Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline

Restructure

General

Since we can now play around with this as a draft, I was wondering about restructuring as the following sections:

Background - pulling info such as the opening line of "As depicted in the MCU" and some of the existing "Background" section content, while again maybe giving an "overview" at all the attempts as I tried to do with this edit

Timeline depictions - new level 2 header

As depicted in the MCU - move what we have now basically here

Outside attempts - basically replacing "Codifying attempts" now, not thrilled with this name

Phase One infograph - self explanatory, but probably a tiny section

Marvel Studios: The First 10 Years timeline - basically just showing the table, maybe a little prose

Disney+ timeline - same as above, basically just the list of it

The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline - maybe not used now, but reserved for when the book releases

Reception - can move some of the Screen Rant comments here, and try to then expand it with more

Thoughts? If others are open to this, I can try working on it on my own in my sandbox when I have time and then implementing to the draft. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to some kind of restructuring. I think something along the lines of what you're saying would be a good place to start.

Also Amazon has images from the new book up if we want to add stuff that may be relevant to add, such as the book placing the first Iron Man in Spring 2008 and not 2010 like we currently have. -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up adding onto this, there is an inside preview on the Amazon listing that provides a look into some of the changes coming, especially in the table of contents. It is all naturally copyrighted material, though it is worth having this on our radar. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think from what I saw from someone on YouTube who did the comparisons between the glossary of characters and years they appear to get the likely order of projects, and it looks like it's pretty close to the Disney Plus timeline other than TFATWS and Shang-Chi being flipped, which looks like we have correct in the draft already. The only other changes look like years such as Iron Man starting in 2008 according to the book. -- ZooBlazer^talk 21:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup. I saw the same video. I don't expect the timeline to be too drastic of a change, though it may be worth including some of the additional details from it as they are readily available (like when certain flashbacks are set and for how long certain films and series' timelines last for, similar to Doctor Strange). Obviously we'll need the book and third-party sources to make any of these changes definitively. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll have the book, so I can help as far as that if needed. -- ZooBlazer^talk 22:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Same here! Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll also be getting the book. I'm imagining it will provide insight on some of the years for Phase One films, and then for Phase Four and beyond. Phase Two and Three seem pretty consistent/stable so I'm not expecting too many surprises with those films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this draft would largely benefit from a "Background" "overview" of the different depictions and interpretations of the timeline and a separate expanded Reception section. I think we can stick with the "Codifying attempts" wording unless others feel strongly it should be changed, though I don't think "Outside attempts" conveys what we want it to, given these are all still largely within Marvel and Disney's oversight. We can definitely add more prose to the sections. Some images from the updated timeline could be useful, as Zoo noted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

With the "As depicted in" section feeling rather full, I think it may be helpful to split that by the Sagas as it will inevitably increase and can be beneficial for readers so it's not just a plain wall of text. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me whip up what I'm thinking in my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a very rough version just to give a sense of what I was thinking. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good starting point. -- ZooBlazer^talk 22:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a great visualization of what we should do. Nice work, Favre! I think if there is any tidbits from the First Ten Years sourcebook that could carry over into prose here, that could be beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus and Adamstom.97: Do either of you have comments about this idea I've presented? If no strong opposition, I can move it over to the draft so we can all work on it from there. @Trailblazer101: we can search for third party refs about the First Ten Years book. I did own it but not sure if I'll be able to view it, but from my memory, I think there wasn't much in there of relevance beyond giving some dates to films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yup. First Ten Years does include the likes of "Before Recorded History" and "Centuries Before the Current Era" as well as years for stuff like flashbacks in Ant-Man and Vol. 2, throughout TFA, and the Common Era from the first Thor film, as well as when certain character events occurred, such as when Natasha joined SHIELD, etc. Some could just be trivial if our main focus is when the content primary took place . Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Right. I think in any instance on this draft, we should be trying to stick to noting where the main events of each property takes place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I like it. But "Reception" doesn't sound right, maybe "Critical commentary" or "Critical analyis"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding in Marvel Television

Kinda tangential, but since we have a draft now, would it be a good idea for us to attempt to make a section on Marvel Television? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. We can probably gather the timeline information from the relevant articles for the Marvel TV content and try to arrange it in a way that makes sense with the sources that are available. I'm not as well-versed with those series of events. Would it be wise to try and organize them by the content groups (ie. ABC, Netflix, YA, and AiF) or try and weave them together akin to the "As depicted in" timeline? Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we could. AoS through season 2 more or less existed alongside the films, so that shouldn't be too hard. After that, it definitely got murky. And then the Netflix series mostly had references to the events of The Avengers, but didn't necessarily have strong "markers" from what I remember. Runaways and C&D didn't really have timeline indicators if I recall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find much online, but there are a few sources we could use: [1] [2] [3] [4]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

