&D template here, so I'd be in support of redirecting the TV series C&D template to that one, and the JJ, LC, and Punisher templates to the main MCU one. Daredevil's should stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently working through implementing the MCU links to the comic articles to prep for the transfers and redirections, and will complete those if no one opposes it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Assuming The Blip eventually gets promoted to GA, then I plan to nominate a Good Topic that includes Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as the main article along with the Blip and the Infinity Stones.

The harder topic I'm working on is one for Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe). It's a little tougher because lots more articles would need to be included compared to Thanos.

The articles i know for sure that would need to be included would be:

• The Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
• The 4 movies
• The soundtracks for each movie
• Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame
• The 3 accolades lists

Beyond that I'm looking for some feedback on potential other additions. There are List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War and List of box office records set by Avengers: Endgame, but those types of articles don't seem possible to get through the Featured List process.

Then I was looking through the Avengers category for other potential articles. Would Avengers Campus and Lego Marvel's Avengers need to be included as well? My guess is the Lego game possibly, but I'm not sure about Avengers Campus.

Sorry for the long message. The place for questions about potential good and featured topics is pretty inactive so I figured I'd bring it up here. And yes I remember there are two more Avengers movies coming out which will add at least 4 more articles to this after they release. -- ZooBlazer^talk 21:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only articles needed for an "Avengers" topic would be the MCU article, the four released films, and the production article (since that has a lot of info split between IW and Endgame). Definitely not the soundtracks in my eyes, but maybe the accolades lists since it cover what is seen in the films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, Dcdiehardfan and I are working off of what Adam has in his sandbox to finish the production article. I haven't been able to get in touch with the main two contributors of the IW accolades, so that's the only thing up in the air right now. -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

So something like option 1 of this? -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think, but it wouldn't need the main MCU page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh oops. I misread you saying "the main MCU article" as you meaning the Marvel Cinematic Universe article. -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah yeah I meant the "Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)". My fault for trying to type it quickly in short hand. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't questioning it too much because it would have made sense to me if it was necessary to be included. -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

What's the reason for excluding the soundtrack and Campus articles? I get that trying to overhaul those articles would be a daunting task due to their current quality, but as

If those have to be included... oof. The soundtrack ones are giving me trouble because I'm not really an expert in those articles. I assume if soundtracks and the campus articles must be included, then so does Lego Marvel's Avengers?

I guess if this ever gets done, the topic will look nice, but this definitely complicates not just the GT goal, but I planned on getting this to a Featured Topic eventually. -- ZooBlazer^talk 03:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The first point says that a good article topic is a set of similar, interrelated articles or lists that cover a specific topic. I think that permits us focusing solely on the films and series and not including all the sub-articles just as soundtracks and awards lists. I think that warning refers to arbitrarily choosing some articles and not others, which would be something as excluding the Ant-Man films for some reason or not including films released in 2021. Stoping at the soundtrack articles seems to be a reasonable point to stop. —El Millo (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess worst case scenario would be to just include the main article, the four movies, and the production article. However, looking back at the former GT for the movies, it wasn't required to include all the subpages including soundtracks. It did have the accolades for the Avengers at one point, but it was removed during one of the last updates to the topic.

I feel like for the Avengers, accolades is a good subpage to include as it covers multiple parts of the movies and it's easy to maintain in the future if the scope is the movies and their accolades. Or if we want music, maybe we can make an article in the future focusing on the main theme. I know there has been lots of coverage over the years for it. -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but can't the Infinity Saga be a good topic? All the films are already good articles and the Infinity Saga list of actors is a featured list. —El Millo (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought since there was no article for the Infinity Saga, it was suggested to make the individual Phases their own topics instead. If that's not the case stop me now because that was one of things I've been prepping to work on next since the first three Phase articles are close to being ready for a GA nomination. -- ZooBlazer^talk 19:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That could work. One of the Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria says that the topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list, so I guess that's why The Infinity Saga can't be a good topic, but the phases could. —El Millo (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WandaVision could be a GT as well once the accolades become a featured list, that is unless the topic requires Wanda and Vision to be GAs as well. -- ZooBlazer^talk 19:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Since there are a few different discussions about GA progress happening I thought I would put together an update here:

• Black Widow (2021 film) has recently been promoted to GA!
• I have done a full review and c/e of Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings and I think it is close to being ready, just needs some work on the VFX section and maybe a few reception improvements.
• I am hoping to do similar reviews of the other Phase Four film articles soon as I believe they are all pretty close, maybe just have a few areas that need improving or expanding.
• ZooBlazer and Dcdiehardfan have done some work on the episode articles for The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. I am hoping to look over them soon and plan to get them to GA before nominating the series article.
• Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four is probably close to being ready but we were wondering if it makes sense to wait until the Phase Four film and TV articles are all GAs first.
• Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame is also looking pretty good, there are suggestions for improvements on the talk page before we nominate for GA.

Thanks all, adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

To add on, I recently renominated Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) for GA to furthur prep for an Avengers GT in the future. I also plan to work on the first three Phase articles while helping with the Falcon and the Winter Soldier articles. Once the Phases are hopefully promoted, then they should be eligible for GTs with the films of each Phase. I assume the Infinity Saga actors list should also go with each topic as well, and maybe accolades articles, but that's a topic for another time.

On a related note, I nominated Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as a Good Topic with Infinity Stones and The Blip yesterday. The nomination can be found here. -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Since someone just moved Hawkeye, Ms. Marvel, and Secret Invasion to have the disambiguation "miniseries" instead of "TV series" without discussion and were reverted, I thought I would start the discussion myself here. I think this change was actually correct per

I also think this change is the correct approach. There has been some discrepancy in some of these articles on what qualifies them as a miniseries (such as noting that in the leads), and I think Marvel's approach to these being miniseries has been clear. The forthcoming series articles do not use the miniseries wording, while the released ones currently do. If second seasons for any of them do get announced, we can always update the wording and article title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So I am suggesting we definitely do the following moves:

• Hawkeye (2021 TV series) → Hawkeye (miniseries)
• Moon Knight (TV series) → Moon Knight (miniseries)
• Ms. Marvel (TV series) → Ms. Marvel (miniseries)
• Secret Invasion (TV series) → Secret Invasion (miniseries)

I also thinks it makes sense to make these moves until we get season 2 renewals:

• Ironheart (TV series) → Ironheart (miniseries)
• Wonder Man (TV series) → Wonder Man (miniseries)
• Draft:Vision Quest (TV series) → Draft:Vision Quest (miniseries)

Have I missed any? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There would also be

Draft:Marvel Zombies (miniseries), and obviously the mainspace redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 22:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with renaming them to miniseries. I only reverted them back due to them being moved by a random editor out of nowhere. -- ZooBlazer^talk 22:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We previously discussed this at

WP:NCTV. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 03:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought I had responded here to say that I did remember us discussing this before but didn't remember where we did that. Seems like there isn't any opposition here so we can probably go ahead and make these moves. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we keep the redirects behind with the moves or just fully commit to miniseries and leave the TV series names behind? -- ZooBlazer^talk 00:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

We should redirect from the TV series names to the miniseries names. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, we always try to leave a redirect behind in order not to break incoming links and links on third-party sites. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made the moves, BUT there are a bunch of images and categories that will need to be moved as well. Favre will easily be able to rename the images, but the categories and Commons categories will be a little trickier. I will be nominating the various categories for speedy renaming per

Can something like AWB help with updating articles? Or do we have to do it all manually? -- ZooBlazer^talk 03:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

AWB to the rescue. (Though technically, the links don't urgently need to be updated, as they still work, which is the point of redirects.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Images are done. What's on Commons that needs moving? Is it just a few files or cats there as well? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it's just c:Category:Hawkeye (2021 TV series) and c:Category:Secret Invasion (TV series). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe I took care of it. Their renaming requirements are a bit more relaxed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Favre. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 FYI Someone has nominated several non-free MCU screenshots and GIFs for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 20#File:Thanos adds the last Infinity Stone.gif
• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 20#File:Infinity Ultron in What If...? (TV series).jpg
• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 20#File:Infinity War - Doctor Strange After Thanos Snaps.jpeg
• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 20#File:Thanos's snap from Avengers Infinity War.gif

InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI, if you, or anyone else, are not watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Article alerts, file discussions and other notice types pop up here as a way to keep tabs on what's happening with the content covered by this task force. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated, but on a similar note, there is a nomination for a separate file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 25#File:Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff (quadtych).jpg. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lylla is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lylla until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteNexus (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've finished going over Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1 to season 6 (including) episode articles doing various fixes including

• Adding and correcting links to lead to MCU pages and redirects per
  WP:MCULINKS
  , and other links, including actors, companies and websites
• Fixing styles per MoS
  • MOS:MAJORWORK
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Similar cases (ship and plane names)
  • Removing slashes per
    MOS:SLASH
  • Quotation marks per
    MOS:STRAIGHT
  • Ellipses per
    MOS:ELLIPSIS
• Infobox standardization fixes to remove from various maintenance categories
• Normalizing references via Wikipedia:ProveIt
• Adding {{Use American English}}, {{Use mdy dates}}, {{Use list-defined references}}
• Lead standardization
• Added writer and director categories
• Talk page project tagging
• Other minor various fixes

Next phase

In this next phase I'll need help from others.

• I've done several passes but I'm sure I might have missed some stuff and might have incorrectly modified others so would appreciate if others can go over these pages.
• Some of the episodes are missing a response section. I've tagged these episodes at the banner talk page with |needs-response=yes. Once one is added, this should be removed. The episode articles also appear in Category:Television articles that need a response section.
• Missing release information:
  • Most if not all of the episodes don't have information about the their removal from Netflix and their addition to Disney+.
  • Most of the episodes don't have DVD and Blu-ray information.
  • Some of the episodes don't have Netflix information.
• Inconsistency between the infobox guest section and the article guest cast section.
• The ABC.com external link is dead, so we need to decide on how to handle it. Current situation isn't helpful.
• Verify that the article class fits its current state.
• Copyedit for consistency character names in prose - either first or last name usage.
• bi-directional links - make sure that actors (main, recurring, guest) that have unlinked, section linked or non-mcu linked character or episode names have proper links in their articles.
• Optional: Create missing episode articles.

Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Would a subcat be possible for Category:Television articles that need a response section for MCU entries please? Indagate (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. The pages will slowly be added (or an edit to save the page will do it faster). Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice, thanks Indagate (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the ABC.com links, we can copy the most recent working archive from the Wayback Machine and then add (archive) at the end. See the Stark Expo website at Iron Man 2#External links for an example. There is also {{Webarchive}}, but I personally dislike the formatting of that template. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Thank you for all the work you've put into all these articles! I'm currently sitting on the seasons 2, 3, and 4 declassified books (kind of like the series' art of books). I had gone through and added info from the season 1 book a while back, and it's a large undertaking (at least for me, trying to read and enjoy the book, and then pulling out the relevant info for the articles), so not sure how soon I'll ever get to that. Outside of that, Release sections shouldn't be too hard as the info and sources exist on the season articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I've finished the first (several) rounds on the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter and Inhumans articles. As I said above, the articles still need a bit of work. A lot of the sources are dead and need to be manually checked and set to dead so the archive version is linked instead. And also ofc, new release information is missing in almost all of the articles. Regarding the links, those should be almost entirely fixed and anything with an article or redirect should be linked to. As always, I might have made mistakes so any fixes to that is always welcomed. Gonnym (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: I notice you've been tagging some MCU redirects with |mcu-importance=low. As noted at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria § WikiProject priority assessments, redirects and other non-articles really shouldn't have an importance rating and should be tagged as NA-importance accordingly — but, since NA-importance is already automatically applied to redirects, no tagging really needs to be done. I know Favre has tagged a few redirects with |mcu-importance=NA in the past, and while there's technically no harm in doing that (which is why I never brought it up), there's actually no point or need in doing so either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was completely unaware of this. I have seen some redirects with importance tags for other projects and assumed it was something we did here. Thank you for providing clarity. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: I keep tabs on our assessment table for MCU task force articles, and occasionally, some newly created redirects don't inherit the NA class, so those are the ones I usually go into to manually add the importance. Not sure why that's the case and if it's a coding issue somewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to go ahead and tag them all NA, so no one thinks they are missing an importance rating. BD2412 T 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why that is happening, but if you take a look at the OldID for one of the redirects you manually tagged, you can see that it does have Category:NA-importance Marvel Cinematic Universe articles listed at the bottom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there anyone that would want to work with me to get Endgame to FAC in time for it to hopefully be the Today's Featured Article next April for the 5th anniversary? I have no experience of getting articles beyond GA, so any help would be great. I briefly brought up the idea on the Endgame talk page a couple months ago, but now that I've knocked out a few other wiki projects of mine, I'm planning to fully commit to Endgame (and then hopefully get the other Avengers movies to FAC afterwards). -- ZooBlazer^talk 07:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about any other potential articles that could fit into the (hopefully) eventual Avengers GT, and I think one of the main subjects without a page currently is Portals. It and the main Avengers theme are 2 of the most recognized songs of the MCU. I began looking for refs and made a small start in one of my sandboxes, but I started thinking about the fact that maybe I was missing something since no one made a page already after 4.5 years, which is why I'm bringing it up here.

