Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 5

M.O.D.O.K.
Where does Hulu's Marvel's M.O.D.O.K. fit in this whole planning? It's got Marvel's name in it, it's very much official and it was a show planned before Marvel TV folded... but is it connected to the main universe? Why isn't it featured on this exhaustive list of shows? - 2804:3B34:62B2:0:243B:99EA:B6F9:3EA8 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it has never been stated to be part of it. —El Millo (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, the show's creator has stated that it is not part of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - 2804:3B34:60BF:0:C9F1:A55A:9000:EA13 (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

X-Men97, Marvel Zombies, Spider-Man: Freshman Year as part of MCU
Here is the source from Marvel. Mike210381 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless it is otherwise confirmed, X-Men '97 should not be considered MCU canon. Also, shouldn't that article be promptly draftified? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As for now we have info from Marvel that is part of MCU... I don't think that we should decide is this canon or not. Source says: As always, the Marvel Cinematic Universe continues to expand, with a whopping 12 titles coming out of Disney+ Day 2021 — a mix of titles previously announced, ones with new looks and logos, and a few complete surprises!. And Yes, it's to early for a mainspace. Mike210381 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clearly stated it is within the timeline of the original 90s series so I would not consider it in the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the source... it's clearly stated that is MCU. Or you want to ignore what it says? Mike210381 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not, all it says is that the MCU is expanding. That doesn't sound like confirmation to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * with a whopping 12 titles coming out of Disney+ Day 2021 X-Men '97 is one of those 12 titles in that news. Mike210381 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One more: Disney+ Day 2021 is here, and it’s kicking into high gear with brand new announcements coming out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with what’s to come from the streaming service. During Marvel Studios' 2021 Disney+ Day Special — which is currently streaming exclusively on Disney+ — it was announced that X-MEN ‘97 will arrive in 2023. Mike210381 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Talk:X-Men '97. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo head writer
Writer Marion Dayre revealed that she is the head writer for Echo (https://twitter.com/mariondayre/status/1459478204142419968). Etan Cohen and Emily Cohen may have been replaced. YgorD3 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * She uses "Lead" writer in her tweet, which I would assume also means "head" but this could be murky. It was noteworthy that the Disney+ Day press info did not list a head writer for this series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Should I Am Groot be listed as a TV Show?
I Am Groot was announced as a series of short films, not a TV series for the MCU. It still could work as a TV show and makes sense to keep, but if it stays, it should be moved to the Phase Four section because it was announced for Phase 4. Anyways, I don't know if I Am Groot counts as a show here. JDA 78 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be listed on the article as it is a series of shorts similar to the Marvel One-Shots, so I've removed it. There was also previously a discussion at /Archive 4. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source that it will be similar to Marvel One-Shots? On Marvel web site is listed as a TV Show. Mike210381 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plenty of them, please see the discussion at /Archive 4. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plenty? I don't see any source that says it's similar to MOS. It's your interpretation. Mike210381 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying there are plenty of sources indicating it is a series of shorts, which is not equivalent to a TV series. I only used the One-Shots for comparison because it is also a series of shorts set in the MCU. Also, it makes sense that it's listed as a TV show on Marvel.com, as the site only has pages for "Films" and "TV Shows", so where else could they file the page under? See that Legends and Assembled (both of which are not listed on this article) are also classified as TV shows on Marvel.com despite being docuseries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you for a source that says that is similar to MOS. MOS it's not listed at Marvel web site at all. And docuseries is still a series. So I don't see any connections. By the way TV special it's not equivalent to a TV series too. Mike210381 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This article covers only TV series. TV series (WV, Loki, FWS) ≠ docuseries (Legends, Assembled) ≠ short films (Groot, One-Shots). InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Source doesn't state that I Am Groot is series of short films, but series of shorts! And The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is not a TV series as well. So Groot should be listet here as well. It's not the same as MOS and you can't provide any source that says that. It looks like it's similar to Forky Asks a Question rather than MOS. Mike210381 (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus It should be listed here, it's tv series. You can't provide any source that says it's series of short films and the same of MOS, it's only your opinion. Lado85 (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the last time, this source (along with many others) state that I Am Groot is a series of shorts, which is synonymous with short films. Short films are not the same as television series, and this article only discusses the latter. And it doesn't matter whether it's similar to the One-Shots, I only used them for comparison purposes because they also are a series of short films. So please stop clinging onto the Do you have a source that it similar to MOS? argument, it's getting absurd at this point. The point is, it's a series of shorts/short films, so they should not be included here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Directors in table - revisit
Since we've gotten our first new director in a series (Bert & Bertie for Hawkeye episode 3) and they were not credited as executive producers, I didn't know if we wanted to revisit 's proposal (here) to only include the directors with executive producer credit in the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm still not for this, especially since we know Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah are only directing the first and sixth episodes for Ms. Marvel and are EPs, while Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy directs three. It would be inadequate to exclude other directors solely because one or a duo of them are the "leading directors". My rationale is that there is plenty of room to list the directors in the table currently, and I feel since it seems we're getting more varied numbers of episodes that the directors helm, which Feige said would vary as they see fit, it would be odd not to include all of them, especially in the case of Ms. Marvel. We also don't know right away which directors will also serve as EPs. We pretty much know this for Moon Knight since the initial discussion, but it remains to be seen what happens for Secret Invasion. Feige did say these series are approached like their films, so another rationale is that we treat these more closely to those than we do the Marvel Television series, which used the more traditional TV series structure of numerous directors. If it ends up getting to a point where there are quite a lot of directors attached to a single series, then I feel it would be an all-or-nothing approach. I do like the leading directors wording on the articles that warrant them, but I still feel removing the other directors might be an unnecessary way to condense an already functioning table and could be potentially misguiding, even with the note, as thus far, there haven't been as many directors for these series as there have been writers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My response to this would be that we only include the "head writer" even though there are multiple writers on the series. I do think this change would help clean up the table a bit, but I only think we should do it if we are confident that the executive producer credit denotes a "head director" in a similar way. I feel it probably does. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Halloween special
Shouldn't the Untitled Halloween special be listed as a Phase 4 release? If The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special with its December 2022 release date is part of Phase 4, then the Halloween special should be included there, as well. --Sricsi (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because it hasn't been confirmed to be part of Phase 4, unlike the GotG Holiday Special which has. —El Millo (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that What If? Season 2 is being included as Phase 4 based on its release date of this year, without official confirmation that it is Phase 4, the same can be said for the Untitled Halloween special. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 00:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree too, but actually sitting on this some, I've heard or seen some people/sites be unsure if it is indeed intended for 2022 since there has been no official release, or Halloween 2023, despite our current sourcing. If it does turn out to be 2023, which could be a possibility still, then it would be unknown if its Phase Four. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

should Hit-Monkey be added?
My understanding is that Hit-Monkey is a part of the MCU. But the page for the show (Hit-Monkey (TV series)) doesn't explicitly mention the MCU and this list doesn't include Hit-Monkey. Is that exclusion intentional? 45.16.201.121 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be added because it is not part of the MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MODOK and Hit-Monkey are not MCU properties. They were their own, stand alone thing, based on Marvel characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bit in Crossovers to feature films
Re this bit, "Following the introduction of the multiverse to the MCU in the first season finale of Loki, Jack Shephard of Total Film suggested that Marvel Studios officially announce that the Marvel Television series take place on a different timeline within that multiverse and are not MCU canon since it was becoming obvious to fans and commentators that the studio was not taking the events of those series into account." it looks like WP:RSUW, and introduces an unsupported opinion as though it's fact. i.e. 'since it was becoming obvious to fans and commentators' which is MOS:WEASEL and not clearly presented as the author's personal opinion but as though it's an established fact on which he has based his assertion. Is what the author suggests Marvel Studios should do significant to this list of shows? It also doesn't appear have a clear understanding of what canon means either, with it being an MOS:INUNIVERSE argument more concerned with continuity, which is a separate concept. Marvel Studios already unambiguously defines some works which include different timelines as a major aspects of the fiction as being a part of the canon (Loki, What If...?, No Way Home, Endgame, Quantumania), in any case which makes the entire argument moot, -different timelines demonstrably do not equate to 'not MCU canon' as suggested by this. Also the section is entitled, 'Crossovers to feature films' to which it doesn't relate in any way.Frond Dishlock (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is related to the section, since it talks about the lack of crossovers in the Marvel Television series, and it's a relevant opinion by a commentator in Total Film. It's also clear that by canon the author means canon to the main timeline almost all media takes place in, except Loki and What If so far, as the title says and not just . We can reword it to make it sound less like a fact and more the commentator's opinion, and to clarify that he's talking about canon to the main timeline. —El Millo (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be a start: —El Millo (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a a lot better, especially removing the assertion re canon; maybe 'since he considered it had become obvious' rather than 'it had become obvious to him'. I wouldn't say what's written here talks about a lack of cross-overs though. Cross-overs aren't necessary for something to be defined as being part of a canon of works or to be fictionally set within the same timeline as other works though in any case, so that's moot in regard to that point. A lack of cross-overs (of which there have been some anyway) would only indicate a lack of cross-overs, not the official status of a work, and it would be WP:OR to extrapolate that conclusion if we did so. Also when you say 'canon to the main timeline', that's not describing canon, that's a detail of in-universe/in-fiction continuity. Canon is a real world grouping of works that have been authoritatively/officially defined as being part of that group. My point in relation to WP:UNDUE is -what makes this individual's suggestion to Marvel Studios noteworthy? He has no specific expertise, nor any official or authoritative standing, in relation to the various series as far as I can see, so it doesn't describe something inherent to them, but merely his opinion.Frond Dishlock (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a point on this only citing one person's opinion. Were we to find many other commentators suggesting the same or something similar, this would become more WP:DUE. —El Millo (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made a change to the text in line with the above suggestion. I'm not sure it's necessary to include it at all for the previously stated reasons, but if it is there it should at least reflect what is in the cited article and not unsupported weasel words. I also removed the word 'officially' as redundant, since if they announced it then that would inherently be official. There's different timelines within the AoS TV series itself as well making it kind of moot. They don't need to announce most of season 5 or Season 7 of AoS take place in a different timeline (sometimes outside of any timeline) for instance, since it was textually within the fiction, any more than they need to announce that large parts of Loki or Endgame did or that Multiverse of Madness will. Different timelines are simply part of what's covered by the umbrella of the MCU now.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Daredevil Reboot
From what I'm seeing on the linked article to the Daredevil Reboot, as well as other places reporting on it such as IGN, it's seemingly being stated that it's only "suggested" as happening, should it be removed from the listing until it's more definitive as to whether it is actually happening or not or am I missing something? 45.51.168.117 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Being in Production Weekly is a pretty good indicator it's happening, even if there isn't a formal announcement. See the upcoming Halloween special as a great example. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Defender shows and AoS not listed in Disney+ MCU timeline
This was pretty much a given seeing as the timeline rows only include Marvel Studios projects, but here is a source stating such if that is helpful in any place here or the individual articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename "Netflix series" subsection to "The Defenders Saga"
Does anyone oppose renaming the section to "The Defenders Saga" since that seems to be their official title within Disney/Marvel? Sure, "Netflix series" made sense because it was their original network but as you can see with YA section and "Adventure into Fear", we don't always have to use the network name in grouping them. This will also be important if/when some of these are rebooted/revived by Marvel Studios within Disney+ (rather than Netflix).

We've retroactively added/updated groupings before once they're revealed like with "The Infinity Saga" and "Skywalker Saga" etc. So, I think this should be okay. — Starforce13  15:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It should stay "Netflix series" since it was the original broadcast network. Same reason why "ABC series" still exists here. It is not the same as a retroactive naming such as "The Infinity Saga" since there was never a previous name to begin with for those grouping. See the move discussion here at Marvel's Netflix television series that wanted to do the same thing and closed as not moved for more of my comments and others stating the same thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The name "The Defenders Saga" is already noted, but since it has only been used by Disney+ and not by Marvel Television, Netflix, or anyone involved in the series, it is being treated like Marvel TV's other names for them: Marvel Street-Level Heroes and Marvel Knights. There's a clear ambiguity as to what is the WP:COMMONNAME for these series, and per prior discussions at Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series, we're leaving it as the most unambiguous title, using the original network they were produced for. Whatever happens with the Daredevil reboot and its grouping and titling we will get to once we know officially how that will be approached. There's WP:NORUSH to change this, especially when "Netflix series" is still correct and the major way people have referred to these series for years and still do. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the RM discussion, the new name is perfectly fine, since Disney and Marvel are both the original creators and the current owners, this is a valid name change. However there is no indication yet that the name will become the common name. Revisit in a few months - a year and see if the name stuck. If it did, I'd support the name change. Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice there was a discussion about it on the "Netflix Marvel series" article, I've been quite inactive lately. In that case, yes, let's keep them as they are until we see if Marvel expands them or embraces it as the new common name. Thank you. — Starforce13  17:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Subsection the crossover section?