From a quick glance, these can probably be used to help identify the flashbacks and pre-2010s events (if we bring in the "Major events" section as being discussed below), and the Marvel TV timeline. I know we don't want to delve too much into WP:FANCRUFT here, though these could help. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify. These sources are intended for use for a potential Marvel TV section, nothing else. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, the Marvel Netflix series have been added to the D+ timeline in some regions, although, at least on my end, I did not presently see this being the case and have yet to see any photo or video evidence, let alone source coverage, to prove this, though it's already gaining traction. Would now be a good time to reconsider including at least the Defenders Saga on the timeline (with appropriate sourcing for the years, etc.)? Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw this as well and was apparently typing at the same time; see #Marvel Television below. I think if we decide to (significantly) expand the scope of this article by covering Marvel Television projects as well, that doesn't necessarily need to happen before a move to the mainspace, as I imagine that process may take a while. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding in events from the Features article

We could also add the major events section from Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in this article. It also talks about the Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline and in the future we can also create new articles about each major event, like we did with The Blip. BigLordFlash (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Mhm. I actually think we should just important that section to this eventual article, as they are more closely linked to the timeline of events than they are to the other "features" such as objects and species. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This would actually benefit from importing the major events and be a good alternative to the previously attempted Major events of the MCU article, though much of the wording there is already covered elsewhere. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I copied over the section. I'll work on LDF and general c/e hopefully today or tomorrow. -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have time to finish my own reorganization attempt I was cooking up. The imported Features info can definitely still use a c/e and further sourcing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we keep the comparisons to the comics in the major events section? For instance the Kree-Skrull War part says it's based on the comic event of the same name and then includes that Roy Thomas didn't like the changes made in Captain Marvel. -- ZooBlazer^talk 20:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Thomas bit is necessary, and that can probably be included at Captain Marvel (film) instead. I think the "based on" indicators can remain to aid in navigation, though maybe we could adjust the formatting of them as to avoid using two sets of parenthesis back-to-back in some entries. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the major events are appropriate here. This article should be focused on the timeline of the MCU viewed from a real-world perspective. Expanding the current section at Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Major events (where the draft's contents were moved) would be a better approach. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

For me I feel like the events fit better with the timeline vs. features of the MCU. The info is organized like a version of a timeline already. Major events feel out of place as I wouldn't call them features of the MCU compared to other things covered there. -- ZooBlazer^talk 23:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it was never intended to be a timeline but rather what the title says: a list of major events. The section that you see at Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Major events is actually a significantly cut-down version that was pruned in the aftermath of the Great Crackdown on Fancruft; I don't think it's a good idea to reintroduce said fancruft to this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree, seeing the major events here seems out of place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I will admit it did not translate over with the rest of the content as well as I had initially thought, and am okay with removing it to evade the fancruft. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the info. -- ZooBlazer^talk 03:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

New book - what to do on the page

Not super active at the moment, but wanted to share my thoughts on some formatting. With the release of the book, which I think given the sources stating it was created in conjunction with Marvel Studios (which that November 2018 book couldn't really say I think), we should view that as the official in-universe timeline and the proper placement of titles we were using the 2018 timeline and Disney+ to place. Given such, I think we need to create a new diagram (maybe not with the formatting/template it is now) with the following prose (to some affect): The following table represents where each MCU properties exists in its fictional timeline. Property placements are determined by explicit mentions, following by placements in An Official Timeline, then Disney+ order. This gives weight then to the projects that have explicit dates in them such as Vol. 1, the flashbacks in Endgame etc., followed then by what this new book says to give a date if things are murky, and then finally the Disney+ order for something like I Am Groot not being in the book (I've just received it and skimmed it) or anything post Holiday Special. Basically this:

• Depictions - renamed from current "Timeline depictions"
  • Within the MCU - no longer featuring the side table here
    • ...
  • Codifying attempts
    • ...
    • The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline (October 2023) - maybe no table here?
• Timeline - new heading
  • move the side table here or whatever new layout, created through the means I mentioned above.

Let me know your thoughts, and if anyone wants to take a stab at what I'm talking about if I'm not active in time, have at it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I do think we should use this book's given timeline as the basis for the order we list. I've been working on gathering sources and rummaging through the book itself, and have already added a table of the main films, series, and specials, with a source. I did see I Am Groot in it, which places the first ep as "Summer 2014" in-between Vol. 1 and 2 and the remainder of the first season as "Fall 2014" after Vol. 2. It also places Werewolf by Night in Fall 2025, though Miss Minutes states in one of her TVA Alerts: "These events seem to occur in 2025, but magical influences can make stuff like this hard to pin down!" The Disney+ timeline has apparently moved Shang-Chi to right after WandaVision, as noticed today, so there's an immediate change. I did lay out an extended version of the timeline (which I'm still adding onto) and a condensed version at my sandbox, with the condensed one currently here and in the mainspace just to put the main points out there. I am open to reconfiguring everything with the book's information, and it does also include dates for the What If universes, as well, if we want to incorporate those somewhere. I was uncertain on if we should use the specific dates, so I hide them in my sandbox work and table additions, though I think since Marvel Studios confirmed those, we should use them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work Trailblazer101! As I mentioned, I just got the book myself today so I'm excited to dive into it (and I'm also less active on here at the moment). My initial instinct is to potentially use the seasonal approach for our new timeline we'll create. Or at the very least as hidden notes. Again, formatting is up in the air now because the template we've been using isn't the best. We could go straight table, or create our own type of hybrid style. Happy to tackle that once I can be more active again. Perhaps it's also something where our new timeline just uses years, we use the table in the draft now/your first one in your sandbox for the Official Timeline section, and we get more specific in prose? It seems at least we have varying options to best convey all this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should do the hybrid style if we can as opposed to just a table. I'm open to whatever though since we have the option to try a variety of things. I do agree with your first post about the order of priority being explicit mentions, the book, and then Disney+.

I'm definitely jealous that you guys got the book. My copy ended up getting delayed a week at the last second. -- ZooBlazer^talk 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I got mine through Amazon Prime and have had some time to kill. Sorry to hear about that, book shipping can be a pain! Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Favre! I've still got a lot to look through in the book, though I put together what I could from yesterday when it arrived. I think making a table combination of our own could do wonders, though I'm a little rusty on some coding myself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Would something like {{Nature timeline}} work as a starting point? Easy to change it to fit the MCU. If we wanted to keep the colors we could maybe mark phases that way, although that may be a bit messy with flashbacks or movies like Captain Marvel taking place away from the rest of the phase. -- ZooBlazer^talk 04:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I know most graphical timelines on Wikipedia use the EasyTimeline extension, see Category:Graphical timeline templates. For example, {{Timeline of Star Wars franchise}} and {{Timeline of Star Trek franchise}}. However, EasyTimeline is very old and code-heavy; a more user-friendly option exists in the form of {{Graphical timeline}}, though unlike the extension, that one is limited to vertical timelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think vertical is the best way to go. I put in just the basic stuff with the first 3 films and made increments 1 year, but here is a very rough version of how it would look, obviously lots of cleanup and tweaking needed for the final version if we use the graphical timeline. -- ZooBlazer^talk 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I knew {{Graphical timeline}} existed when I created the original one with {{Timeline of release years}}. I think that's probably the better template now to use, or the EasyTimeline version. When I'm more active in a couple weeks, I'll help with all of this too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Graphical timeline could work. I'll take more of a look into it, though it seems promising, same with EasyTime. So, I suppose we'll go from there and it may be best to potentially make mock-ups using either one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Mainspace

Is converting the timeline to a new template and some slight restructuring of the article all that's left before the move? Or is there something else that I'm forgetting about that also needs done/added? ZooBlazer 18:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm still trying to rummage through further commentary on the timeline (and maybe of the book itself) and finding better sourcing for some of the specific details other than citing the book itself. I'm not sure if the restructuring will be done anytime soon, so it may not be as essential before a move, though I think it would be helpful to have for readers as has been discussed here already. I'm not big on those technical aspects myself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Technical aspects aren't my specialty either. I attempted to work on the timeline template, but it just came out messy so I figured I'd leave that part to someone who understands it better. ZooBlazer 19:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I plan to look at our options tomorrow for the diagram (wanted to this afternoon, but got sucked into some She-Hulk editing). Outside that, I think this can be moved with the state it's in. My thought was to remove the entire section at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Timeline and create a new 1-2 paragraph prose summary of the codifying attempts, and then featuring whatever full diagram we settle on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I started some coding options in my sandbox. {{Graphical timeline}} is going to be a lot. Also the fact that it can't start at the lower number and go up to the higher number is a big issue I think. I say we stick with what we have, or explore augmented the hardcode option I did (the middle section) to give some more info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't mind it being the most recent dates on top and going down to the past, since I'm guessing readers are most likely looking at where the newest projects fit anyway. Or maybe I'm in the minority on that opinion. It would definitely take some getting used to. ZooBlazer 18:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I know the timeline focuses on the Sacred Timeline, but should we figure out a way to note where things like What If...? episodes take place in terms of the years like the timeline book features? ZooBlazer 22:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a shot at EasyTimeline here. The only way I could get it to go chronological was to sacrifice bars on single years, and the text formatting's a little wonky. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

