Share to:

 

Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Change 'Captain America: New World Order' to 'Captain America: Brave New World'. 80.43.114.185 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has been completed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled projects and uncritical placement within the brand.

It makes no sense to include non-produced (or, as is the case with Helstrom and the consensus that was reached on its page last year and comments by the creator, EXPLICITLY non-canon, non-MCU brand) shows with the canon, MCU shows. As it is, it seems designed to confuse and preserve a narrative about Helstrom’s canonicity within the brand (which simply does not exist in reality.) The reason the changes make sense is *because* they honor the fact that the shows/imprints were initially planned to be part of the MCU, despite this ultimately not being the case.

Now, the argument could be made that the viewer can find the information that it is not part of the MCU on the page itself, but this is foolish. Many will take what is stated (and what is implied by the exclusion of clarification) in the infobox for granted, as I believe is the hope of those who maintain the presence of Helstrom/Adventure Into Fear within the MCU brand without providing the caveat that the show is not actually a part of the brand.

Because there are shows that were planned for channels but never released on the channels, it is simultaneously weird that they are included almost as co-equals with the other shows in their respective sections (albeit with the caveat that they were unreleased) and fortuitous that there are multiple incidents of this happening. Why is it fortuitous? Because that’s exactly why they lend themselves to a section of their own: shows or imprints that were either cancelled or reworked to not be in the MCU.

ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not canon vs. non canon, a wider debate can be (and has been) had about all of the Marvel Television series being canon or not. On Wikipedia we look at things from a real-world perspective, and in this case we have divided the Marvel Television series into several groupings based on how they themselves grouped the series from a production-perspective: Marvel's ABC television series, Marvel's Netflix television series, Marvel's young adult television series, and Adventure into Fear (franchise). As long as that is the structure of the articles, the navigation template here should reflect that. That is why Most Wanted is included with the ABC shows even though it never aired, and it is why we have the "Adventure into Fear" section even though it never eventuated in a meaningful way for the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That idea just doesn’t work, because these aren’t all things in the MCU. We don’t know how Helstrom was classified during production, which was largely after the Marvel Studios merger with Marvel Television, we just know that the showrunner (who stuck around the entire time) doesn’t consider it MCU and no official Marvel source has referred to it as in the MCU following that time. Yes, Loeb has in an interview categorized to the shows under his purview under those labels. That does not make much of a difference considering how much reality has changed the plan. There’s a much stronger case for Most Wanted, New Warriors, and Adventure into Fear to go under a category of their own which states they were cancelled or reworked, while acknowledging that at one point in time they were intended for the MCU. It’s much better at illustrating the actual state of what these projects are, now, in the real world. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I await your response @adamstom.97. ChimaFan12 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot)ChimaFan12, you really need to read WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCNEUTRAL and consider withdrawing this RfC pending initial efforts at discussion here, or at a minimum reframe the RfC prompt into a brief, neutral presentation of the editorial question, moving all the argumentation for your preferred position into your own !vote, while there is still only one respondent. This is not how RfCs are meant to be approached and this one could be procedurally closed as it stands. I tend to have a more liberal view of letting discussions proceed once they have started, but as someone who has responded to about 1,200 RfCs over the years, I feel I can tell you with some confidence that another respondent is likely to come along shortly who approaches the procedural rules more stringently and will close this down if you don't make adjustments. And honestly, even if you do, they still might, on the basis you did not make preliminary efforts at discussion here before opening the RfC. SnowRise let's rap 21:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Sorry for jumping the gun! ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries: template talks tend to have lower involvement than the TPs for articles, so there is an argument to be made that an RfC would be valuable for breaking any deadlock eventually anyway--although certainly this template can be expected to have more eyes on it than the average. That said, if you don't plan to withdraw the RfC pending further discussion, you should definitely address the RFCNEUTRAL issues ASAP, or else others may argue that the results were prejudiced by the one-sided opening prompt. SnowRise let's rap 21:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it from the page, are there any other steps I should take to ensure it’s closed for the time being? ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope: once the RfC tag is removed the bot should do the rest of the work shortly, pulling the notice from the RfC list(s) and stopping the FRS (Feedback Request Service) bots from sending any further notices to individual user talk pages. If discussion fails to resolve the issue here in a few days/weeks, you can just create a new thread and an relist exactly as you did the first time, but with a new, more neutral prompt. Thanks for taking the advice on board in the spirit intended! SnowRise let's rap 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is delayed but thank you for your help and advice. It made a stressful situation a little better. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, ChimaFan12 has started multiple discussions on this matter across several related articles.
As has been noted in the past and relayed by adam, Helstrom and the planned yet canceled Adventure into Fear franchise were produced for the MCU. The in-universe connections are minimal, such as Roxxon, and the planned Ghost Rider show and other details that were revealed and included in the franchise article. Marvel has never officially stated that these were not for the MCU. The showrunner stated his view, although that does not discount what was originally announced. The fact that this franchise did not progress after Marvel Television's shut down does not disprove the series is part of the MCU in some way, shape, or form. We've had some commentators express views that other shows from Marvel TV were not canon, though those hold no water without an official confirmation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry but the showrunner has explicitly stated it’s not canon and no other source at the time of release has ever suggested it is MCU. The RFC on Helstrom was not ambiguous: the show is not MCU. If somebody falsely said something was the cure for cancer, it would be reckless to treat it as fact because the source you prefer hasn’t said it *wasn’t* the cure. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is not "canon" is irrelevant. We are concerned with the WP:REALWORLD here. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not saying anything about canon. I’m saying it’s not MCU at all: not by continuity, not by brand, not by any metric. That abides by WP:REALWORLD standards. Please stop weaponizing Wiki policy (such as DROPTHESTICK) to insult and please be objective here. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I inquire, do any WP:reliable sources stake a position as to whether or not the shows that are the point of contention here were MCU projects? If not, what are the sources that come closest to addressing this issue and what do they expressly state or seem to imply? I'd like to remind both 'sides' here that this issue must be resolved, as with all matter of WP:verification on this project, by what the WP:WEIGHT of the sources indicates, rather than by the idiosyncratic logic that individual editors bring to bear on the facts (no matter how rational we feel we are being when we make this or that call). I have very limited knowledge on the subject matter of this template broadly, and less still for the specific shows and the corpus of sources being discussed here, so perhaps someone can bring me up to speed on what the WP:RS say on this matter? It will also be useful to have those sources organized here if there is a deadlock that ultimately leads to the RfC being re-filed. SnowRise let's rap 23:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of development, sources contradicted on whether it would be in the MCU. I can bring the sources here but ultimately we talked about it on Talk:Helstrom (TV series) (I’m on mobile rn but it’s under the heading “Series is officially not canon” where the sources get most detailed. There’s one conversation before it where other sources may yet be found but the gist of what I can tell you is the showrunner himself stated in no uncertain terms that the show is not attached to the MCU in a few interviews, including saying outright it was nice not being tied down to canon. No other reliable sources at the time of release stated it was still MCU. What changed? Marvel Television got absorbed into Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige became CCO of Marvel as a whole. Jeph Loeb, head of Marvel TV, was dismissed from the company. The whole company was essentially restructured and by the end of it, the last (and only official) word was that the show was not part of the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For navigational purposes, which generally should be what is easiest for readers to accomplish, doesn't dictate the changes you are making. Most Wanted and New Warriors both easily fit in the ABC and YA series headings, as both are covered at those larger overview articles, as well as other relevant series within those overviews that did air. So then at that point, given we have the Adventure into Fear article, it can and should exist as the subheader it is now. It doesn't make sense to put just that under a new one such as "Reworked" etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the changes I am making are the easiest to follow. These projects were cancelled and/or are not MCU to begin with, as is the case for Helstrom. I’m being very charitable given the dubious nature of it ever having been the plan to place the show in the MCU brand (which many sources at the time of development contradict completely) that I’m suggesting it be included at all, but the more I read the more I believe it does not belong there to begin with. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making arguments here that are unrelated to navigation. The simple fact is that this navigation template aligns with the article structure, so if you want to change the layout here you first need to gain consensus for changing the article structure at the other discussions that are underway. There is no point continuing this conversation until that is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are intrinsically linked. Helstrom belongs neither on the article or the template without the caveat that it’s not part of the MCU, and frankly given the sources we had throughout the development process, it doesn’t even belong there. I am making the appropriate argument regarding its placement and inclusion. What’s funny is that the article, particularly that of the list of Marvel TV shows, doesn’t include Most Wanted or New Warriors where you’re insisting they have to be placed. Even the main MCU article doesn’t. If they are to be included, they should be included in their own section, considering that’s how they’re treated everywhere else on the Wiki. Adventure into Fear needs to be placed under that same category if we’re charitable enough to include it at all, which is dubious at best. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Adamstom is saying is that one will come with the other, the main one being the other one. If it is concluded that Helstrom isn't and never was MCU, and it is removed from the article, then it will inevitably be removed from this template as well. If it is concluded that Helstrom was at least once officially part of the MCU, then it will most likely not be removed from the template. So it's better not to waste time and effort on this particular discussion until the other one is settled. —El Millo (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was concluded that Helstrom isn’t MCU. That’s why I’m suggesting the changes to begin with. They’re not playing ball and honoring the consensus that was fairly and properly arrived at. That consensus, and the facts themselves, support at the bare minimum creating any distance between Helstrom and the rest of the shows on the template in the manner I’m proposing. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that Helstrom is not part of "Adventure into Fear" and there is no consensus that "Adventure into Fear" is not a valid subarticle of the MCU TV list. Until there is consensus for one of those two ideas, Helstrom will be staying where it is in the navbox. Simple as that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those conclusions would go against the change I’ve been proposing: moving it and all the cancelled or reworked shows into a section clearly designating those shows as such. We have no qualms calling Most Wanted or New Warriors cancelled projects, why aren’t we acknowledging the same is true of Helstrom being reworked and AIF not coming to its intended fruition? Even, charitably, allowing that they’re MCU at all. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

