Wikipedia

Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 3

< Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Favre1fan93 in topic Netflix's phases
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Damage Control status?

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

It's been over a year since there's been any news on Damage Control. I understand that it was a put pilot which meant it was assumed to air, but there must be some point where we assume it's not going to air if we don't hear any news. What point will that be? The end of this TV season? -Joltman (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and AlexTheWhovian: I've been thinking about this as well. For Lee's statement about airing to come true, the show will have to come out early next year, and that was stretching what he was saying anyway. Not to mention that Lee is no longer in charge, and Dungey said that she was working with Marvel to sort out upcoming shows herself. I'm thinking that we should put Damage Control down with Most Wanted as a show that isn't moving forward, in a section with a table like this in it:
Series Season Episodes Showrunner(s) Status
Marvel's Most Wanted 1 1 Jeffrey Bell and Paul Zbyszewski Unaired
Marvel's Damage Control 1 1 Ben Karlin Unproduced
This could get transcluded over to the MCU page, like how we already have Most Wanted in its own section at the bottom over there. We can always move the show back up to the ABC section if something changes in the future. If we do make this change, do we also create the Damage Control article, or bring some of stuff from our draft over to this new section? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with this. If it's a table specifically for put pilots that haven't aired or been produced, then do we really need the seasons and episodes column? They're all pilots, the values for those cells are obvious. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That was just trying to line it up with the other tables somehow, if we are going to combine them at the MCU page. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think here it should become a subsection of "Potential project" because until we get the official word it has died, there is still the chance, since it was officially announced. And then at the main MCU article, we just create the cell manually at the bottom of the table like with Most Wanted. And the status should be something like (while not this) "In development hell" or "Unclear" etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, the draft should stay as is, for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm good with that. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So I finally made these changes. Let me know what you think, especially what I did for the "status" column over at the main MCU article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it all looks good, I just removed the "(Unclear)" since we are stating that we do know a status (Put pilot ordered). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Marvel's Runaways Cast

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

https://news.marvel.com/tv/59021/marvels-runaways-finds-cast/ -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Added to our hidden section here, and will create a hidden section at the list of TV cast as well, so the info will be ready once we get the confirmation the series is definitely in the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Some editors are of the opinion that those sources are mistaken (which seems like original research). It's particularly weird since several of those same sites are deemed perfectly reliable for citing other information. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Screenrant cites Marvel.com and comicbook.com, and Nerdist both cite Deadline. Neither, Marvel nor Deadline mention the MCU. I highly doubt popwatch, moviepliot or the mcuexchange have access to information that more reliable sources do not have. They are more than likely just repeating rumors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OR notwithstanding, it is an unarguable fact that the Runaways have been tied to the MCU's published material already, and that fact has been reported on. I doubt Marvel will see a need to release a statement confirming the obvious. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • They wouldn't release a statement to confirm that single fact but they would mention it in one of their other statements like they have for every single one of their other productions. Perhaps they will, we will know for sure soon enough. There's NORUSH.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One reason for caution, now especially with the cast, is one cast member (Tina Minoru) previously appeared in the film Doctor Strange and the description for the character in the TV series is completely different and unrelated than how she appeared in the film, along with a different actress. Yes it is not out of the realm for Marvel Television to supersede the very minor film appearance, but neither Marvel Television or Marvel Studios have done anything like this before with a character (replaced actors though, yes). All the signs are pointing to it being in the MCU, but there are also those such as I pointed out adding skepticism to it since Marvel did not indicate yet in any way where it sits in the MCU, if at all. And as Triiiple pointed out, we are in WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This still isn't decided upon? I know that some editors have been waiting for a MCU-statement regarding the show, but when references are made, some of the same creative team from other MCU TV shows are behind Runaways, and the show itself is listed as Marvel's Runaways on the show's own announcement-article (something which is common knowledge to mean that the show is MCU-related) - why is this also not obvious to everyone? If the word Marvel's was added to clarify what shows are a part of Marvel's MCU....why is this even a discussion? Marvel's other productions that are not a part of the MCU are simply listed by their title in their announcements (see Legion and Gifted). In contrast look at Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Marvel's Agent Carter, Marvel's Most Wanted (though cancelled and never aired), Marvel's Daredevil, Marvel's Jessica Jones, Marvel's Luke Cage, Marvel's Iron Fist, Marvel's The Defenders, Marvel's The Punisher, Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot, Marvel's Damage Control, Marvel's Inhumans, Marvel's Cloak & Dagger, and Marvel's New Warriors. What part of Marvel's Runaways isn't understood here?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The part that realizes that we can't base information on synthesis or original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
No WP:SYN has been used here. Marvel places the word "Marvel's" before their TV series to signify they're a part of the MCU. That's common-knowledge as it has been such since Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Also Marvel.com is a direct and reliable source, given it's from Marvel themselves so no WP:OR either. Also the reason Marvel's New Warriors should already be on this page too.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Marvel places the word "Marvel's" before their TV series to signify they're a part of the MCU. But do you have a reliable source explicitly stating this? We cannot use our own observations. -- AlexTW 01:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair point, I get that the debates go on so as to try and keep Wikipedia legitimate as far as information goes. I recently discovered this Comicbook.com exclusive interview with Producer and Head of Marvel Studios Kevin Feige on the set of Doctor Strange as I was just reading about the references and 'Easter eggs' in the movie. In the interview provided here], Feige states that the brief cameo featuring Tina Minoru wielding the Staff of One was purposefully done so as to setup/connect to the Runaways. He also states that it's an Easter egg most viewers won't catch. Well, given the information (though from Comicbook.com - which is in general not a primary source) confirms that the show is a part of the MCU. The character was introduced purposefully so as to branch out and create a connection with the TV show. Now, Comicbook.com in its exclusive interview can be set as a reliable source here --- they rarely do exclusive interviews/articles. Whether the character was cut from Doctor Strange or not (its been a while since I've seen the film) -- the connection is there. From the mouth of the Head of Marvel Studios. Now let's add it to the MCU page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
At no point in that source does Feige say anything about the TV series. The author of the article mentions it, but does not explicitly connect it to the film. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Characters not yet confirmed to appear