It's not common to make articles for individual songs from film soundtracks, but I was thinking this could be an exception as there's a good amount of coverage. -- ZooBlazer^talk 23:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a broader subject would be the scene itself. We have articles like Tears in rain monologue and Up opening sequence. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So cover from when the Portals first appear until around Cap saying Avengers Assemble? -- ZooBlazer^talk 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That would depend on how much of the scene has received significant press coverage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Feige said that all the movies and television series from Marvel made by other companies are now canonical in the multiverse of Marvel Cinematic Universe. So I think we should consider those movies and television series as part of the multiverse of Marvel Cinematic Universe. BigLordFlash (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, Feige did not state that. This is referring to a quote Feige wrote in the foreword to the MCU Official Timeline book, which is as follows: “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).” (source) Just because Feige and the book only address what is in the MCU's Sacred Timeline while acknowledging other Marvel people and companies made other Marvel content does not mean they are therefore linked. To state such is

WP:SYNTHESIS. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 15:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I will say, while it is seemingly obvious that a bunch of multiverse crossovers will occur in the future, we cannot make an assumption that everything Marvel automatically applies to the MCU now without sources directly confirming such as being true. Feige said the other non-Marvel Studios content were "canonical to Marvel", he did not state "canonical to the MCU" specifically. Words and how they are used matter in these cases. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

See my comment at

WP:STICKTOSOURCE. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So why does it have to be explicitly stated, verbatim, handholding the reader in specific phrasing here but not when it comes to whether Helstrom was developed for the MCU. I don't want to discuss Helstrom on here-- I'm just citing this example because right now it's ridiculous that the clearest possible phrasing is being reverted on the Inhumans page, yet we insist on keeping claims that aren't provable whatsoever on other parts of the task force's scope. It just makes no sense. I'm inclined to believe an emotional need for a certain thing to be true is driving key elements of this taskforce more than the actual facts of the matter. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We cannot infer from Feige's quote one perspective to suit one preference that is not explicitly supported by what he stated, let alone cherry-picking it for one article or another. I reverted your edits on Inhumans because that is not directly called out by Feige in this statement, which was very broad and vague for a reason. We stick to what the sources state and what is factual, there is no "emotional need" in that regard, and this taskforce has maintained a stance to be objective, especially when dealing with the touchy subject of canon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring your inconsistent and hypocritical rationale compared with your stance on Helstrom, I’ll just cut to the chase: Okay, tell me the “reason” it was supposedly broad and vague. I’ll wait. ChimaFan12 (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 - you tell me to discuss at the talk page, well I’ve been waiting for your response for nearly a whole day. What gives? You say the quote is vague (it’s not) and that there’s a reason why. Why don’t you tell us what that reason is supposed to be? Be mindful to source it, too. I won't appreciate if your obstruction of a well sourced edit is based solely on your personal speculation. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 - again I ask you to respond. It’s been well over a day and you’ve found the time to respond to other messages of mine. You violated the 3RR to tell me to go to the talk pages and discuss, yet I’m the last message on both and nobody shows any sign of wanting to meaningfully engage, least of all you. It’s just obstruction without any intention of honest interaction. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been busy with other commitments, and your first two responses were when I was either asleep or up late at work and a movie screening. While I have been catching up on other areas of the MCU articles, I have been focusing on reading the Official Timeline book and rummaging through sources for commentary on it to add to other articles I am working on (this discussion is not my sole priority on here). Feige's quote is broad and vague in that it refers to multiple Marvel properties while not addressing any by name specifically, so we cannot possibly come to our own conclusions as to which ones he is referring to, though we can go off of what other articles take away from it as long as long as they are reputable. I have found multiple sources which comment on what his statement could mean that I am working on putting together at the main MCU timeline section, which I can possibly get done within the next few days without further interruptions. Repeatedly reinstating your edits after they have been contested is in violation of

WP:MCURS. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's the content of my edit:

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.

Every word of that is true. Inhumans was omitted. Marvel TV was omitted. Feige said that projects not included are canonical to Marvel and that the book was specific to the Sacred Timeline. I used The Direct the way that you just said is acceptable for using it -- sourcing timeline information that comes from official sources. Therefore, it is a well-sourced edit (that doesn't include any commentary or opinion from The Direct itself) and you're misapplying and abusing WP:STATUSQUO to obstruct it until you can SYNTH with a different book. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The immediate following paragraph in the foreward states "this is the history of the MCU unraveled from end to end." There's no ambiguity there. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s been over 24 hours and you continue to obstruct without validating why. I’ll change the source from the Direct (even though it literally falls under the exception that allows the Direct to be cited), but you really ought to consider giving an explicit response. I can’t believe your argument is “well specific words weren’t used!” The scope of the edit I made is literally that Feige said that the history of the MCU comprises projects featured in this book, and Inhumans wasn’t included. Feige said non-included stories by other storytellers are still canon to Marvel in a multiverse capacity. I haven’t touched a single other area of the Inhumans page and you still refuse to discuss even though you say that a discussion has to happen for an edit to occur. You also say I’ve repeatedly been told why the edit can’t stay yet the literal problem and why I’m DOUBLE REPLYING to *myself* almost two days later is that you won’t say why. All you’ve said is effectively that you’re going to have to be able to perform SYNTH on the edit to suit an agenda you prefer before any changes can be made. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I and others have already explained in this discussion and in the concurrent one at the MCU article why we cannot take Feige's statement and automatically apply it to something that was not specifically called out or named in the book, which is SYNTH. I said I was looking for commentary on the timeline book and MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios to see what they could offer for a potential addition, not that I would interpret a source's conclusions as fact or bring in my own perspective as fact without a source. I've been rather busy with midterms this week and have been working on other articles in the meantime, and I already told you I've been catching up on things MCU-related (including the timeline contents and this discussion). You have at least one thing wrong,

WP:MCURS states The Direct can be used to directly cite the Disney+ timeline order, though not for contents of a released book which other more reputable sites have coverage of, which are more preferred than The Direct, and I and others have already introduced such sources within the MCU article. Something such as Inhumans not being discussed in the book does not mean we can state its exclusion automatically means it falls under an alternative timeline just because the timeline book only covers the Sacred Timeline. That is SYNTH, especially when any sites stating such are going off of their own interpretations of Feige's statement and not something that was directly, word-for-word, confirmed by Feige or in the book itself. Inhumans was not in the book, so we can't come to the conclusion from that that it is in a different timeline. It clearly emphasized this was for content from Phases 1 through 4 in the Sacred Timeline, and Inhumans (and other Marvel TV projects) was not grouped in a phase. We can't state something that was not actually stated as a fact. Trailblazer101 (talk

) 06:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t state anything about an alternative timeline. I didn’t state anything other than that Inhumans and Marvel Television were omitted, that Feige says the book is the end to end history of the MCU and specific to the sacred timeline when stating his reason for not including other movies or series, and that these series are canonical to Marvel and have the opportunity to crossover with the MCU in the future. Absolutely none of that is SYNTH.

It’s strictly against NOR to suggest (baselessly) that the reason it’s not included is because it’s not organized in a phase when Feige literally and explicitly says the book spans the entire MCU.

As for TheDirect, the specific exemption for the Disney+ timeline was requested on the talk page because the articles used cited official sources only and not their own opinion or social media comments. Therefore, this would count under that exemption. Other credible sources cited TheDirect in their publications, which is why it felt appropriate to cite TheDirect and not just someone citing them. Regardless, I have adjusted the edit to include a different source.

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.^[1]

ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

He's said that the projects are canon to Marvel in different timelines, but I don't think that means anything close to "everything is in the MCU." In fact, it's stunningly clear that projects not included in the book are not considered to be part of the same timeline as the events of the MCU. That is said astonishingly clearly. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. So we cannot infer from the book that anything not in the book is somehow confirmed to be in an alternate timeline/universe/multiverse/megaverse, etc. as Feige did not come out at say that specifically. We cannot simply note that something was absent from the book and say an interpretation (with or without a source of commentary backing it up) as a fact, when it was not confirmed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but he did say that. Clearly there's a reason you didn't pick up on that from the quote given you said "precisely" to a comment that states verbatim "projects not included in the book are not considered to be part of the same timeline" as though you didn't read it at all. The quote is again, "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." I'm deeply sorry you want to pretend that he means "except for the properties that taskforce on Wikipedia desperately wants to be included," but it just doesn't. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of it. Feige never said Inhumans. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Feige said movies and series by other storytellers during other eras of Marvel, which includes Inhumans and all of Marvel TV’s output. The edit is relevant and factual. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The book also don't include MCU tie-in comics (even the more notable one, Fury's Big Week, written by members of Marvel Studios' Writers Program, which established the timeline for the Phase One movies, is ommited from the book). The second Marvel One-Shot and the WHIH Newsfront web series also are ommited from the book, despite being Marvel Studios productions. Should we assume that these projects are not part of what is called the "Sacred Timeline"? Or is it just Marvel TV? Feige does not mention any specific project in the foreword. It would be best to wait for clearer confirmation first. YgorD3 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been trying to stress here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly those aren’t much of my concern. The comics have long contradicted the movies so it wouldn’t shock me if Marvel didn’t actually consider them canon. (We also haven’t had one since the restructuring, which to me is a tell-tale sign that they’re not something Matvel Studios wants to keep doing.) Given that Feige was specifically addressing the absence of movies and series, and that’s the domain that the Marvel Television shows fall under, it is more relevant to put the quote on television shows than anything else. By nature of the statement, he really doesn’t need to be specific. Why do you expect him to name drop every single show that’s not canon? It’s not practical, it’s not reasonable, and you demand far less proof when you guys try to establish that certain things are supposedly canon (Adventure into Fear, for instance, has never ever had anybody say that it occupies the same continuity or brand as the MCU.) We should simply state what the book actually states: films and series not included in the book are canonical to Marvel on a multiversal front but have the potential to cross over in the future. All of that is true. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, WHIH is just marketing as opposed to a full fledged production with the sole purpose of recapping details from movies, so it truly does not matter whether the book says something like “all these things I told you about? Well believe it or not, a lady on TV talked about them!” But primarily, they’re promotional material that doesn’t fall within the scope of this book. With the one-shots, clearly Thor’s Hammer is included in the MCU Disney+ timeline (from the same source as the book) and all the other canonical one-shots are included, so if you’re saying that errors happen, sure, I’ll grant you that that’s an error. If you’re saying that errors happen and all 11 Marvel Television MCU series are meant to be here? You’re overstepping. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The timeline book only discusses Marvel Studios' movies and series (including Disney+ content) from the first four phases. We already have sources in the main MCU article and the other articles that place and confirm the One-Shots on the timeline, as well as which comics and web series are MCU canon according to Marvel Studios; Fury's Big Week got Feige and Marvel Studios' seal of approval after coordinating on the timeline placement, and it was used as the basis for What If episode 3, while Marvel Studios worked on making WHIH and events discussed in it confirm its timeline placement, again, all as reliably sourced with confirmation. Those are not of issue. This timeline section on the MCU article only refers to media released by Marvel Studios, as is noted, per prior consensus to leave the other MCU content, such as the Marvel Netflix series or SHIELD, to have their timeline information detailed within their own articles.

