Jump to content

Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Spider-Man: Freshman Year MCU?

I feel like calling this series part of the MCU is a bit tenuous. Its own description says it's in an alternate reality and sounds pretty different from the MCU story. I mean, isn't all those other series in an alternative reality, too (e.g. X-men '97 or Moon Girl, or older Avengers and Spider-man shows). Those are not included here, nor should they be. Or maybe they should be? Moon Girl has a couple of actors who reprise their MCU roles (Maria Hill & Bill Foster). What does it even mean to be part of the MCU? Marquismark79 (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It was announced for the MCU and is exploring an alternate reality in the MCU multiverse, whereas content like Moon Girl and the other shows from Marvel Animation (not Marvel Studios Animation) is explicitly not MCU and its own thing. X-Men '97 is from MS but not MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Where is it explicitly stated that Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur is not canon? The writers consider the show complementary to the MCU and say that MCU characters will show up. Obviously that isn’t explicit confirmation of the show being set in the MCU, but it’s objectively more than we have that would support Adventure into Fear being canon, and unlike AIF, we don’t have multiple sources explicitly stating there is no connection to the MCU. It also hasn’t been explicitly stated that X-Men ‘97 isn’t set in the MCU as the writer says “wait and see.” So you’re completely wrong about both of those. It also flies in the face of the argument that if a show is not explicitly non-canon it therefore should be included. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
With the dissolvement of Marvel Television and the restructuring of the television assets under Marvel Entertainment, only the projects produced by Marvel Studios are would would be considered possible MCU canon entries. Moon Girl is not a Marvel Studios property, and at this time, we do not have enough information about X-Men '97 to accurately reflect such information on this or any other MCU page (as has been discussed about this series in the past). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
“With the dissolvement [sic] of Marvel Television and the restructuring of the television assets under Marvel Entertainment, only the projects produced by Marvel Studios are would would be considered possible MCU canon entries.” Source? Or did you make this up? ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Moon Girl is not classified by Marvel Studios or its creatives as part of the MCU. It used voice actors from the MCU playing characters who looked like their MCU characters. This is not uncommon for animation, see The Good, the Bart, and the Loki. Just because it uses an MCU actor in an intentionally similar role does not mean it is in the MCU franchise or continuity. Freshman Year was announced for the MCU franchise and as an alternate universe within the MCU multiverse, as explained by producer Brad Winderbaum and sourced in this article and at Draft:Spider-Man: Freshman Year. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
“Moon Girl is not classified by Marvel Studios or its creatives as part of the MCU.” Neither is Helstrom. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to entertain a caricature rabbit hole with Helstrom here, as the question posed was about Freshman Year, which is confirmed by Marvel Studios for the MCU. That cannot be disputed. Moon Girl, Avengers Assembled, other Marvel Animation content is not in the MCU, nor is X-Men '97. Stop trying to insert a Helstrom discussion into every discussion on the MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe that Marvel Studios has ever stated that Moon Girl or X-Men ‘97 are not MCU. I am not proposing adding either at this stage, either. I am merely pointing out that the rationale being used to exclude them is only being selectively applied and contradicts with the stated rationale behind the inclusion of other non-MCU shows on this list. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The Marvel Television series included in this article were announced as being for the MCU. As explained before, a showrunner's thoughts does not automatically disqualify or supersede what the Marvel TV execs/producers have said. If you wish to discuss the Helstrom aspect, please refer to the discussion above for it and take a moderate approach as I explained at my talk with you. Detracting another unrelated discussion is not productive and moves a discussion all over the place. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Helstrom never was announced to be for the MCU. Initial reports largely did not mention the MCU at all, while most stressed it would be a brand new iteration of the character with no ties to SHIELD. Loeb, contradictory to the announcement, only said it would allude to what happened in Agents of SHIELD, which does not necessarily place the show in the continuity or brand of the larger MCU and could be a situation like Aquaman: King of Atlantis in the DCEU. Helstrom was confirmed not to be MCU by the highest creative involved at the time of the show’s release, as Loeb left the company before it entered production. The showrunner of Helstrom said that not being part of the MCU made the production process easier. I don’t see why we don’t just link to it in the See Also section and omit it from the rest of the article, if series which are stated to be “complementary to the MCU” and actually do have crossovers with it are not permitted to be included. If we want to talk about “on-topic”, you’ve never pointed to where Marvel explicitly stated Moon Girl is not MCU, which was my original question. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The Helstrom contents are best discussed in that dedicated section for it, and I already said I will not comment on it here. As for Moon Girl, you have not provided a source saying it is in the MCU, which Marvel Studios or Feige have never remotely alluded to. Using MCU actors and MCU costumes/lookalikes does not automatically mean it is in the MCU. As you pointed out from the Moon Girl article, it was described as being "complimentary" to the MCU with some MCU-alike characters appearing as easter eggs, and Fishburne said it was not "connected to the MCU officially". Marvel Studios and Feige met with Fishburne's company to discuss what potential projects they could work on, though this was never confirmed for the MCU, hence why it is excluded from here. It is vastly different from Freshman Year, which was announced by Marvel Studios for the MCU in the MCU multiverse. Just because Moon Girl was not confirmed for the MCU does not mean the opposite can somehow be true. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I only brought it up because up in that section it’s all “the series is never explicitly stated to not be MCU” (even though it has been) and down here it’s “this series is explicitly stated by Marvel Studios to not be MCU” (even though it has never been). ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
ChimaFan, Moon Girl is a Marvel Animation/Disney Channel production made for little kids. Never has it ever been associated with Marvel Television, Marvel Studios, or the MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you please practice reading before you reply? I’ve said, “I do not believe that Marvel Studios has ever stated that Moon Girl or X-Men ‘97 are not MCU. I am not proposing adding either at this stage, either,” in response to the claim that Marvel Studios has in fact explicitly stated that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