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, on this page in the cast table, and at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors, the key states "A dark grey cell indicates the character was not in the season, or that the character's presence in the season has not yet been announced." Can the editors following this talk page please state at Talk:X-Men (film series)‎#"Has yet to be announced" is crystal ball info that this is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL? They have performed edits such as this and this as support for there edits. Cheers. -- AlexTW 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Daredevil s3 / Luke Cage s2 production dates

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I know it's not reliable, but it's something to keep an eye on Daredevil: 1 June, Luke Cage: 30 May. Mike210381 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have sources added to the page telling that the filmings of Jessica Jones season 2 and Luke Cage season 2 are going. The former is currently stated here without any source but I have a source for the latter: http://www.onlocationvacations.com/2017/06/06/luke-cage-season-two-begins-filming-nyc/ Unless it's unreliable. CAJH (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
On Location Vacations is generally considered unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of... I just added a pipe character in an attempt to fix the main MCU page which inserts this table. No change is apparent here, but an edit preview of the MCU page shows the desired effect. I've requested help on its talk page to allow the correction to pass thru to the MCU page in reality (unsure how that works semi-protected) Wjwarren4269 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Marvel's New Warriors

Latest comment: 7 years ago134 comments20 people in discussion

Coming to Freeform in 2018 with 10, 30-minute episodes. Straight to series order. https://news.marvel.com/tv/62577/marvels-new-warriors-headed-freeform-straight-series-order/ -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Like Runaways above, there's no mention of the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
What about that? Mike210381 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The two instances of use seem rather opinionated. The THR article they cite doesn't mention it either. I think this is another case of wait and see.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The Hollywood Reporter article asks about directly connecting to Cloak and Dagger (like how other MCU shows that air on the same network connect directly with each other) in its interview with the exec to which the exec says that it's possible. -AnonWikiEditor (talk)
Yeah it seems very likely, but again we need explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
We just had the exec comment citing its possible and her reasons. (Plus it's obviously not possible if they're not in the same universe). We've added other shows for the same executive comments (or less). -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I also disagree that we need explicit verification on live-action "Marvel's" properties. It's established that they only use the "Marvel's" name for MCU properties (14-0) and not use it for non-MCU works (2-0).-AnonWikiEditor (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Verification is one of Wikipedia's core policies, if not its most important policy. This is not a fan site, nor a news site. There's no rush to include it at this time. And unless you have a source explaining that the "Marvel's" equals "MCU" then that would qualify as WP:SYN if not outright WP:OR.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's policies and I stand by what I said. But also in the particular case of this show, we do have a source. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Which source is that? It is not any source mentioned yet in this discussion--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The Hollywood Reporter. I'm not sure why it's not loading for you. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I've read it but something being possible is not confirmation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that by stating that the team is at the opposite end of the spectrum from The Avengers, is plenty of proof right there. That being said, the producer Jeph Loeb has stated that they brought the series to Freeform because the network worked so well with young-superheroes in Cloak & Dagger. I don't see the issue.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Again that is an indicator that it may be in the MCU, but is not explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand they haven't said 'this is MCU', but why else reference the Avengers in their synopsis?.....

