Jump to content

Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 7

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

Request for Comment: Adventure Into Fear

Adventure into Fear was a planned programming block for Hulu before it was cancelled, with sources conflicting on whether it would be tied to Agents of SHIELD at the time and with no source marketing the show as part of the MCU. The sole show produced for it, Helstrom, was described by its showrunner as being "not part of the MCU" or its canon, and saying that its exclusion from the MCU allowed the creative team to "focus on our people, our characters, our story." As this list is exclusively for series that are part of the MCU, would there be support for removing all information regarding Adventure into Fear from this page and leaving a link to that page (which will have all relevant information added) in the See Also section? ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment this user has been trying to enact their intended outcome (full outright removal) multiple times now, despite the many discussion attempts here (as can currently be seen above) to resolve this, given there is currently no consensus to outright remove this info fully (as has been explained to them countless time). I would like to point to a proposal I have previously suggested here that did have a small amount of support, which will keep the real world/historical nature of this intended grouping of shows for the article (as should be here in my opinion), while still moving away from the current formatting that does suggest the sole series was connected to the MCU (as one could call the Marvel Television series by the end of their existence). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    Comment: I fail to see how this is relevant. I'm awaiting the RFC to take any further action. If you look in the previous discussions, you will be able to see that the timestamps of my edits took place only after discussion had ceased and my response was the last on the page. There were extended periods of time where I would not receive a response, and I feel as though I was the only one in earnest trying to resolve this situation in a fair way in accordance with the facts. Perhaps this is annoying, but this is no crime and certainly should have no bearing on the RFC. Furthermore, it is silly to portray this as a mere matter of preference. I do not have anything against Helstrom, Ghost Rider, or Adventure into Fear. I simply find the current layout unintentionally (at least I hope so) deceptive and believe it implies things that are untrue. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    It's very relevant. Sometime discussions naturally end and go stale. That happens. That doesn't then mean you can interpret no responses as editors agreeing with your desired outcome, when it never had consensus to start with. If anything, with the past discussions, we are just back to where we started. Hence, my comment to make note of those discussions, plus my attempt at a resolution which did receive editor support. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    I have to disagree fully. If you have a grievance with my behavior, please file it at the appropriate locations. For the purposes of this RFC, which I have not attempted to circumvent at all and am literally only filing as an attempt to resolve the dispute, please focus on the discussion at hand. It is not fruitful whatsoever or in the spirit of conflict resolution to turn the matter into a personal one rather than treat it as the dispute resolution that it is supposed to be. I have mentioned concerns regarding ownership among taskforce members and lack of communication as reasons why I still fervently oppose the informal straw poll above, which was not intended to replace discussion, and discussion has continued as such. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    My reasons for opposing your proposal are listed in both of the threads on the subject above this. Namely, no piece of coverage on the show is or ever has been clear on the series being part of the MCU. We do, however, have clear statements that separate it from the MCU. Please see the above discussions. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

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

  • Support as nom. This is the only source we have that states that the shows even occupy the “same universe,” but even the article is unclear, never saying outright that the show is in the MCU while going out of its way to say it won’t cross over with the MCU, something which is reiterated in numerous reports. The only quote directly from Marvel that we have on the page refers to the show inhabiting the “Marvel Universe” (the term is frequently by the company including for properties which are not MCU) does not strictly refer to the MCU and it’s wholly possible that CNBC misinterpreted it. It also states that the Ghost Rider show will have no connection to Agents of SHIELD: “However, Marvel has stated that this will be a new iteration of the character and not related to Luna's work on the TV series.” Variety backs this up also.