To me, with EasyTimeline specifically, I don't see the need to move away from what we are currently using, or just use a regular wikitable. EasyTimeline (as noted above) is older, produces a grainy/blurry image, and at least in the vertical option, a similar diagram as to what we have, or could do with Graphical timeline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also wondering, should the timeline chart be located on a separate template page, in line with Category:Graphical timeline templates? That way, we can transclude portions of it on the Phase articles (assuming we can get the code to work). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to do that. ZooBlazer 01:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer, Trailblazer101, and InfiniteNexus: Take a look at "Hardcode version 2" in my sandbox. This is more or less what I've been imagining. Basically "4" rows per year to indicate Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, and then the properties fitting into these rows or spanning appropriately (single rows for jumped/skipped years or when a property is throughout the entire year). I'm about to work on a version 3 to see about 2010 and 2016 in which we have much more overlap/different spanning and a different layout to see what that look likes, as well as figuring out cell border colors as that will likely be very helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Border colors is also there, plus v3 trying out some concurrent/concurrent spans placement. Also did a non-wikitable version and a Wikitable version of v3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we should be doing that... seems harder for readers to decipher and creeping into fancruft territory. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: what are you referring to, the concurrent and/or spanning? I can see that. Just wanted to make it an option. At least for 2010, I wanted to clarify that them being listed one after the other didn't mean they followed each other, but were happening at the same time. Perhaps instead of the plainlist of each project, we list them with commas? Doctor Strange would be the only other I think that should exist next to the other projects since it goes from early 2016 into 2023. The Black Widow and Falcon Winter Soldier change I'd be ok moving back as it was in v2, or doing the comma idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I made a v3.5 that tried this comma idea for everything except Doctor Strange and She-Hulk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the seasonal divisions. To me, they seem a little confusing and fancrufty. As for the concurrent events, that is indeed a tricky problem ... I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the spanning either because of how messy it looks, but I agree it would be helpful to denote when events overlap. Perhaps we should explore a horizontal timeline — if there are width issues, we can separate by decade/era. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it. As I said, this was how I envisioned it with the "seasonal" divide in a sense to mimic with Graphical timeline could do. I'm open to exploring our options with that. I was also interested in a horizontal table, but I didn't know what coding options outside of EasyTimeline (which I think we all seem to be mostly against) could produce that or something like that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried making a horizontal version for Phase One. If we keep the seasonal divisions the template will have to be stretched really wide. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think any horizontal option will have to be scrollable, but yes, maybe it doesn't have to be as wide with the seasonal divides. Can it handle the time jumps we have from 1946 to 1995, 1996-2007, and 2019-2023? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the template documentation, I don't think so. But I've made some more concepts below the original. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of rotating the text or the vertical bars. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think the ones with some kind of border color makes it easier to read, so for v2 I prefer that one. For v3 I think "Hardcode version 3 concurrents and spans" is my favorite over using wiki tables. So based on the ones in your sandbox currently, I vote for one of those 2 options. ZooBlazer 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I have been off-wiki for a while so am not up-to-date with all of the conversations that have been had here. Are we planning to replace the existing MCU timeline with the new "An Official Timeline" version? I would have some concerns with that considering the new timeline contradicts the films in some pretty notable ways. I feel we should stick with the current version of the draft where the "An Official Timeline" version is in the "Codifying attempts" section but we still use our judgement for the main MCU timeline. As for the proposed new formats in Favre's sandbox, I think we need to be careful about adding too many lines to the chart. I'm not sure it is obvious to someone who isn't privy to these discussions what the additional boxes and lines represent. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: the hope is achieve the following as I proposed in the section just above this level 3 heading: alter some of the headings, move the current timeline from "as depicted" section to a new level 2 heading below all the "Codifying attempts" that is just "Timeline", noting with prose that the following diagram is constructed based on explicit mentions in properties, then the timeline book, followed lastly (if needed) by Disney+ order. This small discussion here is trying to work out what this new timeline diagram will be, if any formatting change is necessary at all.

Going back to an earlier point by Infinite and by Adam now, are we trying to do too much? I personally felt since we had more granular placement info with the seasons from the book, that would be helpful to showcase to readers. But if we're fine with the current template use (with some projects moving around/updating refs), I'm ok if we do that. The only thing though is its right alignment. Would love to see if we could div it to be center and not floating so we wouldn't need a {{clear}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, after everything, I keep coming back to User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/9#Hardcoded version of current, which is basically what we already have. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the options outlined are trying to be a bit too technically fancy and detracting from what the key focus is. I do think the current hardcoded version keeps it within a simplistic and legible format and structure, while I think the Graphical timeline could be a feasible alternative. I don't think we need to be too drastic with any changes here, and that this draft is ready for the mainspace (because of the additional commentary now) with or without a different timeline template attached. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The only benefit the hardcoded version gives us is Doctor Strange's placement (or I guess She-Hulk's too if we wanted to indicate that). Otherwise, the current template would work fine. If we want to stick with those options, I think the next step is figuring out what "our" version should be. I've started writing questions in my sandbox if you may or may not have seen. I'm about at Fury's Big Week in the timeline book, and the first question is about Iron Man 2, since that explicitly says it was six months after the events of Iron Man and the book doesn't have Miss Minutes pop up there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also here's a permalink to the various options we were considering if we ever want to go back to any. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As you mentioned earlier, I think whatever is explicitly stated in the films should have precedence over the book, except for cases like Homecoming's "eight years later" error. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well then the issue we get into is neither Iron Man nor Iron Man 2/Fury's Big Week projects date themselves in film. So do we go with Iron Man in 2008 as the book does, and then put Fury's Big Week stuff in 2009, or do we put the Big Week Stuff in 2010, and Iron Man back into 2009, contradicting the book? This is where I foresee this becoming possibly troublesome. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This was my concern with us changing to the new timeline, it addresses some of the problems that we knew about but it introduces new ones. Fury says in The Avengers that Thor arrived the previous year, so Fury's Big Week should be in 2011 and Iron Man should be six months before that. That's why I think there could be merit in keeping our current timeline, which uses a combination of film details and best offscreen info, and having the new timeline as a separate codifying attempt. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Right yes, exactly. I apologize if we are maybe talking over one another with what we mean, but all this discussion is for our "current" timeline (which would move location in the article), and the book timeline presented in that would be in its table as currently seen. This is what we're currently aiming for, with "Timeline" being our "current"/created one though various methods. I think that's what we've both been talking about, but wanted to make sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool, I think we are on the same page now. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, in Civil War, Vision says Iron Man was eight years ago. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we mention that as being a mistake beside the Homecoming eight years. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I think we could still incorporate the more granular seasonal divisions into the existing wikitable at § The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline (October 2023). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Next steps

