Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Britt Season 2

We don't know if his appearance in season 2 will be significant enough to warrant its inclusion on its own, but shouldn't it be included anyway, like how on the film page we show cameos if the character has a billed appearance elsewhere? He makes it into this table because he was recurring in season one, and we then should indicate all of his tv appearances regardless of significance, until such a time as he doesn't meet the criteria to be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

D'oh. I don't know our own logic for inclusion. You are correct Adam. So I believe we need to adjust wording somewhere regarding this, but not make it too "clunky" or over bearing. Thanks for realizing my error. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Table alignment

My reasoning behind left aligning the titles in the tables is because on the MCU page (where these are transcluded) all the other tables have this formatting. If we can't do it because of the tv project or something then that's fine, but Favre1fan93 has said before about maybe using some of the film stuff here where needed because of the connectedness of the MCU, and I think it works better having all of the tables formatted the same on the main page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is more in the TV project realm. My thoughts on "melding" the two stemmed more to content and page layout, not intricate details that are "norms" such as this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It will make the MCU page more consistent aesthetically, while not making much of a difference here, so I would still support the change. It is really only a tiny detail in the scope of the MOS whether it is left aligned or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Cast table split

I was thinking of holding off on this for a while, but everything is sort of kicking in with S.H.I.E.L.D. coming up again and everything, so I think this should be established now and as the season continues extra info can just be added, etc. What I'm thinking is, the cast table here, which is a great way to easily identify all of the main cast members, as well as those recurring across seasons and series, of all the tv series, and is a good way to show the connective nature of the universe. The issue is, it is getting very big, and it doesn't even have all the season 2 recurring cast on it yet, let alone the AC and DD stuff. And as more series/seasons get added, it will continues to grow. We could just tighten the parametres so as to make the table smaller, but that would be defeating the purpose, I think, so I propose that change the table here to prose, just a short sentence or two maybe on the main cast and significant guest stars, or something like that, and then add a link to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television actors, which I have already put together in my sandbox. Then, everyone can help clean up and update that page as well. I don't want to just go ahead with this, because it is a pretty big move, but I am very serious about doing it, so I hope other also think this is the way to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not at an unmanagable point yet with this table to require a split. As more series get added, the parameters can tighten up, and the scroll div can be added as needed. Additionally, quickly looking at what you proposed, it is not very worthwhile to have AoS season 1 as a lone column in a single table. That should get combined some how. Also, we don't know how many of these shows are even going to continue (ie AoS season 3, Carter 2, Daredevil 2), so any individual page as you proposed would need to see if television seasons are the best level 2 headers, or maybe something else. So I think we will be heading to this, but probably not as soon as you are thinking. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If we tighten the parametres up anymore than I think we will be cutting out too much information, and the scroll div would just be ridiculous, as users would have to scroll both up & down and left to right to find information. As soon as we reach the point of needing to do either of those things, the split definitely needs to be made. I suggest we do it now simply because AoS 2 is about to start, and it will be a straight run through AC and DD, with the possibility of other series info being revealed in the middle, so I thought it would be better to have it all set up before hand, and then everyone can add the necessary info, without having to worry about parametres or fitting it on this page or anything. As for your thoughts on the page, I disagree that it isn't worthwhile having AoS 1 separate, as the seasons kind of need to be separated out like they are to keep the information readable. I would rather not combine the 2013=14 and 2014-15 info, but keep the other years separated. I don't think it is too much of an issue anyway, and I think it helps highlight the fact that AoS started it all off, and then everything sort of exploded out in scale and crossing over and everything. I think the seasons as headers work for now, but we could have another look at it if the page itself becomes unmanageable down the track. In the end, I still think it would be a good idea to make the split now, and then everyone could work on making the page as good as possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But still, per WP:SIZESPLIT, where are not at a point yet where the split has to happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Series overview tables

@Favre1fan93: Per the recent changes to MOS:TV regarding these, which I know you were involved in, should we remove the home media info from the overview tables here? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. I've been thinking about this, because the intent was to have common elements to transclude both the ABC and Netflix tables together to the main page. I would have went with ratings, but those will not exist with Netflix as they do not release that data. The main purpose of the new guideline was for use on LoE articles, where the DVD information does not actually have any place on those articles. But here, since we will not be covering home media individually, and the ratings info is covered farther down, I think it is okay to keep. If you can think of some other common element that will be available for both ABC and Netflix series, I'd be open to changing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that because this is kind of a unique situation, and isn't a list of episodes page, we're probably right to keep it as is. Just thought I would get your opinion on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts too. But like I said, if you think of some other common element between both the ABC shows and Netflix shows that can be shown, I would be open to that as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

GotG series

None of the sources listed in the article state this series will be apart of the MCU. Just because it follows the events of the film doesn't mean the events in the series are a part of the universe. This is WP:SYN, we need explicit verification saying it is set in the MCU. The show can still barrow elements from the MCU like the rest of Disney XD series without actually being a part of it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I was going to leave it there until it could be discussed (thought it might as well look good while it is there). There is still a chance that it is a part of the MCU, considering they said "picks up where the film left off", and they have used the MCU character designs, not the MAU designs, but we should wait for clarification before stating it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Future

@Favre1fan93: I question that revert, because we really should differentiate between the series that have begun airing, and those that haven't happened yet. Even though we can be pretty sure ourselves that they will happen, technically we can't assume that, and so grouping them with SHIELD, which definitely has begun, is wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We are just saying it is an ABC series, and are not saying that it has aired, by not including years in the heading. I don't believe there is any confusion because of that. And it is more advantageous to keep the series separated, then all together in a mass "Future" heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because we understand it, doesn't mean a casual reader will. The dates seem like a pretty minor thing that could easily be looked over. And besides, we put dates beside the films on that page, but we still separate them into a future section (which itself combines different sections - Phase 2 and Phase 3). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Bucky and Thor

i was wondering, since the ep Beginning of the End had an archival footage from the Winter soldier film as a post credit scene, should we add Bucky to the cast list, because he appeared there. plus we saw some archival footage from Thor the Dark world in where Thor appeared on the Well.

I'm really not sure about this. Thor appears in about two brief shots, and then is only mentioned a few time in the episode (as opposed to Cap in AC, who has actual scenes and dialogue spread throughout the episode). Technically Chris Hemsworth does portray Thor briefly via archive footage from The Dark World in the episode, so for consistency's sake, we probably should add him (with a reliable source, of course). As for the Winter Soldier stuff, I don't recall ever seeing this, but if you meant the ep End of the Beginning, which was the last ep before Winter Soldier came out, and had no 'end tag', like most eps do, then I am guessing the they just showed a trailer for the film after the episode, so the archival footage wasn't actually a part of the episode itself. So, I am in support of adding Thor here and to the appropriate SHIELD pages, but noted as brief archival footage only, and of leaving out Bucky. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

maybe we can add Thor and have the [citation needed] thing that we have under Christian Ward Season 1 actor?.