  • We have people on the Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur show referring to that show as complementary to the MCU, and it features crossovers with characters who have appeared in it, but that is not considered enough to list the show as part of the MCU on this page — rightly so, as it has never been stated by anyone from Marvel to be explicitly part of the MCU. I ask that we hold that same standard to Adventure into Fear, which not only does not have that support but is explicitly not part of the MCU. We don’t have enough consistent details to confirm that it was even developed for the MCU and the details we do have, which conflict, would be better suited for the shows’ page on Adventure into Fear, which we can appropriately link here in the See Also section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Also: shows like Spider-Man: Freshman Year are included explicitly because they have MCU branding in press releases. Helstrom does not, three years after its debut. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No - I don't see conflicting reports. Based on the information we have from the synopsis, Ghost Rider would not be connected or related to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the sense that it would show the Robbie Reyes character in a whole new adventure set in a different place (Texas-Mexico border), instead of an expansion/continuation of the events in Los Angeles depicted in S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 4, but unconnected stand-alone stories does not mean a different continuity or universe, necessarily. When Ghost Rider was announced, Entertainment Weekly wrote: "According to Hulu, this isn’t a traditional spin-off of S.H.I.E.L.D. but will focus on the “same character with [a] new story that lives unto its own.” Finally, Marvel Television head Jeph Loeb said that the show would reference the character's role in S.H.I.E.L.D. while telling a story of its own. Considering all things with context, I understand that Adventure into Fear and Ghost Rider still belongs to the Marvel Television section of this article, independent of Helstrom which is a different situation. YgorD3 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Here is the summary that you mention: “Ghost Rider, also known as Robbie Reyes, is consumed by hellfire and supernaturally bound to a demon. He lives on the Texas/Mexico border and when he unleashes the Rider, Robbie brings vengeance for the innocents he encounters, but struggles to control the power he wields.” Nowhere in here does it say anything about standalone story set in the MCU, nor does the quote from EW, which only states that it is the same character — it is true, Robbie Reyes is still Robbie Reyes. A TV show that focuses on him will be focusing on the same character as a comic that focuses on him. CNBC, which is unclear about many things, was not unclear when they said the version in the Ghost Rider show “will be a new iteration of the character and not related to Luna's work on the TV series.” Variety also was not unclear: “However, sources stress that this will be a completely new iteration of the character in no way connected to the “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” storyline.”
    In no way connected - not related. Those do not leave much to the imagination. Loeb, who is not well quoted in the low quality source you provided, is quoted in full here as saying it will “acknowledge what has happened in the past” but notably does not say anything about whether the show is in the MCU. He does stress it’s not a spin-off but its own original program, that does not mean a standalone story set in the MCU. He also doesn’t talk about what will be acknowledged or in what form. The Spider-Man movies from Marvel Studios prior to No Way Home acknowledged their predecessors without being set in the same continuity. Even if the show were to acknowledge directly the events of Agents of SHIELD, we have nothing, no report at all, no statement from Marvel, saying it was part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe brand or continuity. Aquaman: King of Atlantis and Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur both acknowledge the cinematic universes which inspire them without being a part of them. In any case, his quote does not negate Variety or CNBC’s reporting.
    There are so many details to consider which need to be included in a neutral way, because we don’t have anything conclusively supporting the show ever having been for the MCU, and the Adventure into Fear article is a better place to lay that all out than here, which is intended to be a list of shows that are in the MCU. Adventure into Fear is very clearly not in the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Neither comment/report negates the other. CNBC also reported that it would exist within the same universe; Loeb said it would "acknowledge what has happened in the past". The problem is that you think the CNBC and Variety's comments about it "not being connected" to AoS conflicts with something. Both information may be correct. It would be a TV show about Robbie Reyes living in another city (per the synopsis) and apparently dealing with things unrelated to the AoS stuff, then yes, it makes sense to say that it is not "connected to the AoS storyline" even if it is set in the same universe. And as for the "brand", Loeb rarely used the term "MCU" when discussing Marvel TV shows, especially in recent years, so you're asking a lot. YgorD3 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Re: CNBC - CNBC never said the universe it shared with Marvel’s other shows was the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The only quote directly from Marvel that we see uses the phrase “Marvel Universe,” which is often used by creatives at Marvel to refer to the assortment of characters and storylines that Marvel has created. Without explicitly stating, “this series is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe,” we do not have anything that unambiguously suggests the show is in the MCU. It’s worth noting that CNBC’s report stresses explicitly that it wouldn’t cross over with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which indicates at the very least that the MCU is a separate entity from it.