I was wondering if we should subsection this to have a heading for "when Marvel Television operated" for all of the content except the last paragraph, and then the last paragraph under something like "after Marvel Television folded". Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking we could go either way. Most of that paragraph is actually commentary on the lack of crossovers so we don't really have much in there to highlight with the subheadings, but at the same time I do think readers would find it useful. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It also would give it a nice division of kind of like "here were the attempt that didn't really happen when Marvel Television operated", and then start building out the slow drip of incorporating them. I'm just not sure what good heading names would be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I haven't been able to come up with any better wording than your original suggestions so we can go with that unless someone else can improve on them. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This would be a beneficial indication for readers, and the Marvel Studios section will obviously be expanded upon over time. The only other section titles I could think of were "Under Marvel Television" and "Post-Marvel Television" to feel more like a title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Audience viewership on Disney+ series
Starting this discussion here to be somewhat centralized. I have been thinking about this, and was curious since virtually all of the series have charted on Nielsen's streaming charts, if it made sense to include the minutes viewed data of each episode on the main articles more or less like "traditional" viewing numbers, as well as any additional "notable" data for any individual episode. Right now, it seems like we have a varying collection of data on the main articles, some being just for early episodes etc. This feels like a consistent way to showcase the entire series (we could even do tables if that makes better visual sense) since Samba and others don't seem to reliably report on all episodes of the series. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think including audience viewership data would be useful in this article under a new "audience viewership" section with a table, and to include the minutes viewed data on the series articles, as well. Nielsen's data is pretty reliable, and pairing that with other episode viewing data would be useful for readers to gauge how popular these series have been. Especially considering what Matthew Belloni discussed in Puck for viewership data, this would be beneficial to display all of the data across these articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think it would be a good idea to add the viewership info to the main pages as well. Would we also include the Samba TV info that has come out for each of the live action premiere episodes? Also is it possible to have a chart similar to the one for the RT scores, but instead have it be for the minutes watched? I know when it comes to data people like visual things. Or is it unnecessary if we would just include the numbers in a table? -- Zoo (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should be trying to include as much viewership data as we can at the episode articles, and then have some way to summarise it all at the series level plus anything that does not fit in the episode articles. There should be some good sources out there for viewership numbers and audience demand beyond just the Nielsen ratings, for example you can see the sources that I used for Peacemaker at Peacemaker (TV series) since HBO Max does not appear on Nielsen's charts. As for presenting all of the Nielsen minutes viewed for each episode, I think a table or chart of some kind could work for that but we would just need to be clear about our wording since it is not a 1:1 for weekly watch numbers and episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have a truly reliable viewership number. 1) The Nielsen viewed minutes aren't per episode. They are for how much time people spent watching the show in general in a given week. That's why you'll see it includes the number of episodes. So, week 1 will be one episode while week 6 is all the 6 episodes. And for Netflix shows, it's basically the entire season (plus all previous seasons, if any). So, even though most people are going to be watching the newest episode, some will be (re)watching previous episodes and the data will be misleading. 2) Samba TV isn't a sample projection but rather how many Samba TV households watched. So, it's always an underestimation because it doesn't count people who aren't part of Samba TV and doesn't do any projection to cover them. — Starforce13  00:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * We should still be providing the data that we have with appropriate wording and presentation, it may not be a reliable number for how many people watched each episode but it is way better than having nothing. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If we must include viewership data, it should be broken down by weeks, not per episode. Either that or just report the premiere episode only. Otherwise, nothing is better than misrepresentation.— Starforce13  02:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I realized after posting this that I remembered why we had stayed away from Nielsen in the past for the D+ series was because of the cumulative nature of the numbers (which I forgot). Going back to the point, I do think some work can be done on the main articles to better summarize viewership on the whole, even if that means not doing a table or whatever, because I think we're definitely premiere heavy in many of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Douglas Petrie's name
Show Douglas Petrie's full name on the list as his name had been shown like this on titles of the show 5.197.243.50 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ His name is seen on the Showrunner column on Daredevil season 2. — SirDot (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Where is I Am Groot?
Why isn’t it listed with the other shows being made by Marvel Studios? It may just be a series of animated shorts, but is has been confirmed as part of Phase Four. Also, it’s been confirmed that it will premiere later this year, on August 10.

For example, Tales of the Jedi, a similar series of animated shorts from Star Wars, has been listed in the respective list of Star Wars TV series, with the other animated Star Wars shows. Ascarboro97 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a television series, but simply a series of five animated shorts. Marvel.com lists I Am Groot as a TV series because it has no "Shorts" category. Also, the Tales of the Jedi comparison is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — SirDot (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I Am Groot is not in continuity, similarly to the fact that Team Thor mockumentaries released in Phase Three, and the One-Shots released in Phases One to Two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how many times this has been discussed by now, I think it's a good idea for us to add something about this to the FAQ. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

SDCC Animation panel
According to SDCC 2022's website (link), Marvel Studios will have a panel on Friday, July 22 solely dedicated to their animation projects; including X-Men '97, Marvel Zombies, and What If...? season 2 (strangely enough Spider-Man: Freshman Year isn't mentioned). — SirDot (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw this. Will add to the drafts for X-Men and Zombies. Freshman Year could be mentioned, but just wasn't in the panel blurb. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if actual, final animation is shown for X-Men and Zombies, those drafts can move to the mainspace. And then we have to have the conversation about What If and if we'll make a split yet for the first season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comma mistake in Ms. Marvel's directors
There's a comma after Menon's name. I understand that comma before and comes because of avoiding misunderstandings but when directors use together to make this clear & is used between their names, not and. So the comma is unnecessary, this also applies to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter showrunners. 94.20.90.195 (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is using the serial comma. — SirDot (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What happened to X-Men '97?
X-Men '97 seems to have disappeared from the article... Is this an oversight? Alinblack (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * X-Men '97 is not part of the MCU. Though the head writer/creator said the series would clarify its relationship with the MCU... — SirDot (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

TVLine 2023 Series
So, I've been seeing this brought up in a series of edits and felt it best to discuss it here to get a general clarification and thought basis for it before progressing with further back-and-forth edits/reverts. A recent TVLine article here discusses fan concerns of MCU content, and at the way bottom, it lists off the upcoming series and films as such: Beyond She-Hulk‘s run (which should wrap Oct. 12), the MCU will serve up Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (in theaters Nov. 11) and Disney+’s Guardians of the Galaxy holiday special, followed by a robust 2023 slate that includes but is far from limited to TV’s Secret Invasion, Ironheart, Echo, Loki Season 2 and Agatha: House of Harkness, and movies such as Ant-Man 3, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and The Marvels. The 2023 releases for Loki S2, SI, Ironheart, and Agatha: HoH have been added to several articles where applicable from this, although I have not seen these releases verified by any other outlet such as Variety or Deadline, and as such have reverted them, especially since even the latest casting/filming sources we have for them all state no releases have been set yet. TVLine is regarded as a trustworthy and reliable source, and these releases do appear plausible, but I have concerns with them not being reported on by any other source, as this article reads more like a commentary piece than an actual news report. I'm open to hearing what other editors think on this, but given SDCC and D23/D+ Day announcements are coming up in the next few months, it may only be short-lived. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. Given we did note TVLine report of Ms. Marvel 2022 release being most likely, and it has a good track-record of reporting on TV-specific timeframes, I'm going to reinstate the information. It most likely will be replaced in the long-run with the fortcoming announcements, but I don't really see any harm in the info now that I've looked through it and the site more. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in this instance it seems like the report is assuming these all with be in 2023, not actually reporting on it, as was the case with Ms. Marvel and their site. We're so close to Comic Con that it might not matter and we get these projects confirmed for next year, but if we don't, I think we should caution on using this source to support this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could go either way with this sourcing, but numerous outlets have taken it as a report of it. If this info doesn't pan out, we can always reverse course on using the source for it. One of my main concerns is with Agatha, as it won't be filming until Jan-May 2023, making me feel a late 2023 release (in line with the 23-24 TV season already reported for it) a bit less likely, but we'll see. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with Favre, this appears to just be a piece of commentary rather than a report. If they had some insider information about this they would have put "EXCLUSIVE" on the headline. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's circle back to this discussion after this weekend and reevaluate after we see what's revealed at SDCC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll be fairly inactive over the weekend due to untimely personal events, but will make sure to be available after the weekend to engage with SDCC edits and the discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we now have the actual release dates for those series. No discussion required after all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

20th Television involvement is questionable
For a couple of shows including Echo and Agatha, 20th Television is listed as a co-producer, which seems highly unlikely. They all cite Production Weekly which isn't always reliable. 1) Oftentimes, Disney books these productions under some of their other studios or even a fake LLC to throw people off. 2) Also, based on histroy, Marvel Studios never does co-productions unless it's for an IP they don't own... not even when the directors have their own production company. So, until there's a formal announcement or an independent 3rd party source, I think we should remove other studios besides Marvel Studios. — Starforce13  03:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Production Weekly is reliable, see User talk:Trailblazer101 and Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Schaeffer's deal was for Marvel Studios and 20th Television, so the Agatha one seems likely. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Disney deals are usually made with one of their studios (usually 20th TV or ABC Signature), with the option to work with all the other studios. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see if they credit 20th Television in Echo and that will show us for sure how reliable Production Weekly is.
