Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 12

Exhibits - major or minor work?
The various exhibits listed in Marvel Cinematic Universe aren't following the MoS, but I'm not sure which category they fall under. MOS:MAJORWORK says to italic Named exhibitions (artistic, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, literary, etc. – generally hosted by, or part of, an existing institution such as a museum or gallery), but not large-scale exhibition events or individual exhibits, and MOS:MINORWORK says to add quotes to Exhibits (specific) within a larger exhibition.

The exhibits in the section are: Iron Man Tech Presented by Stark Industries, Thor: Treasures of Asgard, Captain America: The Living Legend and Symbol of Courage, Avengers S.T.A.T.I.O.N. and Marvel: Creating the Cinematic Universe. --Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Avengers S.T.A.T.I.O.N. was its own thing, so that might be considered a major work. And per MAJORWORKS, I think that would apply to Marvel: Creating the Cinematic Universe because that was a named exhibition... hosted by... an existing institution (GOMA). The Iron Man, Thor, and Cap exhibits at Disneyland would be minor I think, since they were part of the Innoventions attraction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The colored boxes in the TV tables
What's the point of them? They appear randomly chosen, and don't correspond to anything else in the article... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As the table pertains to television series, we follow MOS:TVOVERVIEW and it's formatting (adjusted for multiple series, not simply one). As such, the colors that are used pertain to the season posters for each series. Please also note that the table as viewed here is transcluded from the ABC, Netflix, Young Adult, and Phase 4 articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Series overview which we are using, again because they are television series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be something like that. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

James "Rhodey" Rhodes/War Machine missing in the table of characters
As the title says, Rhodey/War Machine played by Terrence Howard (Iron Man) and Don Cheadle (rest of the films) is missing. δα ωλα (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This page's cast section covers those who have appeared in the same role in other media across the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in films, shorts, television series, etc. War Machine has only appeared in the films, so he is not to be listed here. If the character does appear in another form of media, then he would qualify for inclusion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Marvel TV other than Disney+
The TV series from old Marvel studios are not referenced in the MCU, are they a part of it?Halbared (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Until we are given some word from Feige etc., yes they are, because they were developed to exist within the MCU, regardless of what the films did with them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing characters/actors
Why isn't Robert Downey, Jr. in the list of recurring characters? Chris Evans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:AE05:808:89FF:C0ED:93D8:43EF (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they aren't across media. They're just in the films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020
Add Fantastic Four to unnanounced phase 139.180.29.241 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerd  talk 06:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special
Shouldn't this go under the section titled "Live-action television specials", since it's not actually a series but a TV special? Rafaelchan118 (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Though it is only a special, it is new, canon content to the MCU. What exists in "Live-action television specials" are inspired media, covering the two documentary specials that talk about the universe, not presenting new content for the universe. Thus, we should be listing it with Marvel Studios' television series as we currently are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020
Add Blade and Fantastic Four to upcoming movies. While Fantastic Four's release is TBA, Blade was reported as releasing before Captain Marvel 2 (https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/marvel-studios-confirms-blade-release-captain-marvel-2/). RojManVB (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ We Got This Covered is an unreliable source, so we can't use that to support Blade releasing before Captain Marvel 2, which contradicts Kevin Feige's confirmation that Blade will be after Phase 4. We don't include films that don't have set release windows, so Fantastic Four also can't be in the table just yet. It does have a director, but we need a release for its inclusion. Blade is noted on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and Fantastic Four is at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

About Peter's To Do List one-shot, The Guardians Of The Galaxy Holiday Special and I Am Groot animated short series
Peter's To Do List is Marvel's sixth One-Shot. Add this to One-Shot list. Besides upcoming The Guardians Of The Galaxy Holiday Special is a SPECIAL not a TV show and I Am Groot isn't One-Shot, it's an animated short TV series. Create new categories for them please. İh2055 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter's To-Do List is not part of the Marvel One-Shots as it is just a compilation of deleted scenes from Spider-Man: Far From Home, as reason why it is only one the home media section for the Far From Home article and not its own article. The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is a special, that is correct, but it is a television special, so it is listed among the television series, especially since it will release on Disney+, along with I Am Groot, which wasn't confirmed by Feige to be animated, as he simply said it was a series of shorts on Disney+; we don't know if it's short films or like Marvel's prior series of shorts that are animated, which is why it's listed separately from the One-Shots. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * On Marvel.com "I am Groot" is in Tv Shows section. I think it must be in tv series here too. Lado85 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, i have one more offer. What If...? is an animated show then why it's shown in the list of TV series, it's an animated TV show, create special category for it and show that it's the part of Phase 4. İh2055 (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's list of TV Series (both live action and animated), not list of TV Live action series only. What If...? is animated tv series. Lado85 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter's To Do List should at least be listed separately in short film like I Am Groot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.115.136 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I Am Groot is a series of shorts. While we don't necessarily know how Marvel will classify it, whether it be listed as a TV show of shorts or a grouping of short films. For now, we've put it under "Short films" as that's what we know and note its a streaming TV series. As for What If, it is animated, but we don't need another classification for that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter's To Do List is not a One-Shot or a short film. It's a deleted scene that Marvel put a name to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020
I think that we should remove the 2022 release date por the new Ant-Man film, there isn't a direct source and the Marvel's 2022 slate is so crowded, it's impossible that they would have more films. It will be 2023 I think, but we should write just TBA. 31.131.176.228 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It can be changed if a reliable source is found that states the film will be delayed to 2023 or an unknown date. SK2242 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020
Marvel Studios: Legends should be added in Disney+ Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.115.136 (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ As it is not new MCU content, but a clip show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

About other media
Add Peter's To Do List and Marvel Studios: Legends to Other Media İh2055 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter's To Do List is a deleted scene. Legends already mentioned in the other media section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request on 16 January 2021
The Daily Bugle YouTube channel found at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGfq7EcxdrDN9hSo-iOaSxg should be added under digital series. It's relatively similar to the WHIH Newsfront youtube channel, and J.K. Simmons is already credited under recurring characters in the section on that, so I see no reason this should be excluded 2603:6010:AF01:AC00:E919:5A49:288F:A33A (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe this was left out because it is only relevant to one film and should just be mentioned at that film's article for now. WHIH covers multiple MCU films so it is relevant to the MCU article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Vision (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
With WandaVision premiering in just over a week, I have gone ahead and published Vision (Marvel Cinematic Universe). It still needs some content on the reception of the character/performance, if anyone has a finger on sources for that purpose. BD2412 T 20:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An image for the article would be great, too. BD2412  T 04:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this has been done. Cheers! BD2412  T 04:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Deadpool 3
Didn't Kevin Feige confirm Deadpool 3 in the MCU? Should that be put in the future movie section?TonyStank123456789 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The future films listed here have all been announced as part of Phase Four. For future films that we don't know the phase for yet, see List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021
adding Deadpool 3 in development on future Lukemegner (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Subsection on 'phases'?
MCU films are famously categorised into phases, typically ended by an Avengers movie, where they are grouped by relative chronoligical appearance and plot importance shouldn't the four (and future) phases be described in a subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VN28 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What about them do you think needs to be described? We already introduce the idea, show the Phases here, and have individual articles for each one. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Question: Where is Blade and Deadpool 3
These 2 were confirmed but they are not here at Future section in Feature films in a different phase (unannounced phase). Why are they excluded? Kohcohf (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. Same applies to Blade. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Marvel's Avengers
Why Marvel's The Avengers, not The Avengers? If you including title to one of them then why you don't add it to all of them? İh2055 (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the only one officially titled as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Then why titles are removed from tv series? Marvel's Daredevil or simply Daredevil, same goes to The Avengers but Daredevil is without title on the list İh2055 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All of Marvel TV's series have "Marvel's" in the title, so listing that for all of them is overkill. But there is only one movie with it in the title so that stands out as needing to be noted. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, to expand upon it, it's also likely because there are multiple unrelated/non-Marvel films called the Avengers as well, and so they may not want to, at a glance, have someone confusing between those the Avengers and the Marvel the Avengers. They don't have that confusion with Daredevil or Punisher because they are not only Marvel, but the MCU has them as TV shows while when they weren't MCU produced they were only films. I do agree that the "Marvel's" part of it isn't actually/shouldn't be part of the title (as it's like saying "DC's Superman" or "Universal's Godzilla", etc. where it's not actually part of the title, just a notation, for lack of a better term, to inform that this is the Studio making this movie, like which "the Avengers" is it, it's specifically the Marvel one, if that makes any sense), but I do understand why they have it the way they do. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021
When searching for the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wikipedia page, the picture associated with the home page is Joss Wheaton, if possible please change it to Kevin Feige.