    Your conclusion about Robbie Reyes is also purely based on SYNTH - no source ever says that it’s set in the same universe as Agents of SHIELD, but just in another city. The only thing we have sources saying is that it’s a brand new iteration that’s not connected or related to Luna’s work on SHIELD “in any way”. The truth is, we cannot affirmatively say it’s in the MCU. We can objectively lay everything out without trying to reach a specific conclusion one way or the other on the Adventure into Fear page, but we can’t go out of our way to say “this show was planned for the MCU” because we don’t have that concrete information.
    Ultimately, I’m not asking for a lot. I’m asking for the bare minimum: someone credible, not even strictly Loeb, to state unambiguously that the series was developed for the MCU. The fact is, we don’t even have that. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    This is what CNBC wrote: "...unlike their Disney+ counterparts, "Ghost Rider" will not cross over with other Marvel shows or films, although it will exist within the same universe, Marvel said.'"
    You are minimizing a specific part of the comment above (the "same universe" phrase) because it's not a direct quote, but there are no direct quotes for everything else. CNBC said that it wouldn’t cross over with the MCU compared to the Disney+ shows specifically, so I don't see how this comment is proof that Adventure into Fear and Ghost Rider weren't in the same boat as the other Marvel Television shows when the *new* Marvel Studios Disney+ shows were used for the comparison. There are also no direct quotes for the comments about "new iteration" or "not connected to S.H.I.E.L.D.". I brought up the "synopsis + Robbie Reyes living in another city" because this seems to provide a bit of context as to why the series would be disconnected from S.H.I.E.L.D. in terms of "storyline", which is not the same thing as "universe/continuity" (and no source stated that the show would not be set in the same universe as S.H.I.E.L.D.). Loeb literally saying that the show would "acknowledge what has happened in the past" is a clear indication of a shared universe. I believe Adventure into Fear and Ghost Rider should remain on this article. YgorD3 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    “CNBC said that it wouldn’t cross over with the MCU compared to the Disney+ shows specifically.” That’s not what was stated. As I said, we don’t know what was meant by “same universe” and the only indication we have is that we know the show wouldn’t cross over with the MCU and that it takes place in the “Marvel Universe”. We can’t say that the show was developed for the MCU, because nobody has said that. We can note CNBC’s phrasing ON the Adventure into Fear page, as we should mention that Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur are “complementary to the MCU” on that show’s page, but neither belong on this page. There is a great deal less ambiguity surrounding the meaning of “this is a brand new iteration in no way related to Luna’s work on Agents of SHIELD” (paraphrasing, but the bold isn’t a paraphrase) than there is about the usage of the word “universe.”
    “ I brought up the "synopsis + Robbie Reyes living in another city" because this seems to provide a bit of context as to why the series would be disconnected from S.H.I.E.L.D. in terms of ‘storyline’.” That’s SYNTH. What you’re doing there is SYNTH. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Well, I never said that the synopsis content should be noted in the article as being evidence of something. You say it's possible that CNBC misinterpreted the "same universe" thing, but the same logic could be applied to any other comment you're using here to justify a removal. You're focusing too much on these "ambiguous" comments and choosing which is the least or most "ambiguous" comment when there are direct quotes from Jeph Loeb clarifying this in a simple way ("Not a spin-off, but still acknowledging what happened before"). I know he didn't use the term "MCU" here, as he has not used in some interviews where he addresses the continuity/universe of Marvel TV. Considering all things, I simply disagree that AiF and GR does not belong on this page. YgorD3 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    Can you point me to where it is unambiguously said that the show was developed for the MCU? I am more than happy to put on the AiF page everything that is reported. As it is currently, nothing actually states that the show is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity or brand, and CNBC's article is not clear on the subject either. That's what I'm saying. When Variety and CNBC both report that it is unconnected to Luna's performance on Agents of SHIELD, as Variety puts it, "in any way," that is also worth mentioning and I think beyond the possibility of misinterpretation. I think all we can say for the "same universe" quote would be on the Adventure into Fear page, exactly how CNBC reported it: in the same universe, whatever that may mean. As it is we simply have nothing concrete to go off of that the show is actually a part of the MCU, when things that we know are part of it are considered "in no way connected". We have to portray the facts as they are, not as we wish them to be. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No per Ygor and my rationale in the proposal discussion above. There is not enough evidence that the planned Adventure into Fear franchise and its other television series were not part of the MCU by design or intentions. There is evidence from the press announcements and Loeb confirming Ghost Rider's ties to the MCU series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. while being a story that stands alone from what that series did, which does not confirm it was not going to be in the MCU. As I have noted before, we can lay out all of the facts from these sources from a neutral point of view without trying to push for one perspective or the other and without interpreting different meanings from what is said. The showrunner of Helstrom is only one individual who, as far as we are aware, only worked on Helstrom and was not in control of the continuity decisions of Marvel Television. The words of the Marvel TV head and multi-series executive producer Jeph Loeb and the announcements hold more weight for the AiF franchise than just the showrunner of one of its series. One series having a largely standalone story with very minimal links to the MCU does not mean everything else was not for the MCU by extension. Removing all of the AiF content from this article would be a disservice to our readers, as we ought to explain the details here to provide clear, direct transparency on this disconnect, and not just remove it and relegate it to a singular link at the bottom of the list. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    I support (and what this proposal is, fundamentally, is) laying out all of the facts from a neutral point of view, although none of the facts ever ascribe it to being part of the MCU. None of the announcements placed it in the MCU, Loeb himself never described it as being part of the MCU. We can say that originally it was announced to be in no way connected to Agents of SHIELD, per Variety, and then state that Loeb later stated that it would "acknowledge what has happened in the past", which still is not a statement which places the show in any particular universe or brand. We can acknowledge all of the facts on that article, yet literally none of them are "the series is a part of the MCU." Therefore, it does not belong in this one. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is sort of grey, so it really could go either way. However, just a few thoughts I had: (1) Adventure Info Fear as a block/franchise & Ghost Rider as a standalone show were both abandoned projects. This page does not list any abandoned projects (e.g. Damage Control or Most Wanted). As such, it seems odd to include either here. (2) There is fair but not definitive evidence that Ghost Rider would have been part of the MCU. Separately, it seemed Ghost Rider and Helstrom would have been connected similarly to how Runaways and Cloak & Daggar were connected. (3) All comments linking AiF shows to the MCU were made prior to Marvel Studios absorbing Marvel TV, and prior to Helstrom's release. The comment from Zbyszewski about Helstrom not being in the MCU was made after its release.
My belief is that at conception the AiF shows would have been part of MCU continuity, but those plans changed after the restructuring and Helstrom changed to being separate before its release (probably some time in the middle of filming). So, the question is do we base this article on pre-production plans or after release plans? I suppose from a certain point of view it could possibly be said that the MCU Helstrom was cancelled (along with AiF & Ghost Rider) and the Helstrom that was released is a different non-MCU show. At the very least, I think it's a good idea to remove the Helstrom table so as not to make a strong connection to that show. Marquismark79 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The removal of the Helstrom table was something proposed in an above discussion and to have the section be prose only to help with the points you raised. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    But… why? As the comment mentions there is no definitive evidence that Ghost Rider was going to be in the MCU. Why not place all the information we have just on the Adventure into Fear page. After all, this page does not even invoke Most Wanted even though it was definitively developed for the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thinking further on it, I feel like the heading for the section should be changed. "Adventure into Fear" never really came into being as a named franchise/block/brand and as such seems out of place here. It is also not consistent with the other headings (e.g. "Netflix series" instead of "Defenders Saga"). Whether Helstrom is MCU is still under debate, but having an abandoned project name in such a prominent spot makes it seem more important that it should be. Until that larger debate is settled, I'd propose keeping the table and link to AiF article, maybe a little more detail in the prose, and changing the heading to "Additional series" or "Terror series" ("Hulu series" kinda seems appropriate, but moving Runaways to it doesn't make sense). (also apologies... I couldn't decide if this comment should go here or in the other threads) Marquismark79 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Well, Helstrom is already settled not to be in the MCU. We’ve already held an RFC on the subject that unequivocally, unanimously, agrees and highlights objectively what I’m pointing out here: there’s never been enough information to definitively state one way or the other what the intent was. (Read thebiguglyalien’s comment there, as well as Indagate’s, which highlights why its inclusion here is a problem.) That’s why I propose merely linking to the Adventure into Fear page and objectively presenting all the information we have there without invoking any claim that cannot be verified (i.e. we can include Loeb’s claim that it would acknowledge the past, include CNBC’s remarks in their entirety, etc.) ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    I only mean the debate here is not settled, however, that RFC doesn't seem quite unanimous to me. And the article it comes from is ambiguous as well. It presents both sets of evidence (these sources say it is, these say it isn't) without making a conclusion (which is probably the correct approach).