 * Add: I read the discussions about Production Weekly being reliable, but they only proved the opposite... that we can't rely on them for questionable studio information. Because apparently they couldn't even tell the difference between Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment with regards to Sony Universe productions. If that's really the source we're going with for questionable studio information, we sure are going to feed readers with false information for a long time until the releases prove otherwise or until PW corrects itself. — Starforce13  02:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Breaking Marvel Studios Animated projects into a separate section?
As in SDCC 2022, Kevin Feige showed the board of phases and there was no mention of animation projects there. Apart from that Marvel Studios Animation had a separate panel in SDCC. As there are not set in prime 616 universe of MCU also so just for clarity and better organization, shouldn't we create a separate section for animation projects just like we already have for Defenders and other shows in this article? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Marvel Television shows, the Marvel Studios animated series are all part of a Phase. I don't think it's a good idea to have more subheaders under Phase Four and Five, or have duplicate Phase Four and Five subheaders under a new Animation section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, this would be jumping the gun. They decided to have a separate SDCC panel for the animated series, but that does not mean they are no longer part of the phases at all, it just means that they wanted to do a separate panel. We would need to have a clearer picture of the animated series being separate from the phases before we considered breaking them off, and how. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Animated series were not included in the Phases board. Sorry, but isn't this the clear indication that we should only add those projects to phases which were highlighted on the board by Kevin Feige himself? Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as I just said they were not included because they were discussed at a different panel. To say that they are therefore not in the phases is WP:SYNTH. Also, I just noted at a similar discussion at the What If...? article that Disney+ still includes that series in the Phase Four category. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, my opinion on this one has shifted slightly. Per these tweets 1 2 it turns out that the SDCC animation panel used the term "Marvel Animated Multiverse" to refer to all of Marvel Studios' animated series. That plus them not being included in the Phases suggests to me that we should probably not be trying to put them in the Phases based on release dates (which actually feels a bit like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH). I think we should separate them into an Animation subsection until we get a new source that actually supports them being in the Phases. I have found a reliable source in this Variety recap that we can use to support the "Marvel Animated Multiverse" heading. The only other thing is that it sounds like X-Men '97 should be included but the wording in the Variety source doesn't really support that so we may need to continue leaving that out of this article for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this will be the case, but I'm not sure if we have enough to justify doing it right now. If others consider we do have enough though, I support it. —El Millo (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is notable that these animated shows were not part of the phase displays, despite them being different panels. The term could be enough to go with for branding them together outside of the phase articles, which would bring up some moving of the What If info and including their own header and table. We may want to wait on implementing this to see if other sources bring it up, or if Marvel addresses it at Disney+ Day or D23, but we could carry with the Variety article for now. Those thoughts aside, I'd support the branding use. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should make mention at the various animated articles (and any list/phase articles) about the "Marvel Animated Multiverse", but I think it might be a bit too early to still justify splitting off animation. If anything, I'd say we put them on the Phase articles in the "tie-in" media sections, because it's very likely as they release they'll still be in the phase groupings on Disney+. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against that for the phase articles if they end up in the phase groups on Disney+, my concern in the meantime is that we are listing them as part of the phases without anything to support that other than release dates at the moment. I feel like we should be removing them for now and then adding them back in if they do end up grouped in phases on Disney+. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the only animated series included within phases at the moment is What If. We have reliable sources that include season 1 in Phase Four, I'm not sure if we have a source that places season 2 in Phase Five though. —El Millo (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added "Marvel Animated Multiverse" to this article plus the articles/drafts of the series discussed at that panel (excluding I Am Groot). Was not sure if this needed to be added to the phase articles just yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably don't need to duplicate it more until we decide to treat the animated series differently at the Phase articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

AC Bradley's name
Correct Bradley's name. It's A.C. in show's titles, not A. C. 5.197.243.8 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is per MOS:INITIALS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A Marvel Studios Special Presentation
This appears to be the grouping Marvel is using for their TV specials and Gunn has confirmed the GotG Holiday Special will be known as such as well. With that, should some sort of heading/section be made here or at Marvel Cinematic Universe and a redirect of A Marvel Studios Special Presentation be made? At the Werewolf by Night article we have a Den of Geek article talking about the little opening from the trailer (which Feige stated at the panel Giacchino scored that little music and I'm trying to find a way to confirm/source) and this from the Direct (which we couldn't really use) that likens it in a way to the One-Shots. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we necessarily need a separate heading for the specials, though I think noting about the apparent branding at the TV series list article can be beneficial, and that could most likely go at the top of the Marvel Studios header along with the Phase info. At the MCU article, we can note about the "Special Presentation" branding for these two in the "Other media expansion" header following I Am Groot. As for a redirect, I think we could point that to the Marvel Studios header here for where we can explain its usage. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should mention it in prose, and we can keep it in the back of our minds in case it makes sense in the future to separate them out somehow (similar to the animated series). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, is there any benefit to splitting the specials out of the TV series table at Phase Four (but just continuing the transclusion tags so it's all one table here and at the outline) to a "Television specials" section? I thought of this after my initial post, and I'm feeling more inclined to make that adjustment and redirect "A Marvel Studios Special Presentation" for the time being (in addition to the prose adds you both mentioned). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we could do that given they are specials and not series, though we already do have a way to present them as specials in the table itself. If we do get more specials down the road, then I think there would be enough content to warrant a split, but for now, considering it is only two of them, I don't think we necessarily need to split them off right away. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If we need more sourcing/info, Perception says they designed that opening. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that we may want to do that, but we probably don't need to rush it. In a similar vein, I wondered if we should split the specials from the TV shows in the navbox as well, but I think we should be consistent between that and these articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added material here on it. Add elsewhere if needed or make further adjustments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Loki Multiverse
Jack Shephard has no involvement with Marvel Studios or Marvel Television, and he is not providing any useful information.