And I am pointing out why it isn't MCU even though Marvel Studios has never come out and said that it wasn't. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You’re attempting to do that based solely off speculation and not anything Marvel Studios has actually said. As I said, again, I’m not contemplating adding either to this page. I am merely saying there’s evidence: it crosses over with the MCU and its writers consider it “complementary” to the brand. ChimaFan12 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
If something has never been said to be a part of something, no one can say it is, or else that would be wrong. Freshman Year is in the MCU. I fail to see how this is going anywhere constructive. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you also practice reading? For all intents and purposes of editing, I am not trying to add it to the page. I was refuting the claim that it has ever been explicitly stated by Marvel Studios that the series is not MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Insinuating that fellow editors cannot "practice reading" is not WP:Assuming good faith and disrespectful, which is highly ill-advised in discussions. No one here was saying Moon Girl was in the MCU or that Marvel Studios said it was not. No matter what, it is of no relevance to this article or discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
“content like Moon Girl and the other shows from Marvel Animation (not Marvel Studios Animation) is explicitly not MCU and its own thing.” - You. My bad for saying you need to practice reading. Maybe you just need to learn what words mean before you use them. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
That is outright rude behavior and I will not entertain your disrespect further. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
(Just trying to open discussion on this... sorry what it devolved into.) I don't think we can necessarily use corporate structure to determine MCU canonicity. Both Marvel Animation and Marvel Studios Animation fall under Marvel Studios (as of 2019 when Marvel TV was folded into Studios). We have to go by explicit word from Marvel personnel. Maybe my Google-fu is weak, but I couldn't find anything that proves one way or the other for Freshman Year. Only a vague "it follows the pattern from Civil War" and "collides with ... characters in the Marvel universe" from Brad Winderbaum (Head of Streaming/TV/Animation for Marvel Studios). So, is that part of the MCU or (like Moon Girl) complimentary to the MCU? MCU multiverse as a subset of the Marvel multiverse makes this really fuzzy. And I only bring up Moon Girl because it shares similar circumstances as Freshman Year (produced recently, under the Marvel Studios umbrella, for D+). Helstrom, Agents of SHIELD, and the rest are a whole different story. Marquismark79 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
In articles published by Marvel.com covering the 2021 Disney+ Day and 2022 SDCC announcements, it uses specific wording stating Freshman Year is in the MCU. This article states: "Disney+ Day 2021 is here, and it’s kicking into high gear with brand new announcements coming out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with what’s to come from the streaming service. During Marvel Studios' 2021 Disney+ Day Special — which is currently streaming exclusively on Disney+ — it was announced that viewers will get a new look at Peter Parker in Marvel Studios’ Spider-Man: Freshman Year. The animated series follows Peter Parker on his way to becoming Spider-Man in the MCU, with a journey unlike we've ever seen and a style that celebrates the character’s early comic book roots. Written by Executive Producer Jeff Trammel. That wording of "in the MCU" was reiterated in this article from 2022 after the multiverse Osborn elements were revealed. Moon Girl being "complimentary" to the MCU does not mean that it is a part of it, and Fishburne said the series is not "connected to the MCU officially", which means it is not 100% definitive. The line "a couple of MCU characters" appearing in it does not mean the series itself is in the MCU, as the characters in question appear as they did in the MCU and have the same actors voicing them, though Moon Girl sharing the same continuity in the multiverse or the same brand with the MCU has not been confirmed by Marvel Studios or the Moon Girl creatives as entirely fact. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, Marvel Studios is not credited on Moon Girl, Marvel Animation is. Though that is now under Marvel Studios' reporting structure, that in of itself cannot be used as a confirmation of it being in the MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the official citation. From the looks of it, they're using "MCU" in terms of branding since "becoming Spider-man in the MCU" and the multiverse Osborn stuff seem at odds story-wise. Regardless, I concede the point that it belongs in this article. Marquismark79 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Adventure into Fear proposal

Seeing as the series is not set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity or brand, I propose deleting the section on this page and including Adventure into Fear under the See Also section, specifying that the series’ status in the MCU was unclear from the announcement and finally including the sources from Variety and more context from the CNBC article which is missing. It just doesn’t belong on here. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again (going around in the same circle), no, a full out removal should not be done as suggested and does not have the support to do so. Given the real world connections to AiF, despite what ultimately happened to it in the end, it still should be discussed as a heading under the level two "Marvel Television" one. As was suggested by me above which had support, we can alter said section to remove the overview and convert the info to strictly prose. But is should not be reduced to just a "See also" mention. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
A full discussion followed the initial informal poll comprising of a limited amount of responses. The discussion had many responses that have not been taken into account, therefore I do not believe it appropriate to operate as though any sort of consensus was reached. Do you believe non-MCU shows belong on this page? ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I do believe information from those sources should be included in the relevant articles, however, we cannot cherrypick and interpret the statements to mean things they do not. Not saying anyone is doing that here, though it is just a pre-emptive caution, as words do matter in this context and all others. A full removal is out of the question. Could it be of some benefit to move Helstrom and the Adventure into Fear content under a "Repurposed projects"-type header akin to this section List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Repurposed films with how the Inhumans and Runaways content was handled (though obviously not the same), while also removing the table in favor of strictly prose and incorporating further sourcing and its distant relationship from the MCU (from both the sources currently in the articles and the ones suggested for inclusion)? That way we're letting the information speak for itself and not putting any definitive labels on this dead horse of a series and sub-franchise. I believe there is some opportunity to reach a compromise here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I suggested that earlier for this and other pages, but I don’t think that would benefit the scope of this page. This page is explicitly for shows that are in MCU, if we place it in See Also, or include a paragraph about it that links to the Adventure into Fear article, that would be much better.
