Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series

I Am Groot is a short-form television series developed for Disney+, much like Forky Asks a Question and The Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse on the same platform. Would it be appropriate to create a section on this page dedicated to covering I Am Groot, appropriately noting that it is a short-form series distinct from the other shows included? ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC) :EDIT I meant to suggest including them in the list of television shows in phases four and five rather than giving them their own section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to disregard this edit. It only served to add confusion and I apologize sincerely for that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No as stated above on this talk page and in other past discussions as noted above in the FAQ, they are animated shorts and it is not a television series. Hence, it's inclusion does not fit the scope of this article. It is more similar to the Marvel One-Shots live action shorts and thus is noted appropriately at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Shorts. Because of I Am Groot's release on Disney+, a mention in the "See also" section was suggested by myself in the above discussion to still assist readers in getting to that page from here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    Just as a note: whether it’s animated or not (or how long the episodes are) has no bearing on whether it’s a television series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No It's never been referred to as a series by Marvel when shows like Loki are referred to as "an original series" in places like YouTube video descriptions and elsewhere. I think listing it in the "see also" section is fine for this article. -- ZooBlazertalk 03:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, it has been referred to by Marvel as an original series. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    @ZooBlazer - I have edited the original RFC with a clarification as to my proposal. Please be aware. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. As mentioned before, a television series is not dictated by terms used in press releases. The fact of the matter is that I Am Groot is a series. That is an objective fact and the precedent set by other Disney+ original television series of short films means supports the phrasing of the show as “a television series of short films”. See discussion above.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral and Comment While I can understand and respect past consensus and some points from ChimaFan, would it be simpler to briefly note I Am Groot in this article under the "Expansion to animation" header? A table is not really necessary as prose can easily cover the bit of the 5 episodes/shorts per season written and directed by Kirsten Lepore, which is all that would be used to display. The reason I am not casting a solid yay or nay here is that I believe there ought to be some wiggle room for a compromise to satisfy all parties concerned to some degree. As I have suggested above, noting in the lead "and seasons of the I Am Groot series of animated short films" right after the mention of Special Presentations can be helpful to the readers while not disrupting the list's intended scope. If a brief overview section does not garner a warm response, couldn't a prose mention with the rest of Marvel Studios' animation expansion be a viable solution, along the lines of the shorts being their second animated work after What If...? and that it is their first animated short films? I believe there is a work around here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    I support adding it to the Phases Four and Five tables, the sections for which feature no prose, while also adding it to the Expansion into Animation area. I don’t think the episodes need to be listed out, as none of the other shows get that treatment. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    To clarify, as I think I was not asking for what I had really wanted originally (and I will go back to the beginning of the RFC to reflect this) my goal is for inclusion, rather than its own section. It could be noted in the table that it is a series of short films. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    Reversing course and moving them into the Phase tables would simply mean moving them from their individual "Shorts" sections in the Phase articles to be with the rest of the series, as it had been previously. That may be an easier path. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    Would what you’re proposing look similar to this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_Cinematic_Universe:_Phase_Four&oldid=1174695738
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_Cinematic_Universe:_Phase_Five&oldid=1174695844
    Please look at all relevant edits involving I Am Groot on these pages. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Regardless of animation or not and regardless of the creative ways one can describe this. This is a Disney+ (TV) series. It may be more in the format of an anthology series, but those are still TV series by en.wikipedia guidelines. The fact that everyone including Disney uses the words episodes and seasons (see [1]) to describe the different "items" and "sets" is an even stronger indication that this is a TV series (short films are not episodes, nor are they released in seasons). Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes References indicate it is a series. And including it in the list implies to readers that it is part of the Marvel canonical as a whole, which it is. It should be listed alongside the others. Penguino35 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin ChimaFan12 is already performing edits related to this RFC, citing "per consensus" despite this RFC still being active and not yet closed: [2][3][4] -- Alex_21 TALK 00:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    This was due to a misunderstanding that the RFC had concluded, given extended inactivity (over 48 hours had passed since the last response) and the fact that an agreed-upon solution had been proposed nearly 4 days earlier, which lead me to believe that we had reached consensus through discussion. I will be removing the RFC tag now to reflect this. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    That's not how RfCs work at all. The RfC was not even open three days! The tag has been restored. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    For the record: it had been open for about 6 days, actually. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    When I saw you removed the RfC tag, I was foolishly expecting you weren't going to actually try to do this. No one could claim that consensus was achieved after a mere three days and with three Yes vs. two No. This looks a lot like WP:GAMING. —El Millo (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    I should add - I highly recommend an outside party formally close this once the RfC runs its natural course. No one involved should be the arbiter of this in my opinion.- Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    Also I see now there's a new "EDIT"/clarification text above that drastically changes the intent of this RfC. No existing editors who commented were notified about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    Two yeses were posted after the edit, only my yes was posted before and everything stated in the edit was conveyed to Trailblazer in my reply to him. If you're concerned that the people who voted no, including yourself, did so misunderstanding the situation, I apologize and hope that you see now what I am proposing and are willing to vote based upon that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    I apologize, I was acting off of a false assumption (RFCs are able to be closed by any one involved if a solution arises, and I falsely assumed that solution was agreed upon) but I meant well. I'll leave the tag up and will not attempt to make any further edits until such a time when it is deemed appropriate. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    I realize I did not ask for agreement to close the RFC and acknowledge that is where my error lies. Apologies. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    It should be noted also that I did not cite any “vote counts” in my edits. I was operating under the parameters of the proposal from Trailblazer, so I deny firmly any charges of WP:GAMING. Please ascribe my actions to ignorance rather than malice. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    I just want to point out that your edits to the Phase Four and Five article are not actually what Trailblazer proposed in their sandbox, nor were those edits the original crux of your RfC question. As I noted above, I only saw last night your "EDIT" below the original question, yet no one was notified of that. That edit is a vastly different request than what you originally were trying to get comments on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Trailblazer never mentioned a sandbox, and your link is to a random Deadpool article, so neither are relevant to the discussion. The edit I proposed was mentioned directly to Trailblazer and visible to the two affirming opinions, so a majority of the people here have in fact been made aware. You see it now and have every opportunity to amend your vote if you see fit, and I’ll notify the single other person who opined prior to the edit, but their rationale does not seem to significantly change with the context. I have not attempted to reinstate the edits on the phase four or five pages since the RFC reopened and I’m willing to continue this discussion, including with trailblazer, to see if the solution is in the spirit that was intended. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, my stored copy/paste was incorrect. I meant to link to this (fixed above as well). Trail noted this in the discussion above with this comment which is what I assumed you were referring to (in addition to their initial comment here) about operating under the parameters of the proposal from Trailblazer. They never indicated changing the Phase articles, and that was not part of the original RfC question for everyone to weigh in on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    That discussion is separate from this one. The proposal that I was operating under the assumption we were going with is in this thread, not a different one. “Reversing course and moving them into the Phase tables would simply mean moving them from their individual "Shorts" sections in the Phase articles to be with the rest of the series, as it had been previously. That may be an easier path.” That’s what I was said and what I was working with. Please keep up with the discussion before making false assertions. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Courtesy pings @Favre1fan93 and ChimaFan12: Woah, I was unaware my statements were under discussion here. (I've been a bit busy off-wiki, so I haven't had adequate time to catch up on certain things until now.) Allow me to clarify/elaborate:
    I was initially floating the idea of covering I Am Groot through prose in the lead of this list and in "Expansion to animation" (which I am still shooting for), I then addressed ChimaFan's suggestion at implementing I Am Groot into the Phase TV tables, thinking it "may be an easier path", which I meant as in it could provide a smoother transition and inclusion of the content for navigation from the Phase articles to this list and the outline (which could still be used to include a note above the table of IAG being a "series of animated short films" or probably go with "animated series of short films" as it conveys the same) as IAG is considered a series and is listed as such by Disney (which I have found increasingly difficult to counter as I've looked into the streaming content, official press, interviews, websites, etc.), although I have acknowledged that there has been prior consensus that undid including IAG in the TV table at the Phase articles a long while ago, while they were recently moved up from "Tie-in media" to right under the TV tables at those Phase articles. My comment in the above discussion with a compromise proposal was delineating this approach with a separate "Shorts" section and table (with the summary explaining what IAG is) directly after the TV series table to maintain it as an overview of the Phase articles, to avoid unnecessary duplication of the IAG section's paragraphs there.