Joss is a controversial figure and in my mind does not deserve to be the face of the Marvel Cinematic Universe on Wikipedia. He has only directed 2 of the 20+ movies, while Kevin Feige has been the driving force of the entire franchise. 2601:681:800:3580:D029:3084:847D:692B (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done. Feige is already the first person pictured in the article. -- Calidum  01:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Marvel TV is officially non-canon.
During his opening statement on the investor's day, Feige said that the MCU consisted of 23 films, which would now be expanded into the TV shows as well. It clearly means that Marvel TV is officially non-canon. Could someone explain why they are still on this page? Anubhab030119 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know precisely what Feige said on that occasion but see e.g. Guidebook to The Marvel Cinematic Universe - Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season One (2016) #1 and Guidebook to The Marvel Cinematic Universe - Marvel's Agent Carter Season One (2016) at the official Marvel site. Even if they are officially declared non-canon now instead of just hinting at it, those two shows were in the same universe when they were produced. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Marvel Studios has always talked about the universe in terms of their output, which does not negate the Marvel Television content. Will that change in the future, especially with Marvel Studios exploring the multiverse? Probably. But at this moment, all of the Marvel TV shows are part of the MCU, no matter how fringe their connections may be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the answer guys. Hope to soon find some clarification either way from Marvel Studios. Anubhab030119 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

AS OF NOW, Marvel TV is still canon, Anubhab030119, so FOR NOW you are not correct (though for some shows you very well might be). Feige has previously acknowledged that the shows are canon to the MCU, and what he now means is that they are creating shows that (one) are made by Marvel Studios and (two) interconnect with the shows and movies. The Marvel Television shows connected with the films, but the films never connected with them. In that same mindset, the shows have been marketed as being connected to the MCU previously. However, we do not know Marvel Studios plans and they could use characters for other purposes in the MCU. Here's the deal with continuity in the MCU and how we know if shows are or are not canon. Right now, every show thought to be canon is canon. Many rumors point to Charlie Cox aka Matt Murdock being in the upcoming Spider-Man film this December, and if this is true along with other rumors that other Marvel Netflix characters will be returning to the MCU starting in this film, then all these films can be considered canon. If this ends up being the case for ALL of the Netflix shows, then Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Defenders and The Punisher all remain canon. Cloak & Dagger has a few small but important connections with the Netflix shows, so if any of the Netflix shows were to be considered canon, they would take Cloak & Dagger, and Runaways which connects to Cloak & Dagger, with it. If Runaways was considered non-canon but Cloak & Dagger was not, than Runaways and the Netflix shows would remain canon, but Runaways wouldn't. If Cloak & Dagger was proved non-canon but Runaways wasn't, then Cloak & Dagger AND Runaways would both be considered non-canon, however the Netflix shows can exist without Cloak & Dagger and Runaways, but Cloak & Dagger and Runaways not without the Netflix shows. See what I'm getting at here? Alright. As you can see, the Netflix and MCU young adult shows are very closely connected and depend on each other very much, but what about the other shows? If Helstrom or any of it's characters are used in a way that contradicts the show's events in the MCU, then the show will be considered non-canon. If Inhumans (which I believe will be the one show that will end up being non-canon by the end of this year) or any of its characters (the Inhuman Royal Family) are used in a contradicting way in the MCU going forward, then they will be considered non-canon.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter remain in a pretty safe zone for now. Agent Carter is the one show that has little risk of becoming non-canon as it was already confirmed continuity in the 2019 film Avengers: Endgame with the Edwin Jarvis cameo. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has a bit more risk. If Hive, Gravitron, or the Shrike were used in a contradicting way in the MCU films, then the show can be considered non-canon. Same goes with Quake. However, if rumors about Quake in future MCU content are true, then we might have confirmation that the show is canon to the MCU.

I think that the Inhuman Royal Family will be rebooted; likely in the show Ms. Marvel which comes out this fall; which would make Inhumans not canon. We could very well see Netflix/young-adult confirmation or decanonization by the end of 2021 so that debate should be settled, and possibly Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. by the end of 2022, with Helstrom a possibility in the next few years (it looks like Agent Carter will always remain safe), and by 2023 this debate can be ended. But for now, all the shows ARE canon, but they are all subject to change anytime soon. I hope this answers all your questions about this Anubhab030119. I know it's alot and I'm sorry, but it's the best way to get a good explanation out. IronMan287 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)IronMan287IronMan287 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

IronMan287 that's an very impressive answer brother. Thanks a lot for taking so much time to provide such a detailed explanation. I too hope that this debate ends sooner rather than later. Cheers. Anubhab030119 (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Anubhab. Great stuff. Personally I do think they are all canon in this timeline (Maybe not Inhumans like IronMan mentioned). The only one that would actually be hard to be cano is Agents Of Shield. Long story but basically the Snap doesn’t happen for some reason in AOS but Infinity War is referenced before. This makes it clear it’s in a different timeline but does it mean they are non-canon? Nah. What it means in my opinion is that it’s part of the Multiverse and is a branch of the timeline blah blah lol. It’s best to say they are all canon. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request on February 18, 2021
I have a few edits to the timeline section I think I should make. I've been researching the MCU for a while with a good number of fans who have interests similar to mine, and we have done some deep digging into the timeline of the MCU. You can check out our work on this page: https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline and the linked decade or year pages found on that page, in which we have detailed explanations throughout the reference sections.