I am told it is "relevant commentary", but Loki has absolutely no ties to Marvel Television, so there is nothing to comment on. The only people who would say this are those who believe the shows aren't canon - who are wrong. It is an opinion that is contradicted by the shows themselves, behind-the-scenes comments from Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment, and now even direct crossovers. By this logic, you could argue every single MCU film is a slightly different universe. The Incredible Hulk? Captain Marvel? Shang-Chi? You can make the exact same argument for those. There's no reason to, but you could, just like how there's no reason here either. There is no reason to attribute the multiverse with Marvel Television because these shows are made to be the same universe, not a slightly different universe.

Now, no matter how many times they crossover and connect with these shows in very direct ways, you're going to get people who say that it's a different universe that's 99% the same.

Daredevil (thus, The Defenders Saga) connects to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., which connects to Agent Carter, Inhumans and Runaways, which connects to Cloak & Dagger, which connects to Luke Cage and Daredevil (thus, the Defenders Saga).

This random guy stating his "opinion" should not be included on what is otherwise an entirely informative page. 2A02:C7C:467D:EF00:B5DC:5640:63FE:1E38 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Previously discussed here: Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series/Archive_5. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Short Description
Hey, the short description is showing as "0000 American TV series or program" so seems to be pulling from the infobox and not being overridden by the template at the top with "none", anyone know why please? Indagate (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It says for me. You may need to purge your cache. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, have cleared cache but same issue. Images: https://ibb.co/gTGT8NZ https://ibb.co/DWzYrXP. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally sure, but on desktop I see what InfiniteNexus says, but if I pull up the mobile, I see what Indagate is referencing. I can drop a line at Short description. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm using desktop, Windows 10, Chrome, Vector (2022) Indagate (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Delay
disney+ japan released an updated release schedule for 2023 and it does not include Echo, What If season 2 and Agatha:Coven of Chaos. any thoughts?223.233.27.215 (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Helstrom
Is helstrom canon because sources in the web is saying it's not canon however it's in the mcu wiki so is it canon or not or is it like in the mcu but barely noticed XTRM XPRT KILR (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s not. We discussed it in depth on Talk:Helstrom (TV series), but basically we’re not allowed to draw a connection between Helstrom and the MCU brand beyond mentioning it was initially intended for the MCU and stressing that it is no longer the case. ChimaFan12 (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There have already been discussions on this matter in the past at Talk:Helstrom (TV series) and Talk:Adventure into Fear (franchise), which did not find enough official evidence from Marvel to state it was not linked to the MCU. The MCU Wiki is owned by Fandom and controlled by its users there, and is not a reliable source. While still trying to assume good faith, the timing of the first account's creation and message here does seem a little off... Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The most recent thread on Helstrom definitively concluded it was not MCU, as the showrunner explicitly stated was the case. The official evidence AND consensus from non-biased parties undeniably, unequivocally found that the show was not in the MCU by any definition. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if Helstrom is "canon" or not, the information on that show and "Adventure into Fear" is relevant here because it was all developed as part of Marvel Television's MCU shows. The fact that plans ended up changing is clearly stated in the relevant places. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. The question was is it MCU canon and the answer is no. Consensus last time was that it is not MCU at all. It is a disservice to everyone to keep the foot in the door by disingenuously removing anything stating that plans changed and the series is not considered MCU by the company or showrunner. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Attempting to mediate here: Sources differ on the extent of Helstrom's connections to the MCU, although sources can interpret these things, as well. The showrunner is not the sole originator or deciding factor in what the series is and is not. That is controlled by the owners, which is Marvel/Disney. They have not confirmed that it is not in the MCU as originally developed and announced. It would be more of a "disservice" to remove it and not mention it entirely, as less is not more. I do believe the section for "Adventure into Fear" and Helstrom at this article should note the ambiguity on the MCU connections, beyond just the Roxxon mention in the Crossovers section. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking it back to the original discussion on Talk:Helstrom (TV series), I linked to several articles at the time of development that announced the series as not part of the MCU. No source directly from Marvel refers to the series as connected to the MCU and certainly the showrunner’s voice matters. Not to mention, no source at the time ever declared the series affirmatively as part of the MCU brand. Most make a separation between the show and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., even Entertainment Weekly, which again does not claim its part of the MCU, states that it’s not a traditional spin-off. But ultimately, no source claims it is in the MCU. Variety stresses that it’s a new iteration of the character Luna played with no connection to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. So frankly, there isn’t really any reason to ever have believed it was part of the MCU.