--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Who knows? There could be any reason. That's why we need explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Come on. There is no reason to talk about the Avengers, unless they are in the same continuity. I understand waiting on Runaways because not even that has been said yet, but with New Warriors there's no other explanation. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
$ure, there i$.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The mention of The Avengers in the Marvel.com release, plus the THR interview, particularly the "everything connected" question, seems like clear indication it is in the MCU. In cases like this (and Runaways), I don't think we're really looking for quotes like "X is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe", but more indications either way if it is or isn't in the MCU. The two I mentioned here are clear to me that it is. For Runaways, we've only either gotten nothing or stuff that uses "Marvel Universe" which is not specific enough to indicate the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Karey Burke could have easily confirmed this in her response but instead choose to give a vague "maybe". I think that is telling. Also the mention of The Avengers in the synopsis isn't even a indicator that they will be mentioned in the show. It reads as if they are just giving the readers something to compare their powers to.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Her maybe was about whether they would show connections. As she notes they are very tonally different and the properties themselves never crossed in the comics. But it's only "maybe" or "possible" to begin with if they are in the same universe. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Anon, and feel she would also in the questions posed to here have completely denied it existing within the MCU if it didn't. But because she was on the "maybe"/close to positive end of the confirmation spectrum, I think that is indeed confirmation it is in the MCU. At this point, having this info, I'd be looking more for a source making sure it wasn't being refuted elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
"Close enough", is not the way verification works. It wouldn't pass WP:GA, much less WP:FA.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You guys, in what world does a producer of a company talk about some other franchise in its synopsis? "On the opposite end of the spectrum to Charlie Brown, Rambo will be.....". Yeah doesn't happen. Even in Marvel properties: "Opposite to Iron Man, X-Men will be...." Yeah that doesn't happen either.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't happen, but can it happen? The answer is yes as Marvel owns both properties. This is not explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Haha come on. In announcing the series, the reason they mention Avengers is to clarify that they want to be like them, but are too different. You don't ever see announcements coming out with references to other franchises in their synopsis. That would be like "On the opposite spectrum to Cloverfield, Alien:Covenant will...." that doesn't happen.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
They own the property. They can use the name at their discretion. Listen, I am not saying its not in the MCU but saying from the given sources at this time we cannot be absolute that it is. Remember WP:Verifiability, not truth. Lets not drag this encyclopedia down to the reporting of a fan site.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand, I just wonder why a statement from the producer, and Hollywood Reporter isn't a reliable source.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

They are reliable, but not verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
So you are saying that in order for it to be verifiable, it needs to mention the MCU, even though no series mentions others in their synopsis? That doesn't make sense to me.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it needs to mention the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
A show can be revealed to be in the MCU, and added to the article as such, without explicitly mentioning the name "MCU" or "Marvel Cinematic Universe". -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
There are any number of ways it can be worded or phrased, this is not it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Talking about this show interacting with another show set in the MCU is it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Nobody says that it does interact with MCU show. Burke says there are possible connections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Finally you understand what was said. So lets get to adding it into the article. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibilities are not confirmation. In fact she says, "But anything is possible with Marvel." All that means is that it's possible we'll add this to the article at a later date.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Going a bit back, a user asked "why else reference the Avengers in their synopsis?". Because they are a known super hero group from a well known film, that's why. Note that there is a well established custom in film advertising to include publicity by association: most films include a little note that says "from the director of...", "from the writers of...", "from the studio that brought you..." and the name of another film. Which does not say anything about said works being in the same continuity at all. See here, for example: you can't say that Watchmen and 300 take place in the same universe because of that line at the top. Hope that explains it. Cambalachero (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm not quite sure what everyone is basing their arguments on here, but in the Q&A at the bottom of the Hollywood Reporter article, Freeform's Karey Burke is asked about Loeb's MCU mantra "It's all connected" in relation to Cloak & Dagger and replies "There are many degrees of separation with where they fall in the Marvel universe." Meaning, they are both set in the "Marvel universe" (and we know that means the MCU because of C&D), but will exist separately like the Netflix shows from S.H.I.E.L.D., for example. That seems pretty clear to me as confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole quote is "If you know these two properties, they're not particularly connected. There are many degrees of separation with where they fall in the Marvel universe." She is talking about the MU, not the MCU. The only "property", we can be familiar with are the comics, since the show has even been written yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Technically, the whole quote continues to include both the shows, contrasting their styles (one is more dramatic, the other is [intended to be] very comedic). She is talking about how the two series are likely going to exist separately within the Marvel universe because of their tones, and we already know that the Marvel universe of Cloak & Dagger is the MCU. We don't need them to explicitly say the term "Marvel Cinematic Universe" to confirm that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
She says that although the "properties" i.e. comics have many degrees of separation within the MU, anything is possible with the series. The series may or may not end up in same universe. This is anything but a definitive answer.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I offer a compromise? Why don't we add a new section for "future shows not yet confirmed to be in the MCU"? Kimpire (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