I think from above we've mostly settled on using the existing timeline template (or hardcoding it) for style and formatting. I want to note that using the existing template or CSS styling if hardcoded does not currently allow for center alignment. I've brought up this on the talk page but it was met with some resistance to allow center aligning, even though |align= exists so it can be left aligned. Anyways, how do we want to go about building the timeline we're going to present? Should we start by placing fully defined entries (Captain Marvel in 1995, Avengers in 2012, Guardians in 2014, etc.) make sure we're all good with that, then start working on the other properties that have less defined timing? I do believe we should have that constructed (as well as the pre table wording) all good to go before we move this.

Also, less imperative to move the draft, I've gotten further along in the timeline book and I think we might need to adjust how we convey some projects that span seasons. For example, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. As presented in that book, they have Shang-Chi in Spring 2024, then episodes 1-5 of FWS right after. Then comes all of Far From Home in Summer 2024, before we pick back up with FWS episode 6. Currently with our formatting, a reader would not realize this, and I think for the timeline book table this would be beneficial to accurately indicate what it is representing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

For your second paragraph, if there is that level of detail in the book then our version of the book's timeline can do the same. Similar to how we split the I Am Groot episodes in the main timeline. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It doesn't explicitly use episode breakdowns, but per the events listed and described, they can easily be attributed to certain episodes (or the majority of the plot of said episode). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here is a working draft of making our timeline. I'd love feedback on the prose at the start of the section, and then the projects I've started with that are "definites" in the diagram currently, as well as the ones I've pulled out that we need to make determinations on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

In an effort to make things less confusing, I've attempted to compile all of our timeline evidence for each project. If we give the most weight to what is said and shown onscreen, Fury's Big Week has to be in 2011 per dialogue in The Avengers and The Dark World. Iron Man 2 being six months after Iron Man is corroborated by Justin Hammer's line, though contradicted by Vision (which would indeed place Iron Man in 2008). I am a little confused about Eternals though: the sources we have on the draft indicate that it is set around the same time as Far From Home and TFATWS, but nothing that suggests it occurred before either project. If there is no contradiction, why aren't we following the order in the timeline book? Am I missing something? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that work InfiniteNexus!! I'll take a look over this all, see how I can weigh in on any thing if we need to discuss. In terms of Eternals, the Firpos originally said they felt the film was concurrent with TFWS, while Nate Moore later said it was around the time of Far Far Home but never said it was before or after. The timeline book puts it after Far From Home so I think we can follow that, as it doesn't contradict what Moore said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok I've updated my sandbox, leaving the projects to discuss being Iron Man, Fury's Big Week titles, Iron Man 3, the formatting of Doctor Strange, and then some of the 2024 and 2025 titles. I will note about this Fury's Big Week has to be in 2011 per dialogue in The Avengers and The Dark World, the timeline book has a Miss Minute box regarding the "last year" Fury line. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I can't seem to find the Miss Minutes box on Fury's "last year" line, only Thor's "when I first came to Earth". Some of the quotes have wiggle room and can be reasonably retconned to fit the timeline book (for instance, 13 years in Iron Man 3 can be argued as 13 years after the 2000 new year), but others are more difficult to be thrown out. I guess the title card and Hammer's line in Iron Man 2 hold as much weight as Vision's line in Civil War (and possibly Happy's line in Homecoming, assuming he was referencing Iron Man), so I'm not really sure what we should do in that case. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If Miss Minutes has an explanation for the Big Week movies being in 2010 and Iron Man being in 2008 then that would probably have to take precedence over what the films say, as it solves Vision's 8 years ago / Happy's since 2008 contradictions. For Iron Man 3, dialogue and onscreen events put it at Christmas 13 years after New Years Eve 1999 / New Years Day 2000, that could be Christmas 2012 or Christmas 2013 depending on how you count it, so if the official timeline says Christmas 2013 then I think we can go with that. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

About the Fury's Big Week films, dialogue in the Loki episode "Breaking Brad" has 2012 Loki refer to the events of Thor as "some years ago," that certainly indicates a 2010 (or earlier) placement. It was released in the same month as the timeline book, which tracks. To put it in my two cents, I think we should have Iron Man in 2008 and Iron Man 2/Thor/The Incredible Hulk in 2010, per the book. Iron Man 3 (and consequently All Hail the King) is fine in Christmas 2013 I guess, even if it's not 13 years after the 1999/2000 New Year's, with AHTK as soon as possible in 2014. — SirDot (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright I swear I read a Miss Minutes box that talked about Thor arriving on earth (there are a number around him for his age and his adventures) in relation to Fury's quote, but I can't find it quickly either. Someone is mucking things up at the TVA I guess. Any ways, there unfortunately is not a Miss Minutes box about Fury's Big Week (one for the "six months later" would have helped a lot here). I'm personally leaning towards Iron Man in 2008, and then can get behind however anyone else wants to handle the Big Week and which Christmas to place Iron Man 3 in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if we decide to ignore what was explicitly stated in the films (that Thor was a year before The Avengers and two years before Dark World), then we would be going against what you have prepped in your sandbox: A project's placement on the timeline is determined by explicit date references within it or another project through dialogue [...] with The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline then used to determine placement. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