    I am not solid on where, or if, a table is needed on this list, although, as I outlined in my sandbox, I was trying to see what a hypothetical "Shorts" section and overview summary here would be in addition to the lead additions I mentioned earlier. I have not solidly cast a vote on this matter or any of these potential approaches under the belief that a compromise can be made here, and I was not intending a fraction of my suggestions to be implemented without further discussion, either. I honestly don't see much harm in listing I Am Groot in the same table and section as the other series, though that was not what my sandbox was being used to convey, despite my addressing it above and now here. I don't think the "longform vs shortform" narrative will necessarily hold up, given we're going to have content such as Marvel Zombies (which is only 4 episodes, less than Groot). I think either introducing the "Shorts" section or merging IAG's table into the wider Phase TV tables are viable options, though either way, I strongly urge the lead and "Expansion to animation" additions of IAG to this list, and the summary overview above whatever table IAG is displayed in here, as I suggested in my sandbox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    I support adding those also. I apologize for making only a partial edit if that sent the message that the rest of the proposal didn’t matter. I just did the part of the edit I was prepared to do (it’s worth noting I was really struggling with the table, if you look at the visual preview of my edits) and wanted to allow leeway for others or time for myself to contribute the rest. ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, @Trailblazer101 - could I suggest adding the information in the summary as a note, either in the table or in a bracket (I Am Groot season one[a]; [a] could state exactly that, etc.), and we could just include I Am Groot in the phase tables like I was doing in my edits? ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    That would convey the same intended approach, and could lend an easier transclusion within the tables. I do know that, from what I am aware, there is no way to span the "Head writer" parameter into the "Director" parameter to avoid duplication (unlike how the current IAG tables are), though I am not concerned about that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    I would be in agreement with conveying I Am Groot as a separate table (or prose) under a "Shorts" subheading here as presented in Trail's sandbox and keeping them as is at the Phase articles. I think there should still be distinction between these and the live-action series (plus What If). Lumping them all together because they debut on Disney+ doesn't seem right to me. And I'm not saying that to discredit the whole "is it a television series". We can still note such with the prose so that will be clear, but at the end of the day, they are still a series of shorts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not in favor of that approach. All the information we're trying to convey that makes Groot distinct from the others can be done simply, much easier and just as clearly, by placing that information on the table. I don't think "shorts" is tenable to be its own section because it's an arbitrary separation between I Am Groot and everything else based on nothing but your preference. It's a television show. Plain and simple. Why not keep it simple? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    Nothing about that is arbitrary nor [my] preference. It was literally announced as "a series of shorts" (bolding mine) from Feige on the Disney Investor Day 2020 stream. I found an upload of the investor day stream. So there should still be that distinction here and on the Phase articles of not being in with the long-form series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    If you pay attention to the conversation, you’ll see that we’ve discussed putting all the information in a note on the chart rather than making it a separate chart. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Not everyone will choose to look at a note, which in this case, I don't feel is the correct usage of trying to present this info, as placing it among the non-shorts television content would infer that these are not shorts. We have a clear separation by format already, so that makes a clear presentation for readers by having these presented under a "Shorts" heading here and as they are on the Phase articles. We wouldn't integrate the One-Shots into the films table with a note because those are also technically films. Same rationale should apply here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    That has to be the worst argument I’ve ever heard. For one, the information that these are short films would be included both in the table via a superscript note AND the I Am Groot section in the list of series. Are you worried that people will not read beyond what’s included in the tables? ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    We still should not mixing unlike formats in a singular table. Shorts ≠ long form television series. That's is what I am stating. We can include the info here, that's fine, but it should still be separated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    The point is that they’re not unlike and it’s an arbitrary distinction. A series of shorts, a series of half-hour episodes, a series of hour-long episodes, episodes which are feature length, all of those are different but they are all television series. There simply isn’t support, either literally or even on a logical level, for keeping them separate. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Given the contentiousness of the discussions happening here, it is best in a situation like this for neither party to close the RfC. Let it run its course. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Given that the discussion surrounding the proposal itself was not remotely contentious, might I ask that we move to close this RFC? Trailblazer and I have arrived at a potential solution that I believe is workable and has some level of assent. I acknowledge that there are a couple of dissents from early on in the conversation, so I want to openly ask if we have consensus and if we should close this, especially given the lack of activity beyond elaborating on the agreement between Trail and myself. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I interpret consensus as being that we should include IAG in the prose lists and series tables with the note that the series is comprised of short episodes, and adding IAG into the Expansion into Animation section. Would this be appropriate? @Penguino35 @Gonnym @Trailblazer101 @Loriendrew @RunningTiger123. @InfiniteNexus @ZooBlazer and @Favre1fan93. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@ChimaFan12: no one participating in this discussion should close it given the past contentious nature. A formal closure request should be made so an uninvolved editor can determine consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the way. (#oops.. wrong universe). ChimaFan12, please note the section following this in order to educate yourself into how RFCs work. As a participant, you have an inherent bias. Closures should be done by uninvolved neutral parties.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