Paul Zbyszewski confirmed the show was not MCU. That is not twisting anything to mean something it does not mean. He explicitly said the show was “not part of the MCU”, which made creating the show easier. If we remove it from this list, which is reserved for MCU shows, and linked to Adventure into Fear in See Also, we would be able to accurately point out that the show was ambiguously linked to the MCU at the start - albeit with conflicting reports, none of which would we be leaving out - and explain that it is no longer the case. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
No one is refuting that, no matter how many times you bring it up - we are all in agreement about Zbyszewski's comments. But the lead up to those comments and the context surrounding AiF's creation still matters, and that is why is still need to be included here. Again, the proposal from above to covert the entire section to all prose will solve this, as we will have the history of it being the next MCU grouping of shows from Marvel Television upon its announcement, to then explaining that all changed and it all fizzled out and Helstrom had virtually no connections in the end. And for the structure of the article, it makes sense to be a level three heading "Adventure into Fear" under "Marvel Television". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with your proposal because it doesn’t go far enough. It’s a half-hearted foot in the door of misinformation. We don’t have a lot of context behind AIF’s creation that concretely places it in the MCU. Even CNBC was of two minds — it shares the same “universe” as Marvel’s other shows and movies (without seeing the quote from Marvel that they’re using it’s hard to tell as “Marvel universe” is commonly used by the company but doesn’t mean MCU), and also it’s also a brand new iteration with no connection to Agents of SHIELD. Variety seconds this. No connection to AOS. Marvel never made any announcement themselves that placed it in the MCU. Three months later, Loeb says it will reference Agents of SHIELD as events that have happened for the character, but that itself is not confirmation it’s set in the MCU given how reports stressed that it would NOT cross over with the MCU - something most shows did not have to do even without proper crossovers. If we neutrally state all the facts, without saying one way or another that it was either affirmatively MCU or not MCU, on that page, we can link to it from here in the See Also section. That would preserve the function of this page (to cover MCU TV shows) and also accurately convey the facts to those interested. If anyone’s looking for Adventure into Fear on here, they’ll be able to find it mentioned in that section and go to that page. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe putting it in a "Repurposed"-akin section would be us saying it is in the MCU, nor that it would lessen or hurt this page's scope or "function". It would be noting the conflicting reports of its relation, or lack thereof, to the MCU and what the reports and Zbyszewski have all said, as to provide an explanation to readers that a "See also" inclusion would otherwise not be able to convey. I do find such an approach to be the closest we may get to a compromise to satisfy the major concerns from all parties involved. If we lay out all of the information we know in a neutral point-of-view, I think that would cover all bases, and I encourage you to flesh out a draft proposal in a sandbox, and I will do the same, so we can compare and discuss those. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
We don't have enough concrete information to ever have placed it in the MCU continuity or brand. Numerous reports stressed the distinction between the show and the MCU, saying it had nothing to do with SHIELD and would not crossover with the MCU. Runaways has someone explicitly saying the show's MCU, the Netflix shows have that, Agent Carter and Agents of Shield have that. Adventure into Fear does not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12: Once again, there is not consensus for a full out removal. You can't continually attempt to do this since that is what you agree with/feel should occur when, once again, there is no consensus to do so. Removing it again and again at this point is highly disruptive editing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please correct me on the following facts:
  • This page is exclusively for material that is set in the MCU, either in continuity or in branding (like Freshman Year)
  • Helstrom is not set in the MCU as confirmed by the showrunner, and it is not branded as such.
ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This page is for any series that was revealed to be in development for the MCU. That included all Marvel Television series live-action series from 2013 until it was folded in 2019 not relating to or centered on X-Men-related characters, and then subsequently all Marvel Studios live actions series and Marvel Studios animated series. This is done to present the real world and historical aspects of all of this outside of the WP:INUNIVERSE perspectives. However, we know from reports how the Marvel Television/Marvel Studios relationship rapidly deteriorated by 2016, and that Marvel Studios hardly considered any Marvel Television series part of the MCU (if they ever did at all). All of which leads to the AiF of it all, which we explain in the prose how all of that changed from what it initially was intended to be, to what it ultimately became. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Except that it was never revealed to be in development for the MCU. We received a variety of conflicting reports and none of them concretely placed Adventure into Fear within the MCU brand -- the closest we got was CNBC alluding to a quote they received from Marvel saying that they shared a universe as Marvel's movies and other shows, but that is a far cry from saying it's in the MCU when we don't know what the quote they received was and the term "Marvel universe" has been used in a lot of different ways. That same article stresses that the shows would not cross over with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that it was a brand new iteration of the Ghost Rider character with no ties to Agents of SHIELD, so needless to say there never was a clear picture the way that Spider-Man: Freshman Year was announced explicitly in press releases as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Further, the language of the page and the FAQ implies that the shows included are a part of the MCU and placed there by a reliable source -- Adventure into Fear is explicitly not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

“Marvel Knights” vs Defenders Saga.