    For this discussion, I think we need to consider AiF separate from Helstrom. You can't have a franchise of one season of one show. I don't believe it was ever referenced after the show was released. AiF is a cancelled franchise and as such doesn't deserve a prominent listing here. I recommend the heading to change and we limit mentions of AiF to just the prose.
    Helstrom is a special case because it was announced to be MCU but then wasn't. It's inclusion is debatable. We could take it out completely, or include it with an asterisk. Honestly I don't have a strong opinion either way. Marquismark79 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    Could you point me to the reliable sources that definitively say it is part of the MCU? Because the utter lack of those is what's driving this proposal. There was never any point where Helstrom (or any of AIF) was announced to be in the MCU, and by release we know that it was not in the MCU (the source I linked is not ambiguous -- here is the quote: "It's not part of the MCU... We are our own thing." -- nor is this ambiguous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foHSyy8np4U&t=46s, which specifically refers to Helstrom and Ghost Rider as separate universes from the MCU.) ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    No, it's not definitive, but there are enough pieces here and there that one could make a case for it. That's all been mentioned above. As I said, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other (about Helstrom). The point is there is clearly enough there that an argument can be made. However, there can be a compromise here. You're going for all-or-nothing, but AiF and Helstrom have different circumstances and can be handled separately. Treating AiF more like Ghost Rider is more accurate... mention it in prose if you must but don't promote it as a section heading. Marquismark79 (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    If nothing has ever definitively stated that it’s part of the MCU, then we can’t include it. WP:NOR comes into play here. We shouldn’t include it on this list if it isn’t definitive, especially because we know definitively that it’s not in the MCU. We should objectively lay out all the facts on the AIF page, which will include everything you say supports it and everything which casts it into doubt, without trying to tie anything into a certain narrative that can’t be verified. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    Again, I'm not arguing about Helstrom one way or the other. But, there is enough bits of data for other people to make the argument (hence the debate above). In particular, you're debating between the intent at announcement and what it became after release. It's simply two different points of view for the scope of this article ("List of shows announced for MCU (excluding cancelled)" vs "List of shows released under MCU").
    However, I've not seen anyone argue against removing AiF because it was cancelled and cancelled projects aren't included in this article. Marquismark79 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    The argument I've been told is that it has to be included because it was developed for the MCU, despite that being based only on original research, which in my opinion, makes its inclusion on this page inappropriate. I think we should lay out all the facts on the AiF page, not include AiF or Helstrom on this page because they're outside the scope of the page. Do you agree? ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    Once again, I don't have an opinion on whether Helstrom is in the MCU. The proponents for that are interpreting sources differently from you. For example, (Jeff Loeb) "...acknowledge what has happened in the past, but it very much is its own show." could be interpreted two ways: (1) in story, Robby will reference things that happened in AoS but never crossover with it, or (2) reference AoS in easter eggs or some other non-story way and tell a story outside the MCU. I think both interpretations are valid, thus you will never get a consensus from your opponents. Hell, that quote could be applied to AoS (where "the past" is the Phase 1 movies) and it would still be accurate.
    My stance, though, is that "Adventures into Fear" as a heading is inappropriate for this article because it elevates the status of a cancelled project. AiF has never been mentioned since Helstrom's release, which puts it in the same boat as the Ghost Rider show. AiF doesn't exist just like The Offenders doesn't exist. If it did, wouldn't you think Werewolf by Night would have been part of it. Whether AiF or Helstrom is MCU is moot. Marquismark79 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not asking your opinion about whether it's MCU, I'm asking if because it depends on interpretation and conclusions not within the articles or quotes themselves, it should even be included on this page. I'm not asking whether you believe it's MCU, I'm asking whether, in accordance with Wiki policy, to describe it in explicit terms as MCU is appropriate:
    "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."