Feige does not mention which specific projects not made by Marvel in the timeline book, and saying those different stories were canon to Marvel does not mean that the Marvel TV series are not MCU canon, just to state the obvious. Feige did not say other Marvel content is canon to all of Marvel through the multiverse, he definitely insinuated and hinted at future crossovers of Marvel characters from other properties. Again, Inhumans was not mentioned in the book. Stating an omission and the absence of something from a book which clearly defined what its scope was is not encyclopedic and is rather trivial, and nothing merited by the facts as presented. It is already stated at the Inhumans article that it is in the MCU but in its own portion (hence why they set it in Hawaii, and as a result of its failure, didn't want the likes of Eternals set there, as well to remind of Inhumans). We cannot state that its exclusion is connected to Feige's ambiguous multiverse timeline statement, though we can definitely introduce commentary from sources that discuss this (for which, there is currently a lack of, though some likely exist). We have to be very careful how we word things based on official statements and the contents of the book, as well as taking prior facts and confirmation into account, and as such, stating one interpretation as more true than another without much official confirmation or reliable backing is plain wrong for an encyclopedia to do. We can present all of the material that is known and what commentators said as a result, but we cannot provide that commentary as an undisputed fact. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Official Timeline book, a credible source with Marvel’s stamp approval and direct input, doesn’t adhere to consensus for how how to handle the page on the Wiki. It’s an official source that doesn’t play by your rules or agenda. The Official Timeline book never stated it is only covering stories by Marvel Studios. It never said “oh there’s other MCU stories we’re not covering here.” It says it’s the history of the MCU from end to end and other series are canon to Marvel (I only cover that in the edit through direct quotation and not interpretation) in a multiversal capacity. Feige’s comment is not remotely ambiguous no matter how much you’d like to SYNTH (the Hawaii thing? Feige not setting Eternals there has nothing to do with whether Inhumans is MCU… that’s laughable.) Feige’s remark is official confirmation, it’s not trivial and it is relevant. Your prejudice on the subject has no basis other than transparently trying to stick to an agenda that is diminishing every day as more and more facts come out. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The facts as we know them are the Official Timeline book only covers films and series from the MCU's Sacred Timeline from Phase 1 to 4. That is what we cover. We also cover the other Marvel Studios content confirmed for the MCU timeline, when and where. Inhumans in in the MCU, though there has not been a definitive place for it on the timeline. The Inhumans article discusses its MCU connections and it being part of the MCU. The notion that it is in the MCU but on a different timeline or something is not confirmed, or sourced, and using Feige's statement to insinuate that non-MCU and other Marvel content already released are canon to Marvel through the multiverse is still ambiguous, as Feige did not say canon to the MCU through the multiverse. (I was also not using the Hawaii bit to justify anything on the timeline, just how Marvel Studios distances themselves from Inhumans, which is not SYNTH). Feige never used "multiversal capacity", so we should not use that ambiguous phrasing, which some may interpret as meaning something it should not. We are going by the book and facts as Marvel Studios tells them, and no one here is stating Inhumans is not MCU or that it is somehow an alternate timeline through the multiverse, as those would be unverifiable claims. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Holy cow you cannot be serious. This is SYNTH of the worst kind. It’s dishonest, it’s manipulative, it’s sad. The purpose of the book is to cover the full history of the MCU and the sacred timeline. That is the stated purpose. It does that. It addresses the absence of films and series created by other storytellers during other eras of Marvel, stating they’re canonical to Marvel as an entity in a multiversal capacity and may cross over in the future. There is NO indication that that content is simply being excluded because they don’t fall neatly under a “phase”. You are lying about that. I only use quotes to describe "canonical to Marvel" and "on the multiverse note" is used by Feige himself to introduce these other films and series, stating that they have the potential to converge with the MCU's sacred timeline in the future. Multiversal capacity is a very apt paraphrase. I never invoke "alternate timelines" or say "Feige said Inhumans is in another universe." I say Inhumans is omitted (it is) and that the book is described by Feige as "the end to end history of the MCU" (it is). Feige's word is relevant. It should be on the page.