True. The spirit I guess was more universally accepted dates that didn't further contradict other instances, while also largely ignoring dates on screens, plaques, newspapers, etc. as those generally have seemed to be incorrect. I don't know if there's a way to word that without be extremely heady and technical. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

For those who don't have the book (shame on you! ), /Film has compiled a handy list of all the Miss Minutes boxes. As I had thought, it only addresses Thor's "when I first came to Earth" line (see transcript; you can also find Fury's very umambiguous "last year" line) and other things about his age, but nothing about Fury's Big Week. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So looks like Miss Minutes says The Incredible Hulk "seems to happen in 2010", which would also date Fury's Big Week to 2010. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That box "debunks" Banner's emails as being dated 2008, not Fury, Natasha, and Darcy's lines indicating a 2011 setting for Fury's Big Week. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Then I have no idea where I thought the Fury line was contradicted. So are we landing on 2011 for FBW, with Iron Man in 2010? As well, that /Film piece will be good for the Book section prose below the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: @ZooBlazer: as commenters above, do either of you have opinions on how we should tackle some of these outstanding projects that have varying timeline conflicts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding sooner, though I want to issue my support for all of this, and great work all! Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on the projects with problematic placements? Specifically, should we follow what was said out loud in the films with regards to FBW being in 2011, or should we follow the timeline book? I'd be OK if we moved Iron Man 3 to 2013 since the "13 years" quotes can be interpreted as 13 years after the 2000 New Year. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, it appears to line up with FBW being in 2011, all things considered. Whatever is given in the films should have precedent unless enough retroactive clarification states otherwise and is proven, which I think is being done here. I agree with Iron Man 3 being placed in 2013 as the 13 years quote coming at New Years 2000 would make sense for that interpretation, so long we have good sources which support this (which I know has generally been accepted in the past). I believe most evidence points to the 2008 line for Iron Man being an error is correct, and support overriding the timeline book's instance of this for our main overview template as being in 2010 per the other sources we have compiled. I think FWS, She-Hulk, and NWH have been handled nicely, and I like the page number refs and edit notes in the table, though I think the Doctor Strange and NWH notes should be unhidden and given as actual notes for our readers to view to better explain and address these forto them. I also like what Favre did by using "&" to signify the films occurring simultaneously for FBW. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 Oh, shoot I didn't get this ping and somehow this draft was no longer on my watchlist so I completely forgot about this entire discussion. -- ZooBlazer 01:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem. We've stalled in the discussion anyways. We're close, but haven't fully nailed down what we're going with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally think figuring out the formatting of these templates is not as much of a necessity before moving to the mainspace, though that may just be me wanting to get this out there sooner and to worry about that formatting later. I do think we can put together a composite list of the most accurate dates for the projects we have determined thus far (with adequate sourcing), and call it good with using the present template until we figure out how other options could work down the road. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've also been thinking, is there any merit for projects that are conflicting with placement (aka FBW) where we give a range of dates? So this would mean not using the existing timeline template. That way instead of debating things and making a determination for ourselves, we present readers with all the possibly viable facts, especially since these projects don't have explicit years only year determination through other means (ie "one year ago", "eight years ago", etc.). So for example, we list say FBW as being "2009 or 2010", giving the references and reasonings that support each, where as something like The Avengers is unrefutabely locked into occurring in 2012. Is this over complicating things? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be a bit concerned about making the timeline anymore complicated. We do already provide all the information we have in prose and the other timelines, but I think it is worth for the main timeline having one answer (even if it is accompanied with a note explaining how we got to that answer, or something like that which doesn't add more complexity to the timeline). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Alright let's do this one more time"

Ok folks. So I've implemented the heading change and move of the "current" timeline as we've discussed above here. I've went with FWB in 2011 (so Iron Man's in 2010), Iron Man 3 in 2013 (thus moving AHTK to early 2014), put Doctor Strange in 2017 (as that's where most of the events take place), and adjusted the 2024/2025 titles if needed to follow what the Timeline book says (it was just Eternals really I think that I moved). Also, I've added in the Netflix series/seasons to the timeline up to Punisher season 1 per the work Trail did in the Disney+ timeline section that easily reflected where they should go.

Next steps (because we're soooo close):

• C/e / finalize the first paragraph prose I created in the "Timeline" section, to note how the diagram is constructed
• Examine each title's reference, and see if any need to be swapped out to updated ones to better reflect the placement we are trying to show.
• Add in references for the Netflix seasons I did put in.
  • Determine if we want to include the remaining season 2s and 3s that are more nebulous.
• Maybe reconsider using {{Timeline of release years}} in this article because seeing it now, I sort of think a regular table might be more beneficial. I still think it's good for the Phase articles however.