To echo my colleagues above, it is not for us to determine what the consensus is or if the discussion has concluded. I remain firm in my proposal on how to handle and arrange the I Am Groot content for this article as I have detailed below, and I think it is the most optimal approach for a compromise (which does mean all parties ought to hold off on certain points in contention in order to reach an agreement). Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
In this case, would it be okay for me to submit the closure request at this stage? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
No, because 30 days have not elapsed since the RfC was initiated. The "normal" time for an RfC to remain open is 30 days, unless consensus is overwhelmingly obvious. I see no clear consensus in this case, and I suspect that is what the closer will find as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I think there is a really clear, workable solution that an overwhelming majority of people are generally supportive of, but I'll await more input. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I see no "overwhelming majority", but in any case, this is not a majority-rule situation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware, and I'm not working on getting a vote. I'm saying there's a workable solution, and I'm awaiting input. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  • @ChimaFan12 Please read WP:RFC and educate yourself on how RFC's work, and how they are to be closed properly, as well as editing them after they are opened. I would note to the closing admin that this RFC be closed as no consensus due to inproper creation. Thank you. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    That is really pointless as the only thing that will achive is an immediate reopning with the same people voting the same way. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    I also don’t believe this RFC should be disregarded or considered non-conclusive. Most people that have opined are open to what I’ve proposed thus far, and the people trying to discredit me have ample opportunity to give their own comment on the matter if they disagree. A proposal was laid out in this RFC by Trailblazer that works. I’d rather it be fairly considered and evaluated rather than have the whole discussion thrown out. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • (Notified via WT:TV) I think the series merits mention here; Marvel's website lists the series alongside other MCU TV series, and (reportedly) some executives thinks it's part of the MCU. That being said, since the Marvel Studios Special Presentations are listed differently, I could see this series getting the same treatment, as it's more of a marketing gimmick than a standalone series (my opinion). Trailblazer101's solution seems reasonable. So call my !vote neutral, leaning yes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Disney+ now clumps them into a series, whereas when "series 1" was first released they were individual titles. It is now possible to watchlist the series rather than having to add each short.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No A short film is not the same as a feature film; a series of shorts is not the same as a television series. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    All of these are rhetorical questions: Why do we not make the distinction between hour-long and half-hour shows when listing television series? Is one more of a television show than the other due to its length? Why do we include limited series? After all, they don’t operate the same way ongoing series do and have a different narrative structure. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying break

Because it is becoming way too confusing to keep track of this discussion with its various threads, Trailblazer101, would you mind restating or linking to a visual, in part or full, of what you have proposed for this? Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure. The way my proposal was constructed was to make some additions to the lede in mentioning I Am Groot, and to incorporate a "Shorts" table covering what I Am Groot is and its terminology in a brief overview. The way I see it, there are two options for the lede addition, and I have outlined my concrete proposal at my sandbox here for further review. Please note the emphasis that I Am Groot is an animated series of short films wording, which I believe is a workable solution as that is truly what it is, per all the sources and the exact notion of what is a television series has shifted in recent years with streaming (hell, stuff like the 8-episode event The Defenders, the 3-episode event The Continental: From the World of John Wick, and the animated 4-episode "event" (as Marvel recently reportedly said they intended all their upcoming series to be) Marvel Zombies are still television series just with different classification terms, and any of the Marvel Studios series presently classified as "miniseries" automatically become long-form television series upon a renewal, but the fact that these are all still television series cannot be disputed. There are a variety of Disney animated shorts series that exist and are classified as animated series with similar formats as short films arranged by seasons and episode numbers, this is truly no different. I do hope this sheds some light and clarity and sets the record straight. I truly believe this is an effective compromise here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This was not what you communicated to me earlier in this RFC, which was placing Groot in the existing tables and prose lists, and adding it to the expansion into animation section, not adding a separate section for shorts, which is just messy and unnecessary when we could just specify within the existing lists that the episodes are short episodes. I also do not agree on the animated series phrasing in place of animated television series. What you’re suggesting here is not the workable solution we had agreed on and that others were in favor of. ChimaFan12 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The "Expansion into animation" addition is still my intention, I just forgot to include it. It would just include roughly the same text we have for I Am Groot at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Other media expansion. As for the others, I could do with or without including I Am Groot with the rest of the series tables, although that was not my initial suggestion and rather something you suggested which I agreed could work if others saw fit. It was my mistake to not include that originally before posting my response, I got side tracked, and this is not me dismissing it in any way. As I am proposing a compromise, it addresses points from both sides while conceding on others. I can add what the combined series tables would look like to better weigh our options here with those. I personally think either options are viable, it all comes down to where each party is willing to meet in the middle on. If you look at the animated series article, it describes and supports that an animated series "is a type of animated television works with a common series title, usually related to one another. These episodes should typically share the same main characters, some different secondary characters and a basic theme. Series can have either a finite number of episodes like a miniseries, a definite end, or be open-ended, without a predetermined number of episodes. They can be broadcast on television, shown in movie theatres, released direct-to-video or on the internet." It is in no way saying it is not an animated television series. If stating directly animated television series quells concerns that this is not being conveyed adequately, then that can be made as they imply the same understanding. I can get behind that slight adjustment. The adjustments and available options are not present in my sandbox here. All of these options are what I have proposed in one way or another. Bear in mind, with a compromise, all sides will have to agree in the middle and give a little on some parts. Not everything one party wants will necessarily or definitively go, though I believe all of these options I have proposed already are viable compromises. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I have incorporated the "Expansion to animation" additions with the latest sandbox version here, pulling some from Marvel Studios Animation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, your agreement that it could work is noted as well as the support for that from four others after that exact proposal was made clear in the thread and added to the initial RFC post. I’m leery of the current conversation completely sidestepping that for arbitrary purposes. Most of us are coming from a place where the solution that you and I were talking about was workable. I don’t think it should be ignored out of hand as certain parties seem eager for it to be. Table addition 2 has garnered a large amount of support with 2/3s of people generally in favor. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not discounting what we have already established. I merely forgot to include everything in my sandbox and jumped the gun a little bit. This proposal outline is to ensure those who got lost in communication may better understand what we've hashed out upfront. I am all for implementing what is agreed upon, I just want to ensure everyone is on the same page here and complied with a request to lay it all out. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for making that clear. ChimaFan12 (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Great, thank you. The location in Overview Option B for noting I Am Groot (at least that part), and then Table addition 1 are what I would support. The "Expansion to animation" is fine as well as would be necessary following the lead and table additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Just so you know, I was thinking we could ask Alex if there was a way to implement colspan for the A and B params in Series overview, which would better help avoid the duplication of Lepore if possible. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but as I've stated above, I'm not in favor of including these with the non-shorts TV series. They should still be separated as they are on the phase articles, which in turn separates them here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, as you note, it would by default have to be changed on those pages. I don't think we should be beholden to maintaining a certain version of things just because it's the current version. Such a change is what is currently largely supported (noting this here as it's under the clarity break and important information for readers). ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not rehashing any further comments from above, but I'd argue because your original RfC comment was to create a section on this page dedicated to covering I Am Groot and you've changed your stance on this after that posting, we don't actually know what each editors' support is for since they presumably were responding that that original statement. And that's been my issue of late, that things have gotten quite unclear as to what any one is actually !voting on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Favre, I was the only yes on the page at the time I made the edit. All users who had voted prior (two nos and trail) have been pinged and made aware of what is going on. The rationales of everyone who voted yes are clear too. RunningTiger explicitly says Trailblazer’s solution works. Penguino35 says it should be included alongside others on the list. Trailblazer has obviously explained what he meant, as have I. Gonnym cites the use of television terms such as seasons and episodes and states that they’re not merely a collection of short films, but actual episodes. Loriendrew, who arrived after all of the conversation and has had ample opportunity to follow along with what’s happening, also says that its formatting as seasons is why they support the proposal. And, fact of the matter, the edit right below my original post is really hard to miss. So if you’re wondering why a lot of people aren’t agreeing with you, before you call doubt on the one word they put in bold, maybe read the rest of the words in their comment. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
It's been a month since this RFC was opened and we need to regroup. From my understanding there is more support for adding I Am Groot to the existing television series tables, the existing list of prose summaries, and the Expansion into Animation section, from myself, @Penguino35 @Gonnym @Trailblazer101 @Loriendrew and @RunningTiger123 (neutral, leaning yes); there was dissent from @InfiniteNexus @ZooBlazer and @Favre1fan93. Is this an accurate recap? Please, everybody, speak for yourself to reduce confusion. Everyone deserves their stances recorded accurately. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
(None of your pings delivered because you added them retroactively.) It does not matter how many people !voted support and how many !voted oppose; Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is factually incorrect and illogical to group I Am Groot on an article together with WandaVision and Loki, just as it would be factually incorrect and illogical to group Item 47 on an article together with Iron Man and Avengers: Endgame. You can argue by the technical definition of "television" and "series", but we should use WP:COMMONSENSE here. It would be foolish to pretend something like I Am Groot is the same thing as something like WandaVision; while the article title says "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series", there's an implication of long-form content as opposed to a collection of short films, just like how "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films" implies feature films only and not short films or television specials (one could argue the latter two can be classified as "films" in a sense). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting my words, I am not going for a vote count. I'm trying to get a sense of what a workable solution is and some sense of consensus, which requires people to at least be on the same page. I asked to regroup, not to tally numbers. Excluding Groot from the table is not common sense. It's your preferred outcome, it is not the singular reasonable approach. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems pretty logical just by looking at the runtimes of each project:
Although all of the projects above are (relatively) short-form episodic content designed for a small screen, it would be more reasonable to group I Am Groot together with the One-Shots and Slingshot than with WandaVision and Loki. It's the same thing with non-episodic content:
We can see three distinct categories above: there are the 15-minute short films, the 45-minute TV specials, and the two-hour feature films. Although they are all non-episodic content that could arguably meet the definition of "film", we do not include them on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films because we only mean feature films. For List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, we are referring to shows with 45-minute episodes, not series of five-minute shorts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that Groot is a television series and the one-shots and even Slingshot are not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