I would not like to change anything it says, but instead add on our discovered and sensible timeline of the MCU films; providing evidence as needed. This does include lots of similarities with the released timeline however, though the beginning is the only thing that really differs/ I'll include the edits that I want to make that are different than what Marvel Studios has already established using my already discovered evidence; also the fact that Marvel films often take place around their release dates, with exception of flashback films, Iron Man-Thor, Iron Man 3, GOTG Vol. 2, Black Panther and all films Avengers: Endgame and beyond:

- Captain America: The First Avenger (1943-1945)

- Captain Marvel (1995)

- Iron Man (May-November 2009)

- Iron Man 2 (May 2010)

- The Incredible Hulk (May-Early June, 2010)

- Thor (Late May-Early June, 2010) - note: Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and Thor's big battles take place mostly during the same week as evidence in the comic book tie-in Fury's Big Week

- The Avengers (May 2012)

- Iron Man 3 (December 2012, leads into first few days of 2013)

- Thor: The Dark World (November 2013, but the prologue takes place right after The Avengers in 2012)

- Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Early 2014; likely January)

- Guardians of the Galaxy (August 2014)

- Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (October 2014)

- Avengers: Age of Ultron (April 2015)

- Ant-Man (July 2015)

- Doctor Strange (takes place from February 2016-February 2017)

- Captain America: Civil War (May 2016)

- Black Panther (a few weeks after Civil War, likely June 2016)

- Spider-Man: Homecoming (a couple months after Civil War, start of school year; September-October 2016)

- Thor: Ragnarok (November 2017)

- Ant-Man and the Wasp (Majority of film takes place in early May 2018)

- Avengers: Infinity War (Late May 2018)

- Avengers: Endgame (Prologue takes place a couple weeks after Infinity War in late June 2018)

- Avengers: Endgame time jump (October 2023)

- WandaVision (Three weeks after snap, which mid-October, putting it around early to mid November 2023)

- Spider-Man: Far From Home (Takes place in June 2024, post-credits scene at the start of July 2024)

I really hope this explanation can help people really figure out the MCU timeline. If you need me to provide what I would say in the timeline section and my explanations for certain parts of the timeline, I will gladly do so! IronMan287 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)IronMan287IronMan287 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is way too granular/inuniverse for inclusion and largely WP:OR. There's already a discussion happening to create some sort of timeline, that is relatively simple/easily sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline makes more sense for it’s article in my opinion. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The new order of the timeline
Yes, me, the same person wrote these two edits and the origininal post lol

Obviously a lot of things in the movies happen simultaneously and the problem people have with chronology is that you can't really watch them at the same time, the same goes for scenes in a movie, you want a chronology but in any movie, a lot of scenes happen at the same time but you get stuck in your mind that it is happening linear. Anyway it goes without saying that these movies is always best watched in production order then you have to "fill in the blanks" as you go. With that said there is now just confusion on the mcu wikipage after Disneyplus mashes "their order" up for the "best timeline experience".

Since disneyplus is sticking to a new timeline order you should rearrange it in the list on the mcu page:

1943–1945	The First Avenger (2010-2012 present scenes, I always took it to be just before Avengers, but the post credit scene of Iron Man, "you think you are the only hero", well it can be anywhere really before or after Iron Man that Steve wakes up from iced. 1946	Agent Carter

1989-1995	Captain Marvel

2010	Iron Man 2011	Iron Man 2 The Incredible Hulk The Consultant (THIS FITS BEST AFTER HULK as it ties with the post credits scene of Hulk, but I guess you could say Tony Stark visits Gen. Ross just before avengers but I do not think so as he is tired from the whole debacle in Harlem). A Funny Thing... (as it is on the way to thor) Thor

2012	The Avengers Item 47 The Dark World (Disney plus has changed it to before/during Iron Man 3, not possible if the events is christmas 2012-2013 for IM3 and 2013 for Dark world, but anyway the list should state the same as disney plus unless you want utter confusion, if Dis+ is "correct" DW would be possibly autumn 2012, otherwise, like I always watched it Dark World shouldn't be before IM3 on Dis+)

2012-13 Iron Man 3 All Hail the King

2014 The Winter Soldier Guardians of the Galaxy Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

2015 Age of Ultron Ant-Man

2016 Civil War Black Panther Homecoming Doctor Strange (into 2017) 2017	Ragnarok (into 2018, infinity war picks up straight into the credits scene) 2018	Ant-Man and the Wasp (the same time as ragnarok/infinity war) Infinity War

2018–2023 BLIP

2023 Endgame WandaVision (3 weeks after BLIP)

2024 The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (6 months after BLIP) Far From Home (8 months after BLIP)

Anyway, I think it is the consultant before a funny thing happened, thor and avengers, not the consultant after thor -> consultant -> avengers! I guess it really doesn't matter, but since disneyplus now seems to be canon then it is only wierd if you don't list like Dis+. The Dark World vs Iron Man 3 placement is well confusing but well either or should switch it, wikipedia or disney lol.

Also well that wikipedia is not open source and locked by the overlords now just sucks, the world dictators that all these movies are fighting are taking over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.202.18 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with Multiverse characters
Now that the multiverse has started with the introduction of Evan Peters' Quicksilver in WandaVision, I think we need to have a plan in place on how we're going to handle characters from other universes. For example, once it's confirmed in WandaVision that this is Peter from X-Men films and not MCU's Pietro, do we still call it a "recast" or reprising their role from another universe? Likewise, what happens when they introduce different versions of other MCU characters which may or may not be played by the same actor? How do we handle that in the list of recurring characters?

I think we will probably need to add a column to the recurring characters table to show other universes the character appears in. Or we could add another table for characters reprising their roles from other universes.

Obviously, we're not going to make any changes right now, until it's actually confirmed, but we might as well be ready because it's coming and it will get even messier with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and the next Spider-Man. — Starforce13  18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think for this table we could just add an indicator to note it and then let other places explain the details, though it is still too early for that since we don't know how this version of the character is connected to the X-Men films' version. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we know enough yet about how the MCU will handle any of this to comment. BD2412  T 02:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary, mainly because Pietro Maximoff in WandaVision is just a citizen in Westview and not really quicksilver of the X-Men Universe. When there will be actual multiverse characters, I think we should add these characters. Byc63 (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The conversation was before they confirmed it. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully this issue was resolved by the series itself. I'm glad that the FoX-Men will not be convoluting the MCU.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes
Douglas Petrie also was showrunner of The Defenders, so add him and correct Douglas Petrie's name in the list please. İh2055 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Upd: Everything's correct İh2055 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

But even though, fix Douglas' name, in titles his name is shown as Douglas not Doug İh2055 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The common name is Doug, as seen in his individual article. —El Millo (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Short films
I have brought this up before, but was curious as to why the Peter's To-Do List short is nowhere on the article. Previously it was discussed that it doesn't belong in the "Marvel One-shots"... however, despite this perhaps there should be a short films sub-section instead(?). Within this section we can have "One shots" AND other MCU short films. As this was released as an official short film on the home media releases, it needs to be on the article. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I can see there is a Short-films section. Shouldn't Peter's To-Do List be added in here?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously, this is not an actual short it is just a deleted scene from the film. It is mentioned at that film's page I believe. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter's To-Do List is more than a deleted scene. It includes graphics for a checklist specifically made for this short film. Regardless of how we think of it, the Blu-ray refers to it as "an all-new short film", and Jon Watts, the director of the film, had the following to say about Peter's To-Do List: "That's just the to-do list for someone like him but that will be its own little short film that we're going to put on the Blu-ray." -- FBISD (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021
I would like to add Captain America 4 to the Future feature films section. 119.18.1.8 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters
Anyone else feel like this table has gotten a bit ridiculous, especially now that crossovers between film and TV are going to be very common moving forward and those will be covered at each of the Phase Articles as well? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. Was just feeling this. Especially with the addition of Barton's children in Hawkeye. Yes they've appeared in films and will now in a TV series, but do they need to be in this table? Maybe for criteria, an actors has to appear in a billing block for a film, in the main cast for a TV series, or were one of the "prominent" characters for a short or digital series? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds better, did you want to mock up what that would mean for the table? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree table should be limited to actors appearing in the billing block for a film or the main cast for a TV series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. This table should be reserved for actors in the film billing and main cast in series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the Barton children. Not sure about the rest of the cast. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