I don't think all of this needs to be done to move the draft, but I think the big things are at least the order for the table and the coding style. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how it compares to other refs that include the Netflix shows, but here is another option for their later seasons in terms of possible placements and years if we decide to include them. -- ZooBlazer 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm planning on doing another go around of the draft later tonight with some ideas on how to handle the Netflix series and the ambiguous season placements (probably going to have to do some more source digging). I think converting the {{Timeline of release years}} into a different wikitable, maybe similar to the ones we already have been using, would be beneficial and easier to read/navigate now that it is in its own section, and agree we should retain it on the Phase articles. I also agree with the final determinations. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There are more refs for Marvel Television placements at #Adding in Marvel Television. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Table has been reformatted to a standard wikitable. Still some visual formatting we can work on, but the main parts are all there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Could we still align it to the right and have text be next to it? —El Millo (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

We could, but we'd still need a {{clear}} in that instance because the text won't cover the length of the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think having it centered makes sense for the main timeline, rather than having all of the whitespace on the left. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That was my thinking. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think the timeline should probably be the first or second section rather than buried near the bottom? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. My thinking was just to have the overview and all the depictions/codifying attempts presented first to then show the timeline to readers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at The Marvels' Disney+ release (and any further clarification on its placement in relation to the other 2026-set titles) as a soft deadline for any last minute clean up/work to then move this to the mainspace. I think we've got a really good draft going that can still be worked on post move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. -- ZooBlazer 18:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I still plan on going through the Netflix timeline, I just got caught up with other commitments, though I think we can still move it regardless of that. I hope to get that fleshed out before than, though we’ll see. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Welp, it's The Marvels Disney+ release day. Is it the day we finally move the draft? Or do we wait a little longer? -- ZooBlazer 17:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer, Trailblazer101, Adamstom.97, and InfiniteNexus: Disney+ just gave us a godsend and updated their timeline to include seasons, including for Netflix! I've added that all to the draft. Unfortunately, I'm still not as active as I'd like, so someone can go ahead and move the draft if they want. Post move, we need to figure out the section then at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Timeline. My thought was at the very least transclude back #Timeline from here, and then a cutdown version of #Overview before the transclusion? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and move it. -- ZooBlazer 03:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Just kidding. My webpage crashes every time I try to do it. -- ZooBlazer 03:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made the move but not done any post-move clean-up yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as the new section at the MCU article, we can probably keep the prose pretty brief, something similar to what we have in the lead of this article plus transclusion of the Timeline section. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed down the section at the main MCU article and tried to carry over what references needed to for the transcluded table to function, though some will still be needed for the prose (which I just copied from the lead here and have yet to trim to down). Figured I'd get the tedious task out of the way now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see this in time (also pretty busy in real life at the moment), but glad to see the draft's finally in the mainspace and everything's been sorted out. Thanks all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: If you don't mind keeping your userspace page about the timeline breakdown up and running/existing, I would at some point love to use that to update references/mentions in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course; I wasn't planning on getting rid of it anyway. Anyone is welcome to update/edit the table, especially since I haven't had time to do so myself. Would anyone like to take on the challenge of going through all of the Marvel Television seasons...? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Title and lead bold

I see two options how this can be achieved. Either we retitle the page to "Timeline of the Marvel Marvel Cinematic Universe" making the lead be bold-able without needing to change words: The fictional timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe or keep the title but re-word the lead so: The fictional Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline with the link to the MCU main article placed in the "MCU" abbreviation so as to not link part of the bold title (per the MoS). Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bolding is not a requirement. Echoing my comments on the other page, if there's no good/easy way to bold the title, there is no need to do so. Also, this article should not be moved to Timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as that would imply this is a Wikipedia:Timeline of the real-world history of the MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is a requirment but it is a guideline MOS:LEADBOLD. Gonnym (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So is MOS:BOLDAVOID. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As I've shown above, there are two perfectly fine ways of writing the lead with a natural title that works. BOLDAVOID is thus irrelevent here. Gonnym (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Marvel Television