There is no practical reason to use the term Marvel Knights as the main name to refer to the Netflix series. The term was never used officially by Marvel or Netflix, rather internally by Loeb. The official name used is The Defenders Saga. That is how it is most recognized. I propose changing it to reflect the official branding. It just makes sense. The alternative does not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

AGREED: There is no official branding calling the series part of anything named Marvel Knights. Most reports before and after call them simply the Marvel Netflix shows. Other than mentioning that some of the stories refer to stories originally told in comic books published under Marvel's Marvel Knights imprint, there should be no mention of Marvel Knights in the lead. What the producers called the shows amongst themselves has no relevance here. NJZombie (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Defenders Saga name was only used later by Disney+. If override what the original producers referred to the shows as with that name then that would be WP:RECENT. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The shows were never marketed under those names. Loeb merely stated that’s how they’re referred to behind the scenes, but that serves no use. The way the shows are officially referred as should supersede what somebody says they were unofficially called behind the scenes. That’s not WP:RECENT because time isn’t the factor, practicality is. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
As they were produced and developed by Marvel Television, it is best practice to refer to them by what Marvel TV's head Jeph Loeb confirmed they were internally referred to as, and should not be swept under the rub because something recent is another thing they are called. The Defenders Saga branding was only introduced on Disney+ and has not been used by any creatives, producers, or Marvel Studios, etc. to refer to them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
No, it is not “best”. It’s not remotely practical. The shows were only ever referred to that *unofficially* by Loeb, saying that was how they were casually referred to behind the scenes. This interview was after all of the shows were cancelled and no utterance of the phrase Marvel Knights has been made by any official Marvel outlet either prior to or following the replacement of Loeb. The only official name they have *ever* used is Defenders Saga. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The name used by the people who made the show is more relevant than the name used by a different group of people later on. The Defenders Saga is noted in the appropriate place. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
No. The official name used by the brand on a perpetual basis matters far more than an unofficial name, never used officially, mentioned once in an interview after all the shows had ended. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
"The Defenders Saga" is a recently created name by Disney+, who are not the originators of this material: Marvel Television was. Thus, using a name that Jeph Loeb, the head of Marvel TV and EP on all these shows, that he stated was what they themselves classified these grouping of shows, should be used. We appropriately note about "The Defenders Saga" in the section for the Netflix shows. I do think, however, we should not be linking "Marvel Heroes" series or "Marvel Knights" series in the lead, since the articles are not titled such, but those terms should remain there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Disney/Marvel are in fact the originators of this material and they share a close connection in terms of overseeing the Disney+ section. We use Disney+’s Marvel section as a source for most things, including a timeline of the MCU films. It is therefore an official and, in general, beyond merely Wikipedia’s scope, reliable source as far as it pertains to Marvel. Marvel Knights was never used officially. An unofficial pet name used once in an interview after the shows were cancelled, which was never used in the marketing of the shows and was never used again after that interview, should not ever supersede the official name for these shows that is used by the company. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I will update the page accordingly. Including the removal of the Helstrom section per consensus on Talk:Helstrom_(TV_series). ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Looking at WP:RECENT, the proposal to exclusively use Defenders Saga in the heading alongside Marvel Netflix television series would not be in violation whatsoever. In fact, it seems to be called for. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

YES is my vote. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring after already being warned about it. As for this matter, there is no "majority vote" here as you said in your most recent edit, and no consensus has been reached on this terminology or your other edits here. Consensus is also not formed through voting, rather through civil discussion, see WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:PNSD. Voting tends to get in the way of the natural discussion process. I for one am open to using a more generalized term to refer to these series as in passing links and mentions, such as the lead, though an outright removal or preference for one or the other probably should be avoided. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m not edit-warring, and I haven’t violated Wikipedia policy. Please don’t use that argument to shut down any constructive edits. Please stop obstructing. Discussion isn’t working. Either people show up inconsistently, don’t show up at all, or don’t even engage to find a solution consistent with the facts. We need to get intervention in here with an RFC, and we need to build consensus after what is decided. As you recall during last RFC, I didn’t treat the consensus which we arrived at as merely a poll, but I took into account the perspectives of everyone who came to join that discussion to craft a solution. That solution was acknowledged as the consensus. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
You were bold, and have consistently been reverted, so even if you aren't in violation for 3RR, stick to discussions. It has been consistently stated to you that "The Defenders Saga" is not the original name for these collection of series, as Netflix nor Marvel Television - the two original creators - ever referred to them as such. We don't really have any knowledge as to why Disney/Disney+ chose that name specifically once they arrived on that service, but that name is noted appropriately in the Netflix section so readers coming to this article are still informed of it. Now, that said, I suggested in an above comment that linking to the ABC and Netflix articles with the "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" names is actually probably in bad form, since neither of those articles are titled as such. For the purposes of the lead, the following edit should be made which I think will solve this issue: The main ABC series were inspired by the films and featured film characters, and were referred to as the "Marvel Heroes" series by Marvel Television. A connected group of series for Netflix were known as the "Marvel Knights" series by Marvel Television, and crossed over with each other. I will address the Helstrom parts below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Marvel Knights shouldn’t even be invoked. It’s never been used officially, the only name that has been and that people will recognize the show by beyond “Marvel Netflix shows” is Defenders Saga. It needs to be stated that the shows are officially known as the Defenders Saga. Marvel Knights has no practical use, because it’s never been any sort of official name for these shows. Your reverting is obstructive and not helpful. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We could include either both names they were referred to as, or do away with the alias naming for these series in the lead and leave those to be addressed in the paragraphs. An outright removal of that info is intentionally limiting reliable information from being provided to our readers. One came before the other, and both were used within the same company overall, so both can and have been used to refer to this. We don't pick favorites with official names (which these both are), we go by the sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Or we should use the proper alias: the one official one, Defenders Saga. Marvel Knights is not, and never has been, the official alias of the block. As stated before, a never-before-used pet name stated once in an article several months after the cancellations of all of the shows does not an official name make. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Except, as pointed out to you already, Marvel Knights was used by the head of Marvel TV and an executive producer of all these shows. It is definitely official. Just because Disney+ uses something different now does not change the fact of the first names' origin and officiality. To state Marvel Knights was "never-before-used" is wrong and willfully ignoring the direct quotes from the Marvel TV head Loeb. Both are official, and to interpret otherwise is misleading and presenting incomplete information to our readers. We have offered up two options for a compromise on this. We can simply explain what each party refers to these Netflix series as, and not choose one over the other in headings, links, and the lead, to balance it out. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We don't even use "Marvel Knights" the way you are insinuating we do. We use the common name of "Marvel Netflix series" and clearly point out that "Marvel Knights" was an internal name and "Defenders Saga" was created for Disney+. I don't even know why we are arguing about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
None of the pages I was editing specified that. It states that the name they are referred to is the Marvel Knights series, which simply is not the case in any medium. I suggest removing all the so-called “internal” aliases, designating them by their network name, and in the case of the Defenders Saga, referring to those shows with that name and making the original network an A.K.A. note in parentheticals. Defenders Saga was the only ever official name. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We are not going to remove the names that Marvel TV used for the shows, there is literally zero good arguments for doing that. The name used by the people who made the shows is entirely relevant and noteworthy. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe Marvel Knights can go into parenthetical with Marvel Netflix Shows but Defenders Saga should be the primary name they will be referred as. The owners of the material officially call them that. They’ve never officially called them anything else. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
but Defenders Saga should be the primary name they will be referred as Definitely not. That's just a subheading name on Disney+, never one used by the series while they released. I'm not advocating "Marvel Knights" as an "official name" either, but that should at least have more WP:WEIGHT in its use and mention because it was what the original created referred to the series as. Given we get the "YA" name classification from the same Loeb article, it makes sense in turn for the lead to make note of the "Heroes" and "Knights" classifications. I still propose my adjustment comments back is the solution. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
And Infinity Saga is just a name on merchandise. The point is both names are used officially, in the public eye, in the marketing. They have more weight, rightly, than “Marvel Knights”. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
No public figure or creative at Marvel or Disney has ever used "The Defenders Saga", it's only been on Disney+. The Infinity Saga has been used on Blu-ray box sets, official books, and by Feige on numerous occasions. Those are not the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It has been used on Marvel.com. Here and here.ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Marvel.com is just using the name that was from Disney+, and in past discussions, it has been determined that Marvel.com is not as in sync with Marvel Studios on certain matters. That is still not a public figure in charge of Marvel Studios using that term. It supports it being one term this group of series is referred to as, but does not prove that it is the primary name. The Marvel Knights term was also used bysome reputable news outlets: Screen Rant and IGN, while Deadline calls them the six Defenders universe shows. To note, Loeb did also refer to the Netflix series as "Marvel Street-Level Heroes", which is already noted at the Netflix series article and should be noted elsewhere. This still shows that not one is proven to be the primary name used, so all should be noted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
What matters pertinent to this discussion would Marvel.com not be in sync with Marvel Studios with? I see no reason why official marketing by both Marvel.com and Disney+ should be discredited, especially when it’s clear that Marvel Studios has a hand in the organization of content on the Disney+ hub. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The Defenders Saga is just a name on a tab in a streaming service. Unlike The Infinity Saga, there was never any logo or official marketing for it. The Marvel.com article just uses it as a name in text, as well. The Marvel Knights and Street-Level Heroes names are also only just names in text. The sources note these are used interchangeably, and as such, we should follow that. There is no primary "official name" here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Defenders Saga is the only name used in official mediums. It is the official name. There doesn’t have to be a logo for it to be the official name. That’s silly reasoning. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It should also be noted that ScreenRant is not a reliable source and instead pays its contributors to make baseless speculation. Compared to marvel.com it simply has no value. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Informal straw poll

While this is not meant to replace discussion, nor are changes made through a strict count of votes, I am hoping to present my proposed lead rewording to !votes. Consensus is very clear that the franchise names in the lead are not the "official" names for these series groupings by any stretch, as well consensus currently in favor that for what is known as the "Marvel Knights" series, we should not be using the more recent "Defenders Saga" as it was not a term coined for the series while released (though we do make mention of such name in the article for readers' benefit). In my comment above, I noted some of the issue I currently see is linking to the Marvel's ABC television series and Marvel's Netflix television series articles through these "Heroes" and "Knights" names. Thus, I propose the following change to the second paragraph:

  • Option 1: The main ABC series were inspired by the films and featured film characters, and were referred to as the "Marvel Heroes" series by Marvel Television. A connected group of series for Netflix were known as the "Marvel Knights" series by Marvel Television, and crossed over with each other.
  • Option 2: The main ABC series were inspired by the films and featured film characters, while a connected group of series for Netflix crossed over with each other; they were known as the "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" series, respectively, by Marvel Television.