At that point it is just rehashing List of television series based on Marvel Comics and Marvel Television#Series with possibly slightly more info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, anything listed in such a section would necessarily be limited only to future series. We only have two of those so far, no? And by giving it that title, the *content* of those sections, too, would necessarily be limited to things directly related to the question of whether or not they are in the MCU - it would not list every rumor and cast member and leaked plot point. I think that would be a good way to incorporate the information that a lot of people are desperate to see listed in the article. Its presence, even at the level of a mere mention, would also significantly discourage drive-by edits by people who don't fully read the article but merely Ctrl+F "Runaways". I think it would be well worth our while. Kimpire (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
In the interest of compromise, I'd be okay with this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this might work, as a temporary thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't even need to be very elaborate. We already have a "Potential Projects" section and an "other" subsection. So under "other", just add two sentences saying "this-and-this project was announced, with this-and-this person contrasting it to the Avengers, but the project has not explicitly been confirmed to be part of the MCU." Kimpire (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a fantastic compromise, Kimpire. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not completely sold on this compromise idea, given we've been able to get this article to Featured list status. We shouldn't be putting in "is it/isn't" speculation for series IMO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This debate is really quite petty. With producer Jeph Loeb stating that they decided on Freeform as the network for their New Warriors television series, because of the successes of Cloak & Dagger it would very obviously imply that they are in turn pleased with how that section of the MCU has turned out. This would imply to me that they want another section of the MCU to likewise be successful and well-adapted. Further more with the shows plot stating these heroes, though not-quite super yet, are trying to be like the Avengers - that would make obvious that this team of young-heroes in the making is aware of the Avengers. The Avengers exhist in the MCU. Therefore the New Warriors do too. This counter-argument about the idea that the synopsis using the Avengers' name simply as a ca$h-grab is ludicrous. Yes, though studios say 'from the director of....' - that is not what this synopsis says. It says: Heroes from the opposite end of the spectrum than the Avengers - calling them out by name. Given the fact that the series is going to be a comedy it is obvious that in structure the sentence is giving us the plotline that not only will the team be comparing themselves to the Avengers, but society will as well. Honestly, I can understand the need to be accurate but on the flipside how obvious does it need to get?!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be explicit whether it uses the exact term or not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not about being explicit or not, trust me if this is not in the MCU they would make sure that that is clear, because they don't want to create confusion. Like they did with Legion. Specially for fans, so they won't risk mentioning Avengers on an official release. Just put it already. Andres balbuena (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it has to be explicit. Per WP:V: "sources must support the material clearly and directly," and per WP:OR: "To reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". These are policies. Don't worry, we are working on a compromise above until such time a suitable source is found.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Break

So I wanted to try and maybe clear things up, or get other opinions on options, given we're getting a new Marvel series everyday it seems, and we'll keep spinning our wheels over and over again on this very issue. Here are my thoughts:

If Marvel Television and ABC Studios/ABC Signature Studios announce a series officially titled Marvel's [x]:
  1. Can we rightfully assume, without worry of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, that it is set in the MCU, no matter where in the universe, (so potentially in its own little corner), given that all previously announced series by Marvel TV and ABC Studios with the name Marvel's is an MCU series?
  • We know given Marvel's relationship with FX/20th Century Fox for Legion, with it not being named Marvel's Legion, this can be correct. Though we have yet to a Marvel/ABC Studio series with Marvel's, not in the MCU. So if that ever happens, it would break this theory.
  1. We generally feel the series will be in the MCU (as is happening now with Runaways and New Warriors), but wait until there is some indication of it being in the MCU, which could be:
  • An explicit mention of "MCU" or "Marvel Cinematic Universe" (but not "Marvel U/universe" as that is too vague and can also refer to the characters/teams in the comics 616 Universe); a relation/interaction with an established actor or character of the universe; a mention or connection to another show in the universe; or a potential connection or tie-in to another show(?)
  • But would lack of statements not explicitly denying it being in the MCU be indication that it is? It seems reasonable that Marvel would clearly define (as with Legion) separate series, but maybe not.