 * How are you going to make the owner argument and defer to Marvel/Disney while arguing that how they refer to the officially named Defenders saga doesn’t count even though they own the shows? The shows have never been referred to as Marvel Knights in any official capacity by Marvel. They have been referred to as Defenders Saga. What’s with the disconnect? ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus formed at the Helstrom article doesn't necessarily equate equally to this article, or the Adventure into Fear one, as both of these serve vastly different purposes. This list, and to an extent the AiF one, are meant to be overview articles, including all attempts by Marvel Television. Thus, its section is justified for inclusion here as is all the prose included in it. This article and its sections need to help serve readers to navigate them to this info; excluding it fully would be a disservice to them. And we are accurately stating in both the lead and the section that nothing further ever came of the AiF series, though we could possibly include an additional sentence here with the sources from Helstrom noting it becoming further disconnected from the MCU upon release. But in short, as formatted, the info is correct to feature here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The show is not MCU and does not belong in a list of MCU television shows. Consensus that the show is not MCU needs to apply to here also, because put simply, it isn’t. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We only have the showrunner saying it was no longer in the MCU, although no sources from Marvel or Disney have stated such. One interview with a creative does not override everything else and become the sole fact. Without official confirmation from the studio/company behind it, I can't see this getting enough verification here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That reason just doesn’t hold up. You have to prove the evidence to the affirmative to make the claim that it’s true. There are only two sources during the development period that say anything in the affirmative about Ghost Rider potentially being in-universe, and nothing about Helstrom. CNBC completely rules out any crossover with the MCU yet says vaguely that they were told Ghost Rider the same universe, which could mean a lot of things regarding its connection to the Marvel brand in general, a later interview with Loeb says that if Ghost Rider, which was cancelled due to creative differences with the powers that be that were in charge, had proceeded, it would’ve made a reference to S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 4. Variety announced at the time the show was revealed that it would be a new iteration with no connection to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Ghost Rider was cancelled due to creative differences before Helstrom had officially began production. The showrunner himself says it’s not connected to the MCU at all. Beyond the two non-committal sources above, no other sources at the time of release or during production/development ever affirmed that the show was part of the MCU continuity or brand. This was the unequivocal finding in the previous consensus: it was clear that they were not connected. Helstrom is not MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about the MCU-adjacent series made by Marvel TV and the MCU Disney+ series made by Marvel Studios. "Adventure into Fear" absolutely needs to be included here as the next group of Marvel TV shows, and Helstrom needs to be listed as the only "Adventure into Fear" series to be made. That is all true and relevant to this article from a WP:REALWORLD perspective and should not be overridden by any debates about "canon". Similarly, if Marvel Studios came out and blatantly said that all the other Marvel TV shows are not canon to the MCU either, we would not be removing them. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s dishonest to reduce my comment to a canon debate when I clearly specify that in branding as well as continuity, it is simply not MCU. There is dubious evidence it was ever intended to be MCU. It does not belong on a list of MCU shows without stating that at the very least it is no longer the case anywhere the assertion is made, including the template. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have completely ignored the main point of my comment. Canon, branding, and continuity are all irrelevant to this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What even is the MCU if not a continuity and brand? It is vital to the discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Informal straw poll
While this is not meant to replace discussion, nor are changes made through a strict count of votes, I am hoping to present my proposed lead rewording to !votes. I've come up with edits that I hope will satisfy all involved: The consensus is here that AoF should remain on this article given its WP:REALWORLD background and original intent for what it would be for Marvel Television. And upon further thinking about these changes myself, I think this is the way to go, as it keeps the section here (as I believe it should be), but by removing the overview table, the page is not exclaiming "this is 100% MCU" as we have the comments that it ultimately became very loosely, if at all, connected after its original intent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove the transcluded series overview table and integrate the relevant info from it to the prose
 * 2) Add additional info from the AoF page that is in "Development" about the removal of the Marvel logo from the title and opening, and a concise summary of Zbyszewski's comments upon release


 * Support as nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Consensus is not there, and I strongly advise against setting up any poll before we get an RFC going so we can arrive at a workable solution based on the outcome. Neither part of this solution talks about meaningfully reforming the phrasing to demonstrate that sources conflicted about whether the show was ever even intended to be MCU. The show runner’s comments at the time of the show’s release seem to imply that it was never the case because the disconnect allowed for freedom in production. Variety, particularly, is a trade source that should never ever be dismissed out of hand. It states that the character is a brand new iteration with no connection to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Loeb (who was kicked out of the company later that year, and alone is not the arbiter of what is and is not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe brand) said it would reference S.H.I.E.L.D.. Considering the creative differences that lead to the show being cancelled, it is necessary to bring up any of those conflicts that leak into the public eye. This solution does not go far enough. It needs to be removed from its own section, yes. It needs to be explicit that the show’s connection to the MCU ever was debated, but ultimately the showrunner declared that it was not part of the MCU and that that decision benefitted the production team in the process of creating the show by giving them greater freedom. Adventure into Fear, if included, belongs in a cancelled or reworked projects section, as it’s clear that while Loeb would have liked it to be MCU, it’s unclear whether that was ever truly the case. Considering every source at the time of its announcement specified either that it would not be part of the MCU or would not interact with it, it’s not wise to include a show that was cancelled with the rest of the brand or continuity because a vast, vast majority of the sources contradict its placement there, while the one source that affirmed it due to the company politics that spilled out into the public eye. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise against setting up any poll before we get an RFC going so we can arrive at a workable solution based on the outcome That is what this informal poll attempted to do, an attempt to present a workable solution to the matter for those who participated so far or any others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of these solutions are really workable given the information in my reply. I highly advise not proceeding with any poll, informal or otherwise, without the opinion of an RFC so we can get perspective from non-biased parties. With this poll, “editors might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options.” ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. As long as the transclusion from the AiF article remains for use at Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Expanding with the relevant details from the Helstrom article strictly in prose would keep it concise and descriptive, laying all the details out here directly for readers. Just for the record, I do not think it should be moved to a separate header entirely, similar to what we do for Runaways and Inhumans at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it does not belong on the Outline either given the facts I mentioned on the Helstrom talk page, the facts I’ve mentioned on the AIF article, and the facts I’ve mentioned here. It need to be removed in all places as was consensus on the Helstrom talk page. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I am happy to make it more clear that Helstrom was ultimately distanced from the MCU and no other shows came of "Adventure into Fear". As long as the section stays for historical reasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ironically the history of Adventure Into Fear’s relationship to the MCU is fundamentally dubious and disregards conflicting sources. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not true, there is nothing dubious or conflicting about the sources we have to support "Adventure into Fear" being developed as the next group of MCU-adjacent series from Marvel Television. Just because the only show they ended up producing as part of the group ended up being distanced from the MCU doesn't mean the original development history is no longer relevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * “The sources we have” excludes certain reliable sources from the time of announcement, including Variety, which states, “However, sources stress that this will be a completely new iteration of the character in no way connected to the “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” storyline.” It should also be noted that the show was cancelled due to creative differences, and the company politics at the time make it impossible to tell whether it was ever credibly planned to be part of the MCU. The development history is relevant — the full one which takes this into account and the one the wiki does not dive into. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It is obvious we can’t proceed with this without taking into account the sources that we have versus all the reliable sources we are omitting. I propose we pause on any hasty informal polling, compile the sources and the facts therein, and bring it before an RFC. That seems like the only fair and definitive way of doing this. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not omitting any sources though, and there is nothing hasty about this informal poll. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you are and yes this informal poll is hasty. Variety’s reporting that the show’s Ghost Rider is a new iteration not tied to AOS in anyway doesn’t show up on the Helstrom article at all. In fact, Variety is omitted completely. That doesn’t seem fair. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the Adventure into Fear article... as it is specifically discussing the Ghost Rider show, not Helstrom. To connect the dots on those would be WP:SYNTH. My guess is the Variety source in question was likely not seen or forgotten about at the time given Variety had a second piece on both shows being ordered. The linked source states "Variety has learned exclusively that Luna will star in the recently announced Hulu live-action series based on the comic book character. This will mark the second time that Luna has played Ghost Rider, previously appearing as the character in the ABC-Marvel series “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” However, sources stress that this will be a completely new iteration of the character in no way connected to the “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” storyline.", while Entertainment Weekly states "According to Hulu, this isn’t a traditional spin-off of S.H.I.E.L.D. but will focus on the “same character with [a] new story that lives unto its own.”", and this is from an interview with Loeb and The Beat: "Speaking of Ghostrider, Marvel TV head Jeph Loeb insisted the upcoming series is not a direct spinoff of S.H.I.E.L.D. Fans should not view it as an extension of one to the other. Luna is still the same character who happened to have an adventure with the cast of S.H.I.E.L.D., “and that will be referenced,” but the show is “definitely its own thing.”" It was still intended to be the same character and reference SHIELD, but be a new iteration not connected to the SHIELD storyline and not a direct spin-off of that. No where does it explicitly state from the sources or creatives/studio/streamer that it is not in the MCU franchise, which does not have a single timeline or reality for canon. To infer that because Ghost Rider was intentionally not planned to connect to the AoS storyline while featuring the same character with a new iteration therefore means that another show part of the same sub-franchise is not in the MCU is WP:Original research. I do believe we need to lay out all of this info from the sources in the AiF article, in the Development and Ghost Rider sections. We cannot possibly determine from conflicting sources of information one or another is true, so we must remain WP:Neutral and present all of the facts. Regardless of its canonicity in the MCU fictional universe, Helstrom and the other planned AiF series were made for the MCU franchise, which these articles reflect from the WP:REALWORLD perspective. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that we should include the series' creator's statements regarding the status of the show as part/not part of the MCU, while keeping the show in the article. —El Millo (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is something that has been agreed upon including. The Variety report would just add to it for Ghost Rider, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we shouldn’t include it as part of the list. Its inclusion should be in prose in a section where it’s unambiguously separated from all the other shows in formatting and explicitly stated that it’s not MCU per the showrunner. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I suggested above, we should put all of the known information into these articles where relevant. Including the uncertainty in this article should be done, with respect to the REALWORLD perspective of Helstrom having been made for the MCU as a franchise and brand, while not necessarily stating that it is part of the MCU's main continuity, so to speak. There is a general agreement here to make the proposed changes by expanding the disconnected/uncertainty with Helstrom's relationship to the MCU. We only have one source (the showrunner) for it not being in the MCU by his term's, although, he is not the head of Marvel, and even if it was not part of Marvel Studios' designated canon, it should still remain included with the development history and all details (including it being distanced from the MCU) as it was a Marvel Television series made with the intent of it being for the MCU franchise/brand. Canon is an in-universe concept which often changes with retcons, cast changes, standalone products and narratives, etc. within the same franchises. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The development history is contradictory and riddled with creative differences. We can state that Loeb would’ve referenced the events of Agents of SHIELD in Ghost Rider to help clarify the confusion between the sources but we cannot do WP:SYNTH and state that it is MCU, which no source states. Whereas the Helstrom showrunner, on numerous occasions, states that the show not being connected to the MCU made production easier. At no point was it connected to the brand in REALWORLD outside of the tangential connection Ghost Rider would have had to Agents of SHIELD. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Variety source is also not on the Adventure into Fear article. Helstrom series creator Paul Zbyzewski states that the show was not tied to the MCU which gave them creative freedom during production. If we are presenting all the facts, we must neutrally state that Adventure into Fear was considered its own universe by both Variety and The Hollywood Reporter at the time of announcement and include Loeb’s comments. We must also note that the series was cancelled and Loeb was dismissed from the company. No lines need to be drawn, but the assertion that the show was ever definitively MCU is also SYNTH, because we cannot reasonably conclude that. Ghost Rider is the same character as Ghost Rider, that does not imply the same continuity. The only reason Helstrom is listed as MCU (wrongly) is by its association with Ghost Rider, so I don’t understand why you’re hypocritically pinning an “original research” charge on me. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a legal preceeding, and I am not "pinning" any "charge" on anyone. It was a general statement to describe what falls under WP:OR. The Variety source ought to be included with its contents, as should everything else on the series' history with the MCU, from the logo to Roxxon, etc. I reiterate my points, as explained above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then let’s meet in the middle, include Loeb’s statement that Ghost Rider would’ve mentioned SHIELD along with all the sources that stated that the show was not MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per BALANCE, this is a necessity. I will implement these changes later. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Whether or not Helstrom isn't in the in-universe MCU (as I have frustratingly discussed with ChimaFan last year), it should still stay here and in AiF.
 * — SirDot (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recall that discussion, which concluded the show was not part of MCU continuity or brand. There are too many sources excluded against BALANCE procedure. If anything is to remain here, given the explicit contradictions, it would have to be in a different section, in prose, making it abundantly clear that its place in the brand was never concrete and was disputed from the start. The problem is not our discussions, it is that the presence of all facts would not support your desired outcome. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Break
There is not any consensus for you to remove the Helstrom section. Please stop doing so. A potential solution to how the info is stated here has been presented above which did gain some support outside of yourself, so I highly recommend you either reconsider accepting that solution, or present an alternative to it in the similar vein for others to consider, instead of continuing your editing which at this point has become quite WP:DISRUPTIVE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You know what’s funny to me, with all these accusations about my behavior a lot of the edits I try to get passed that are reverted when I do it are accepted when someone does it nearly verbatim to what I did, so I’m not going to entertain your character attacks.