This change removes the piped links over the "Heroes" and "Knights" names, as well as add additional wording clarifying that Marvel Television were the ones to refer to these groupings as such. I'm hoping this informal poll will resolve the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Support either option as nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: As to avoid unneeded repetition with the Marvel Television mentions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thinking this through further after bringing up the Marvel Street-Level Heroes name Loeb also used, I think it may be best to just not mention them in the lead and keep them in prose, as I suggested given there is no clear primary name for them. Disney uses one, and Loeb used two other ones. We can't pick favorites here as there are three different names being used by different parties involved at different times. Each one is an alias whereas "Marvel's Netflix television series" remains the WP:COMMONNAME to remain neutral in what we present to readers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Defenders Saga, through its official usage through official Disney and Marvel mediums, is a primary name. I support Marvel’s Netflix television series and Defenders Saga (which likewise falls under WP:COMMONNAME) being the primary names. Not Marvel Knights or Street-Level Heroes. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Trailblazer101: I didn't suggest outright removal because we got the "Heroes" and "Knights" names from Loeb in the same interview we got the "YA" and "AoF" names, so for consistency sake it felt appropriate to have them all featured in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    We also got "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" from that interview. I am fine with noting all terms, as long as we clarify their coinage as we do for the lead at Marvel's Netflix television series. 20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no evidence for Marvel Knights being the name the series were referred to as while they were being produced. In fact, there is no official usage of the terms either before or after the shows were cancelled. We have one interview with Jeph Loeb after the shows were cancelled in which he invokes that name. Marvel nor Disney ever referred to the shows as such. They have referred to them as the Defenders Saga. Marvel.com also refers to them as the Defenders Saga. It’s open and shut. Defenders Saga is the officially used name and takes precedence. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: I agree that we should still use the Marvel TV names to be consistent with the YA and "Adventure into Fear" groupings, but this wording favours the common names and explains the Marvel TV usage of the names so should resolve the concerns from this discussion. Prefer Option 2 as a bit less repetitive. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    In response to the "compromise" suggestions below, I just want to reiterate that we should be consistent with how we are using the Marvel TV names. I also don't see justification for this "compromise" when there is only one user who wants to remove these names completely and they have made no effort to work in with everyone else or justify their position with guidelines or policies. Just because they have been relentlessly fighting to remove this content that they personally do not like does not mean we should give in and remove it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    That is entirely true. I think for the Netflix series, if we use one name, we ought to mention the others ("Marvel Street-Level Heroes" right alongside the former, and then "The Defenders Saga" further below. I think an outright removal would be a nuclear option and something best to avoid. Noting all the relevant names as opposed to only one or the other is the ideal compromise as it covers everything we know. I suppose this is just getting a bit out of hand and trigger happy. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    But the point was that the names aren’t relevant. I’ve worked through the process not because I don’t like the names. I think Marvel Knights is kick-ass. It just has no place in the lead and an outright removal is ideal, not as a matter of personal preference but of practicality. Marvel Knights has effectively never been practically used. It’s objectively not a common name. The Marvel NetflixShows and Defenders Saga are the only commonplace names used to refer to those shows and both have the benefit of being officially used names. It’s not a nuclear option if we can build consensus and like it or not this is the closest we’ve come to one. I’m willing to work with the compromise. Just because one didn’t come up earlier, in part because it was up to me to lead the conversation when you guys wouldn’t, doesn’t mean one that does is not preferable. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Compromise Since it's contentious, why not just remove both "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" from the lead? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Support. Very much agreed. I still believe we should use Defenders Saga as that is a name that is used in official capacities and is more commonly recognized as a result. I support removing the names used in the interview from the lead in all cases and solely referring to the shows by the network. The Deadline article doesn’t treat “Marvel Heroes” as an official title designated by Loeb, and presents it as though Loeb is just calling the characters in those shows the Marvel heroes (not capitalized, not a proper noun.) The only one that should stay is probably the young adult ones because those aren’t on the same network, but are thematically linked and do overlap to an extent. If we are adamant that they should be listed together, that is the only name that is fitting. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Compromise as InfiniteNexus suggests. Neither of these names is common anyway, so its presence in the lead doesn't help make anything clearer or easier for a reader. Their relevance is in their use by Marvel, but these aren't names by which the franchises are widely known. —El Millo (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Compromise: I already suggested this very thing above, and will go back and remain firm with this. We can still go with the slightly adjusted wording, although these names are not that descriptive or reflective of the sub-groups and can be easily done away with in the lead and left to be better explained in prose at the relevant articles. Just because we can use them everywhere does not mean we should. Also maintaining that since Loeb also used "Marvel Street-Level Heroes", we cannot and should not pick favorites in these names. Removing them is the best course to compromise this. We can still retain the YA and AiF names as these are not mutually exclusive. The ABC and Netflix series descriptions are sufficient in conveying to readers what these are, and if we need to explain more, we can do so. In the end, these are just different ways various parties refer to these shows. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Apologies if this was already suggested above, I only read Favre's two options and glanced at the discussion before commenting, as I had no interest in reading that massive wall of text above and just wanted to weigh in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Adventure into Fear ought to be removed from its placement and completely repurposed not into a list of shows but a description of planned programming that never surfaced. Helstrom should not be a part of any list of MCU TV shows and in fact needs to be made explicit that it is a separate thing entirely. Including it on a list of MCU TV shoes does not do that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    One thing at a time, ChimaFan. This discussion is about something else. No need to rebut every time Adventure into Fear comes up. —El Millo (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    No need to bring it up if it’s known to be a contentious subject. It would be unfair for Trail to make a decision on AIF that’s against the consensus that was already arrived at and try to sneak it into the consensus we’re arriving at now. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    These are separate matters and separate discussions. While you are free to have an opinion of others (including myself), I am free to provide my input and comments in this discussion and others as it is a collaborative encyclopedia. What is "unfair" is subjective. This is strictly for the Marvel Television names for the ABC and Netflix series. I'm not deciding on AiF in this discussion, and was not the first to bring it up, and it holds no influence on my decision here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, I get that we’re all exercising our rights and I’m not taking that from you. I’m just exercising mine as well. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    I'm walking back on some of my firmness on this, per my comment above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12: Once again, please stop assuming consensus has been reached and implementing changes with your recent edits. I do believe your edits are partially correct, as I was about to come to this section specifically and ask if everyone involved is okay moving forward with removing the "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" name from the lead, which is what this discussion was specifically discussing. We do not have any change of consensus yet regarding Adventure into Fear, which is still be discussed below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Adventure into Fear is not still being discussed (and everything I changed was literally in line with what everyone supports down there.) But that doesn’t really matter and I find it hypocritical that others continue to bring up AIF in this section while getting mad at me for responding, so let’s forgo it in this section and have everyone return to that discussion.