These are some options I thought of so take them for what you will and how this can or cannot help our current situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

We can't assume anything and our feelings are irrelevant. Policy dictates that the source be direct and explicit. With that said it's best to take each case on an individual basis, instead of trying establish some predetermined system.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
So what's the Wikipedia policy that states every identical act of branding needs explicit confirmation that it's part of the same brand? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
[1].--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying there isn't one and Common Sense should be used? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I just linked to two. I'm tired of repeating myself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I see nothing in what you linked to that addresses what I stated or would restrict adding these shows to the page. No original research is being done by including identically branded items on the brand page. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The OR is "Marvel's = MCU". You need a reliable source to directly make this connection. Without it, you are making that conclusion based on your own research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Reach Out to the Truth's comment about the Disney XD titles proves that Marvel's does not equal MCU. I'm siding with TriiipleThreat on this. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Disney XD titles are not live-action properties. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So you are adding another layer to your research. My research is telling me that "Marvel's" suggests that it is the sole property of Marvel especially considering it uses the possessive "s". But our research doesn't matter. Marvel can apply the name at their discretion whether its a part of the MCU or not. It's up them since they own it. This is why we need explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
That's not original research. That's basic copyright to say a only a brand can legally use its own name. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
You miss the point. Marvel can name their own properties however they like and categorize them however they like. They are not forced to place "Marvel's" in front of everything they create and everything they create doesn't have to be in the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
That's why its Legion and The Gifted and not Marvel's Legion and Marvel's The Gifted. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and if they can work a deal with Fox (like they did with Sony) they can fold those shows into the MCU. Likewise, they can create an original show without "Marvel's" in the title and place it in the MCU if they so desire. Or create a show with the word "Marvel's" and not have it be in the MCU. There is no requirement forcing Marvel to do anything with their properties.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The prelude tie-in comics are not live action, yet they are considered part of the MCU. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The comics aren't produced by Marvel Television. The live action shows are. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Anon, do you have an *actual source* that says that Marvel has an official policy to only attach "Marvel's" to live-action series if they are part of the MCU? Or are you simply assuming that this is the case because you've spotted a pattern? That is the question at hand. Kimpire (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't assume anything based on the presence or absence of "Marvel's" in the title. Disney XD's Marvel animated series are titled the same way, and we know those aren't set in the MCU. Reach Out to the Truth 18:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
TriiipleThreat I acknowledge your experience and knowledge regarding Wikipedia, but given the fact that a synopsis mentions the Avengers by name in its story, for what reason besides $ would a studio who produces multiple films and television series including the Avengers do that, if the Avengers are not in it? I suggest someone message the series' writer on Twitter, so that we can get that 'official' declaration from them.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point ROttT. I didn't think of the the animated titles having that naming scheme as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Two sources that may or may not be helpful (depending on how you view them): Screen Rant: "As for New Warriors itself: the show is part of Marvel’s larger efforts to expand the MCU to encompass stories and characters more strictly intended for a YA audience. So far, the company has both Cloak & Dagger and New Warriors moving forward at Freeform, as well as Runaways on Hulu, but if these shows succeed then it will open the floodgates for even more Marvel comic book teenaged superheroes to join the MCU in the future." Digital Spy: "The series joins Cloak & Dagger as the first two live-action Marvel shows in the works at Freeform. Of course, Marvel also has Agents of SHIELD and Inhumans at ABC, The Runaways with Hulu, and the interconnected Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron Fist over at Netflix. All of these series are tied in with the Marvel Cinematic Universe to varying degrees." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Screenrant is a reliable source. I would argue that this change should have already been made, but with these two sources stating the same thing - isn't that good enough?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
They both cite the original THR and Marvel sources, neither of which make this claim. Which means they are speculating, much like we are, and per WP:SPECULATION: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hence why I said "depending on how you view them". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I really don't understand some editors rush to inclusion here. As stated numerous times, there is WP:NORUSH. We WILL have confirmation. Just wait.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I really don't understand some editors freaking out about other editors discussing sources and stuff. there is nothing in WP:NORUSH (which has been cited in this discussion exactly once, just now), that says editors should stop discussing because a particular editor is upset. chill out. if discussing things is overwhelming for you, maybe take a break -107.77.223.76 (talk)
No one has suggested that discussion should stop. I was responding to comments that these changes should have already been made and the idea of waiting for appropriate sources has been made more than once here and in the preceding discussion. I for one am happy to discuss new sources. But now that you bring it up there does come a time when you should WP:DROPTHESTICK (not saying that this is it).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
your whining was in direct response to someone discussing new sources, not to any comment that these changes should have already been made -107.77.223.76 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Look again. Also do not edit other people's comments as you did here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
not sure what u want me to look at again...your comment is still in response to the same comment. i didn't edit anyone's comment. there was an edit conflict and that's how wikipedia resolved it. -107.77.223.76 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, I don't think anyone is trying to fall under the WP:NORUSH category of being an issue when it comes to trying to keep an online, user-edited encyclopedia up-to-date. Though we obviously disagree on this topic, we all want to improve these pages so that readers can be aware of all products and projects coming up o the Marvel schedule. One of the issues here is simply that some editors deem certain cites reliable, while others state otherwise. The question I have - is why are they not reliable in your opinion? Honestly someone needs to message the series' writer on Twitter and ask them flat out if it's MCU. Then we can have our answer and move on with this and get over the tedious and miniscule minutia of inconsistencies on this particular page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This interview is explicit in calling the New Warriors in the MCU. here Andres balbuena (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay you want the word Marvel Cinematic Universe to be explicitly mentioned? Now have this and this as proof. Please add this series to the MCU article for good now. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
These sources too cite the original THR article as their source, which as we explained earlier doesn't give explicit verification. Therefore these sources are speculating in the same way we are. Just to reiterate per WP:SPECULATION: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". More than likely the confirmation that we are looking for will come with new information, not anything based on information that has been reported thus far. Also in response to the comment directly above this one, comicbookmovie.com is not reliable per WP:RS/CBM.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
you seen to be the one doing the speculating that these sources are only speculating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.23 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


You guys have got it all backwards - the burden of proof should not be on proving that any given show produced directly by Marvel IS part of the MCU, it should be on proving its on proving its NOT part of the MCU. Marvel have a very clear policy that "it's all connected" and everything they have done in the past 10 years or so has been about creating a single cohesive universe across multiple platforms and media types. Shows like Legion are the exception, not the rule, and it is for shows like this where realistically you would expect Marvel to come out and clarify that its NOT part of the MCU. Otherwise, everything directly produced by Marvel should always be considered part of the MCU as a fundamental virtue of being produced by Marvel, unless they explicitly state otherwise - not the other way round — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.15.62 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If nothing is stated in announcements for these series that in any way connect it to the universe, you are thus assuming it is without a reference to support such claim. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to get this out of the way, more information about the series was released today (via USA Today) with no mention of any connection to MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness it should be pointed out that it does include the line "six youngsters who yearn to be the next Captain America or Iron Man." These characters are not exclusive to the MCU but I'll let you debate if this meets Wikipedia's threshold of WP:NOR to ensure that it does not "reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, Powers and the recent animated series are not part of the MCU. So no, it's not "all connected". Most things are, but not all. The cautious approach is an appropiate one. Also note that Marvel still has a hand in the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises, with films produced by Marvel Studios. Cambalachero (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Powers isn't "Marvel's Powers". There's yet to be a live action "Marvel's" branded property that isn't MCU (currently 14-0) which is why this discussion comes up every time a new "Marvel's..." show is announced. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
TriiipleThreat I believe using that line (and from the original announcement source about the Avengers) would not violate WP:NOR. If they had stated characters not previously established in films or other TV series, then, yes, it would be original research. But given these mentions, the series would then exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe world, even if there are small or tangential connections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Those characters do in fact exist outside the MCU as well, this could just be another case of that. Even so would it not be WP:SYN (A+B=C) to say the Avengers are in the MCU, and the Avengers are in New Warriors therefore the New Warriors are in the MCU?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe that would be WP:SYNTH. Also, Speedball's description says "watching Quinjets take off from Avengers Tower", which I think is also a MCU indicator. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
How so? These maybe indicators but are they "direct and explicit" verification? Its like saying Law & Order, The Wire, X-Files and Arrested Development are in the same universe because of John Munch.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there currently any other live-action Marvel "world" in which Iron Man, Captain America, the Avengers, Quinjets and Avengers Tower all inhabit? No, there is only the MCU. That's my feeling and approach to it, taking into account WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Given what we've been presented (all that I listed), that indicates the MCU to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of, but that does not mean that creating one is an impossibility. Again I believe it indicates the MCU to me as well but we cannot be 100% certain at this point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I will say this is a lot better indication than anything we have for Runaways. I view this as enough to say that it is, currently, in the MCU, until another source comes along saying it isn't (not very likely) or we just get an additional to further strengthen the argument (likely). And I know there is absolutely WP:NORUSH regarding this, but I don't think we should be holding ourselves back given these reveals or waiting for that source adding to the confirmation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that the whole "Marvel's" thing is a good sign for those of us who want these shows to be set in the MCU, but nothing we have been told yet actually tells us that this is the case, so once again we are just going to have to be patient. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious. Hypothetically speaking, if we had not gotten any indication regarding Cloak & Dagger when it was announced about being in the MCU, if with the trailer release yesterday that included the Roxxon Corp sign, would you have felt that was indication enough that it was in the MCU? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Not on that alone. It would WP:SYN based on the fact Roxxon has appeared in other MCU related programming. The thing we have to remember is that this is a fictional universe and like John Munch continuity and cannon is applied at the sole discretion of its creators. Based solely on the trailer, it could be the MCU Roxxon or not, even if it has the same typography. Fortunately we already have a separate source confirming Cloak & Dagger.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Would this count as confirmation? They explicitly say New Warriors is in the MCU. TriiipleThreat said comicbookmovie doesn't count as a reliable source but this is Comicbook.com, a source I've noticed be used before to cite certain news on our forum. -- S talk/contribs 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. They cite "the character bio that Marvel released" and say "The announcement that Debrii will be open about her sexuality is a landmark for the MCU, and the superhero community as a whole." but none of that is mentioned in the actual announcement from Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
how do you know this article on this reliable, citeable website is based solely on the Marvel article and not from other sources, industry contacts, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.120.202 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We don't, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. We can only go on what we actually know. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
right. thats what I'm saying. Because we don't know we are left with a reliable citeable source that says it's MCU so we should be using it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.143 (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
No, he means that we can only go by the only source that they reference, not assume that there is some other unnamed mystery source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

we're not assuming anything. we have a reliable source that states it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.143 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The source maybe reliable but the content is not appropriate. Again, Wikipedia policy states, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. The only source that they themselves reference makes no mention of the MCU, so they are speculating. Remember, this is an encyclopedia not a fan site or rumor mill. Our standards for inclusion are meant to be high.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
they aren't speculating. they're stating. the only speculating being done is by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.143 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Another source. What do we feel about this one? -- S talk/contribs 07:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Once again (unless you have specific proof that this is not the case) they are just assuming, like many of us, that the show is going to be part of the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What part of the article makes it sound like they're assuming? To me it sounds as though we're just assuming they're assuming. We've accepted weaker sources for other series - e.g., Cloak & Dagger. Both this source and the source for C&D state these are new additions to the "Cinematic Universe" yet one is accepted because "It sounds like a confirmation to [me]" (something I recalled was said on the discussion about whether C&D should be included onto this article). That implies bias. I'm merely asking for clarification because it's a bit confusing how despite countless sources saying that these series are a part of the MCU, we say they're assuming. We're supposed to remain unbiased and go by the facts but assuming a legitimate news outlet is assuming something because it doesn't meet our own personal criteria doesn't necessarily fall under this site's policy. I agree, however, that if this source is weak, so should the one attached to C&D because it seems (for lack of a better word) a little unfair that one person can say "It sounds like a confirmation to [me]" and gets to be the ruling judge as to what is and isn't going to be posted on their article. Both these sources sound relatively the same. One was just accepted because it met someone's personal criteria. If we cannot accept this source, I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to accept the C&D one either. -- S talk/contribs 15:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The difference is we have explicit verification for Cloak & Dagger that traces back to a credible source. Freeform's press release says, "The network will also make its first venture into the Marvel Cinematic Universe with new series "Marvel's Cloak and Dagger," a superhero love story." If they came out with a similar statement about New Warriors, we'd add it in a heartbeat.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, FYI, Hulu's upfront presentation is tomorrow (May 3), so it's possible we might get more info/confirmation for The Runaways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I found a Comicbook.com exclusive interview with Kevin Feige that confirms Runaways is a part of the MCU. It can be read here. As for the New Warriors debate and Freeform's "The network will make its first venture into the Marvel Cinematic Universe..." (regarding Cloak & Dagger), perhaps they are the ones "assuming" that the general masses would know a second TV show by them with "Marvel's" in the title, will be the "second venture in the Marvel Cinematic Universe".--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if calling Cloak and Dagger the first implies there will be a second, nothing explicitly says that the second one is the New Warriors. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Linked Comicbook.com source also says nothing of the sort on the Runaways TV series being in the MCU. Honestly as much as I want this to be resolved myself, let's all just wait for the sources to come. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find the article in your link DisneyMetalhead, so I searched it through Google -- The article DOES state that the Easter egg in Doctor Strange was made as a nod to Runaways. Favre1fan93, the article states that it is an Easter egg, and that Marvel carefully plans their references to connect to future projects. How does that article not validate the series, for you? Feige clearly states that the inclusion of Tina and the Staff of One in Doctor Strange was done with Runaways in mind.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, one of it's potential projects was a Runaways film at one point in time. You are synthesizing the sources together. A+B≠C in this case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
For anyone having problems with the link, here it is. Also, here is the quote from Feige: “Drumm, you do hear the name in the movie,” Kevin Feige told Comicbook.com during an on-set interview. “That's how we always build the universe. There are so many characters in the books, that if we have the need for a person to be in this place at this time and have a line, or have no lines, we still want it to be someone. Often times, that's how the names come about. The names that we pull usually are the ones that are relatively top of mind or have been amongst characters that we've thought about, like the Runaways for a long time. I would call that an Easter egg that most people won't even see.” - DinoSlider (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, point taken User:Favre1fan93, but the fact that the article was published in October of 2016 -- the TV show was being developed by August of the same year..... so the film was already shelved WAY back in 2008, and the series was already in-development when Feige made this statement. So again, Feige has confirmed that Runaways is in the MCU.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

I've been thinking about this, and I don't see why we couldn't add series that we are iffy about, like New Warriors and Runaways, to the potential projects section at the bottom. That way we aren't saying that they are confirmed MCU series, but we are still listing them together so people can find them. It wouldn't be much different to a lot of the potential projects mentioned at the bottom of the film list either. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Because at that point we are dabbling in speculation. I don't see a problem with waiting for confirmation. Information about the series can still be found elsewhere, and we don't run the risk of misleading anybody.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Jeph Loeb (Head of Marvel Television) recently did an interview where he discussed the progress that the TV side of the MCU has taken. In said interview, which I will cite here - he clearly states that when they first approached Netflix for a Marvel TV series, there was "... Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter on ABC, and that was it....". He then goes on to say, "Now we’re in some element of pre-, post- or actual production on 14 series that I can talk about. And it just requires that we make sure that there’s always someone from Marvel there to help guide the process." 14 series. That list would include: Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter(?), Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Defenders, The Punisher, Cloak & Dagger, Inhumans.... and logically Runaways and New Warriors as well as possibly the John Ridley-developed TV series(?)....or Agents of SHIELD: Slingshot. All together that adds up to 13-14 shows. What other confirmation is needed? Runaways and New Warriors are both MCU. It's that simple.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Look again. That's hardly confirmation. He was talking about Marvel Television as a whole, not simply MCU series. 14 includes Gifted and Legion. Nothing in that interview can help us either way with this discussion. All we get out of it is that Marvel TV is working on a lot of projects. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree with User:Favre1fan93, as what I understood from the attached article is that the MCU TV side of things has grown exponentially. Runaways debuts November of this year, so it's only a matter of time before a definitive declaration happens. To me its obvious given all the info and statements given - that they are all MCU. Why we have to debate about it, is beyond me.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears as though the studio does expect the 'audience' to understand that "Marvel's" placed before a live-action TV series in an announcement means that it is a part of the MCU. What is nice in this is that we don't need to have these lengthy discussions and debates any longer. Since Runaways and New Warriors are a part of the MCU, I think it should be logical that this is indeed the case in the future. Glad that the citations I used before were indeed correct.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Again that's not how verification works. Coincidence is not verification. Verfication per policy must be explicit. The previous sources were not explicit. Remember WP:Verifiability, not truth.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Because we got confirmation does not mean we can automatically assume any future series with "Marvel's" in the title are automatically in the MCU. Triiiple said it best above me on the matter: "Coincidence is not verification" and "WP:Verifiability, not truth". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Help

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I couldn't figure out how to change the column for Gao's character. I added her in due to there being a wiki article for her actor despite one not existing for the character. Since the ABC series have characters that do not have articles, I thought that was not a requirement to be in the tables thus I added it. 161.185.151.51 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ for inclusion in the table. Wai Ching Ho has not been a main cast member in any of the series she has appeared in, despite appearing in many of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Netflix's phases

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Finn Jones talks here about Defenders being the end of the first phase of the Netflix shows. This doesn't seem like an official term or anything, but could be something to look out for from someone else like Loeb. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is something to add to The Defenders article, but not really anything I feel we should note or separate out here. Partially because we format by series, not season, so that would be kind of hard to distinguish, should it be anything "official". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of using this if we needed to break up the seasons in someway (like our recent table break at the list of actors). But again, nothing official yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh understood. I think we mostly have done that, with the exception of including Punisher in the first table, which is the "Ant-Man" of these series in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series/Archive_3&oldid=1136920687"