 * The presence of Helstrom and the rationale in the nomination violate SYNTH and completely disregard what has been explicitly stated by key sources. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * a lot of the edits I try to get passed that are reverted when I do it are accepted when someone does it nearly verbatim to what I did Please point out where another editor since July has removed the Helstrom section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t talking about Helstrom there, I was giving you a reason why I’m not entertaining your character attacks. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am Groot
Is there a reason it's not here? I feel there must be some reason it's not, so I'm not going to edit it in, but every source I can see says it is MarkiPoli (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That is because I Am Groot is a series of short films, and not actually a traditional television series. It is included at Marvel Cinematic Universe, and at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four for season 1, and at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Five for season 2. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Shorts" is the key aspect of it. One can liken them to the One-Shot short films. That is why they are noted at the shorts section of the main MCU article and the Phase articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that it’s still a television series. We should follow the example laid out here and refer to it as a television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I Am Groot, as well as Marvel Studios: Legends and Marvel Studios: Assembled, are still television series by nature, although they don't all have to be included in this list, which is for the main MCU series. Legends is a clip show and Assembled is a docuseries of specials, the latter is the closest example to IAG and how we place it. IAG is categorized as a series on Disney+, so there is definitely no harm in including "television" to that article's lead, though the exclusion of "television" is not denouncing it as being what it is, a television series of shorts. If we were to add IAG to this list, it would stand on its own section, and would just be a transclusion and brief overview of what is already covered at the main MCU article and the Phase articles, though just collected in the same space. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been many, many discussions on this topic. See Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/FAQ. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let’s move it onto the list and put it in its own section. It belongs there. There certainly don’t seem to be any qualms with even non-MCU shows or any of the other shows being covered on here sharing much of the same content as what’s on other pages. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing requiring it to be on this list just because "it belongs there", as has been explained and via consensus through the several discussions via the FAQ. It has not been dubbed a full-fledged "television series", "limited series", or "miniseries" by Marvel or Disney+. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the series listed here are long form television. I Am Groot does not fit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have included a link to it in the "See also" section, which is appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And with the exception of Helstrom, all of these series are MCU, despite it actually being explicitly stated that being set in the MCU is a requirement for inclusion on the list. It is stated nowhere that all the television shows on this page must be long form. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, this isn't a TV series. It's a series of short. So if one had to liken such shorts to a medium, yes, television would be the closes, because they aren't films (like the One-Shot shorts). But as with those, those are not listed on under any MCU film categorization. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They could be, but regardless there’s no reason at all not to include I Am Groot (a television series) on a list of television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "They could be" is not a justification. Marvel has not called them a "television series of shorts". They have only used "series of shorts" and "series of short films". There has been enough reason provided to you already by multiple editors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Helstrom is irrelevant for I Am Groot. It is a series of shorts, not a long form television series. The "See also" inclusion that was added provides navigation to the shorts from this article, which is beneficial to readers. I Am Groot is not classified by Marvel or Disney+ as a "television series", despite it using the seasons format. It may be unconventional, though Marvel treats it as a collection of shorts, and we should follow that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a television series by virtue of being a series for television. I’m not opposed to leaving it in a section distinct from the other series, designating it as a short form series. However, seeing as the rest of the wiki has no problem not only designating similar series of shorts as television series, including on lists, we should not omit I Am Groot here. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the shorts may now be compiled together and use the seasons like some shows do, it is a series of short films and Marvel has not called it a television series outright. Not everything on television is a "television series". There are also television specials, miniseries, television films, etc. I Am Groot is being treated more like the Marvel Studios Special Presentations in that it is its own thing separate from the long-form television series of the rest of the MCU. Marvel's website only calls it "a collection of shorts", and the poster uses "Original shirts" opposed to "Original series". Also, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia does not mean the same should automatically be the same for something else. Pixar and Marvel are two different studios with different creatives and personnel. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Forky is treated by Pixar in every way like Marvel treats I Am Groot. They’ve never called it a television series — by virtue of being a television series, it is one. Werewolf By Night is a television special. Marvel’s Assembled is a television series. These are objective facts, not marketing techniques. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Each Assembled special is released separate and no longer together under one selection, and some are released individually on home media now. "by virtue of being a television series" does not mean it a television series, and Marvel not calling it a television series does not mean we can call it such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The release patterns of the episodes does not dictate whether or not it is a television series at all. Do you need to have it confirmed to you by the grocer that the apple you bought is a fruit in order for it to objectively be a fruit? ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit of WP:OR here, but when the first episodes became available, one had to add each individual one to the watchlist, as there was no "series" to add.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  19:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly how Forky Asks a Question is treated. I Am Groot does, in fact, have a series page and prior to launch both times was displayed under “coming soon” as a series. We have no qualms with acknowledging that I Am Groot is a series, why do we suddenly want to pretend it’s not on television? ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not on a TV set. It's on a streaming service, which is on TVs, computers, gaming consoles, etc. The notion of what is a television series differs a lot nowadays from what is used to a decade or two ago. Marvel Studios has called all of their long-form series "miniseries" or "limited series" up to this point. The shorts are collected under a singular tab for the I Am Groot series, or collection as Marvel has also used, of short films. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Daredevil (TV series) was also released on streaming. It’s a television series. I Am Groot is another television series. Its episodes are short form. We can create a section on the page separating it from the long form television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the word "series" does not exclusively mean the same as "television series". There are also short film series, such as Pixar's Toy Story Toons, Cars Toons, and SparkShorts if you want to continue Pixar products as examples. Television and series are not mutually exclusive. Streaming titles are not exclusively television products. There are streaming films and short films grouped in a short series on streaming that are not qualified as television, several of which can be found in this category and List of animated short film series. Daredevil is a long-form television series and was classified as such by Marvel and Netflix. I Am Groot has only been called a "series of shorts", "series of short films", and a "collection of short films". Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The series you’ve mentioned from Pixar aren’t television series because they were released in different mediums: all the Toy Story Toons were Blu Ray features the same way the Marvel One-Shots were. The Cars Toons had some short films debut on Toon Disney and some debut theatrically and some debut on Blu Ray. Same with SparkShorts, a couple were theatrical releases. They were not conceived as a series for television the way I Am Groot was. I Am Groot had a theatrical release of one of its episodes, but was announced from the start as a series for television, namely Disney+, and the debut of some of its episodes in advance is akin to Inhumans’ two-episode premiere in IMAX. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One I Am Groot short films were released in theaters ahead of showings of Thor: Love and Thunder, and another was shown at Comic-Con, and they were all released individually before they were collected together, still not billed as a "television series". I Am Groot was conceived as a "series of short films" for streaming, not as a television series. Just because it was announced for Disney+ and released there does not automatically mean it is a television series. We are using what the sources from Marvel, Disney, and the press refer to it as. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Forky Asks a Question was released weekly and still to this day only has a collection page, whereas I Am Groot has a series page. It is objectively a series conceived and released for television. The previews of I Am Groot for Thor Love and Thunder and the Comic-Con panel does not mean it’s not a television series, otherwise Inhumans would be disqualified. These releases were specifically special previews of the episodes. The other series had shorts released exclusively for non-television mediums. SparkShorts was a YouTube series originally. Toy Story Toons and Cars Toons were occasionally released exclusively as Blu ray features or theatrical shorts. I Am Groot was released as a television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Trailblazer101, I got your message at I Am Groot requesting a discussion on the subject. I’m happy to continue discussing and await your response. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I and other editors have already explained why I Am Groot is not listed as a television series, per the sources from Disney and Marvel and multiple past discussions forming that consensus. It is billed as a "series of short films" upmost. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Explanations using incompatible logic are not good explanations. It’s a series. It’s made for television. Most television series don’t highlight their being television series in press releases. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding that I Am Groot was initially included and then excluded from this article because the "short films" wording was key in the announcement. After taking some time to further contemplate this, I don't think a complete exclusion is necessarily productive, and there may be a further incentive to include them than there is to not. Just like how it was initially listed under the "Tie-in media" header at the Phase articles before a discussion found it sufficient to move it up from that, this may be a wake-up call, if you will. I had thought the reason the I Am Groot series of shorts was excluded was because we were treating them like the Special Presentations, although, it got me thinking that a brief overview would not be a disservice to our readers as to explain the short series' relation to Marvel Studios' other series, if you will, with a brief summary of what they are, as well as noting them in the lead along with the specials, as we do in the Phase articles. I have arranged such additions to this article in my sandbox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m glad you came to this conclusion because it simply doesn’t make any sense to treat them the same. Special presentations are their own format that is by default not a series. I Am Groot is quite literally, a series, that could be mentioned in the lead and in its own dedicated section (as well as in added notes in the chart) as being a series of short films. They’re still episodic and are by all definitions a television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)