Character table scope is too broad

This table is getting too big far too quickly. Goodman, Christian and Blizzard should not be notable enough to appear in this table, so we should tighten the definition of "recurring character" in the FAQ. Perhaps we should just remove the part that says "or across the series", since there isn't even much of a series for things to be across at this point. But I think, generally, if a character isn't recurring within the series, they're probably not notable enough to appear here - unless of course, they've appeared in other franchises. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this should really be discussed. I understand not wanting to make less notable characters more notable, as that would be giving them undue weight, but it had already been decided that we should include anyone who reappears in a different season, regardless of their role. If you want to change this, do you also want to change the criteria for individual series/season articles? Favre, I note your reasoning concerning this topic (given at the SHIELD season 2 talk page) as thus: " Guest cast should be limited, again because we are not an indiscriminate collection of information, to characters previously appearing in other MCU media (which includes past seasons), which is done to highlight the shared universe nature." Have you changed your mind now? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, there are several characters included that aren't notable either, like Jim Morita and Anton Vanko, who appear in a single scene each playing minor, even generic (the soldier, the scientist) roles. We only include them here because the characters are reappearing from previous MCU projects, which we collectively established as being the criteria for all of the MCU pages. Consistency allows us to avoid redundancy. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel for this page, which is for all the series, we should stick to recurrences across the various series, but not necessarily a series' season. For example, Blizzard is fine to mention as a guest on the SHIELD pages, because it is directly relatable for that series. However, those two appearances don't really mean much in the context of the other series. We don't have to have the exact same guidelines we are following for each page. Some similarity is nice, but not required. I do think, that other MCU media appearances (Morita, Vanko as you mentioned) are worth the mentions here. (And just for Vanko, I don't think is only appearance was for that one scene if I am correct). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But should we be saying to readers at the SHIELD page that these characters are notable guest stars there, but not here, especially when the rest of the criteria is exactly the same. And if we are just looking at the series here, rather than the seasons, then why have two columns for SHIELD? That seems to me to be picking and choosing bits and pieces, rather than setting out proper guidelines. It should either be the series as a series, with its own principle and (4+ eps) recurring stars plus how it relates to the rest of the MCU (other films and series, etc.), or the seasons as seasons, with their own principle and (4+ eps) recurring stars plus how it relates to the rest of the MCU (other films, series, and seasons, etc.). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But even then, over at the Agents of SHIELD cast page, those characters such as Blizzard appear under the Guest section, not the Recurring or Principal sections, like all other cast that are included here (with the exception of the other media ones). If anything, I think not including them here is more consistent. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, because the point is that they are like the other media characters, not the main/recurring ones. If they weren't reprising their roles from a previous project, then they wouldn't be notable enough to be included here, just like several of the other media characters. If you guys think that season 1 doesn't count as a separate project from season 2, then they should be joined together, not presented as two different things. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly it. If the other media characters weren't reprising roles and were instead, new characters to the show, they wouldn't be notable. However, since they are reprising roles from other media, they are notable.

And the way AoS is split up in seasons does not mean it needs to be treated as separate "projects" or franchises. It's a similar case to the smaller recurring cast table on the MCU page itself - in that all three Iron Man films appear separately, but are treated as the one franchise in terms of the inclusion and exclusion of certain characters in that table. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, those films are considered separate projects within that criteria, as, for instance, Heimdall would not be added there if Thor and The Dark World were considered part of the same thing. So again, for consistency's sake, the seasons must be looked at as completely separate and the criteria written appropriately to match that, or the series must be looked at as a single entity, and represented as such. Not a bit of both. And we don't necessarily have to copy what is done at the film page, if it isn't the best possible option for this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're contradicting yourself, when you say that "for consistency's sake, the seasons... to match that", and then "we don't necessarily have to copy what is done at the film page".

Also, on the film page, Thor and Thor:TDW are considered part of the same franchise, since characters like Sif (who appears in both Thor films) don't appear, whereas Heimdall does, because he appears in a separate franchise (in Avengers:AoU). The TV characters table should follow this example: characters like Blizzard (who appears in both seasons of Agents of SHIELD) don't appear, whereas someone like, say, Luke Cage does, because he appears in separate franchises (in AKA Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Defenders).

You are correct in saying that we don't have to copy what is done at the film page - we should focus on what works best here. But that's irrelevant, because I brought up the film page example since it already treats film franchises (e.g. the Thor films), exactly how I'm saying we should treat TV franchises (e.g. different seasons of Agents of SHIELD). It's an existing example of how this table should work - I'm not saying that this table should replicate it just for the sake of consistency. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see where the confusion came from considering the way I phrased that, but I meant for consistency within this article, not necessarily with the film page. I also stand by my point that Thor and The Dark World are considered separate entities over there, as the criteria specifically states "This table only includes characters which have appeared in multiple film franchises within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and have appeared in the billing block for at least two films." So if they were considered as solely a franchise, and not individual parts or one, the Heimdall would not meet the criteria, but since we acknowledge that they are both part of a franchise, and individual films unto themselves, Heimdall can be included. The same could be said for here, in that it is clear that the seasons are both of the same series, but they should also be looked at as separate seasons, which they are. All I am saying is, if we want to state that the seasons are basically the same thing, and therefore the removed characters are not notable here, then we need to combine those to columns into a single SHIELD column. If not, and we are going to see the seasons as separate projects within the one series, then those characters need to readded, as appearing in multiple projects is notable enough to be included here, and it highlights the shared universe nature, which is what this page is all about. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel the easiest way to look at this, until such a time we maybe have a character table resembling the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, is this: Disregarding the actors / characters who are from films or one-shots, the only characters we should have here are the principles and the recurring characters from each season. And if it so happens that a recurring character crosses over seasons (see Tripp or Raina) that's fine. But some one like Blizzard, wouldn't and shouldn't be included here. Does that make sense/sound reasonable? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Or there's a third option which is already in place, and works well with your logical statement: "The same could be said for here, in that it is clear that the seasons are both of the same series, but they should also be looked at as separate seasons". And that's to acknowledge the seasons as both separate, and part the same series. Showing the interconnectivity of a shared universe is not achieved by cluttering up a table with all of the cases of minor guest characters that happen to appear in more than one season of the same show. Those things are simply not notable.

In fact, as the size of this table is increasing dramatically, we should probably soon consider tightening the criteria further to only include prinicipal cast and those that appear in other shows or media. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Favre, that sounds totally reasonable, but I think at this point, it's still useful to show what interconnectivity we can. I think removing the recurring cast might be a better option? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

After reading all that, I'm not quite sure what your positions are guys, but I do think that removing the recurring cast isn't really necessary yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If it helps clarify things, my comment is in response to yours, Adamstom. And it was written before I saw Favre's comment. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think for now, Favre's suggestion is the way to go. Just to clarify though, are we including characters such as the Koenigs, who have not recurred in either season yet, but have made more than 4 appearances during the entire series? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That was not my original intent, but I would be supportive of including the characters that appear in the Recurring section at the AoS characters page (plus the announced additional recurring S2 ones). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like the way to go to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's see how Professor feels. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I think it's better to use this table to show the interconnectivity between the shows and to the films of the MCU. I think modelling it on the recurring characters table on the film page is the way to go, focusing less on characters who are somewhat important to each show (the recurring characters), just as the film table focuses less on characters like Odin and Jane Foster. And focusing more on characters that tie shows together, and to the rest of the MCU. So, if you're getting rid of something, I think it's a better option to remove the recurring characters, who are already listed on each individual show's character section/page, rather than removing the other media characters. Sidenote: If we were to model this table on the film one, would a "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television actors" page be appropriate at some point? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The separate actors article has been discussed before, and I have tried some stuff out in my sandbox, but it was decided that we are not yet at a place where the split is necessary (that was before we had the AKA and Defender casting here, so maybe that should be discussed again?), so you should look at the table here as the equivalent to the actual film actors page, rather than the smaller table at the films list. If we do make the split, then a smaller table focusing solely on interconnectivity will probably be used here, which would only include those actors/characters who have crossed over from other media, plus any actor/character who appears in multiple series. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I certainly think we're at a place where the split is a good idea. However, if the consensus is that we aren't, I'm happy to wait until the split for this table to become more focused on interconnectivity. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As there is no crossover, wouldn't we be better served having separate tables for the ABC and the Netflix series? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but maybe that should wait until after Daredevil comes out, to see if there is any crossover at all? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely seeing as they are different studios and different licences. I'd be more inclined to split the tables, then worry about crossover if it ever happens. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's not different studios, Netflix series are produced by Marvel Television in association with ABC Studios and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. & Agent Carter by Marvel Television & ABC Studios. It's not unlikely if they have annouced connections with MCU... Mike210381 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Different broadcast networks though, so the crossover between series is still just as unlikely. There certainly isn't any crossover announced yet, so it'll make for easier tables to split now, then deal with any crossovers when and if they ever happen. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Different broadcast networks, it doesn't mean there won't be crossovers. We should wait until Dardevil will air. Mike210381 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't mean there will be crossovers either - we could be waiting years for a crossover that may never happen. Until there is a crossover, the ABC and Netflix series should be treated separately. If a crossover happens, then we should deal with it however best at the time. We shouldn't make a pre-emptive provision for something that may never happen. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I said that we should wait until Daredevil will air, that's only 2 months not years! Mike210381 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

But the same argument could then be used in case there is a crossover in Jessica Jones, etc., etc. In any case even if there is a crossover, we should still split the table and deal with the two networks separately. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this recently, and feel we should cut the table here down to just principle cast members for all series, and then make a page similar to the film actors, where the split is one table for the ABC series and one is for the Netflix ones. If you give me a few days, I can create a mock up of it for all to see, before we make a decision. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I came up with. The first level 2 header would be the new table here (format pending), while the next level 2 header would be a new article. I think that is the format to go with, ABC series as one table and Netflix as another. While we would want to try to replicate the List of film actors article, we can't really follow the "Phase/year" as an individual table format. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your approach is pretty much exactly how it should be handled. Good work! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to your sandbox Favre, but feel that this format is definitely the way to go. In fact, I would be happy to fast track this change, unless there are any objections. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The principal cast table shouldn't be scattered in alphabetical order like that, but should be grouped by first appearance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "scattered", it's ordered alphabetically, which I am certain is preferable in dealing with real-life lists, such as cast lists. Also, as we are somewhat modelling this change on what we have done with the films, the main page makes the first appearance divisions, while the summary just groups a specific selection of those cast members and their characters (recurring for the films, regulars for tv) in a unified, alphabeticised table. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The usual format for recurring cast lists is by first appearance (see Child's Play (film series)#Cast and characters, List of Scream cast members, List of Halloween characters, etc, etc). In alphabetical order by character name is less useful and difficult to see any trends. Even more so in this case, as characters have multiple names. And you've muddled up the two networks. The ordering in @Favre1fan93:'s version here is far superior, although I'd be inclined to go the further step and re-order the Agents of Shield characters by first appearance also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks good. I agree though that for the principal cast table, it should be by appearance, rather than alphabetical. When everything is scattered across the table like that, it becomes impossible to view trends. It's taken a while for me to realise, but that's a large part of my problem with List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors#Introduced in Phase One. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the table for here to be ordered by appearance (with alpha order in that) and fixed SHIELD's to be a season 1 ordering and then by season 2. If everyone likes it, I'll go ahead and make the changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the first appearance-ordering looks terrible. It creates huge sections of blank cells unnecessarily, it segregates sections of casts when we should be highlighting that they all exist within the same universe, and it uses in-universe info, rather than real-world details, to order the cast and characters. Not to mention, the table as you have it now is not actually ordered by first appearance, rather you have groups of alphabeticised characters, with each group ordered by appearance. That may work in the extended tables, but not when we aren't subsectioning off within the table, which we shouldn't be for this summarised version. To Rob, you say that the usual format is by first appearance, but I have actually found that the usual format tends to be whoever the editors believe is most important comes first, like X-Men (film series). The fact that we at the MCU pages have been using systems like alphabetical ordering is great, in my opinion, because we are being more professional and logical. I would like to remind you guys that we are establishing two different lists: a full(ish) cast list that not only highlights connections with other media, but also has this pseudo-first appearance ordering (kind of like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors); and a summary table, that just depicts some of the major characters and cast members, in this case the series regulars rather than recurring characters (kind of like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Recurring cast and characters). I am baffled that you guys have come to the decision that you have, especially you Favre, and would ask that we at least discuss this issue before going ahead with the current sand box version. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You say that first appearance ordering creates huge sections of blank cells. That is incorrect. Those blank cells are there anyway, and if you order it alphabetically, those cells are all mixed up with the cast members, so everything looks jumbled and out of order. As Rob pointed out, it makes it impossible to view trends. Since there's not a lot of crossover in this table, it makes sense to be able to see which characters were in the same show clearer, and which characters actually appear more than once - which first appearance ordering achieves.

This is somewhat unrelated, but of interest - it may not be a cast member, but Daredevil hasn't come out and we've already got a connection to Agents of SHIELD [1]. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out (and rightfully so) that at this time there really is no interconnectivity yet between the series, sans Carter and Dum Dum's appearance on SHIELD. While a large alpha sort is nice, that is better once we have more connective threading (ie the recurring table at the List of films page). This is essentially a reduced version of what we have now, just without all the headings. I think for the time being, it is the better option to represent the info, and if we do start getting the ABC to Netflix connection we are all hoping for, then it could probably be revisited to reorganize. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually think we are being incorrect when we say there currently is no interconnectivity between the series. Look at it like this - we have several series that we are grouping at this page and are stating "These all exist within a single universe". That is the interconnectivity; they are all living in the same world, and crossover is possible. So combining them all is logical in that sense. And it isn't as if we are hiding which series each character has appeared in, that is the whole point of the column headers. For anyone looking for trends or something like that, we have a whole extended page that pretty clearly highlights that. But here it is not necessary, and by dividing the characters into groups, with no apparent sub-headings, not only are we creating a table that is neither ordered by first appearance nor alphabetical order, we are also breaking this idea of interconnectivity that we spend the rest of the article trying to present. The current way you guys have the table, you are pushing the idea that AC and DD aren't connected, or that AoS and AKA can't crossover, but that simply isn't true. This is all one big universe, and this is a single, simplified table. Also, it isn't just the film list table that uses this format: the Introduced in Phase X sections at the film actors list and Marvel One-Shots table are "all jumbled up", and they work really well. Why diverge now? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

But we do acknowledge that they exist within the same shared universe. That's what's going on in the table of prinicipal cast members. The division between ABC and Netflix in the other tables, is simply the most logical division at this point, to keep the tables from being too cumbersome. Just like the division of phases at the film actors page. We're not saying they can't crossover, this is just the most logical division.

And I would argue that just because we highlight trends (or list things in a visibly clearer order) in another table, it doesn't mean we should just scrap that in the principal cast table for the sake of variety. I'm suggesting we use first appearance order because I think it is the clearest and best.

As for the alphabetical format being used at the film and One-Shots table, I already mentioned in this thread, that the alphabetical order is a large part of my problem with List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors#Introduced in Phase One. And since making that comment, I've worked on an alternative in my sandbox. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As Professor said, we are not not saying it isn't a shared universe, just that until now, with characters, there is not the same level of interconnectivity that has been seen in other mediums. As I stated, the only recurring characters have been Carter and Dum Dum. So until more recurrences occur, I feel going the first appearance route is best for the time being for the table on this page. And a side note to Professor, I understand what you are saying about your issue with the List of film actors table, but I don't believe the proposed solution you are creating would help, as there is no indication that we are ordering by Phase 1 films, since the column headers are Phase 2 films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, although, the column header for this section is "Introduced in Phase One", and you would perhaps note in the list indicators that it's ordered by the character's first appearance in the MCU (rather than that individual phase). Also, all of the details of each characters' appearances before Phase 2 is listed in the table directly above. I think the pros of readability, and trend-viewing (like being able to see clearly which characters appear more than once at a glance - and being able to see that all of those multiple appearance cases includes Avengers:AOU) far outweigh the cons of listing characters in the order of appearance in a different phase to that of the table. Anyway, this is kinda off-topic here. I'll bring it up at the film actors talk page soon. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said that we were not saying it is a shared universe, I said that we are making it look like, or subconsciously suggesting, that there is some sort of division, rather than making it look like, or subconsciously suggesting, that it all goes together. Also, you guys keep saying that you are ordering by first appearance, but you actually aren't. Skye and Ward first appeared in TV series before Coulson, for example, but that isn't reflected in the table. I do understand that you are just going for the actors list article, but without recurring and special guest, and without headers, but I feel that removing the headers immediately means that we can't pretend that they are there. For the respect of our readers, and for logic's sense, there should either be headers or no headers, not a little bit of both, and it should either be alphabetical or by first appearance, not a little bit of both. Not only is it unprofessional and doesn't look very good, it is also unnecessarily inconsistent with other MCU pages. Your guys reasoning that there aren't many crossover characters so we don't need to alphabeticise is silly, and confusing, especially with our track record here of making intelligent decisions. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But there is a division. These shows are released in a different format, on a different platform, by a different distributor. I think it's a stretch to say that separating these tables, implies that it doesn't all go together somehow. Fact of the matter is, we have to make divisions at some point. Could you imagine the size of a cast table for the whole MCU? I can, because I made one on Excel and it's stupid. You think the principle cast table doesn't look good, but I think it looks better - it is much easier to read. And unnecessary inconsistency isn't a good reason, since we should treat tables individually as to what works best for each one, and I've been arguing to change the other tables as well as this, which would make it consistent. Also, I'm not opposed to listing everything by first appearance within each series. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Sock, Fandraltastic, Drovethrughosts, and Ditto51: I don't know if you guys are interested in this, but was wondering what your opinions on this discussion are? The issue is basically that others here want this cast table to be ordered partly by first appearance, and partly alphabetically, even though that seems very clearly illogical and unprofessional to me, not to mention a complete (unnecessary) departure from the other MCU cast tables format. It also, I believe, suggests to readers in a more subtle way that the series are / should be separate, when this page is all about how they all exist within a single universe. Anyway, any thoughts you have on this matter will be greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with adamstom97 theres no need to place these characters in the same table if only to segregate them by appearance. It does, as Adam stated, suggest less cohesiveness. But my biggest problem is that a reader looking for a particular character might not no where to find him/her if he doesn't already know where he/she first appeared, which makes the table less useful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat and Adam, what are you suggesting then? Do you want to not place all these characters in the same table? Or do you want to keep the table as it is, but ordered completely alphabetically?

If the latter is the case, I think that is unwise. Why should we be jumbling the cast all together to make it appear to have more cohesiveness than it actually does? And if we are putting the readers first, then shouldn't we present this table in a way that is easy to read and understand, and more interesting, with trends on the table easy to spot?

If your point for this table is that it needs to demonstrate cohesiveness, then you can't jumble everything alphabetically, because all you are demonstrating in this case is that you've put a bunch of prinicipal cast members in a table together, where none of them really cross over that much, and it's hard to read where the crossovers happen. When cast members from the same show appear in the table together, it is much easier to see which cast members cross-over to different shows, or appear more than once. And isn't that the best way of demonstrating cohesiveness?

Adam, I understand that this is a departure from the other MCU cast table format, but as I've stated before, I don't think it's unnecessary. We should treat this TV table with what will work best for a TV table, not what works best for a film table. And I've also stated that I think a similar change on the film table would greatly improve its readability, and would nullify your inconsistency argument.

This is probably a good time to step back and ask ourselves what we're trying to achieve with this table (and this is particularly relevant given the recent edits to do with Dum Dum's inclusion in the table). Are we creating a table of principal cast, or a table of recurring cast? Since the principal cast option is by nature, fairly separate, and is basically just a different cast for each show, there's no point doing that in one table. That would be better handled another way.

I think, ideally, we're aiming for the recurring cast option - something that demonstrates cohesiveness, and simply lists alphabetically, characters that cross-over a certain number of times, like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Recurring cast and characters. However, we're currently in an awkward stage between not having that much cross-over between series, but having enough cast for the table to be too big to just list all the principal characters alphabetically. So, assuming this is what we do want, where do we go from here? Do we just make a recurring table with only five entries (Carter, Dum Dum, and the three Defenders)?

Sorry that this is a bit long, but bear with me. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What would you guys think about only including the characters who recur across the series, plus those who have crossed over from other media. The other media characters can be removed when we have more tv characters crossing over themselves. The headlining cast members would still be included for now due to this criteria anyway. Would this be a possibility? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, like the film article we could turn it into "Recurring cast and characters", we have the full list article anyway. However, due to small amount of actors that have recurred, we can set the limit to those who have appeared across multiple seasons or shows.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of listing other media characters to demonstrate cohesiveness, while there aren't enough from the TV series alone to do so. I'm less keen on listing characters who have appeared across multiple seasons of the one show, since it would make this table very "Agents of SHIELD"-centric. It's funny that this is a suggestion so far down the track in a discussion that I started to try and remove the characters that only appeared in multiple seasons of the one show. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify, "Principal characters that appeared across multiple shows or seasons". Currently this would mean six characters from AoS, two characters from AC, and 3 characters from the Netflix series. I think that would balanced currently considering AoS has been on longer, AC is a miniseries with one season and the Netflix series haven't even aired yet. Also I think this would only grow to be even more balanced as casting for Netflix series continues.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Triiiple, we don't need to specify principal characters, as the focus should be on the connective-ness (the film list table doesn't include headlining characters of individual properties, like Peter Quill or Scott Lang, because they don't make the criteria for recurring across the films). I think that this table should have any character who has appeared in multiple series and seasons, plus other media characters, and if the table gets too big we can look at perhaps removing the other media characters, or tightening up the criteria for recurring within the series/seasons, at that point. This should solve most of the issues we have been having, bring the page more inline with the other MCU stuff, and be more appropriate for this article, which is about all these series together within the MCU, while the list of tv actors page is about a more complete list of the major tv actors within the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So...do we want to consider my proposal, or leave the table as it is? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Triiiple's suggestion (which would probably be better worded as "Characters that appeared across multiple shows, and principal characters that appeared across multiple seasons", given that he includes Dum Dum - I'm assuming). However, I'm more in support of Adamstom's proposal, since it's a better tool for displaying the inter-connectivity of the television series, which is what I think the focus of this table should be. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Triiiple's suggestion is a bit too much like what we had before the split. Remember that for the film table we don't include the major characters just because they are major characters, which is why Quill and Lang, etc., aren't included there, so we don't need to feel obligated to include the major characters here (although my suggestion would include Coulson, Carter, Murdock, Jones, and Cage anyway). - adamstom97 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have this mocked up Adam? I think that would help me contribute, if I had a visual. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a quick mock up of what I am proposing, any thoughts and suggestions are welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And here is an alternative version, this time just including main and recurring cast members, but showing all who have appeared in multiple seasons rather than just series. I don't know if this can be an option, but thought I would throw it out there. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The first of those two looks good. I think we should use it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe try chucking it in, Adamstom97 - no one seems opposed to it... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

With so few entries, I don't think we need the additional headers, so I would go for the second option.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the second option format is better, maybe with all the content of the first? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to implement the second option, as is, but we can discuss maybe adding the other media characters if you want Favre. A big factor for me is would we add a TV character to the list of films table just for crossing over from other media? Or would we just add them to the list of film actors page? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title for the Netflix series

Newsarama is stating that "Marvel has dubbed" the Netflix shows with the banner "Marvel Knights". I haven't seen anything from Marvel's releases stating this, but don't think it is necessarily wrong to add. So the question is, where? In headings or just prose? Pinging TriiipleThreat and Richiekim as I know they don't frequent this article as much as the other MCU titles, but to provide their insight.

Also, a small sidebar. With the announcement of Luke Cage's EP and a release year, that seemingly would make it now the third series, switching spots with Iron Fist. I made a slight wording adjustment here regarding that. I hope it wasn't too WP:SYNTHy or WP:OR on my part. Let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this has to do with the Variety article about marketing the Netflix shows under the "Marvel Knights" banner. Richiekim (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I think you're right. That to me seems the most logical. It seems Newsarama just misinterpreted the use of that title in relation to the shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Distinct cast tables for ABC and Netflix series

Despite the discussion above, when the new series were announced, the distinct ABC and Netflix series got muddled up. I tried to split the two tables, as there is no benefit in seeing cast progression when they're mixed up like that as there is no crossover whatsoever, but it has been reverted. Thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a read through the above discussion, you will see that, even though this isn't want you suggested/want, the current format is what was decided upon by consensus, so if you want to change it, then discuss it first. Don't just make a major change like this and be surprised when you are reverted. And what cast progression are you talking about? The clearly isn't an obvious pattern or anything whether the tables are combined or not, nor does it matter since this table does not exist in any way to show cast progression, it exists to summarise the list of tv actors page. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the current format was not agreed upon, because at that time, the additional seasons of the ABC series hadn't been announced, so they were not interspersed between the Netflix series. With the distinct tables we can see a cast progression showing who was in consecutive seasons of the ABC and Netflix series. As there is no crossover, a combined table makes this more difficult to see, and gives us no benefit whatsoever. Also note how we split the two distinct series for every other section of the article, so it makes no sense that we don't do that here too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, we did agree upon this format, and it takes a simple reading of the above discussion to see that. If you still want to change it, then you should make a new case as to why that is. Wanting to see the cast progressions is not a good argument, one because that isn't what this table is about, and two because the difference between this version and yours is minimal when it comes to seeing any pattern of cast appearances. Also, there are two tables at the list article so their should be two here is also not a good argument, as the point is we are summarising that entire article into one small, simple table - see the list of films page and its actors article for another case of separate tables being combined and cut down for the summary version. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made my case - let's see what others think. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. His version is far easier to read and understand. --Bold Clone (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I support the split of the two tables as Rob did for the time being. There has not been any indication otherwise that the ABC and Netflix series will be interacting with each other (yet). If they do, we can reexamine, but this is the best for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues with the format of this table that I have, and they can both be solved without splitting the table.

1. I think the table is too vertically large, as a result of the columns not being wide enough for most of the text to remain on one line.

In solving this issue, I would extend the table horizontally with a scrolling feature, just like the table on the films page. And I would also remove the recurring cast from the criteria. Tighten it to just "main characters who have appeared in multiple seasons". However, if people are set on including those other recurring members, that's probably fine. I think that limiting it to main is a good option for now though, as a temporary solution, until we can limit it to characters who have appeared in more than one different titled series.

2. I think that listing the cast alphabetically only jumbles the characters, and makes the table harder to read and understand.

In solving this issue, I would instead sort by first appearance. This groups the Season 1 Agents of SHIELD characters together, and the Daredevil characters together, so it's easier to view trends, and read information about the table, instead of it being a mess of actors. And that's the point of tables, so I think this solution is the key to making a lot of the tables on these pages easier to understand. I know that I've brought this up a number of times before, and there's never been the consensus to implement it, so I understand if people are opposed. And if we do choose to ignore this solution, I agree that splitting the table between ABC and Netflix is the only other option at this point.

I think it's also important to simplify the discussion to this level, because no one was actually talking about the root of the problem - which is key to making sure we're all on the same level and trying to fix the same thing, rather than to achieve the goals for the table that each of us have individually. Also, if someone could make a draft of my suggestions, that would be greatly appreciated, since I don't know how to insert the scrolling feature. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@ProfessorKilroy: We should avoid adding the scrolling feature as it is actually a WP:ACCESS issue. While it is on the film page, I started (a now dormant) discussion to change the table format there so we don't have the scroll function. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So, assuming we've decided to keep the scrolling feature on the film page, I'll reiterate the three things I think would improve this table, as an alternative to splitting it between ABC and Netflix, or removing it altogether: 1. Add a scrolling feature; 2. Tighten the criteria to just "main characters who have appeared in multiple seasons"; 3. List characters by appearance, rather than alphabetically. What do you all think? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, Robsinden, and Bold Clone: Any other thoughts on this issue? Do people think any of my suggestions are appropriate? Also @TriiipleThreat: you might be interested. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Point 1 and 2 are fine, though I not sure point 1 is necessary just yet. Also I'm not sure what's the benefit of point 3. My question is it necessary to split 2015 from 2015-2016 season? Perhaps we can merge the two based on the awards season? Right now it looks like two different tables that have been combined into one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To explain point 3 - as I said earlier, listing the characters alphabetically jumbles it up, making the table harder to read and understand. When grouped by first appearance, the characters who appeared in the same thing appear together, and so it is easier to view trends. This, I think, is more to the point of what tables should be, rather than a list of information presented in a box.