    I don't mind if the people who are arguing that it is MCU walk away with that belief, it's not their minds I'm trying to change. I'm trying to make the content objective and in line with wiki policy. This article's scope is officially shows that are part of the MCU, the notion that it's all shows developed for the MCU is demonstrably untrue as there are shows developed that had pilots filmed that have no coverage on here at all. We shouldn't reserve space for shows which can be interpreted to be MCU, otherwise we're going to have a lot more shows on here that people have already stated they don't want to be included, we should include shows which are confirmed to be in the MCU. The details of the development of Helstrom and AiF, which people can interpret as they please, should be reserved for those series' respective pages. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    Question: What series were developed for the MCU but not listed here? A pilot alone is not a series (hence the term "ordered to series"). Marquismark79 (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    Could you answer my question first? ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    Unless you can read the mind of the speaker, all quotes are interpreted to some degree. The point of the debate is to come to a consensus on that interpretation. For example, Moon Girl is "complementary to the MCU" can be interpreted to mean it adds to the MCU and thus part of it (a complementary breakfast adds to and is a part of your hotel experience), but the consensus is to interpret it to mean it enhances the MCU from the outside (the complementary breakfast enhances your stay but is separate from the hotel's main purpose).
    Not all citations are going to be explicit and a certain amount of inference is necessary. Are there official quotes for each and every show here that literally and explicitly say "yes, this is in the MCU"? I would be surprised if that were true.
    So to answer your question, no, I don't agree that interpretations are not appropriate. And again, I don't have a strong opinion on whose interpretation is more correct: yours or theirs.
    As for the scope of this article, I don't know if it is documented anywhere but if it is "a list of TV series that were developed for the MCU (brand or continuity) and were released to the public" then it appears that the majority believe Helstrom fits that. Further, under that definition, if/when they eventually make, say... Inhumans or Iron Fist not canon, those shows would stay on this list (with maybe a note of some kind). In that case, those would be exactly like Helstrom... started off MCU but later wasn't. Can you show where this definition is not correct? Marquismark79 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    The degree of interpretation here is very much original research. When was Helstrom in the MCU, and when did it stop being in the MCU? We have sources that explicitly place all the ABC and Netflix shows in the MCU, without ambiguity or doubt. The fact that there is doubt here, in addition to outright confirmation that, by release, Helstrom was not MCU (and we can’t pinpoint with any certainty when it was, if it ever was, before then) is telling. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    That is you opinion, and you are welcome to it. But your opponents' opinion is the opposite, and they are welcome to it as well. You are at the point where further debate is getting you nowhere and into WP:BLUDGEON territory
    So, let's look at it another way... This article is a compilation page of sorts... not really the place for new or unique information, therefore it should follow the info on the respective main articles. The article for Helstrom states that it was going to exist in the MCU but after release it was not. As such, this article should not contradict that article and it should include it here (as per the scope as I described above). If you want to debate the scope, then there is merit in doing so (in another RFC) and that could lay the framework for future situations where a show has become non-MCU. Marquismark79 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    If the main article is misleading, we should fix that and fix this article. The truth of the matter is that Zbyszewski's comments do not contradict the announcement. They are consistent with what CNBC reported. We cannot pinpoint or allude to a change in plans when the details of the plans that we know are that the show is not part of the MCU, was not planned to cross over with the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment: nowhere on the page or in any of its supplementary materials such as the FAQ does it say that the page is for series which were developed for the MCU. Certainly the lack of coverage on Most Wanted, which dates back to long before this discussion even happened, tells me that this is not actually a matter of policy. My bigger concern, however, is that the arbitrary application of that concept (as we cannot call it policy, clearly), without clear evidence to begin with that Adventure into Fear was developed for the MCU, gives an utterly false impression that the series are part of the MCU, or that we have any concrete evidence at all placing it there. The truth is we don’t, and that much is clear because when I ask anybody for a reliable source unambiguously stating it to be the case that the shows were developed for the MCU, there is a notable lack of a response. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment as mentioned above, there has been a previous RFC touching on this subject. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Indagate @Thebiguglyalien - as you two are invoked in this thread, It would be of importance to allow you guys to assess the proposal in the thread and speak for yourselves on the matter so your words are not portrayed unfairly. If you have an opinion on this matter, feel free to share it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a see also link would be the solution here. Just write what the sources say. If the sources disagree, then write that they disagree. In the meantime, you might want to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:STICK. Editors can get blocked from editing for violating them too much. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, that would ideally be done at the appropriate page (Adventure into Fear or Helstrom) rather than on a page reserved for a list of MCU television shows, especially because none of the sources have ever said it’s part of the MCU. I tagged in part because I invoked your comment which was of similar reasoning to my own, and I wanted to see if you had anything to add. The wiki should not say “this was planned for the MCU” or “the series has never ever ever been planned for the MCU,” because no source says either of those things and should instead feature all the details that we do know on the appropriate page, which would be one of those other pages as it fits within the scope of their development rather than on a list of confirmed MCU media. I appreciate your concern regarding the policies you linked, also, however I don’t believe myself to be in violation of either. I’m not trying to intimidate people out of their opinions, but if someone brings up a point, it is fruitful for a discussion-based consensus to hash out the nuances. I'm not trying to get a certain vote count, I'm trying to get a workable outcome. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Outright removing information that is relevant to this article in terms of sources' differing interpretations on Helstrom and Adventure into Fear's connections to the MCU is not a "workable solution" as it favors complete removal, which is not being transparent with our readers and provides less information, which is not our goal here in this encyclopedia. We should state all of the facts and any relevant commentary on this matter, not try to spin it one way or another. When sources disagree, we include all points on such. Allow me to point to WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, and WP:Neutrality, which support this approach. The sources do exist out there for both pro-MCU and anti-MCU stances, it is a matter of including them in the articles where they are relevant and adequately addressing them equally without making a definitive call for one or the other, akin to what has already been done at the Helstrom article and its lead and body. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
But it's not a matter of sources disagreeing: no source at all says it's in the Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity or brand. The only comments ever made related to the MCU regarding this show is that it was not part of the MCU. We do not have an earlier source that says that it is. The pro-MCU stances require a degree of interpretation that makes it original research. We can't verify that it's in the MCU because no credible source has said that. The presence of non-MCU shows on this page, which cannot be verified to be in the MCU by any reliable source that we have, is undue weight. A relevant rule of balance is WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's certainly a minority view that Helstrom is part of the MCU, and there's simply no reliable source that claims it is, which is a requirement of WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTH guidelines. Not only is its presence on this page unsubstantiated, it's inappropriate. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Notice: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard has been notified of this discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
This may be my last message on the subject, but I would like to at least direct this conversation to something fruitful and at least show I'm willing to drop the stick if it appears that I've been thus far unwilling to. Out of all the sources we have for Ghost Rider/Helstrom, we aren't able to cite any that directly claims that the series are in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The only one that we have states that they exist in the "same universe" as shows that are going to be on Disney+ but that they won't crossover with the MCU -- the connection to that franchise is noted as unique to the Disney+ shows later in the article, so I implore everyone to read the full thing and not just the quotes I highlight. It is this source here:
Hulu's Ghost Rider and Helstrom shows won't cross over with the MCU (cnbc.com)
This has been a long-winding and frustrating conversation, and a big part of it is my conviction behind my own interpretation of policy instead of opening up the conversation to include different perspectives, and I don't believe this has been asked as a question previously. My question, and I will respect the consensus of the community because it's at the heart of the issue, is it original research to take the following quotes and condense them to mean that they are in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
However, unlike their Disney+ counterparts, “Ghost Rider” and “Helstrom” will not cross over with other Marvel shows or films, although it will exist within the same universe, Marvel said.
“We’re thrilled Hulu will be moving into a new — admittedly chilling — corner of the Marvel Universe with ‘Ghost Rider’ and ‘Helstrom’,” Jeph Loeb, executive producer and head of Marvel Television, said in a statement Wednesday. “Paul and Ingrid are crafting gripping adventures into fear that live in our ‘Spirits of Vengence’ cornerstone,” he said of showrunners Paul Zbyszewski and Ingrid Escajeda.
ChimaFan12 (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series/Archive_7&oldid=1188568269"