As a side note, using promotional materials that aren’t covered in the book and add nothing new to the timeline isn’t a good argument for non-Marvel Studios productions somehow belonging on the timeline when it’s exceedingly clear they don’t.ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You support another user’s edit adding an interpretation of Feige’s comments onto the page listing all of the Marvel TV shows, yet here you seem to indicate that we shouldn’t assume it applies to Marvel TV’s television shows. Could you please explain your viewpoint? ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Has there been any thought of moving away from being a part of WikiProject Film and just being our own WikiProject now that there are also television series (and a little bit of other media)? I was just thinking about it since there are places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars already. Not sure how much work it would require to even make that kind of change. -- ZooBlazer 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's also a sub-project of the Television. I personally think that WikiProjects should be for very wide topics, and MCU and Star Wars, as much as I like them, are really not that. Compare a project that deals with every single Film and related topics, to the MCU. The MCU is at the end of the day a task force, as it should be (and as Star Wars and others should be). Gonnym (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think when the taskforce was created, it was hosted under WP:FILM because we mainly follow their guidelines and WP:TV's. The § Explanatory supplements were meant as addendums that build upon those two WikiProjects' existing guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Echo all that Gonnym said. The MCU is much more suited to a task force as we are operating under the guidelines of the FILM and TV projects, not creating our own set of guidelines to follow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason we don't mention the genre in the lead of our TV series articles? "Genre" is listed as one of the lead elements at

Not only in the lead, but also the body of the article as lead is suppsoed to summarize the article (per

MOS:LEAD). If a genre is placed in the infobox and cateogories, it should also be written in the article with a source. Good find InfiniteNexus. Gonnym (talk

) 05:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There's been varying sentiment over the years to just nuke the genre parameters in the infobox because they are largely unsourced across the entire TV project. Personally, I think shying away from the lead inclusion will help avoid edit wars since you could call the vast majority of the MCU's offerings "superhero dramas", but then each might also have a third or fourth sub-genre that wouldn't really be appropriate in the lead, but editors would try to add there anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

So, I know the consensus that Wikipedia came to regarding the whole "miniseries" thing in the MCU. But now that Marvel changed their way of making TV and now are going to focus on multiple-season TV shows done the traditional way rather than the 6-hours-movie-split-into-miniseries model they used until Born Again, should pages like Wonder Man be retitled from (miniseries) to (TV series) once they are proven to be continuing under the new TV model? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I just answered a similar question regarding this at Talk:Wonder Man (miniseries)#Miniseries, I don't think we can take Marvel Studios' shifts in TV to automatically mean that every upcoming series will fall under those criteria. We know Echo still uses head writers, and so far, Born Again and WM are the only ones to use showrunners that we are aware of. We cannot jump the gun and assume it will apply to others just yet, so I think the current classification should remain, as the current series were all conceived under the "event series" notion (the new What If trailer even uses this wording). Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said over on that talk discussion as well, miniseries have showrunners too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)