What If... and She-Hulk have no episodes near or at 45 minutes, either, half of WandaVision's episodes are below 45 minutes. Let's not pretend a runtime is required for inclusion on this page. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe directly importing I Am Groot with the rest of the series' tables is the right path to go here (and never said that was what I was pushing for, only that it was a possibility). I believe mentioning it among the rest of Marvel Studios' approach to their series is notable. As long as the information is conveyed (and it is properly conveyed in many articles, such as at Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Phase articles), I don't see much issue in where I Am Groot is included, whether it be in prose, a table, etc., though if there is not much support for a full inclusion, I will side with that consensus. There is nothing beholding I Am Groot to be coupled within the same series overview tables as the long-form series. We don't include Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot in the Marvel's ABC television series table, but rather with the rest of the digital series at Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Digital series because it is not a long-form series, similar to I Am Groot. While I still believe there is room to meet in the middle for addressing I Am Groot within this list from my sandbox (linking again here for reference), I agree with Favre that Option B for the lead and Table addition 1 are the most optimal propositions from that which I will support, as well as including I Am Groot in "Expansion to animation" in this list for consistency. However, I do not firmly believe that a table for I Am Groot is necessary in this list, as prose can easily cover the same bases just fine. I will note that I doubt another RfC would see differing responses, and I strongly encourage other contributors to weigh the sandbox proposals and to meet in the middle to some degree. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll support table addition 1. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
While I appreciate the effort to compromise, I do not think I Am Groot is appropriate anywhere on this article except for the See also section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Acknowleding again that Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus does not seem to be where you are at. We can't just disregard consensus to appease one person, and while we are trying to figure out what the exact details of it are going to be, we should certainly prepare to include IAG on this page. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
No clear consensus has emerged from this discussion. We can't just disregard consensus to appease one person – you got that right, and that's exactly what the compromise is proposing to do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
You're right, consensus isn't totally figured out just yet, and as I said, we're hashing it out. A clear majority of people are supportive of IAG being on the page, we haven't figured out what that should look like. I've shifted from the way that I preferred previously to a way that would still be workable, so I promise you this isn't to appease me. Even people that opposed IAG being on the page previously support a proposed outcome from Trailblazer. I think you're underestimating consensus. It's not clear how it should be on the page, it is clear, though, that it should be. I'm trying to keep that conversation going rather than having it be shut down because one person doesn't like it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I still don't think it should 100% be included in a table here, per say. I offered up potential points for a compromise, and I am more lenient and pushing for addressing I Am Groot among the other animated series works in the body of this article than repeating those details in a table with a header. Plus, all of that info is already covered at other articles anyway, namely Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel Studios Animation. I am not voicing my definitive approval for any suggestion outlined in my proposal draft, which was strictly to offer up options to encourage a mediation and potential compromise to be had, which I believe to still be possible. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, then let's please get everybody involved to actually discuss the merits and decide what we're going to do. Let's stop debating, is there consensus/no consensus, let's actually get to a point where we are all talking about what's happening because it's frustrating to just have a bunch of people come to insert their opinions and then leave to have those opinions disregarded. We're 5-3 in favor (again, not saying this is a binding agreement), 1 opposed is open to an option presented by a neutral party, which is in line with the general attitude of everybody here. Let's not just decide, "well I personally think this, therefore it must be this way." Even I've been able to shift from a hardline stance on how it should be included in favor of what seemed to be a fair compromise that was workable with what people have been saying. Let's get talking about that compromise in a meaningful way. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose plans in the preceding/last comment as it differs from the now unclear original RFC and subsequent "edit" which makes this RFC seem like it was only about that edit statement. Start over with a clear suggestion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    Alternatively, could you explain what you were supporting when you voted yes? I want to know what you would support and meet you where you're at if possible and reduce confusion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Loriendrew - I apologize for the edit. It added unnecessary confusion and you’re right it should have been its own thing. I support including Groot on this page as a television show and am flexible on how it will be included, and would support even if it was included in its own section of shorts, as long as it’s included on this page and referred to as a television series of shorts on its own page. Would that be workable for you? ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    Pinging again @Loriendrew ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Season 1 did not become a season until Season 2 was released, at which point Disney+ lumped the first five shorts together into a season, with the next five then being Season 2. They are numbered which suggests an order of watching. Marvel calls them seasons. They were made for television (broad term) rather than cinema airings or DVD–type inclusions. Officially, do not think they should be included due, but sourcing disagrees. Unless there is a duration guideline, something the TV taskforce may want to explore, there is no valid reason to exclude. That said, do not support adding them to the table of Phases, weak support of sandbox Table 1, include in animation prose.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I can completely get behind adding it to sandbox table 1 and including it in prose in the animation section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Reconvening - the latest update so far.