On another bit regarding the cast table, I was wondering if we should move the actors that are in the films and What If from the "Outside media" tab to "Television series" given now that the series may as well just be listed together with the rest of the series, especially since it is in Phase Four and the series' cast are listed normally on that article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense. I was also wondering if we should be even more restrictive in the table and only include characters that appear in at least three columns (i.e. characters from a film, TV series, and one other piece of MCU media) rather than having a massive table with every character that jumps between the films and Disney+ shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd just be much easier for navigation, and we can include notes for their specific type of appearances, A for an animated series such as What If, O for One-Shots?, S for shorts such as the One-Shots, Peter's To-Do List, Team Thor? D for digital series like WHIH and DailyBugle? and L for live attractions? That's my thought process for what that could look like. Not sure much of the digital series or shorts cast will last with the three column films, series, and one other media piece, but I am willing to support it as not everything needs inclusion here and this does seem to be the best approach for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should use "media type" as the defining criteria for who shows up in the table. I think the goal should be to provide the most relevant information to the readers that will help them understand the article (and MCU). So, to me it feels wrong to list barely notable characters here just because they happen to show up in different types of media - but leave out key players like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. It just feels as if we're servicing trivia, not providing useful information. My proposal is to change this to someone who has appeared in billing blocks for multiple Marvel Studios franchises (films or Disney+ series). Notability and relevance are significant pillars of Wikipedia; and I just think people like Tony Stark are more notable recurring players in MCU, than say, Felix Blake. — Starforce13  19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could remove this table and instead have a prose overview of the ways that cast members have crossed over across the whole franchise (Sam Jackson's initial deal, The Avengers, Gregg and Atwell in the One-Shots and TV shows, crossovers between films and Disney+ shows, etc.). That way we don't have another big unwieldy table here when we already have so many other tables, and we can focus on the notable recurring cast members rather than just adding people to the list based on criteria that very soon will not be all that noteworthy (as crossovers between film and TV become more common). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be down with getting rid of the table and mentioning the notable ones in prose. With Feige in charge of basically all things Marvel, the crossovers are only going to increase and the table will get out of control soon. — Starforce13  21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about that. It all feels too radical and sudden shift to me, as we commonly use a table to display the recurring casts across media franchises and in all the other Phase articles, etc. I think a rundown of the more prominent recurring cast and deals of them would be a noteworthy inclusion atop the cast list, but I still feel the listing should remain, just be condensed. Adam's 3-column proposal sounds good to me on the surface, but as I've looked through the cast more, I think it requires a proper execution. We know film and TV crossovers are becoming increasingly common, but they are still notable as they are across different mediums and there are different companies that made them, with the Marvel TV shows still requiring some inclusion here. I think it is best to move the What If actors with the TV ones, and change the "Television series" header to "Television" for this table as some content like the GotG Holiday Special and I Am Groot aren't necessarily shows but are on TV, albeit streaming. The shorts (One-Shots, Team Thor, and Peter's To-Do List) and the digital series I feel could be combined in a "Tie-in media" header with notes specifying which they appear in. Same note style can be used to specify actors in TV specials (GotG), television shorts (Groot), and animation (What If). As for the live attractions, I think those can remain as we have them in "Outside media" but change that header to "Live attractions". The note for "Outside media" can also go then. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , we could keep the table for now, but what do you think of my previous proposal of changing the criteria so that we only count characters if they've also appeared in billing blocks of a Marvel Studios franchise (films or Disney+ series)? This will help narrow down the table and avoid giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to less known characters over notable key players. Yes, I know, Marvel Television shows are technically MCU, but I feel like including characters who aren't major players in a proper-MCU-canon Marvel Studios project dilutes the quality of the table.— Starforce13  21:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the billing, I feel it would intentionally negate the inclusion of not only the Marvel TV actors, but any actors' appearances in films, television, and other media. See J. Jonah Jameson, whose in FFH and TheDailyBugle.net. That's a fairly notable casting, yet as of now, he has not been in any billing, so should that be enough reason to remove him entirely? My thought process is standard billing applies for most of these, but some that aren't in the billing and do appear across different MCU media should be included. It's not really undue weight as they are notable to different parts of the MCU, and I feel any attempts to intentionally exclude or mitigate the Marvel TV content really isn't beneficial to readers and wouldn't be that professional or organized on our parts. That is one thing I don't believe should be done. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think too radical is a bit over the top, especially in this case where the table is just getting messy and the only solutions to that so far would render it almost meaningless. I'm just trying to suggest a better alternative because I agree it doesn't make much sense to be so restrictive that barely anyone is included, but at the same time the current format is just not working. We already have big tables that show crossovers between films, crossovers between TV shows, and crossovers between films and TV shows, so the whole point of this section is to show recurring cast members over the franchise as a whole and at the moment I don't think we are doing a very good job of showing that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We could still make this table useful and include common cast members across the films in the billing just in that section, like we do on the Phase Four article, while also condensing it. I just feel a complete removal would be overkill in this display, which is much easier than having to explain the cast crossovers. To me, the media type still holds value. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are to keep the table, we have to come up with a clear way to determine who stays and who goes. Which is the current threshold for inclusion in this table? Is there any? —El Millo (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is that actors who are in the billing of films or shows that appear in multiple forms of media in the MCU are included. As my current proposal above brings up a condensing option and based on points from others, I feel we could extend this to include film actors that received billing who frequently recur throughout the films but aren't in any other media, as we do on the Phase Four article. I don't think restricting this list to just actors based on billing in films AND shows would be useful as we still have some actors in the films like Simmons and Everhart, Rockewell, and Sadler, etc. who headline digital series or other media, which are still somewhat notable. I do apologize for my improper word use beforehand, but I do maintain my view that a complete removal of the table would not necessarily help readers and would instead complicate things even more with a prose overview. We don't need to go too in-depth with this as it should be a easy-to-look at visual tool. I think the qualifier could be any actors who appear in films, television, or other media (like tie-in and attractions) of the MCU are included, as are prominent actors and actors who recur in the films and are on the billing of them. I feel finding a compromise and revising this table would be more suited than abandoning it. I hope this is more clear. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think main billing in a film and TV show is restrictive enough as we already have a bunch of those from WandaVision and that is just the first Disney+ series. It is just going to grow too much too quickly. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But most of those actors billed in WandaVision haven't appeared in films. The same issue can be brought up with a listing for just billed actors without the media type splitting, so I'm really not sure how we want to go about this. I still think splitting by "Films", "Television", "Tie-in media", and "Attractions" would be best. I'm just not sure if we need to include main actors from only the films in this, but as the franchise becomes more focused on Marvel Studios' output, it's tough to figure out what's best. Actors like Downey have only been in the films, so they don't seem warranted for inclusion here unless we were to change it somehow to be across company works, and even then, I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe we could have it be actors that have starred in at least 2 or 3 MCU films and/or episodes and another MCU media (TV, shorts, etc.) and then condense everything? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had another think about this and this is what I know for sure: This all reaffirms for me that we need to rethink what the point of this section even is and whether it needs to exist, or if it does then whether it needs to have a table. We already have full tables for all the films, series, and One-Shots, plus tables for each phase as well as one for all four phases. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We should not be including an "Outside Media" column in the table, this is for recurring MCU cast and characters and the article hasn't even got to outside media yet anyway.
 * We should be consistent with how we are treating What If since we call it "Outside Media" here at the moment but not at the Phase Four article where it has its own "Animation" column. It is also inconsistent that we are treating What If different because it shows alternate events, but not Loki which is also set in an alternate timeline from the main MCU.
 * Film actors appearing in TV shows is no longer noteworthy, there is already a full table at the Phase Four article showing all the ways that this is going to happen over the next two years. This article does not need to just repeat all of that.
 * TV actors appearing in films is soon to be less noteworthy as well, as can also be seen at the Phase Four article.
 * AoS actors appearing in both that series and Slingshot is also not really noteworthy enough to make it as prominent as it is here since that was a direct spin-off made on the set of that series and was released as essentially a bonus episode.