And I agree with you on your point about the years. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of sorting the list by first appearances. --Bold Clone (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm less keen on sorting by first appearances on this table now, since it's smallish, and because of the interlocking timeframes of the television seasons. But I still think it would greatly improve the film actors page, in which the tables are huge and the information is all jumbled.

As for the scrolling feature, I thought the recurring film actors table had the scrolling feature when it had this many columns, but if people don't think this is ready, then we'll wait. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm completely lost with where this conversation is going, and it all seems unnecessarily complicated with suggestions of scrolling, etc. I maintain my position: There is no crossover, so two simple tables will suffice. This avoids all of these problems. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we split this now? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this doesn't seem to be clear, let me explain what this table is / is not. We have an article listing all the main and recurring actors in all the MCU TV series, which is linked from this page, and here we have a quick summary table of that to indicate some of the main recurring cast and characters across all of the series. This summary table is not a proper cast table, and so separate ones to detail the casts of the series from the different networks are not required. It is also not intended to show patterns or trends in the appearances of certain cast or characters, so shuffling everything around into first appearance is not necessary either (not to mention that both of those points are sort-of counter-productive to the other). An easy comparison for what this table is can be found at the MCU films list, which likewise has an entire, extended article for all cast members, with only the major recurring ones included in the summary table. Now, if there is an issue to how big this summary table is, then that is a separate discussion, in which, if someone wants to have it, a narrowing of the table's parametre's can be proposed. But for now, in this discussion, please keep the above points, detailing why we want this table at all, in mind when making any propositions or suggestions. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be leaning slightly on the side of a split from the discussion above (with Bold Clone and Favre1fan93 being in the support camp, ProfessorKilroy and TriiipleThreat less clear on their preference). But most of your suppositions are wrong (and to be frank, the tone of your response smacks of WP:OWN). Of course it is supposed to show patterns and trends, what would be the point of putting it in table form otherwise? And what is a "proper cast table" anyway? There is no "easy comparison" between this and the MCU films list, as that is one series made by one studio, with multiple crossovers. As there is absolutely zero crossover between the two networks, where is the benefit to the reader in keeping the networks merged? This complicates the table far more than is needed and makes it more difficult to read. Also note that the rest of the article is structured for the two networks, so we should also do the same in this section for consistency. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks or accusations. I was merely clarifying the intent of the table, my thoughts on which I stand by. However, you do raise a good point, in that most of the article is already divided between the two networks (this may have been brought up previously, and if so then I apologise). With this in mind, I would support the splitting of the summary table into two separate tables, each summarising one of the two tables at the list of TV actors page. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. As you were the main opposition to the split, I'll go ahead. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And  Done. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I should mention that, historically, from discussions on this table in the past, the intention has been for this table to be similar to that of the films one, where it outlines crossovers between franchises, but since there are very few characters who cross over franchises (6?), the consensus has been to go with a table that outlines major recurring cast members. And you're right - since there is no real reason to keep the two networks in the same table, we should keep them separated. But when more television franchise crossovers occur, we should reconsider.

To clarify, if I've been unclear, in the state the table was previously, I believe it was ready to add the scrolling feature - which is inevitable even with these tables, given the growing state of the MCU. And I no longer support ordering these "summary tables" by appearance order - which is something I've been pushing for on pages such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors for some time now, as I think it greatly improves readability, showing patterns and trends ore clearly, just as the tables on this page do now after the split. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Mockingbird series back on?

The Bobbi Morse/Lance Hunter spin-off that was on, then off, might be on again: https://variety.com/2015/tv/news/marvel-mockingbird-spinoff-series-most-wanted-adrianne-palicki-nick-blood-abc-1201574713/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Literally just read this. Definitely appears to be a pilot order, nothing more on any air date or if it will actually get to series order. We can add to the development section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added the info to the development section here, at Marvel Television, at the AoS main page, and started a draft at Draft:Marvel's Most Wanted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a possible nitpick. On most of the articles, the Variety link is cited as the source for the pilot order and THR is cited for further info. However, only THR states that a pilot has been ordered. The Variety article only states that they "closing in on a deal to order a pilot" instead. I don't know how important that wording is, but it seemed odd to me when I clicked through to the sources. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the series isn't back on yet, just a pilot and they'll see if they want to order a series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Variety headline says that they landed a pilot, but the article itself does not. It just says they are close to ordering a pilot. Headlines are not always written by the author, so it should not be used as a source for an ordered pilot. The THR article, published only 20 minutes later, says that they confirmed it has been ordered. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved the THR source to the first sentence as well to indicate that is the source we are using. Because previously, it all flowed to the Variety source, which as you stated, uses wording to indicate it may not have been ordered yet (though THR does confirm that). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Outdated source used for number of episodes in individual Netflix series it clearly doesn't verify

@Favre1fan93: The quote you provided here clearly doesn't support the claims that the Luke Cage and Iron Fist miniseries will be 13 episodes each or that the Iron Fist miniseries has not been replaced with a Punisher miniseries and (later) an Iron Fist Netflix original movie. There is also conflicting information within the source (13*4+4~8 is something between 56 and 60, which is different from"60") and is also obviously contradicted by external facts that have emerged since its publication: Daredevil will get a second season (of how many episodes?) before any of the aforementioned shows, making any mathematical extrapolation that the number of episodes in each miniseries will equal the total number of episodes divided by the number of miniseries dead on arrival.

I must emphasize that I am not saying the individual factual claims in the article are "wrong" (if I thought that I would have just removed them). I am saying that a better (preferably up-to-date) source will be needed to verify them, and that the mathematical argument you appear to be employing against this view is forbidden by Wikipedia policy.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You cannot use WP:RUMOR (Iron Fist movie?, Punisher miniseries?) to discredit a reliable source nor can you use WP:SYN (season 2 of Daredevil will affect the total number of Netflix episodes mentioned in this source). Also simple arithmetic is permitted per WP:CALC. The source is up to date unless we have another reliable source that explicitly says that it isnt.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using WP:RUMOR to discredit reliable sources, nor am I implying that season 2 of Daredevil will affect the total number of Netflix episodes mentioned in this source. I'm saying that if it doesn't affect the total number of episodes mentioned in the source, then the OR currently included in the article ("The source says 52 episodes: if we divide that by 4, it's 13 per miniseries!") is inaccurate. If each miniseries is 13 episodes, then the statement in the article that there will be four miniseries of 52 total episodes is out-of-date as of the announcement of Daredevil season 2. We shouldn't be taking out-of-date sources at the word, and we definitely shouldn't be taking them at their word and then extrapolating things from them that they don't directly state. It doesn't even matter if our article's current claim is inaccurate or not. It's OR based on a mathematical extrapolation that isn't made in the source. The source doesn't say that all the miniseries will be the same number of episodes, so if we want to say they will be 13 episodes each we need a different source.

Also, please remember that I don't think there won't be 13 episodes per miniseries. I just think that we should find a better source that actually says this. I know the information in the article is probably accurate -- that's why I'm not removing it as unsourced speculation that I don't agree with.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why mention the Iron Fist movie or Punisher show? If they have nothing to do with your arguement then why mention them? The source was released prior to Daredevil even airing, and the second season of the show was annonced based on the positve reception of the first, hence the inital total of 52 does not cover the second season (and is now likely to have increased to 65 with Daredevil season 2 added on). Just because other factors are added to a contract, doesn't make older parts moot.

For example, the Inhumans film has been rumored to be canceled and has been moved around all over the place as Marvel change their schedule. Do you think the inital source that announced that is out of date?

The source states that there will be 52 episodes across 4 series, anything added after that (such as Punisher or Daredevil season 2) are entirely seperate matters.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

From the source used: "This pioneering agreement calls for Marvel to develop four serialized programs totaling 52 one-hour episodes culminating in a four to eight episode mini-series programming event... Netflix has committed to a minimum of four, thirteen episodes series and a mini-series event." So with this source, we know that the four individual series are each 13 episodes, and the Defenders are 4-8 episodes. This is the agreement for one season of all series. It is irrelevant, incorrect and WP:OR to believe that the second season of any show would affect this. Please notice how there is not number of episodes for Daredevil season 2 currently listed. Why? Because, while it can be assumed that it is once again 13, Marvel or Netflix did not announce that, so we can't add that. And the fact that Daredevil got a second season (and most likely Jessica Jones now) has no bering on the original agreement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the sources are not conflicting. The reliable sources have consistently stated that the deal was for 60 hours of programming and that the Defenders miniseries would consist of 4 to 8 episodes. - DinoSlider (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Iron Fist on Netflix Chart?

Should Marvel's Iron Fist be on the Netflix Chart under "Unknown year"? We know that Carrie-Anne Moss will reprise her role as Jeri Hogarth, citation here.

--64.106.111.34 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Netflix character table, then we will add Iron Fist to it once we have someone who is a series regular or recurring actor on both Iron Fist and another MCU television season. Of course, if Moss was starring as Hogarth in Iron Fist then that would fit the criteria. However, we do not "know that Carrie-Anne Moss will reprise her role as Jeri Hogarth", all we know is that one website (that you cite above) of dubious reliability has heard from their sources that she is in it, which isn't reliable confirmation for us. Don't worry, we aren't in any rush, and when we do get confirmation of her or someone else that meets the criteria being in Iron Fist, we will add it to the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Royce Johnson/Brett Mahoney

Should this one be added to recurring characters? Not as much screentime as e.g. Rosario Dawson/Claire Temple, but still, a developed character throughout (Daredevil season 1, Jessica Jones season 1, Daredevil season 2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The criteria for this table is main characters who appear in multiple seasons. Johnson is just a guest actor who has appeared in a lot of episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox series parametre

There is currently a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox television#Number of series/seasons that is relevant to this page, and to which further input would be welcomed. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Rumored 'Captain Britain' series

Seems kind of out there, but movie poster artist Ciara McAvoy tweeted that she is working on an image for a potential "Captain Britain" show. It was then followed up by two tweets from one Chris Lark, a movie producer, saying that he is working on a highlight reel. I wasn't sure at what point it's OK to add to the mainspace as a potential project. Maybe it already is since the Punisher evidence is even more scant. Breathesgelatin (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

References

It's not happening. -- S ^talk/_contribs 15:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As you stated, it's a highlight reel, from outside producers who wish to present what they create to Marvel. That being said, it doesn't even appear it would be an "in house" Marvel-produced series (aka an MCU one), and could be completely separate from the MCU altogether, should it ever come to light. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cloak and Dagger confirmed for Freeform

I added a Cloak and Dagger section to their Freeform network, a subsidiary of ABC. The series has been confirmed. 161.185.161.23 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't know if it's part of the MCU yet though. I've kept the info hidden for now. - Richiekim (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but the source does say Marvel Studios is co-producing. We can wait though. May want to think about formatting the ABC section considering Freeform is a subsidiary. 161.185.161.23 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Marvel Studios is co-producing. They are co-producing the upcoming X-Men TV series for FX and Fox, and those are both not MCU properties. If it is indeed an MCU series, it would get its own section, because Freeform is a cable channel, not broadcast like ABC (despite their relation). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Deadline seems to have independently confrimed the series and uses the phrase "expanding its Marvel TV universe", a commonly used, informal description for the ABC/Netflix series. Also of note is the "Marvel's" in front of the title, which all the MCU series have while the FX shows don't. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point about it featuring "Marvel's" in the title since the X-Men ones do not. Here's Marvel's official announcement on the matter, with Loeb saying, "We are thrilled to be able to explore another corner of the Marvel Universe with Cloak and Dagger." He doesn't explicitly say the MCU, so I think we should still hold off on it for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The original announcement for the Netflix series didn't say anything about the MCU either, so I'm sure we will hear something about it soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we can say the X-Men situation is the same given that the rights of the characters still lie with Marvel from my understanding unless if they are going to be mutants. 161.185.160.76 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"The network will also make its first venture into the Marvel Cinematic Universe with new series "Marvel's Cloak and Dagger," a superhero love story." [2] Mike210381 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Added Cloak and Dagger JJsCat (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I undid that change. It was a duplicate of what was already in the page, but commented out. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Futon source above (thanks Mike210381) is the official press release from Freeform ahead of their upfronts, and it does indeed state that Freeform "will also make its first venture into the Marvel Cinematic Universe with new series Marvel's Cloak and Dagger, a superhero love story." That sounds like confirmation to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Disney–ABC Domestic Television as distributor?

I was just looking this up, and according to the Disney–ABC Domestic Television article (and their website), this is the syndication arm of Disney/ABC (ie Live with Kelly and Michael, AFV, Millionaire?). I believe that Disney–ABC Television Group would be the more appropriate distributor to list here (as well as at AoS, Agent Carter and the Most Wanted, Damage Control and Cloak and Dagger drafts) per their article and their About Us website. Other's thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Most Wanted vs Damage Control

Why is Damage Control listed a series, but Most Wanted is listed as a potential project? Both have had pilot orders and neither has a guarantee that it's actually going to air yet. So it seems to me they should both be listed in the same place. -Joltman (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Because a put pilot was ordered for Damage Control, which means the pilot is almost guaranteed to air even if the series is not ordered.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Just expanding Triiiple's answer, Damage Control got the put pilot, while Most Wanted received a standard pilot. The two are not the same, and you can read more about each at the link Triiiple provided. But the basic overview is put pilots are virtually guaranteed to air at least that because if it doesn't, the network suffers severe monetary penalties. Versus standard pilot, the risk is not there if the pilot does not air or does not get picked up. That is why Most Wanted is still potential because there has been no guarantee from anyone involved that at least the pilot will air. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Even further expanding, this was previously discussed here. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that it got a put pilot order, but it's still not a total guarantee that it will air or it could even air the pilot and not become a full series. Still seems a bit early to call it a series. -Joltman (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We have noted that there is only one episode ordered so far, which is the basically guarenteed put pilot. This is similar to using just reliable sources before the official ones come out—we don't technically know for certain until there is an official announcement, but we are so confident with reliable sources that they are appropriate for Wikipedia anyway. We're not going to say it is a full series beyond the put pilot until we are told so, just as we aren't going to call Most Wanted a definite series until we are told so. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, the section needs to be updated. It said it was coming out during the 2015-2016 season and that hasn't happened yet despite the season being almost over. 161.185.161.23 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree... if Damage Control were going to premiere during the 2015-16 season (i.e., before September), we would have to have casting news. Frankly, if it goes very much longer, a September premiere might be in doubt. Seems like Paul Lee either misspoke or was referring more to the development season than the broadcast season. I went ahead and deleted the relevant sentence from the article. Breathesgelatin (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have altered it to how I always thought it should be (this season as in this one coming not the one we're in), which is still likely. Also, if you are editing an article based on a talk page discussion, you should note that in the edit summary just so someone who hasn't read the discussion knows. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

WHiH Newsfront - With Christine Everhart

Web series: Set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Lays groundwork for events of Ant-Man and Captain America: Civil War.

Actors returning from film:

Leslie Bibb as Christine Everhart: (Iron Man; Iron Man 2

Paul Rudd (as Scott Lang) and Corey Stoll (as Darren Cross) made their first appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe in this web series, the first episodes of which take place after the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron but before the characters' cinematic debut in Ant-Man

Medium Show is Shown In: Youtube

Links:

WHIH World News

WHIH: NEWSFRONT Promo - July 2, 2015

WHiH: Newsfront Top Stories

WHIH EXCLUSIVE: 2012 VistaCorp break-in security footage involving cyber-criminal Scott Lang

WIRED Insider Interviews Darren Cross, CEO of Pym Technologies

WHIH EXCLUSIVE: Scott Lang Interview

AVENGERS IMPACT: A WHIH Newsfront Special Report

I believe that this show should be recognised on this list under the heading of "Web Series".

It has featured enough film characters to qualify for this list many times over, and it IS set within the MCU.

Can someone give a reason why this show should not be on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalTruthTeller24 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it isn't actually a television series. Don't worry, I agree that we should be covering it in some way, and I am working on that right now actually, but this is not the right place for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that these are not standalone works. It is just viral marketing for the films, the best place for them is in the marketing section for their respective films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat. Each one is specific to a certain film, not anything independent. As such, since it is not an actual talk show and is completely fictitious, as they are presented on each film article is the best at this time. But certainly not here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Marvel and DC series that relates to this article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Preparing for release" vs "Post production"

I was the one originally (I believe) who added this term when the tables were updated to include the "Status" column. I chose "Preparing for release" over "Post production" (used for films) because TV series are always at multiple production points throughout, especially the Netflix series. For example, Iron Fist started filming in April 2016, so that is the best "status" for it. However, most likely by May, they've had a few episodes shot, so those are going on to the post phase (editing, color correction, adding VFX, etc.) yet "Filming" is still its most prominent status point. Once filming is known to be complete, episodes have already been in post-production (maybe some already finished), so at this point, all of them are just preparing to be released. That was my train of thought on using the term. @TriiipleThreat, AlexTheWhovian, and DinoSlider: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on "Preparing for release vs Post-production" my edit was concerning the use of term "Upcoming" which is a bit vague since everything listed that is not released is upcoming. Actually now that I think about it, the same thing could be said (to a lesser extent) for "preparing for release". Also out of curiosity do we have references for in-development vs. pre-production? Why is Daredevil S3 listed as pre-production and Jessica Jones S2 listed as in-development?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas for what the "Preparing for release" modifier is. I believe you meant "why is Daredevil S3 listed as in development and Jessica Jones S2 listed as pre-production? (since that is how it is currently). JJS2 is in pre per information provided over at the season's draft (don't know specifically which one, will look. but think it was because filming is confirmed to begin in 2017, after Defenders finishes). In development is used for series announced, but no known filming start at this time. That applies to DD S3 and The Punisher. We only know DD S3 release window (which is questionable a bit, given Marvel and Netflix only said "coming soon". THR somehow got that that meant 2017). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I must have read that wrong. Carry on.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

While I agree that post activities are occurring while filming is still taking place, the same could be said for movies as well. On an episodic scope, those would be considered post-production, but for the series, the post production stage begins when the filming (the actual production) ends. I don't have any sources to back me up at this point, but I am pretty confident that is the correct term. Having said that, I don't feel strongly enough to change it again if everyone is happy with the current wording. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Original Characters Section

Can we have a section listing off which characters are original to the show and aren't from the comics? Characters that were created specifically for the show that could be introduced to the comics like Coulsen or X-23 were? You know what I mean? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fluffyroll11: Since all of these pages are related, stick to posting this discussion on one page (preferably here, since it connects all of the Marvel series), instead of duplicating the same discussion over many pages. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I was in the middle of deleting them all and leaving the only post here as I was previously made aware that this is the right place for it. Anyways can we now discuss the topic at hand? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: @AlexTheWhovian: What I am proposing to have done exactly is a new section noting which characters are original to the show meaning any character created for this and wasn't previously in the comics like Harley Quinn and X-23. Does that make sense? So for example Phil Coulson would be listed as an original character but, Daredevil would not. Does that make sense? Let me know what you think? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason I don't think we should be doing this, is that we already note these sort of things, for the most part, in more appropriate places. To dedicate a whole section to it just seems kind of trivial and fanboy-centric, if that makes sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Where is it noted already? Also other tv shows have it noted like the spiderman and his amazing friends page does. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's noted in the Cast and Characters section of the main series pages and their character pages. And note WP:OTHER: just because other articles do it, it doesn't make it a basis for other articles, or even right or correct to do. We are not a Wikia site that lists sections for every single detail. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I don't see where it is listed or noted that characters are original. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We already note who is based on a comic book character, like Daisy or Bobbi, so common sense suggests that if that note isn't there then its an original character to the show.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: It would still be nice to have a list all in one area as it would be helpful. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It might be "nice" but it would hardly be encyclopedic. Very trivial. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A good place for this kind of stuff is TV tropes (which is not an encyclopedia, and embraces all the trivial details we enjoy so much about films and TV series). See their entry for the Marvel Cinematic Universe; the aspect you want to discuss is detailed at "Canon Foreigner". A "Canon foreigner", as described elsewhere, is the name they give to original characters in works that are adaptions of works from another medium. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

New Warriors

Looks like this is a hot-topic on here, but in the same announcement the studios stated that the team is "a junior version of the Avengers". I think by general understanding this should indicate that the series is going to be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 50.232.205.246 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion and original research. The series hasn't even been ordered yet either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have seen some sites talk about this. In my understanding, "a junior version of the Avengers" simply means a superhero group composed by teenagers, explained in terms for the layman without knowledge about comics. As for the series itself, the only meaningful content of the rumor is the series itself, and that Squirrel Girl would be in it. Nothing else. Which other characters, which actors or actresses, production details, even if it would be set in the MCU or not; there is no information about any of that. Even the rumor itself is not solid: it was announced by TV line (who?), but Marvel Comics and ABC Studios, the ones whose word would really matter, "declined to comment". At this point, even a draft would be a waste of time. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)