Last time we got together, a proposal came about that had momentum. Given support for adding I Am Groot to this page from a large amount of users, a compromise has become a necessity. Trailblazer101 proposed two options. The current leading option is adding I Am Groot to the page through prose option B in the first section of Trail's sandbox and adding a table for I Am Groot under a "shorts" section, known as table addition 1. This combination of options have been described as the optimal compromise by Trail, Favre1fan93 (who initially voted no to Groot's inclusion but found this to be a workable compromise), and later myself. It has also received tentative support from Loriendrew. Runningtiger123 has remained neutral, leaning yes to adding Groot to the page, stating that they found Trailblazer's proposal "reasonable". Penguino35 voted yes to including it on this page, saying it should be listed alongside other series. Gonnym also voted yes, stating unequivocally that it is an episodic TV series. Two other users voted no, InfiniteNexus and ZooBlazer. As such, it seems reasonable to assume that consensus is for I Am Groot to be added. Pending commentary from RunningTiger123, Gonnym and Penguino35, who all voted yes but did not state a preference to how its inclusion should be implemented, I believe table addition 1 and prose option b are the optimal way to move forward on this subject. ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101, @Favre1fan93, @Loriendrew, @RunningTiger123, @Penguino35, @Gonnym, @InfiniteNexus, @ZooBlazer. Pinging all of you as courtesy. To sum, seven out of nine of us have voiced some degree of support for placing I Am Groot on this page, whether as an enthusiastic yes, a tentative one, or in support for a compromise. Gonnym, RunningTiger123, and Penguino35, your input would be appreciated especially. ChimaFan12 (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This is too much for me to read, I'm sorry. Is there a proposal so I can voice my opinion on? Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a proposal outlined in my sandbox here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I think based on the choices in your sandbox, I'd go with Option B. -- ZooBlazertalk 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Support table 2 and I guess prose option B, though I hate mixing terminology, short films do not have seasons and I still say we should call them what they are, and that is episodes. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The sandbox proposals are linked within my post under the current subheading. Please read that post, you don’t have to read anything before then. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I honestly don't care about the prose options. I prefer table option 2 because it provides better context and makes it easy to see how the shorts fit chronologically with other series while still noting that they are shorts. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I also prefer 2. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Support prose B and table 1; strong oppose table 2. The shorts should not be integrated alongside Marvel Studios' long-form TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Update: shifting my support away from table 1. It is now a strong oppose. Strong support table 2. There's no reason not to include it in the list given structurally it is a television series, and people like @Favre1fan93 have never proposed separating She-Hulk or WandaVision from the other series just because they have shorter runtimes. This may be a surprise to people like Favre some, but people can actually read, and if we include that I Am Groot is a series of shorts both on the table and in the prose section, there will be absolutely no confusion for the much simpler and more accurate arrangement of placing I Am Groot with the rest of the shows. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Look at how Forky Asks a Question is placed here. It is included alongside longer television series. Do you want to know why? Because it's a television series. I concur with @RunningTiger123. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Please tone down your rhetoric. There is no reason to attack other users just because they disagree on how articles should be structured. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Noted, striking that part of the comment. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Table 2 alongside other Marvel series. I get that it's a short-form series, but I do not see the problem with including it. I also don't see a policy that would lead me to believe it's in the best interest of the article to separate it from the other series. Penguino35 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Adventure into Fear “developed for the MCU”?

Requested by the discussion starter, @ChimaFan12, as there is no need for an additional thread on the subject at this time. ZooBlazer 23:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What proof do we have that Adventure into Fear was ever in development for the MCU. No source says that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is yet another new discussion attempt to counter prior consensus that was reached mere months ago, and is unlikely to progress further away from the consensus. See WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. This has already been explained to you by countless editors and your changes do not have a consensus to implement them here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If what you’re saying is true, then surely you can cite where any source has ever credibly said it was developed for the MCU. It’s worth noting that consensus has not been reached and an informal straw poll is all that has ever occurred, limited exclusively to the most active members of the taskforce who have raised ownership concerns in the past. So, where’s the citation that the series was developed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe? ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
ChimaFan, the horse is long dead. You can stop flogging the poor thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
But it’s not. Nobody has ever been able to present a single credible source in all the conversations saying it was made for the MCU and it was even said “well we know that Loeb was never going to say it was in the MCU but it still is,” yet now that the shows are confirmed not to be the same people are mad because they want Feige to explicitly disown every single one by name. The burden of proof is greater than anyone’s ever been able to live up to, and all the evidence shows that there was always a huge distance between the show and the MCU. Per Wiki policy, there’s no SYNTH and no Original Research, and you must STICKTOTHESOURCE. None of the people telling me to drop this conversation have abided to any of those. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Requesting this thread be archived. Other users are correct that an additional thread on this subject is simply too much. I will continue the discussion in the thread above. ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marvel Spotlight

I'm a bit confused about the positioning of the Marvel Spotlight section between Phase Five and Future. This suggests that it is a grouping of shows like the Phases or the Marvel TV groups, but I haven't seen any indication anywhere that the Marvel Spotlight series are going to be excluded from the Phases. I think it would be a lot less confusing if we just stuck to introducing the banner in the development section (where it is already mentioned) and then noted which films come under it (using the notes how we currently do it seems fine) in the Phase tables. And if we got clarification that series in the new banner are excluded from the Phase sections then we could restore this section and move the series out of the Phase tables and into a new one. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about this myself. I have boldly made the change, moving the Spotlight information with the Development section and leaving an anchor to it. I don't think we should list it with the series tables as we don't know these will be excluded from the phases. Should the series be revealed as being something separate from the phases, we can easily restore the section and move them around. I think the notes for Echo and WM suffice the Spotlight mentions we need for the tables presently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
They shouldn't be excluded from the Phases, but I had put it under the Phase Five section and before Future so readers would see the notes in the tables, and then have the section about it all to read. It didn't make sense to me to have the full info up in the Development section beyond the initial mention, so I'm actually against that change. Additionally, it as of yet has not been made clear if this banner will also apply to films. If it will at all, then the section on it should move to the main MCU page. But that's a bridge for later. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
If we end up moving the section to the main MCU page then we may need to tweak how we are introducing the idea here, but by then we would hopefully know more about the interaction between the banner and the phases. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"Adventure into Fear" as a brand was never officially released or marketed

As the editor who opened this thread said Matter closed, I'm closing it to keep it from continuing unnecessarily. —El Millo (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(This is not about whether Helstrom or AiF was MCU or not. There's a thread above for that.)

I'd like some consideration on why the branding "Adventure into Fear" is used here. No actual marketing had been released about it. I believe it was never official and should be considered a cancelled project. As such, it doesn't really belong here.

Also, as far as I can tell, the only time the name was mentioned by a Marvel source was Jeph Loeb in a Deadline interview where he talks about potential shows "we now refer to as Adventure into Fear". In the same article, he also mentions "the Marvel Knights, as we sometimes call them here" in reference to the Netflix Defenders shows. There was already consensus here that "Marvel Knights" shouldn't be used in this article since it is not official branding and more of an internal name. Should we view "Adventure into Fear" any differently? Besides, having a named franchise of one show seems odd.

I propose we rename this heading with something more appropriate. It can still be mentioned in the prose, but having it in such a prominent place makes it seem like official branding, which I don't believe it was. Either a general "Other Series" or a maybe "Hulu Series" to match the other headings (though then we have to think about Runaways). Marquismark79 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The section is about the "Adventure into Fear" plans specifically, not just other series or Hulu series. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
We're not going down this rabbit hole again. This section is dedicated to the plans for the group label. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to open that can of worms and am more than willing to drop it if I'm alone here. I am simply questioning that since we don't list non-released shows in this article, so why list a non-released franchise? And if "Marvel Knights" was struck down, then why allow "Adventure into Fear", both of which are sourced in a similar manner?
Along the same lines, we don't mention any other non-released shows in this article (e.g. Most Wanted, Damage Control, New Warriors) but we do for Ghost Rider and AiF.
Maybe it's just me, but all this history and detail just seems a little out of scope for a list article. Marquismark79 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
"Marvel Knights" is still used in this article, the common name is just used for the section header and lead. "Adventure into Fear" is the only name known for the planned group of series, so that is what we use for it. This section is dedicated to that planned group, which includes the released series Helstrom and the scrapped Ghost Rider, among others as those were definite plans, and there are no other major articles to house all of this content at unlike the scrapped ABC and Freeform series, which are included in the ABC and YA series articles. This has been the general consensus for how to navigate and compile these groups and articles for years. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The section also links to Adventure into Fear (franchise), just like the other Marvel TV sections link to articles with the same/similar name. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
However, "Marvel Knights" was deemed inappropriate for the heading of the section since it was an unofficial internally used name. "Adventure into Fear" was also unofficial and internally used, and only mentioned in the same interview "Marvel Knights" was mentioned. Doesn't seem any different to me. We can still mention the name in the prose and link to the article, but there's just not strong enough evidence that's what the branding would have been.
Why use descriptive names for the other headings (ABC, Netflix, YA), but use a unofficial/unreleased brand for this one? Seems inconsistent and arbitrary. Marquismark79 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Both names were from Jeph Loeb, an official executive for Marvel Television at the time the names were used. We're not going to reclassify Adventure into Fear with some jargon made up to satisfy these already disproven and rejected concerns. Adventure into Fear is the only official name used for this planned group, and is consistent with the article for it. That is not changing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. Matter closed. Marquismark79 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series/Archive_8&oldid=1225333423"