 * Okay, I understand these points more clear now. What If should have its own "Animation" section as we do on the Phase Four article. The rest of the Outside media content isn't really useful. I'm not sure if we should remove the Avengers: Damage Control and the other live attractions actors, but will agree to it given most of them are in other content. My view on this is we should prioritize on recurring cast and characters across the universe, so that would be major actors really who are billed. I'm really not sure how the billing criteria should go, as if we go too far with it, it could seriously restrict lots of actors or overdue them like we have already. AS the film/TV crossovers are getting more common, I guess those can be saved for the specific Phase articles and the like. Notable actors should be included, but again, I'm not sure what criteria would warrant such an inclusion. I'm still iffy on the shorts and digital series and feel they may be helpful but really only for actors like Holland and Hemsworth, and given they aren't a major focus of this article, could also be removed. That would leave it to just the Films, Television (assuming others are up to this change given the GotG HS is a special and not a series; this could also be done on the section at the Phase Four article and in other templates where this occurs), and Animation. Maybe we could split them up by The Infinity Saga and "Upcoming/Future"? Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The main focus of these articles is the films and Marvel Studios Disney+ series. The outside media, digital and shorts are hardly notable to non-hardcore fans and they're nothing more than marketing campaigns. So, I think we should remove them and focus on films and TV series. What if is obviously a television series. Just because the content covers potential alternate realities is not a reason to treat it as alternate media. With multiverse starting, we're going to have lots of projects featuring other realities. And then we can narrow it down to multiple-franchise main billing. I know someone asked about that criteria excluding the Daily Bugle guy, but honestly, he doesn't play a major role in MCU. I don't see why he deserves to get attention over key recurring players like Iron Man. He isn't even notable to non-hardcore fans because he's just a guy on TV screens.— Starforce13  02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing all of this again, I'm totally onboard removing the Outside media, digital series and shorts. I don't wanna jump the gun on the multiverse for this. I think it might be best to not organize them by any headers like "Films" and just have a rundown of the common characters throughout the franchise (in text or in a table; if a table, we'd have to find some grouping. I feel as the MCU expands, this will always need to be relooked at and what we have right now really isn't working, as evident by this discussion. So, yeah, I feel we could remove the table and give an overivew of recurring characters in the franchise unless we are able to construct a new table format grouping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What if we changed the table to show:
 * Character
 * Actor
 * First appearance
 * Last appearance
 * Number of appearances
 * We could also include something to show if they've appeared in a film or tv series because I think that's still useful. Then the criteria could go back to being in multiple franchises. — Starforce13  04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. Isn't the idea of the table to show how the MCU is interconnected between different media? Even though it would still be a "Recurring cast and characters" table, it wouldn't fulfill that purpose. —El Millo (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then could we change the title to something like "Crossover cast and characters" (or something on that line)? This way, it's clear that the focus is the interconnectedness and not character significance in the series. — Starforce13  05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning closer and closer to Starforce's proposal here. I think it could very well work in adequetly displaying the common thread characters of the franchise. Maybe we could specify with symbols or something if they are only film characters or are also in shows, shorts, etc.? Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Any chance we could see a small mock up ? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On a related note, unless I'm mising something shouldn't the table include Natascha Romanoff? 2A02:A03F:8C5A:9B00:2555:A332:740B:E4A (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Going back to this off of Starforce's format, I think it would be best if we orient this "Recurring cast and characters" table to showcase what it states, the recurring cast members and characters across the MCU. As the exact type of media format is becoming less important, we should go off of the total number of appearances from main characters. I feel a reasonable criteria would be including characters who have appeared in at least three forms of MCU media (whether they be films, television series, animation, short films, and digital series), and are in the billing block of at least three films and/or the main/starring and/or guest of at least two series. I think the goal here would be to present all of the most seen actors and their characters across the MCU under this criteria and to omit anything not actually relevant (such as the games, theme parks, Team Thor, Peter's To-Do List, and The Daily Bugle, as they wouldn't fall under this criteria) Most of the Marvel TV actors also wouldn't apply, but some might. The Animation section can be used for the What If actors, and any others if animation is used more. Not sure if the "Guest" indicator would be used for those or not, but it probably should as we do so on the Phase Four page. A simpler criteria could be the actor/character has to appear in at least three MCU projects, if we don't want to get all technical about it, but that could get overflowed, so the billing criteria would probably be best, not sure if it would be how it is as I'm suggesting, it may need to be refined. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's try to get things clear. For starters, it may be helpful if you listed like four or five characters you think would be included in this model and four or five characters that wouldn't be included. Try to make the reasons for which they either apply or not apply as diverse as possible. At least for me, that way it's easier to understand the model and to see if it would be a good model or not, based on what applies and what doesn't. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking characters such as Tony Stark, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Star-Lord, and Captain Marvel would be included as they have appeared in multiple films in the billing and some of which are in television series/special, such as Hawkeye and Star-Lord. Thaddeus Ross could also be included, as could MJ, Ned, and other characters who appear along those lines of starring or prominently appearing in at least three MCU properties. Characters such as Betty Ross, William Ginter Riva, Daisy Johnson, Samuel Sterns, and Yelena Belova wouldn't be included as they have/will appear in at least or less than two MCU properties. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's a mockup of what I have in mind: draft. My updated criteria is: character/actor:
 * has appeared in at least 3 projects (films, series)
 * has been credited in the main billing block / posters for at least two different franchises
 * This eliminates a lot of minor (less notable) characters and gives priority to key players who have appeared in multiple franchises instead of focusing on media type which tends to favor minor characters (because they're more likely to be available for smaller gigs like voice roles, one-shots and web series). Number of appearances includes mid-credits scenes. Each show counts as one appearance regardless of the number of episodes. My count is probably not accurate. There could also be some people I forgot to include. — Starforce13  14:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is a more smooth and clear visual template for the characters listing. I'm honestly totally fine with it to focus more on number of appearances than which media they appear in, as this should be simple and easy to understand. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the criteria, but I'm not super sold on the last three columns (first/last appearance, and number of appearances). Could we keep the column headings we have now, and just put numbers under that as a way to state info? So for Coulson, he'd under "Films" he'd have 3, under "Television series" 1, and under "One-Shot" 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree on that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What are the numbers for? —El Millo (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of appearances in that medium. Or we could list each property as abbreviations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So instead of putting the name of the character in the first column and the actor in the rest, we'd put a number? I don't think that's helpful. The exact number of appearances seems trivial and, apart from that, I don't think it would look good. —El Millo (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Starforce had included appearances in their table mock-up, so I gave an alternate suggestion if that was desired. I agree, I'm not really a fan of tracking appearance numbers or first/last ones, at least in this table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I like your suggestion as well. I struggled trying to choose what to include in the additional columns and I also had a version that showed the number of films, number of shows. UPDATE: If counts are hard to keep track of, we could use highlighting to show which media format they've appeared in. I've incorporated your idea in this new version. —  Starforce13  23:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's best to stick to just their names, without keeping track as part of the visible table. Perhaps we could still include the count as a hidden comment as verification that the characters are up to the standard. —El Millo (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Facu. We should essentially keep the same formatting for the table now, just removing/adding people based on new criteria. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keeping track of the count is hard and even some of the ones I included are off. But, yeah, the key thing is changing the criteria to keep the table under control. And when the table gets too large again, all we have to do is increase # of franchises and/or number of projects needed to be eligible. — Starforce13  00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. —El Millo (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. So, should we move forward with this criteria? Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have a mockup of what it will actually look like to confirm? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have created the mockup using the approach agreed above (i.e. same as current table structure but with a different criteria that gives priority to notability/significance over platorm). Here's the mockup link.
 * I still think it is quite long, but it is a definite improvement over the current size so I support making that change. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's still long. I'm thinking of narrowing down the criteria to those who have appeared in at least 3 franchises. It would cut out Peter Quill, Nebula, Gamora, Groot, Rocket, Drax, Darcy Lewis, Okoye, Shuri and Monica Rambeau. We'll probably need to narrow it even further or rethink the whole thing after No Way Home and Multiverse of Madness which are likely to feature a lot of characters., how does that sound? —  Starforce13  02:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the cast criteria as discussed here. In the future, to keep the table small, we'll just need to increase the number of films/series and/or number of franchises to qualify.— Starforce13  22:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think we need to just get rid of the table here and have a brief explanatory paragraph. —El Millo (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that will be the ultimate solution considering the article size.— Starforce13  22:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

David Maisel, Avi Arad, Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios
The current page has Kevin Feige being credited as the "creator" of the MCU. That information is false. Altough he did have contributions, the idea for the MCU came from David Maisel, and that's even said by Marvel itself. From its press release: "Mr. Maisel joined Marvel in December 2003. He was responsible for the conception and execution of the company's new film production initiative, including the establishment of the $525 million non-recourse loan facility to finance that strategy."

Also, the current page includes the information that Avi Arad left Marvel because of differences with the MCU and didn't have confidence in it. That information is also false. According to Arad himself: "Our financing would have never happened without me reaching out to Brad Grey to make a distribution deal that will give you a corporate guarantee. Other people in Marvel worked for many months with Universal and could not reach a deal. I got tired of waiting and went to Brad. The deal was done in days, successful for both companies. The big presentation to financial institutions and insurance companies took place on the Paramount lot. I was the presenter and it worked. Does this sound to you like someone who disagreed with the strategy to make our own movies? [...] We had a list of titles, but the slate didn’t have Iron Man or Hulk, and I had a very tough time getting Iron Man back from New Line, but we got it back. I always loved Iron Man. I left because I wanted to leave. It was nothing other than it was time to go. The company was growing and I didn’t like committees and I was 60 and was doing well as it was. I took a walk and thought, ‘I’m too old for this.’"

The page also says that Kevin Feige was named studio chief in 2007. Another false information. He became president of production in 2007, but was only named president in 2008.

And Marvel Studios wasn't created because of the Spider-Man films, as it was created *before* they were even developed. -- Newtlamender (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * First, the Marketscreener article that you referenced says "(Maisel) was responsible for the conception and execution of the company's new film production initiative, including the establishment of the $525 million non-recourse loan facility to finance that strategy." "The company's new film production initiative" i.e. Marvel Studios, not the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The article does not even mention any aspect of a shared universe. You, however, changed "Feige, a self-described "fanboy", envisioned creating a shared universe, just as creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had done with their comic books in the early 1960s." which is backed by the cited Boston.com article to "David Maisel, president and COO of Marvel Studios, envisioned creating a shared universe, just as creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had done with their comic books in the early 1960s". This is WP:SYNTHESIS at best and outright WP:OR at worst.


 * Some of what you say about Arad may have some merit as the archived Bloomberg Press article that is being used to verify Arad's involvement has been radically altered to its current form, which makes no mention of Arad. The same archived source is being used verify Fiege's promotion in 2007, again this has been removed in the current version.


 * Therefore, I think we can justifiably remove the mentions of Arad, and credit Maisel for the creation of Marvel Studios and securing the initial loan, although as you point out Arad does claim that it was his reputation that secured it, but we cannot verifiably credit Maisel with the creation of the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * First, it's not an article, it's a press release. Second, it doesn't mention the shared universe because Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk weren't even released at the time. Nobody knew that that was what they intended to do. The announcements at the time just mentioned that Marvel was making its own movies, not that they were related to each other. The films came out in 2008 and the release is from 2007. Also, I used as a reference an article by The Hollywood Reporter made by a journalist who talks directly to Maisel and people with firsthand knowledge of his tenure at Marvel who confirmed it was his idea for the MCU. The Boston.com article don't confirm that Kevin Feige was indeed the "creator" of the MCU. They didn't interview anybody related to Marvel Studios at the time. By reading the article, it seems that they just wrote that because it is the common assumption that he envisioned the MCU, which is not the case. The article is not a dive on the creation of the MCU, as the THR article is; it's just an article talking abou the MCU in general.


 * Not some things I say may have merit about Arad, but all has. He said that the BusinessWeek information is false, and there's no better source than himself in the matter of why he leaved. And Marvel Studios was created in 1993, before even Arad was involved with the studio (he became involved after ToyBiz bought Marvel in 1998) and Maisel. The THR article says that Maisel envisioned Marvel owning its movies and had the idea of the shared universe, but not that he *created* Marvel Studios, as it was already created. -- Newtlamender (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What you have in that Hollywood Reporter article is a quote from Maisel himself saying that he had the idea of a shared universe. Someone with an agenda is not the most reliable source. Are there any other sources that confirm what Maisel is claiming? Because there are lots of sources claiming otherwise. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * From the THR article: "Others with firsthand knowledge of [Maisel's] tenure support [his claims]." These sources claiming Kevin Feige envisioned the MCU are just following the common assumption that he did. No one did what THR did, getting behind the stage of Marvel Studios. -- Newtlamender (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * These sources claiming Kevin Feige envisioned the MCU are just following the common assumption that he did. No one did what THR did, getting behind the stage of Marvel Studios. This is WP:OR / POV pushing. How do you know what work into their reporting? Also per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This does not mean you erase all other viewpoints in favor of your chosen viewpoint as you have done in your recent edits. Keep in mind, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." I would definitely call this a "minority view or extraordinary claim".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * POV pushing? You can just read the Boston.com article to notice that the article is not an investigative article. It's not a profile, which talked to Kevin Feige and people who worked with him. It's just an article which talks about the MCU in general, from an outside perspective, like you would find in websites and blogs like ScreenRant, /Film, ComicBook.com, etc. How do you know what work into their reporting, to maybe affirm that the work they did is similar to the one THR did? Also, I didn't remove the viewpoint that Kevin Feige helped with the creation of the MCU; my edit just mentions that he wasn't the one to first have the idea of the MCU. Kevin Feige's contribution to the MCU is still mentioned. You are saying that because most websites came to the wrong assumption that Kevin Feige was the "creator" of the MCU, it should be accepted that, but it shouldn't, as this is a false information. This can't be considered a "minority view or extraordinary claim", as it was published by a very big, important and reliable entertainment website and the information they provided were provided by not only one source, but several. -- Newtlamender (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * my edit just mentions that he wasn't the one to first have the idea of the MCU which is removing the veiwpoint from other sources. Also you have not addressed the WP:SYN concerns raised above. You cannot simply take cited information from an article about Fiege and apply it to Maisel. What should you have done is present an opposing view, not erase reliably sourced information. You are saying that because most websites came to the wrong assumption This is still a POV response, please try to remain neutral. This can't be considered a "minority view or extraordinary claim", as it was published by a very big and reliable entertainment website, if it weren't then this would be a commonly accepted veiwpoint found in other reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It seems like we are going in circles. The viewpoints you mention are just an assumption, not a fact, that began to be dispersed as a fact. An assumption cannot become the true just because most people believe it's the true. It's like if most people began to say that the sun is green. It should be published in Wikipedia that the sun is green, because some websites reported that some people believe it's green, despite it's false? It doesn't matter - or it shouldn't - if some information is the "commonly accepted veiwpoint" if a major source say "Hey, everybody, about that viewpoint? Not true". -- Newtlamender (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UT
 * Yes, we are going in circles because you keep dismissing verifiable information as assumptions. We are neutral editors, it is not our job to proclaim what is or what isn’t truth. We simply present reliably source information. Remember, WP:Verifiability, not truth.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you keep dismissing verifiable information as assumptions How can you say it is verifiable information? Was it you that wrote that article? How do you know they did a research and didn't go along with saying that Kevin Feige was the creator of the MCU because he is the face of Marvel Studios? If you can say I can't go and proclaim they went along with a assumption because I don't know what work went into their reporting, you can't say they verify their information because you also don't know. it is not our job to proclaim what is or what isn’t truth And yet, if you're against my edit claiming that David Maisel was the creator of the MCU, then you're saying it's a lie, because you're in favor of claiming that Kevin Feige is the creator. We simply present reliably source information And I'm presenting to you reliably source information. I'm giving you information from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. One of the biggest entertainment websites in the planet. But you say they might have an "agenda". And you gave me an article from Boston.com. Come on, man. -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:Verifiability means “other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.” The information presented in the article comes from reliable sources. Again, if you have a reliable source with an opposing view, then you may present that view as well (as long as it doesn’t give a WP:FALSEBALANCE) but it does not negate the previous one. There are many ways to properly do this, but your edit did not. And yes, Maisel may have an agenda, that’s why we do not base Wikipedia articles on WP:PRIMARY sources like interviews.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would understand not having confidence in the source if the source was only Maisel, but, according to THR, people with "firsthand knowledge of [Maisel's] tenure" confirm his claims. To end this discussion, how about making a compromise? Stating in the article that there are two versions of the story: one that Kevin Feige created the MCU, and the other that Maisel created the MCU. Also, as you already previously agreed, remove mentioning Avi Arad in the creation of the Marvel Studios (neither he or Maisel created it) and removing the said reason why he left. We can arrive at this consensus? -- Newtlamender (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Who are these people "with firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure"? Again, you have ONE SOURCE claiming something that goes against what a plethora of other sources are telling us.  If there are such people with "firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure", surely the Hollywood Reporter is not the only source that they talked to.  Unless you can find additional sources to back up THR's reporting, the weight of evidence suggests that the article should stay as is.  There is clearly NO CONSENSUS to do otherwise, since not a single editor has chimed in to support your suggested edits.Rcarter555 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Who are these people "with firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure"? Ask the writer of the piece. If there are such people with "firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure", surely the Hollywood Reporter is not the only source that they talked to. This would only support what I'm saying that these websites didn't talked with anyone about Kevin Feige creating the MCU, because, if they did, these people might have said "Hey, it wasn't all Feige". -- Newtlamender (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You must realize the flimsiness of your argument. Because no other source says what THR said, it proves that other websites never talked with anyone about Feige creating the MCU, because if they did, these people MIGHT HAVE SAID "hey, it wasn't all Feige"?  I mean, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but that comment is laughable.  We deal in verifiable information here.  Not guess work and agenda-driven editing...Rcarter555 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We deal in verifiable information here. Man, you're treating being a editor in Wikipedia like you're a police officer working on a case. Chill. -- Newtlamender (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're the one who refuses to back down from a specious argument that not only has no consensus, but not one single other editor to date supporting you. I would respectfully suggest that you're the one who needs to "Chill"...Rcarter555 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I already proposed a compromise to end this and you appear out of nowhere and decides to attack me. This is just Wikipedia, man. Really, chill. Holy shit. -- Newtlamender (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no "attack", so please stop exaggerating. Your proposed compromise is unacceptable as it gives undue weight to an unsupported piece of information.  If your attitude really is "This is just Wikipedia", then why are you here fighting so hard for your proposed change? Rcarter555 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, do you need any help? You look like a maniac. I'm trying to end this and you keep going, like, "Your argument is LAUGHABLE!", "Your compromise is UNACCEPTABLE!". This is not a war. This is a discussion.


 * My compromise is just to say as it is: there are two versions of the same story. One says Kevin Feige created the MCU, the other that Maisel created the MCU. Just include that on the article, without determining which one is true or false, because, if it not, we're gonna be here all week discussing this. If you think that's PREPOSTEROUS, MANIACAL, or whatever agressive thing you might say, if you think it's unsupported, you do you. But it can't be denied that there are are two kinds of people telling the same story. If, as was previously said here, the job of the editor is not to determine which what is or what isn’t truth, just put that there. -- Newtlamender (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the personal attacks or you will be reported to an admin. Your compromise IS unacceptable to me because you're trying to give undue weight to a single source vs. the multitude of other sources that contradict that information.  You're correct that the job of the editor isn't to determine what is or isn't truth, but it IS the job of the editor to only add what can be verified.  One single source against the large number of sources that say the opposite is NOT sufficient.Rcarter555 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm attacking you? Now, that is laughable.
 * Yes, I would say comments like "Dude, do you need any help? You look like a maniac" constitutes a personal attack. You will find no personal attack from me, merely commenting on your proposed change.Rcarter555 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't honestly believe that you're saying that I'm trying to give undue weight to a story published by one of the biggest entertainment websites there is made by a journalist who talked to several sources to corroborate the story given by one person. That's crazy. - Newtlamender (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please list the "several sources" that the journalist talked to. You can't.  And thus, that is unverifiable by Wikipedia standards.  Not crazy at all.  That's how this site works.  Information must be verifiable by unbiased and reliable sources.  The Hollywood Reporter, no matter how reliable, quoting anonymous sources to back up the claim of a man who has a stake in the veracity of the information hardly qualifies, when there are MULTIPLE sources who disagree with it.Rcarter555 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 2) What informartion about Feige I applied to Maisel? -- Newtlamender (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See my earlier comments.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that didn't helped very much with my question. -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, “La, la, la I didn’t hear that.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