(edit conflict) [5] Well Disney+ has just made things kind of complicated. Now is a good time to revisit #Adding in Marvel Television, if we want to convert this page to cover both Marvel Studios and Marvel Television projects. I guess as the two continue to renew their wedding vows, so to speak, this will cause further problems down the line with articles like the Characters pages that also only discuss Marvel Studios projects. For now, for the sake of completeness, I think we can hold off of including the Netflix shows (at least in the main timeline; I think it's OK to add it to the Disney+ section) until we have timeline placements for the non-Netflix shows nailed down. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see we both were getting to this at the same time. Well, The Direct does have an article on their placements (but no pictures!), though they are for the series as a whole and are based on their first seasons, meaning any actual year placements would have to be through outside determinations. I think this is something we can (and should) definitely incorporate given it is even more clear Marvel and Disney consider these shows canon on their Sacred Timeline, though I agree this should not halt any move to the mainspace, which I would like to see happen shortly before the timeline shenanigans become too much for the main MCU article to cover. Commentary on this inclusion is definitely a good idea here, and I'm open to compiling the timeline info of these shows to test how we may incorporate them before actually putting anything into motion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fine to discuss adding the Netflix shows based on the executive comments and addition to the Disney+ timeline, but not Marvel Television as a whole. If any of the other Marvel TV shows are confirmed to be part of the sacred timeline by Marvel Studios in the future then they could be added at that point. As far as placement on the timeline, since Disney+ doesn't have separate listings for seasons we will probably need to look at other sources to confirm where the second and third seasons should be placed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I found this article where each season is placed: https://movieweb.com/marvels-the-defenders-saga-in-order/ with Daredevil season 2 after Ant-Man, the second seasons of Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and the third season of Daredevil between Doctor Strange and Thor: Ragnarok, and the final seasons of The Punisher and Jessica Jones before Avengers: Infinity War. AxGRvS (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added that ref and others to note the exact order in Disney+ and additional information to verify the season placements to the best of what is known/in the various articles, and added commentary on this all. I'm still not sure on if we should include the in-universe information for these with the rest in the Infinity Saga section or leave it in the D+ section where I currently have it, though I am open to suggestions and alterations. Given none of the series have solid years or dates provided, I don't think we can necessarily add them to the overall graphic unless we go by where D+ places them and make inferences for the second and third seasons based on the additional refs I added (which I frown upon for even suggesting). Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Shows split up by seasons

It looks like some people are starting to see an updated timeline on Disney Plus with seasons being placed separately. Mine still shows everything as one series, but it's something to keep an eye on for the timeline here. -- ZooBlazer 01:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, this helps out a bunch! I'm still only seeing them bundled together, so it could just be a regional feature. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool and Wolverine placement

Realized we never actually started a discussion on this. I think that even though Deadpool and Wolverine largely takes place in an alternate universe, it is at a set point in time (2024) rather than Loki and What If that are set outside time and space, and multiple earths/times, respectively. I understand the reaction to not place it on the timeline because it's not in the Sacred Timeline, but I think the differentiator is the fact it has a fixed date for the majority of the film, and we can add a note stating it is set on the different Earth and in the Void as I had done. @AxGRvS and Adamstom.97: you both reverted so pinging for your thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

My concerns are: a) putting it on a timeline that is otherwise exclusively Sacred Timeline events makes it look like it is part of the Sacred Timeline, and most people are going to miss that note because it looks like the reference tags; and b) the one scene that is set in the Sacred Timeline is in a different place on the timeline. I just think it is a bit misleading and confusing, and goes against the point of having a simple timeline of the main MCU events. My concerns would probably be alleviated if there was a more obvious way to mark the film as being outside of the Sacred Timeline. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We could do so with color, now that the whole table is hardcoded. A different color plus the note might suffice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That could work, having the note should avoid accessibility concerns of using colours for differentiating. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If we did decide to go with an alternate color for indication, it would satisfy MOS:COLOR for sure. And we could also introduce a color key (which I thought was a template but can't seem to find...), though coupled with a note at least, I think that would be very sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If done in a reasonable manner that would easily convey this distinction, I would be in favor of this addition. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking: User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/9. With the change, because DP&W would currently be the first in the 2024 section, I introduced dotted lines to delineate the years because it wasn't super clear which year was associated with DP&W. Also, I just chose that lime green to show what the change would do. We'd have to come up with a better color. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That looks good to me, we just need to confirm what colour we want. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Would varying shades of red (ie one lighter then current) be too similar/confusing? Or we could do a medium or dark grey? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also {{Legend}} or one of its variants could be use for the color key. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to circle back to this, if we still want to move forward with this idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to move forward with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok I've made this change. We'll have to discuss how to handle this with the "mini" timeline at the Phase Five article because that is still using the previous template. Additionally, because the coding has gotten quite sophisticated, I think we should move the table behind a template (Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline). Wouldn't need to take any parameters, but would present an issue with the references and such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Brief moments on the sacred timeline shouldn't be included on the diagram? Deadpool met Happy Hogan in 2018. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No, just the majority of the film counts. Otherwise we would also have to include other small flashback scenes for all the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with moving it to a separate template, as I have mentioned in the past. It would also allow us to more easily update the timelines across the Phase pages. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I have thought about this being a template for some time now and agree it would be quite helpful. The sourcing may prove complicated to handle unless we chose to have the refs in the temp or filled in in each article with consistent ref names. If it were a temp, could it be possible to make it right-aligned with the current formatting? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

At some point we should look at how this template would be coded, and like Trail said, if we move sourcing with (I think sourcing should be included). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to this to add as it’s now on Disney+ and for some reason is placed after The Marvels which at first glance doesn’t make sense. However it’s an easy fix if one looks at the graphic Marvel Studios put out earlier this year which placed Loki S2 after The Marvels, and was recognized as being out of the timeline. Since the film makes it clear it’s after Loki S2 and with the exception of the Happy Hogan scene being on 616 in 2018 pre-IW, takes place in 2024 in 10005 and the Void. Thus, this makes it much easier to understand the placement. I’ve added some commentary regarding this, and if anyone would like to tidy it up to make it sound less wordy then go ahead. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That prose was actually unnecessary. I've removed it. Where it was placed was for projects excluded. We've justified where it is placed with the efn note, plus the new key creation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)