2) We have good indication that yes, all are in favor of that. It would be far more productive for you to ask then to make a big deal about it and tell me what you were going to do (while completely neglecting to do it.) I also don’t think consensus is reached merely when you ask, as everyone else has made clear that would be okay. As a courtesy though, @Facu-el Millo, @InfiniteNexus, @Trailblazer101, @Adamstom.97, pinging before we implement these changes. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe we should mention the other names, such as "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" and The Defenders Saga similar to our approach in the lead at Marvel's Netflix television series, in addition to "Marvel Knights", that way we are not picking any one over another, and not excluding all that we know. I think with the right wording, we are not calling any of those three terms the main one, while also not discounting their official usage from different parties involved. I think "Marvel Heroes" should remain, as well, per Loeb's interview. The nuclear option to remove them doesn't seem to really stick the landing with me anymore, for reasons adam and I addressed above in this discussion. Outright removing those while keeping the others would be inconsistent with the other two Marvel Television groups' names being included. With mine and adam's comments in mind, no, we are not all in favor of it. What I think we should do is provide further explanation on what each group of series is about, such as noting the tone for each ala horror for AiF and the grounded approach to the Netflix and YA-focused series, and to include a trimmed mention of AiF's real world connection to the MCU per wording in the articles already, as a general attempt to expand the readers' information at the start of the article. (Full disclosure: I am not attempting to sway or stir discussion here for the discussion below with this mention or others, and am mentioning it for the context of this list article alone.)
It is typically unsatisfactory to make changes to content that is under discussion, as while BOLD edits to do so are allowed, per WP:BRD, once a bold edit is reverted, editing should be halted and the WP:STATUSQUO before the contested editing ought to remain until a discussion concludes, which we are in the process of. Hence why we have not edited the content ourselves, so we can hopefully come to some form of an agreement on what to include and how to include it. I do think that the Marvel TV introduction in this article is lacking and that the additions I suggested could alleviate some concerns, though I still believe removing the group names is a disservice to our readers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Are you suggesting to have the three terms included in the lead section, or are you simply talking about keeping them in its dedicated section? —El Millo (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
My apologies for any confusion. The Netflix series' three different terms are not textbook WP:COMMONNAMES, the page title is, hence it's the name of the article. The two names used by Marvel Television to refer to the series and the one name by Disney+ do not mean there is a single main name/term. As such, I think the expanded explanation can be used in the lead and we can then explain the different names in the designated section. I'm indifferent on if Marvel Heroes stays in the lead or if it remains solely in the section. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm getting that you think we should only call them Marvel Netflix shows in the lead and only use the other names in the specific section, but I don't know what you mean by expanded explanation for the lead, so I'm still not completely sure what you're proposing we do. —El Millo (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Relatively speaking, that is essentially correct, and to leave the different names to be explained in the section. I think an "expanded explanation" would be to cover what the series groups are about, in terms of the type of characters, tone, etc., if others feel such an explanation would suffice. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I get what you are saying Trail, but I think adding more explanation to the lead to cover these terms from Marvel TV and then mention Disney+'s Defender Saga would make the lead a lot longer than it necessarily needs to be. Just considering the purpose of this list, I think just adjusting the ABC and Netflix links while removing "Heroes" and "Knights" is the cleanest way to go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
There are two main terms: the one used by the company and the one used by many people. That would be Defenders Saga and Marvel Netflix shows, respectively. That would not be one used in a solitary interview after the shows were all ending or had ended and never used since. Nobody is disserviced by the omission of that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
That doesn’t work. The “internal names” exist only in one source and exist nowhere else. They are obscure names with undue weight placed upon them even though they’re not relevant and their presence only confuses the readers. We should remove the Marvel Heroes name as well, as it’s not even presented as an official title in the only article it’s used in. “Marvel Heroes” is not treated as a proper noun and we can’t infer it to be one. The compromise is ideal, with the only practical addition to it, if any, being the inclusion of Defenders Saga as that is a common name. Marvel Knights, Marvel Heroes, etc, are not. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been following all of this discussion over the last few weeks but based on what I have seen I was going to suggest the following wording be used in the lead. This moves the links away from the internal names, still keeps the internal names for consistency with the other groupings, and adds in "The Defenders Saga". Let me know thoughts.

The MCU first expanded to television after the creation of Marvel Television in 2010, with that studio producing 12 series with ABC Studios and its production division ABC Signature Studios. These premiered across broadcast (ABC), streaming (Netflix and Hulu), and cable (Freeform) from September 2013 to October 2020. The main ABC series were inspired by the films and feature film characters, and were referred to internally by Marvel Television as the "Marvel Heroes" series. A connected group of series for Netflix were referred to as the "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" or "Marvel Knights" series, and later collected under the title "The Defenders Saga". Young adult-focused series were produced for Freeform and Hulu, while the latter also had a group of series called "Adventure into Fear" in development before Marvel Television was shut down in December 2019.

- adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

A minor nitpick is I think the wording's a bit clunky, but that's not a big obstacle. The two biggest problems are that the series were not referred to by that name for the large part, outside of one obscure interview, and we don't have concrete proof that the series was developed for the MCU, as our sources from the time contradict. I think the consensus we arrived at upthread is workable and we should stick with that. It's a good compromise. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, this is an oppose. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I find that to be a constructive option and viable solution, although we could swap the parenthesis for using "on ABC, streaming on Netflix and Freeform, and cable on Freeform, from September 2013 to October 2020." as I don't think it would be confusing and flows a bit more clearly. We can still address the names Loeb said they referred to the series as alongside The Defenders Saga, as they are in equal proximity. Loeb's usage still matters as it was used internally and thus not as publicized, especially during their runs. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Do we know that concretely? All he said is they sometimes referred to the series as such. We don’t know if it was an official internal name or a cute pet name used over dinner. We don’t know if it was used during production that had any practical or significant use. Why should it go in the lead when we know next to nothing about their significance and we only know they exist at all through a single article? ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd support this change Adam. Still also ok with outright removing the Heroes, Street-Level, and Knights names, but this seems fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of just removing all those names, as none are common names and thus undue to include in the lead as they don't orient the reader in any way. They can be names in the leads of the specific article on each of these. —El Millo (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Do we have consensus for this compromise, since so many have voiced their support? ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
To be clear with what you mean by this compromise, do you mean the wording/option Adam presented? If so, then I am still in support of that option. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I thought the compromise was just removing the three names. For that we had five in favor (Favre1fan, InfiniteNexus, ChimaFan, Trailblazer and me) and one opposed (Adamstom). —El Millo (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
El Millo is correct, that is the compromise I am referring to. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
That was unclear by your comment/indenting, hence my ask. I still am okay with outright removal as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I would support the changes in wording as Adam and I suggested, and the alt name removals from this article to leave their coverage at the series' group articles. I still think some descriptors of each group's scope would be useful if there is sourcing for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
If there is not consensus to use the wording I proposed then I think we should just remove the Marvel TV internal names and "Defenders Saga" from the lead. I don't support removing them from the summary sections or individual articles though. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I’m not in favor of removing the Defenders Saga name as that is a name the shows are publicized by. Unlike Marvel Knights, it makes no sense to forgo it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It can't be partial removal otherwise that's adds serious undue weight if we keep that over the others. It's a full removal or the wording Adam suggest, those are the options it appears we are down to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not undue weight. It’s literally the official publicized name. The other ones are not that. I don’t appreciate you pinning us to a false dichotomy either.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Break

Wait a minute, because this is getting confusing with all the different discussions and changes. Currently, lhe lead includes the name "Marvel Heroes" for ABC series and the name "Marvel Knights" for Netflix series. Neither "Marvel Street-Level Heroes" nor "The Defenders Saga" appear in the lead. I thought it was agreed that we could remove both these names from the lead section, as neither of them were common names and it was best to just say ABC series and Netflix series. Now, in the specific #Netflix series section, the three names (Marvel Knights, Marvel Street-Level Heroes, and Defenders Saga) are included, which we also seemed to agree was okay given that it was in its dedicated section. What is this about a partial removal and a false dichotomy we're talking here? This seems to be more simple than we're making it out to be. —El Millo (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve always been in favor of replacing Marvel Knights with Defenders Saga. (Look at what this discussion is called.) The reason being it’s a common name and an official, publicized name used by the company and the media, unlike the others. I am also in favor of removing Marvel Knights and rewording Street Level Heroes to not be a proper noun in the lead of the individual article. That is my stance. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
And most others are against removing some names but not others, and "Defenders Saga" is still not considered the WP:COMMONNAME. Now, we already have a consensus on removing all of the alternative names currently included in the lead (Defenders Saga has never been included in the lead). We can start by simply doing that. —El Millo (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree, there appears to be consensus to remove all names from the lead and leave all names in the specific sections. We should not replace the Marvel TV names with the Disney+ name in either place. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with removing all the alternative names currently included. Defenders Saga should be considered a common name, as it certainly is that in reality, and my next step will be laying out that case, but that will be another discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. - 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion we had at Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series found that stating the Street-Level Heroes and Marvel Knights names were used internally by Marvel Television and Jeph Loeb was acceptable wording there. I don't see why we should then be inconsistent and go with one of the names (Knights or Defenders Saga) over the others on this article then. As I mentioned before, I would support removing the names from the lead in this article for the wording Adam suggested (with the minor tweaks I suggested) and note the names and their use in each series group's dedicated sections here and at their article for more in-depth commentary and explanation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Consensus can change. We should allow a full discussion to transpire about this. Just because something has been stated before is not a reason to shut down a discussion. I will pursue this discussion and a new solution. I can accept their inclusion in the article but their placement in the lead, including the current phrasing of Street-Level Heroes, is WP:UNDUE because of how insignificant those names are. They can be placed in development, there’s no reason to include them in the lead.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
There's already consensus for removing the names from this article's lead section so there's no more use in arguing about that. Where you're not finding consensus is on adding Defenders saga and only that name. Consensus can change is meant to be about long-standing consensus changing, not about recently obtained consensus; that same section also states that proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. —El Millo (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I feel like we’re talking about two different consensuses here. I’m talking about this quote when I invoke CCC: “The discussion we had at Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series found that stating the Street-Level Heroes and Marvel Knights names were used internally by Marvel Television and Jeph Loeb was acceptable wording there.” Certainly no conversation I was a part of came to the conclusion that they should stay in the lead. I framed the conversation I was a part of on that page as an interim solution while we sorted everything else out. Read my opening message: “I will play ball right now and entertain them being there temporarily until that discussion is resolved.”
I will open an RFC regarding the Defenders Saga situation as I do not believe that it should be an issue limited to the scope of reinforcing the taskforce’s previous approaches instead of considering the best way forward in accordance with Wikipedia policy. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series/Archive_6&oldid=1186749804"