break
"...because most websites came to the wrong assumption...". That is a very bold claim, can you prove that? If you haven't already, you need to give WP:RS and WP:V a read. Also, see WP:Verifiability, not truth. (jmho) - wolf  19:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Hollywood Reporter, a very reliable source and one of the biggest entertainment websites in the world, is claiming that. -- Newtlamender (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * THR is a reliable site - BUT it doesn't say what you claim it does. There's nothing in the THR article that says Maisel started the MCU. It doesn't even mention MCU or shared universe. Marvel Studios is not MCU. Producing Iron Man is not starting MCU. The MCU is the interconnectivity between the films and you haven't provided any evidence that it was Maisel's idea. — Starforce13  21:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From THR: "Maisel says he had long before begun to ponder what would happen if Marvel owned its movies and could mix characters together as had been done in the comics, 'so that each movie could become a lead-in to the next, and, basically, after the first movie, they’re all sequels or quasi-sequels.'" -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's still too much WP:SYNTHESIS. Having thought about it doesn't translate into he's the first or the only one to think about it or he's the one who eventually created it. For an analogy, if I said "I thought about starting this discussion", it doesn't translate to "I'm the one who started this discussion." —  Starforce13  21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But he started the discussion. He proposed the idea to Marvel's board. They said, "OK". And then Marvel Studios did it. -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood Reporter article that you place so much faith in simply reported what Maisel told them. Maisel is the primary source and thus definitely someone who could have an agenda (who doesn't want to be known as the man who created the biggest franchise in the world).  Did the Hollywood Reporter have other sources?  If so, what are they?  And since this one report contradicts many, many other sources, just the weight of that would require additional sources to back up what The Hollywood Reporter is saying.  Rcarter555 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Most sources, both before and after the Hollywood Reporter piece, focus on Maisel's proposal for Marvel to produce films themselves instead of selling the licenses, producing many films based on the properties, and securing financing for Iron Man. (Polygon, Superhero Hype, Vanity Fair, ScreenCrush Many other reliable sites have picked up or referenced THR story though (MovieWeb, Wall Street Journal, Screen Rant, Yahoo!). To respond to a particular thing said: it doesn't matter if the sources THR cites are anonymous. THR is a source of the highest reputation, so any anonymous source they cite is regarded as reliable if they consider it reliable enough to include it in their article.

So, based on this, we can definitely mention Maisel's idea to produce films instead of selling licenses, and produce several films about different properties. We can also mention that THR reported he came up with the shared universe concept, and specifically use the word in order not to give it the quality of truth, as it conflicts somewhat with most other sources that don't take the info directly from this interview and Feige and Marvel declined to comment on the matter. We can literally put. That way, we include the info while given it the weight it merits, without presenting it as the "true" version of the events. —El Millo (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Editors are supposed to evaluate the information in sources and determine how much weight to give them. Adding information from this one article, only to make sure reader's are aware how flimsy it is seems counterintuitive to that. The reason we have to be cautious about adding information, especially contentious information as this appears to be, it will still be presented with Wikipedia's voice, giving it more weight than it seems it due. Arad disputes the info, and neither Feige nor Marvel will back it up (not even a courtesy "yes, he was part of the early process that lead to the creation of the MCU"... their silence is deafening). Regardless of how solid THR usually is, against this, I think they need more than just an "anonymous source", (which for all we know is some lowly intern playing both sides of the fence, possibly hoping to curry some future favor with Maisle if need be). Are there not any other sources to support this claim? - wolf  03:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, I don't have a problem with journalists using anonymous sources. This is standard practice. However the anonymous sources in the THR article are in support of Maisel taking credit for structuring Marvel Studios' initial financial model, not for envisioning the shared universe aspect as Newtlamender claims. The part about mixing characters is in Maisel's voice, not the authors'. So we cannot say that THR supports this claim, they are just telling us what Maisel told them. THR also notes that Arad disputes some of Maisel's claims, so the truth of the matter is still in question. Again, as Wikipedians it is not our job to take sides, only to relay what has been said.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Article cleanup
So, this article was recently tagged as potentially being very long and in order of some clean-up to aid readers in navigation through all of the content. There are some paragraphs that can clearly be merged together for being too short, while others seem to be quite long. Some parts may be over-specific towards the nature of this article's focus on the franchise as a whole by focusing on the specifics of certain properties that can and are covered in specific articles (i.e. the Spidey stuff, Netflix, Hulu, ABC, Damage Control, New Warriors, etc.) I think we need to thoroughly re-evaluate the bulk of information we are giving and how to order them, and tidy things up. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is article is too long. —El Millo (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, as well. We can probably trim it down to the basics, and not overly specific details. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think the amount of readable prose is too long. The bulk of the article's size looks to come from the tables which isn't a problem. I do see however, that (the editor that tagged the article) is working on a "Development of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" article in his sandbox. This could be a solution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another thought. Since the list of films and TV series have had content split out greatly from what they used to be, we could in theory move a lot of the development info to those lists, and keep a redux version here? We could also split the Avengers Campus stuff to that article and create another overview table for the various attractions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best solution. The Development section is the largest prose but most of that content fits perfectly into other articles; and so we don't need another article dedicated to Development. So, the "Development" section here should be a summary of the overall MCU development then break out the sub sections as follows:
 * Films -> List of MCU films
 * Distributors -> List of MCU films (this shouldn't even have been here)
 * Television -> List of MCU TV series
 * Business Practices -> Marvel Studios — Starforce13  01:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of that plan outline. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More or less the breakdown presented I'm in agreement with, but all of them, particularly "Business Practices", should remain here in some fashion. They can all be redux versions of what exists now so readers still have a general overview of each part. "Business practices" I feel since they relate to how the universe was approached, shouldn't full scale be split out because most of it is related to the MCU even though it's by Marvel Studios' actions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we already have a lot of the right content at the TV and Phase articles, we just need to get the film and business stuff over to the list of films and then turn the info that is here into a summary rather than the full detail. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Another artical focused on Development of the MCU can be nice solution. Can't we just do the same as it has been done with Mark Ruffalo's Filmography Section. Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DailyBugle
Should The Daily Bugle YouTube videos be added to the Digital Series section? StarWarsFan2247 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 12 above. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait that doesn’t really example that though. The Daily Bugle is basically the same thing as the Agents Of Shield thing (I forgot the name lol). Also the Daily Bugle thing has it’s own site and social media including twitter, Instagram, and the YouTube channel so it might make sense to talk about the site mainly. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bump. It makes a ton of sense to add in the Daily Bugle to the page. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . What is the reasoning that Daily Bugle content is not detailed here (i.e.: the edit request you referred to with a link, no longer pulls up)?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly I forgot what it was now lol RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
Just a heads up that I feel this draft is almost ready for mainspace with the exception of a long plot summary. Also keeping an eye out for potential edit war is noted as recommended. Jhenderson 7 7 7  21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021 (2)
Add "Untitled Captain America 4" Mrmatt24 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please say what you want to be changed in a 'change X to Y' format and provide reliable sources to support your edit request. MBihun (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't add until officialy announced. Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)