The Marvels soundtrack article is now out. Can you add it. 2A02:214A:8014:B700:45CA:3FEC:62A8:E244 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and characters

I think we should reorganize the characters in a different way because it doesn't make sense to split them from Marvel Studios and Marvel Television. It feels like the characters from Marvel Television will only appear in Marvel Television productions, which it's not true since Wilson Fisk appearance in Hawkeye. My suggestion it's to split them for A-L characters, M-Z characters and related characters, with the Marvel Television characters who didn't appear yet in MCU being moved to related characters section. BigLordFlashtalk 17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that's the current delineation in the template, outside of Matt Murdock still being in the Marvel Television section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is arranged as such because if we bundled all of the Studios and Television characters together, even with the alpha order in tact, it would still be needlessly excessive. Plus, we're not saying the Marvel Television characters are only in MT productions, these are just characters that first appeared in said productions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it's categorized by the project they first appeared in. Those introduced in Marvel Studios projects go under "Marvel Studios", those introduced in Marvel Television projects go under "Marvel Television", and those introduced in non-MCU projects go under "Related" (which should probably renamed to "Other" or similar). InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could do something to clarify that those headings mean "Introduced in a Marvel Studios project" and "Introduced in a Marvel Television project"? I also agree that the "Related" heading isn't ideal, it suggests that they are just characters that are related to the MCU rather than characters that have appeared in MCU projects. But "Other" could cause problems since there is already an "Other" heading just below it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly adjusted the labels to "Introduced in Marvel Studios media", "Introduced in Marvel Television media", and "Introduced in other franchises", thinking those are more reflective of the contents. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations Adjustment

This has been on my mind for a while now so I thought I would bring it up to discuss: Should we update the abbreviations for the Marvel Studios and Marvel Television subheaders of this template to more closely reflect what those sections are grouping in scope? Currently, the section abbrs. are {{Marvel Cinematic Universe|Films}} for Marvel Studios and {{Marvel Cinematic Universe|TV series}} for Marvel Television. While this temp was originally split between the films and series (and thus, so were the abbrs.) for many years, since it was reorganized a few years ago, it seems admittedly confusing to have the "Films" abbr be used for a section that includes more than just films. To avoid potentially being confusing for some who are unfamiliar with how this temp works (ie, seeing the "Films" abbr on the WandaVision article), I think they should be changed to using the companies as the abbrs: {{Marvel Cinematic Universe|Studios}} and {{Marvel Cinematic Universe|Television}}. I was also wondering if there would be a way to automatically make this change en masse given the sheer amount of articles these abbr. tags are used on. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a good way to update all the articles then I think it makes sense to clean this up sooner than later. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:AWB may be able to automatically handle this, although I'm not definitively sure if I could get it to readily work on my end. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is  Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101: Why is it |group2=Television in Phase 4 instead of |abbr2= Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Television group in Phase Four is to display the Phase Four series, while the abbreviation is internal code to display the overall first parent group, such as the "Television" abbreviation being used to display the Marvel Television group. We can't have an abbreviation within a group, hence why it didn't make sense to have the "Films" abbreviation remain when the Studios group also includes TV series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I meant, instead of changing abbr2, you've changed the group2 in phase four by this edit. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was a simple misplacement. It has been fixed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya