Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki

The recent release of the book "Marvel Studios' The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline" requires a lot of analysis. Members of WikiProject:Timeline team are working on editing pages in response to the information revealed in the book. If you wish to contribute, please do not immediately edit these pages, and instead visit the Timeline Discussion.

READ MORE

Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
S.H.I.E.L.D. Playground
Welcome to the Playground! On top of being one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s headquarters, this is also the general discussion page for the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki! The Playground is where this Wiki community comes together to organize and discuss projects for the Wiki. To see the most recent discussions, scroll down the page.


Archive
Archives

Continuity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is going through a phase of exponential growing, not only in the amount of characters, but in content as well. With Phase Four already outnumbering Phase One-Three alone when it comes to amount of content, and I am sure, that as I have, other users have noticed the retcons in the MCU, some mistakes made that contradicted previous continuity (What If...? divergence moments), information known from The Art of Guardians of the Galaxy being retconned by the events of Avengers: Infinity War (such as Death's story), the possible upcoming introduction of Lylla in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 ignoring the established lore seen in Guardians of the Galaxy, the re design of Thanos in The Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, the heavy retcons to the Mandarin's mythos in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and of course the timeline, Iron Man being retconned to take place in 2009 or Black Widow establishing the Escape from the Raft takes place weeks after the airport battle when previous content established it happened a couple of days later. We also have the recent confirmation that Clint Barton's Homestead is located in Iowa, when AoU material previously hinted at a Missouri location.

These examples make me think that the time has come to finally address these changes in our articles from an out-of-universe perspective. In the past, such contradictions were ignored in the articles or simply taken out, for example, Nick Fury's line saying the events of Thor were "last year" to 2012, when they were in 2010, the quote is featured in the articles, but we take out the "Last year" bit of the sentence. We also have the mention to Stephen Strange giving a press conference on May 4th 2016 in WHiH Newsfront when the timeline doesn't add up with the events of Doctor Strange, which has been "ommited" in some form from Strange's article.

My proposal is to add a ===Continuity=== section (a better name can be discussed) under the Behind the Scenes section (when needed) to notice the changes to the character's continuity within the universe. If you guys take a look at Xu Wenwu's Behind the Scenes section you will see it is a bit crowded and kind of messy due to the several retcons the character has had throughout the year. My idea is instead of using bulletpoints, we would just write paragraphs (using references) to detail the changes in movies, TV series, events, wars, items and characters' articles. Only when needed of course.

What do you think of this? I would like everyone's input.

Marvelus (message wall) 20:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to start off by saying that I am enticed by this idea. However, there remains a lot to be discussed. For instance, I feel like this would only apply to very specific articles and there would need to be some precedent to warrant a subsection like this. There shouldn't be continuity sections applied to instances where there has only been one or two minor retcons. Another minor critique but I don't think it deserves a level 3 heading ( `=== ===`) but instead level 4? Or another alternative orientation. With this being said, I believe it is absolutely important to address these when applicable, and I am in support of this idea, however way it is integrated.Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 21:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure! I don't know if I were clear, but it would be only applicable when needed. For example, it was retroactively added that Isaiah was a subject to the Super Soldier Serum when it was previously established that only Steve was, but that isn't required to be added in continuity. But I agree, we would need to think of set of rules as to when this section becomes relevant. For example, there are some articles that do not have Trivia nor Behind the Scenes section because they are not needed. I thought of a three level heading becuase it would be under a two level heading section, which is Behind the Scenes. Marvelus (message wall) 21:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I am going to oppose the idea of making this a level four heading, that would stylistically be a bit broken in my opinion. It should be a level three if it is under a level two. All other headings of its kind are. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I misread the proposal and assumed Behind the Scenes was a level 3 when it wasn't. That is my bad. Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 04:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, if we're counting Isaiah being a recipient of the serum as a retcon, then a lot of what we're getting now is "retcon." I think retcons should be considered as things that contradict what we've been told, and not so much applied to things expanding the lore. MJLogan95 (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Although I do like the idea, it will come with a lot of controversy of what to put in the section and what not to. But if people can communicate then it could be very helpful. I also don't like the idea of leaving out potentially important information just because it has a retcon. So I think this should be applied. It is a wiki, so everything should be added, and this is a good way to do it. - RaffMessage WallContributions 21:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, such retconned continuity, as long as it is reconcilable or explicitly modified purposely, would remain, essentially just as it is now. This section would just allow for some clarification that not everything lines up. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I am very much in favor of this proposal, and think it is a far better solution than the lengthy and uncategorized retcon lists that you see in Xu Wenwu's article, as you pointed out. I think it has a lot of potential to assist readers who may be confused about contradictory information. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm in favor of trying out this proposal. Up until Endgame we had people reclassify the events of The Avengers or Spider-Man: Homecoming due to the "8 years later" thing & there wasn't really anything we could add In-Universe on those pages to explain that it was an error; all we did was omit the timeline-breaking references. Just throwing it out there: what if we used "Inconsistencies" rather than "Continuity"? MJLogan95 (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, although we need to be careful about what information is actually a "retcon". For articles like the one for "Xu Wenwu", it seems worth having a separate section addressing this topic. I also like the idea of using paragraphs instead of bullet points in the section. David Kaique (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I will respond to everyone here.
1. The level heading would have to be three, as it would be under Behind the Scenes section. I disagree with Rman that it should go under Trivia because Trivia is for in-universe details, the Continuity section would be "out-of-universe" approach. Detailing the project, source, year of release and stuff like that.
2. MJLogan95 your point about Isaiah is very valid, while it is a retcon I consider the Continuity section to only expand on retcons that cannot be considered (as you put it) as "expanding the lore". For example, the Staff of One from Runaways. Revealed during Season 1 by showrunners to be an artifact of technology, made in Wizards Lab, and then we find out the show just ignored that and it is now a magic devise that was existing during Tina's young years, before her time at Wizards. Isaiah still could be noted, for example, if someone reads The Art of the Incredible Hulk and finds that said book says never in the MCU since Rogers the Serum was tested. Since those books are canon material and what is explained there is the intentions of the canon during production. For example, The Art of Ant-Man and the Wasp says Janet used the pieces of the Yellowjacket suit to make her own, teasing that Darren was dead, but now we know he is coming back as M.O.D.O.K. for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. However, the introduction of Echo into Fisk's story would not go in Continuity as she is just part of what MJLogan defined as "expanding the lore"..
3. I agree with you LR2159, that we need to put some rules. And I think Rman's concept works with my idea, that only retconned continuity should be added. Nothing that we can consider as "expanding the lore", for example, if it is mentioned in later media that Uncle Ben is in fact alive, that is a retcon because BtS material from both movies explicitly said that he did die. Another example I can think of is in The Wakanda Files, a canon book that has a letter written by Edwin Jarvis in present day. That can be noted in Continuity as a mistake.
4. I am not fond of using the name of "Inconsistencies" rather than "Continuity" because it would be a description out of universe about how the continuity of the MCU has been changing throughout the years, not merely inconsistencies. For example, a recast of an actor would go in Continuity, it is a change out-of-universe that impacted in-universe media, just look at the depiction of Hulk in What If...?, tossing aside Norton's look for the character. Redesigns would also go there.
5. Thanks for your opinion David! And yes, everything that can be explained as "Expanding the Lore" would not go in that section. But I think there is a wiggle room, for example, IF DSitMoM explains there is more than one Darkhold, we would have to add that in the Continuity section of the Darkhold article, while it helps reconcile two books with two different designs, it is worth noting that. Also, in a book from Marvel Studios, it was revealed that Loki was controlled/influenced by the Mind Stone in 2012, when we have evidence from the past that he was not being influenced, he was motivated by himself. I would like to point out that Wanda Maximoff being revealed to be a witch and that is the reason of how she survived Strucker's experiments would also be added in continuity, as there was not hint of that until Marvel Studios Visual Dictionary.
Basically, these are my points. I will look forward to discuss this further. Marvelus (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
To illustrate my concept for this idea, I made this brief page. -- Marvelus (talk) 2:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I like the idea of this section, and think the need for at least some form of it is becoming apparent. I have a few things I'd like to respond to, and some suggestions:
  • I too think we need to be clear about the rules, and I think I have an idea for a large part of how to draw the line:
    • It must be a clear change in continuity moving forward, not a momentary mistake meant to be ignored in the progression of the franchise.
    • It must be something that Marvel have shown no genuine effort (Matt Shakman "I imagine it's the same book" with the Darkhold) to reconcile, and any reconciliation is just strained fan theory.
      • A theory may exist that works, but it is purely speculation, not properly aided by what has been shown/stated. I more than anyone am constantly trying to reconcile things, retcons don't sit well with me (aside from recasts) - but it's theorising. And some things are little enough assumption (e.g. that the Avengers just believed Sharon was dead in Endgame) that we can reconcile it within the article, but it's still an awkward forced assumption.
      • If Marvel do end up addressing/solving it a significant amount of time later, the continuity note is not removed, just added to to say they solved it.
  • In terms of the examples given so far, they would sort as:
    • Mistakes, not continuity changes:
      • What If...? divergence moments.
      • Fury's "last year" comment in The Avengers.
      • Edwin Jarvis being alive in present day.
      • "8 years later".
    • Shifts in continuity:
      • Death's story being changed.
      • Lylla, should this happen.
      • Thanos redesign, including retroactive application to 1995 and 2014.
      • The leader of the Ten Rings going by "Mandarin".
      • Perhaps the Iron Man timeline - but only in the sense that it was set in 2008 when it came out. These would be the only timeline things to count. Got to be careful where you draw the line with timeline things.
      • The Black Widow ending timeline also for this reason.
      • The Barton homestead location (while Laura's phone area code establishes it could be as little as 10 miles south of Iowa, the idea that it can be both that area code and Iowa is indeed a change).
      • Doctor Strange's May 2016 interview (fan theories could suggest it was prerecorded, but this is just fan theory). That said, this one is borderline I feel, since it being prerecorded is not much of a stretch.
      • The Super Soldier Serum, only insofar as if the book confirmed categorically that no one ever took it other than Steve. If a character had said it in The Incredible Hulk, that character can be mistaken in the story so a reveal of secret subjects is in no way a contradiction - but if we're treating book "facts" as the voice of God in the MCU effectively, then I can see that argument being made. I admittedly got a bit lost in the discussion over the Super Soldier Serum suggestion.
      • Similarly for the Staff of One. If the showrunners said something definitively (lies to avoid spoilers aside, and this is not that) and then changed it, that counts as a change, not just expanding the lore.
      • The Uncle Ben hypothetical the same as the Staff of One. If they said definitively that he is dead, revealing otherwise is a change.
      • The Hulk redesign and recasting, including retroactive application to 2010.
      • The Darkhold redesign/ignorance from Marvel Studios.
      • Loki the same as the Super Soldier Serum.
      • Other wxamples from the List of Retcons blog. (There are ways of reconciling these, but they involve work from fans which Marvel have not thrown fans a bone over/acknowledged.)
    • Expanding the lore, not a shift in past continuity:
      • Fisk's time with Maya.
      • Wanda having powers. I don't really understand the sentence: "I would like to point out that Wanda Maximoff being revealed to be a witch and that is the reason of how she survived Strucker's experiments would also be added in continuity, as there was not hint of that until Marvel Studios Visual Dictionary."
    • Too early to comment over Darren Cross, really.
  • As such, I believe the best name for the section would be something like "Shifts in Continuity". I believe this communicates the point of the section, regarding continuity seemingly shifting, changing - how it isn't just about all things continuity.
  • I'm not sure, however, how the section would help the writing of articles where there are continuity errors, such as with the example given about Fury's "last year" line or Jarvis in modern day. I'm interested in any ideas about how to deal with this while still having hard-and-fast rules for the section.
  • I think it could be helpful to provide some template examples in setting out the rules to show the users why certain things do and do not fit, where they can go, "Oh, this fits the same sort of template as this example, so this can/can't go in."BEJT (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citing the Conjecture Policy in Articles

Adding ability to embed Imgur images

While maybe not a highly requested feature, I feel it would be a nice addition to have.

Based on this post https://community.fandom.com/f/p/2501414051905538217 (albeit from 2015), ignoring a majority of the links listed there, I think it would be a nice addition to allow embedding images from sources like Imgur (i.imgur\.com) to this wiki's MediaWiki:External_image_whitelist.

There are a number of use cases that would benefit from the addition of allowing embeds from Imgur: 1) Discussions on the Wiki (via posts or long-standing threads (like the Timeline Discussion thread)) - Image embeds would allow images to show specifically what is being spoken about 2) Template pages - So that if user's don't want to upload new images immediately even if they fall under the image policy, they have a way to temporarily test their template pages with different images and what not 3) User pages - More customizability and ability to link images on personal user pages (within reason)

With the addition, there will most likely need to be some type of moderation for the usage of Imgur embedded images. A possible suggestion is having a specific Playground thread (similar to how Timeline Discussion works) where users can submit image links (unembedded or embedded, your choice) and get them approved. This is just a rough idea in my head of how to do moderation and I know if this were to be implemented, the moderation team would most likely come up with a better solution than that.

All in all, this is a shot in the dark and I know there's a slim chance of this addition being added. However, it's a shot in the dark I'm willing to take because nothing ventured, nothing gained. Pr0tato210 (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally have no opposition. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 09:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Timeline Confirmation Proposal

Alt Universe Tag Proposal for Helstrom

Greetings, it has been a couple of years since Helstrom released, and while it is tied to the MCU (easter eggs, references and more) that was something that was planned in the first stage of development during post production that sense of belonging to the MCU faded away, as mentioned by the showrunner: "It is not part of the MCU. We are our own thing. There was a freeing sort of feeling about it because canon can be heavy. It is a weight on your shoulders.” He commented on how the show was freed from canon because it wasn’t part of the MCU and he even compared it to his work on AoS, which is clearly solidified to be part of the MCU.

Yes, we have had recent MTV and MS crossovers and maybe they choose to bring back Ana and Daimon’s actors if they want to, which could reinforce the idea that the MCU status of the show remains but as of now, as of today, we have explicit comments from the showrunner saying it is no longer part of the canon of the MCU. Plus, Wikipedia has recently removed Helstrom from the MCU section in its articles and quoting our Content Mod Rman41, who I want to credit for inspiration, "Wikipedia is correct. We should be correct as well."

I vote to label this page and every Helstrom related article as Alternate Universe, I am sure fellow user Criszz can back this up with more arguments. Marvelus (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal. The showrunner has been very explicit about the show being a separate thing from the MCU. Paul Zbyszewski was a former executive producer and writer for Agents of SHIELD. I don't think this case is remotely comparable to a new executive producer like Grant Curtis and Moon Knight. Out of anyone who could have possibly done this project, Zbyszewski is fully aware how important MCU canon is to fans, and I think it would be dishonest to say that he misspoke or used the wrong phrases in his interviews. To reiterate, Zbyszewski is fully aware of the meaning of "canon" and its relation to Marvel Television, yet he specifically chose that word when describing his thoughts on the show and its production. It's not a coincidence that just days after the first interview, Zbyszewski doubled down on his statements with Looper, explicitly saying "It's not part of the MCU" and "We are our own thing" in an action the article described with the word "clarifies," immediately after explaining that the Marvel Studios fold signaled a separation for Helstrom.
tl;dr Zbyszewski knows exactly what "canon" means to MCU fans and we shouldn't treat his use of words so lightly. Criszz (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, Helstrom's poster doesn't say "Marvel" like the other Marvel Television projects. -Ewysgarcoyustcrouiwetsnro - My Blogs - Message Wall - 02:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This actually does not have anything to do with its canon as far as we are aware. See this article. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 01:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree. While Zbyszewski did say that, he was more talking about connections it's always seemed to me. Jeph Loeb, who at the time of early development outranked Zbyszewski, said that it was still part of it. It connects to a direct Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. spin-off, even if said spin-off was canceled. There are even a few MCU-specific references, such as the Sokovia Accords and some newspapers that have preivously only been used by the MCU. (Edit: added the last sentence) -Jessica3801 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jessica, and alongside the MCU connections, no new information has come out concerning this matter so there is no reason for the wiki to rethink it's stance. -1Marvel Fan 11:25, 7 October 2022 (EST)
I also agree that we shouldn't change the main universe status of Helstrom now. The show speaks for itself, it does have MCU-specific references which obviously are designed so that it stays in the main universe. MalchonC (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The show having MCU references is not indicative of the fact that it is canon. It is verifiably free from the MCU's canon, as put by the showrunner unambiguously. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 02:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree as not only the Easter eggs but also the fact the references were specifically all allowed unlike the other ABC live action marvel television shows unrelated to the MCU, The Gifted and Legion according to set designer for the shows. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
You guys are clearly (and from what it looks like, purposefully) neglecting his statement that comes directly after his "It's not part of the MCU" line. He says "to have just this little pocket of the universe because of what it is and the style and tone and darkness of it and thematic sort of darkness of it, it needed to be its own thing." Here, he clearly says it's in its own pocket of the MCU. From what I read, being its own thing implies that it is its own thing inside a section of the MCU, which I think this quote supports. Yes, this is my interpretation and you could have yours, but neglecting this contradicting line should not happen in making a huge decision such as this. He also says it is supposed to be in its own section with Ghost Rider, which was supposed to be a spin off from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and we all know is canon. As someone who believes canon is very important, I admit that we have made excuses to some questionable wording in the past for other Marvel Television products and their canonicity. There's no reason not to treat Helstrom the same way, especially when the evidence points in favor of being canon with an MCU exclusive easter egg to both the Sokovia Accords and O'Harren's Scotch Whisky. As someone who considers Helstrom the worst product in the MCU, it is very clear to me that it is in fact in the MCU and the only evidence against it is a contradicting statement. If this gets put in an alt. universe, what's next? - RaffMessage WallContributions 13:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with LR2159. Not only, as I said earlier, is there no new information that would require the wiki to change it's stance on Helstrom being part of the main universe, but this proposal seemingly purposefully ignores evidence from Zbyszewski himself stating that the show is it's own section of the MCU universe, but again I'm sure this discussion was had when the quotes originally came out and no new evidence against the wiki's stance has surfaced, so I'm not sure why this discussion is being brought up again -1Marvel Fan 13:02, 8 October 2022 (EST)
Even if we take into account some ambiguity in some of Paul's quotes, this quote is in no way ambiguous: "It's not part of the MCU. There was a freeing sort of feeling about it because canon can be heavy. It is a weight on your shoulders." Nothing is being purposefully ignored, this quote is simply too explicit to be overruled by any other. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
And another thing - if you agree with the "it's not part of the MCU" line, then it just means that it's not a part of MCU, so why even include it in this wiki? The articles that have alternate universe tags describe things not shown in the main universe, but other universes that are officially stated to be a part of the MCU multiverse. But if Helstrom is unhooked from the MCU and becomes its own separate thing, it's just not the same with shows and games set explicitly in the MCU multiverse. So to me it seems the decision to made here should not be whether or not the Helstrom articles have alternate universe tags, but rather whether or not the articles can exist at all. MalchonC (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
We have enough information about Helstrom to rationally determine that it is very relevant to the MCU franchise, which is why its canon status is the only thing of note here. We will be keeping Helstrom on this wiki no matter what, but this question is specifically about its canon. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
And to add more proof to the show not being part of the MCU, in an interview with Looper, Sydney Lemmon said, and i quote: "We are not actually part of the MCU. Helstrom is not actually part of the MCU" IceMoh (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, In fact, I think it is overdue, with both actors denying canon and the show runner being unclear, that is all I need. - E-Scope04 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I want to set straight this isn't marking any type of precedent in the wiki this won't happen to the other MCU TV shows. Now, we have both periods of time, one during Loeb's era and one post Loeb's era, which is where Marvel Studios took control of Helstrom post production and the "it isn't part of the MCU" quotes come from. If the characters and actors return, we will consider removing the AltUniverse tag but the wiki is currently updated, the canon for this show is evidently gone.
Or you guys also want to contradict the actors? On October 27, 2020, Sydney Lemmon said *"We are not actually part of the MCU. Helstrom is not actually a part of the MCU."* That is very specific to me. And Paul said "the show is not part of the MCU" and they are freed from canon. Yes, the show kept in several MCU references that were added when it was undoubtedly MCU, but Marvel Studios took charge of the psot production of the show and in that period of time, the decision to distance it from the Marvel brand took place, and Paul's quotes came from that moment. We are supposed to represent facts and work with what people who worked at Marvel say and do. Going against their word doesn't make us any different than people who ignore official statements on the rest of the shows actually being part of the MCU. Marvelus (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Before I see any more mental gymnastics, the intention of the showrunners and actors is to say the show isn't part of the MCU. That is the intention, any kind of phrase like "pocket of the universe" to support he is contradicting himself is going against the thesis of their quotes, which is: **Helstrom isn't part of the MCU**. Marvelus (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I still argue that that conclusion is all up to one's interpretation. It's obvious that some people, including myself, interpret it differently. RaffMessage WallContributions 19:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again I agree with LR2159, the Showrunner's quote can be taken in more than one way. - 1Marvel Fan 15:30, 8 October 2022 (EST)
"There was a freeing sort of feeling about it because canon can be heavy. It is a weight on your shoulders." This quote absolutely cannot be taken more than one way. It is explicit. There is no interpretation there. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 01:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
In my first message, I talk about different interpretations of the quotes. This was shot down, but there are many other people that support that notion (1MarvelFan, BEJT, Etc.) So I think this proves that you cannot keep saying it is straight forward and doesn't need interpretation when you are given exact proof right here that it is ambiguous enough to be thought differently. This seems to happen when every marvel show gets questionable statements regarding canon. We always make excuses and interpretations on what the person actually meant, but why don't we do it here? I also think the argument that people look at the wiki a certain way because of our addition of Helstrom is bad. We shouldn't care what other people think about this site. Being swayed by other people's opinions or by your worries of other people's opinions should not be an argument. For all we care, they could be wrong, but then we agree with them out of worry for a bad rep? I understand that it is not 100% confirmed canon and there are questionable quotes, but when making a decision about what is presented as of now: there isn't enough to deem it non-canon in my opinion. RaffMessage WallContributions 02:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Other people disagreeing with me is not grounds to say that I cannot keep saying something. I can keep saying my opinion in response to others', nothing will inhibit that. It is straightforward. Just because you assert that you can interpret something a different way does not mean it is rational or reasonable to interpret it that way given the context. The only reason any of us have ever chosen to perceive it that way is because we are attached irrationally to the idea of Helstrom remaining canon. These statements are not simply questionable, Raff. They are explicit. There is no room for interpretation here, despite what many in this thread have chosen to stake their argument in. Are you seriously suggesting that we should make excuses for statements without opposite indications? We don't do that, what we do in a lot of cases is point out that there are contradictory statements. That's not really true with Helstrom. The only opposing statements are from actors, who are largely irrelevant to this conversation, or James Gunn, who has a proven record of contradicting Marvel on the topic of canon. Every situation is unique. Paul's situation is very reliable on canon, as far as we are aware. We have no reason to not believe him. Certainly, Marvel hasn't given us a reason to not believe him. When did anybody argue that the representation of the MCU Wiki externally should determine our opinions here? I certainly didn't bring that up in the thread. It's not only not 100% confirmed to be canon, it's confirmed to be not canon. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 02:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I want to rephrase. It's not that you cannot keep saying that. It's the fact that your argument on that matter is disprogen by canon supporters who have argued that it is ambiguous. It is pretty clear how ambiguous the statements really are given the amount of people interpreting it differently than you. You did say something about the representation in the Wiki Discord earlier and I don't have the will power to bring it up right now. But it is there. RaffMessage WallContributions 03:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
What I said on the Discord is not relevant to this discussion, and it's also not related to the argument you made, you misinterpreted it. Again, not worth bringing up though. "Your argument on that matter is disproven by canon supporters who have argued that it is ambiguous." That is not how this works. Arguing that something is ambiguous is not the same as that actually being ambiguous. The arguments that it is ambiguous are simply wrong, and favor a perspective that some of the murky quotes can "recontextualize" (in the words of BEJT) the direct and explicit quotes about canon. They cannot, it is quite the opposite. They are recontextualized by those quotes. Whether a quote is ambiguous or not is not based in mob rule, otherwise Thanos: Titan Consumed would still be considered canon. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 03:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it should remain canon, there are several MCU references, and show started as next MCU show. There are Marvel Studios products where is less references than in Helstrom like Moon Knight, recently Werewolf by Night or both Guardians of the Galaxy movies. This is big universe, we all know that. And it will be bigger. Do we really need to have a discussions like this? Since 2016, there are lot of non-canoners who thinks that all of MTV is not canon. Even after newest She-Hulk: Attorney at Law episode where Daredevil theme was used, there are still people who thinks this show isn't canon. It's not connected that much like other shows, but it's still canon. It's just on it's own demon-themed playground. MCU Wiki is only place where all canoners can feel "safe", and it should stay this way, even with Helstrom. When Helstrom fall, others MTV shows will fall too, it's only matter of time - Wiateressa (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty hard to argue that references, even if they imply an intention during production, can overrule this quote: "There was a freeing sort of feeling about it because canon can be heavy. It is a weight on your shoulders." It's not particularly ambiguous. It's very explicit, as is the prior "It's not part of the MCU." latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I re-read this with more consideration, and I am honestly not particularly valuing of this contribution. Who cares about canoners vs. non-canoners? That's not relevant to this discussion. This wiki is supposed to be a verifiably accurate encyclopedia about the MCU, not a safespace for canoners. This is not a safespace of any kind. The other Marvel Television have a very defensible canon status. Helstrom does not. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 02:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I too am leaning in favor of shifting Helstrom to Alternate Universe. The reasoning being has already been stated here by Marvelus and other users. MJLogan95 (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I have just found out about this and have come to express my strong disagreement with the change. Now, I should be clear. I am not, and will never (as things stand) argue that Helstrom is bulletproof MCU canon, 100% definitely clear from every official source that it should be part of the MCU. But I will absolutely argue that (a) the facts as they stand just about sit on the right side, and (b) that the statements countering it are not strong enough by this wiki's standards to decanonise.
Let me lay it out as simply as I can:
  1. Jeph Loeb: Adventure into Fear is connected to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. through the very same Robbie Reyes.
  2. The show itself: MCU exclusive Easter eggs and reference to Robbie Reyes indicating intended shared world.
  3. Paul Zbyszewski: It is not "part of" the MCU/it is not "tied to" the MCU/it is not "burdened by canon", it is "siloed off from" the MCU, it inhabits "a pocket of the universe".
  4. (Comments both ways from the actors, which (a) cancel out and (b) aren't authoritative enough.)
Number 1 is clear, specific, and from the top brass: Helstrom is in the MCU world. Number 2 also backs that up. Number 3 is from an important man - but not as important as Loeb - and is non-specific and murky, leaving much plausible deniability due to the "siloed off from" and "a pocket of the universe" quotes very much potentially recontextualising the rest of his quotes. It raises the distinct and strong possibility that what Zbyszewski means to say is that this is not connected to the Marvel Studios stuff, not connected to Avengers, not connected to anything going on in that central MCU core, in its own little corner of the world away from "the MCU" - indeed unburdened by all that lore to work through and around, unlike Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. We all know all too well how people misuse the term MCU to mean "the core stories made, or at most directly adjacent/connected to, Marvel Studios". It is absolutely speculation of course to assume this is what Zbyszewski meant, but it is equally speculation to assume that he did not know what he was talking about when he said "a pocket of the universe" rather than "a pocket separate from that universe", "siloed off from" rather than "separate to". Do we know exactly what he meant? No. To be honest, I'm not sure he 100% knows the exact canon specifics of what he's trying to say. But this itself is the point - we don't need to know exactly what he is trying to say, so much as we just need to be able to say, and we can indeed factually and objectively say: What Zbyszewski says is undeniably not clear, but murky. With that in mind, we have the top boss saying it is, the show also seemingly supporting that, and then the secondary boss indicating it maybe isn't but being murky. It's clear to me that the sum total of these points is just about still in the positive. There was no clear and precise rebuttal of previous statements, only a murky potential contradiction.
This brings me onto my other key point, which is wiki standards for canon. Even if you are not convinced that the sum total of arguments still falls in the positive, it is again undeniable that there are facts that place it in the MCU, and that the detracting sources are not definitive. This wiki has always worked off a canon-until-proven-otherwise policy - one which I myself has felt is perhaps too low a bar, but that is the policy. Before the idea of "canon" on the wiki was tweaked, the policy stated - and this remains nonetheless the system for alt-universe tagging content, "Comics, books and video games developed to be set within Marvel Cinematic Universe are also considered canon, being the only exception that a particular comic or video game contradicts the information presented in a movie or TV series. In that case, that particular comic or video game is considered non-canon." While there are things considered canon on this wiki which I would disagree with, fundamentally, there is absolutely a fair and strong point at the heart of this policy, which is that keeping something normally designated on this wiki is an open statement that "As far as we know, this is not for sure not canon", whereas a non-canon/alt-universe designation is a very strong and definitive statement that "This has been definitively pushed out, for one reason or another". And it is simply not the case that Helstrom has been definitively pushed out. No one is asking for a template stamp to be put on Helstrom articles saying "This is 100% definite canon", which would be a hard statement, and one not justifiable. As it is similarly not justifiable to put a definitive stamp on it saying "This is 100% definitive not main universe canon", which is what that template does. Regardless of which side of the line you feel the show just about falls on, the choice here is between a soft semi-endorsement and a hard definitive rejection, and the softer choice is clearly closer to that middle line - and fits the wiki's policy.
Continuing this point, I hold this up against the standards across the rest of the wiki. Two examples to consider:
  • Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude was officially declared MCU by Marvel. A secondary boss, James Gunn, explicitly declared it non-canonical. But the wiki (rightly) stands by it as canonical. So why, then, would a case where Helstrom was officially declared MCU by Marvel, and then a secondary boss non-explicitly, murkily indicated it might not be non-canonical be worthy of decanonisation by the wiki's standards?
  • Eternals: The 500 Year War was never officially declared MCU by Marvel. The comic itself includes contradictions to Eternals. But the wiki has let it remain canonical on articles, because it has not done enough to earn a clear decanonisation. Again, a stronger case for decanonisation than Helstrom - but the wiki policy has always been to start from a position of canon and have to earn clear decanonisation, not the other way around.
Another perspective. I ask this, whenever we are considering what the facts are in any situation: If the opposite were to happen, would it be considered a contradiction? For example, when we're making sure no fanon dates are in articles outside the timeline, we must consider: If Marvel later declared a date that does not fit this window, would that be a contradiction to previous information, or would it just be new information? If it would be a contradiction, then what you're writing belongs on there (e.g. If Marvel said "Howard Stark was killed on February 27, 1984" suddenly, that's a clear contradiction, you are absolutely justified in putting "December 16, 1991" on his page), but if it would only be extra information, then you need to make sure that possibility is covered (e.g. Upon hearing Wasp was 8 in 1988, some people wanted to put her date of birth as "1980", but if Marvel suddenly said "she was born in late 1979", that would not be any sort of contradiction, so that possibility must be covered in her article: "1979-1980", as these are the non-speculative facts, and then we would simply narrow it down with new conducive info, not be rewriting/changing). I see it the same way with all of the wiki's facts: Nothing should be put on a wiki article that would potentially need to be undone in future, barring clear unpredictable retcon/contradiction. So, when it comes to Helstrom: If Marvel Studios put out a statement tomorrow saying "Here's the canonical Marvel Cinematic Universe TV shows" and listed all twelve including Helstrom, is that a contradiction to what we've heard, the reason we put the template on there? No. It's a clarification, it's extra information that helps clarify that blip from Zbyszewski was indeed a blip. The template would be undone without it being some big retcon/contradiction, so the template should never have been there in the first place. It's speculative. It's not speculative to keep it at its baseline.
This is a more minor point, but I will also add that it is strange specifically to saddle it with an alt-universe designation as some sort of solution. For starters, no one has ever indicated "it's some alternate universe in the MCU franchise", the discussion being whether it simply is or is not in the MCU, full stop. But obviously the alternate universe template on this wiki doesn't really exactly mean that, it essentially is just there to mean "not canon" in a different way that shies away from getting into the word "canon" on articles, I get that. So okay, the question is: is it MCU franchise, MCU non-canon? Well, no. Because that's never really been a floated option. The question, and the discussion from the producers, has always been simply is it MCU or not? To designate it an alternate universe in the MCU franchise feels somewhat like plucking a third option out of thin air, without either side's quotes backing it, which would be very strange and speculative.
This was settled in 2020 and the wiki found stability in that decision. I don't understand why 2 years later we have to suddenly upturn it all, when the cement has set, and mindsets have settled into this way. Fandom themselves have released information to the public based off this settled decision. To change that all of a sudden with no new info after informed and full discussions at the time indicates that the wiki is in fact not based on fact and policy as much as we feel we firmly are, but rather changeable, down to spontaneous changing minds. Of course I'm open to any correcting of mistakes from years ago, sure, but usually that comes with new evidence or a new clear perspective of evaluation or change in policy for the better of everyone, and there is none of that here. Wikipedia it seems has only changed its formatting on the Helstrom page due to a user coming in and shaking up discussion lacking context at a time when there is little interest in rebuttal, whereas 2 years ago, at a time of great discussion about it, Wikipedia, just like us, settled that it was wrong to definitively cast it out - while of course perfectly acceptable to include in the behind-the-scenes/trivia the explanations that it's dubious (oh yeah, that's another point I meant to make: it is absolutely okay to include all of that in behind-the-scenes/trivia, which further clarifies that the lack of template on the page is not some strong definitive statement, it is an open, soft statement with the reasons to question factually all laid out right there on the page for the reader if they're looking for any sort of statement; this is the most non-speculative and factual layout possible, and therefore what the wiki should have, fundamentally). Indeed, it is still on the "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series" page, and I am glad to see that. It is a shame that the more informed decisions of 2 years ago have recently been overturned on some of Wikipedia by someone swooping in when the show is vulnerable to it.
The key points are the first few, the rest are extras. Mainly: (1) The facts seem to actually just about be on the right side of the fence anyway, and (2) even if you disagree and think they're slightly on the other side, they're fundamentally not by the wiki's standard and policy enough to make some sort of hard statement of that. 100% keep it as it is, and make sure the mixed facts are in the trivia. I am proud of this wiki's lack of jumping to definitively throw things out and make bold hard dismissive statements when the facts are mixed, and would hate to see that happen here. BEJT (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I have very strong contention with many of your points, so I will try to make my responses as concise as possible.
"leaving much plausible deniability due to the "siloed off from" and 'a pocket of the universe' quotes very much potentially recontextualising the rest of his quotes"
I used to argue this, but I don't argue this anymore. There are some vague statements, but nothing can recontextualize direct quotes that the series is not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and that it is free from its canon. The fact that the word canon was specifically used in address is what makes this so indisputable. No ambiguity in other quotes can contend with this, it is simply too explicit. I didn't even know about the usage of the word canon when I made most of my arguments around the time that Helstrom released. There is no plausible deniability left, the verifiable fact directly contrasts with the current position of the wiki. We have taken direct statements of canon at face before with Thanos: Titan Consumed. We should do it here as well.
"What Zbyszewski says is undeniably not clear, but murky."
This is not true for the very same reason described above.
"undeniable that there are facts that place it in the MCU, and that the detracting sources are not definitive"
While that is true, and is part of the reason why Helstrom will never be removed from this wiki, the detracting source is direct, explicit, and yes, definitive. While this could change in the future and Helstrom could be reinstated as canon, the statements of what is verifiably true now are clear.
"keeping something normally designated on this wiki is an open statement that "As far as we know, this is not for sure not canon", whereas a non-canon/alt-universe designation is a very strong and definitive statement that "This has been definitively pushed out, for one reason or another". And it is simply not the case that Helstrom has been definitively pushed out."
Sure, the issue with Helstrom is that it has been definitively and explicitly pushed out, so us having an open statement (and thus treating it as main universe canon by extension) is problematic. The heart of the policy is true, but that's not a good justification for our current position.
"Regardless of which side of the line you feel the show just about falls on, the choice here is between a soft semi-endorsement and a hard definitive rejection, and the softer choice is clearly closer to that middle line - and fits the wiki's policy."
The opposite choice fits the fundamental wiki policy of being verifiably accurate far better. Is it a hard line? Sure. It's an accurate one to the verifiable sources we have. Both Eternals: The 500 Year War and Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude have much better justifications for their canon status than Helstrom does, because they actually have official statements of canon from Marvel, even despite their murkiness. Helstrom is not murky at all, we simply perceive it that way because we see that it is set in some version of the MCU.
"Nothing should be put on a wiki article that would potentially need to be undone in future, barring clear unpredictable retcon/contradiction."
While I agree, we cannot predict the future. We only have the facts as they are *now* and that's all we, as a verifiably accurate encyclopedia, should care about. The future may require changes. We will adjust to those changes when they come. They have not come yet, and we have no indication they are coming at this time.
"this is the most non-speculative and factual layout possible, and therefore what the wiki should have, fundamentally"
No, it's not only extremely speculative, it is fundamentally, objectively and factually wrong. The wiki should have what is verifiably accurate, not what is verifiably inaccurate. The purpose of the wiki is to be a verifiably accurate encyclopedia. Keeping Helstrom as main universe is us being the exact opposite of that.
"The facts seem to actually just about be on the right side of the fence anyway"
That's definitely not true, because no amount of references and Easter eggs to the MCU can overrule the direct quote of the showrunner that it is not canon to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
"even if you disagree and think they're slightly on the other side, they're fundamentally not by the wiki's standard and policy enough to make some sort of hard statement of that"
It is the wiki's standard to accurately represent what has been presented to us. Helstrom definitely belongs on this wiki, because it was produced as an MCU show and contains a multitude of Marvel Cinematic Universe material. That doesn't mean it's canon. It is directly stated to not be, unambiguously. We cannot use the ambiguous quotes to say that the unambiguous quotes do not exist. They do not and cannot recontextualize them, because they are too explicit and direct, even including the explicit word "canon". Paul knows what canon means. I have to agree with Marvelus, that these arguments against Helstrom's non-canon status are simply mental gymnastics used to justify something which is verifiably not true. We should make a hard statement, as a hard statement has been made for us. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 05:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"Nothing can recontextualize direct quotes that the series is not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and that it is free from its canon. The fact that the word canon was specifically used in address is what makes this so indisputable. No ambiguity in other quotes can contend with this, it is simply too explicit. I didn't even know about the usage of the word canon when I made most of my arguments around the time that Helstrom released. There is no plausible deniability left, the verifiable fact directly contrasts with the current position of the wiki." "That doesn't mean it's canon. It is directly stated to not be, unambiguously." "We cannot use the ambiguous quotes to say that the unambiguous quotes do not exist. They do not and cannot recontextualize them, because they are too explicit and direct, even including the explicit word "canon"." "Paul knows what canon means."
I think there's a key factor missing in discussion here, which is an assumption about canon only meaning one thing. It means two similar things in slightly different contexts. The other context is interchangeable with "lore". It is frequently used to refer to the burden of much lore, much goings-on to abide by, lack of freedom due to all this tapestry to adhere with. So I absolutely push back on the "It is directly stated to not be, unambiguously", because it is not. He did not say what you say, "That it is free from [the MCU's] canon," his words are, "We are our own thing. There was a freeing sort of feeling about it because canon can be heavy." That is not identical to "it is free from the MCU's canon", because the emphasis is on, "We are our own thing, and that's freeing, as opposed to things like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. where you have to weave around the MCU and its films and deal with all that canon, we're free, on our own." There is far too much emphasis in this discussion, in my opinion, being put on that word's usage being some kind of decider. I see no valuable difference between that part of the quote and the rest of the anti-canon stuff from his quotes. "Including the explicit word "canon"" would indeed be very important if what he had said is it's not part of MCU canon, but that's not what he said, he said the show feels free, which is great, heavy important canon can be a burden. Did he mean it is fully 100% in every single way free of MCU canon? Maybe, but that's not what he said, and what he said is open to interpretation, and we cannot assume one interpretation over other equally valuable meanings in the further context both of that sentence and other things he said that mitigate that. There are no "unambiguous quotes" he used. Everything has ambiguity and questions and is contradictory, so I reject the idea that it's using "ambiguous quotes to say that the unambiguous quotes do not exist", or that anything was "explicit and direct".
"The detracting source is direct, explicit, and yes, definitive." "Sure, the issue with Helstrom is that it has been definitively and explicitly pushed out."
No, it hasn't. When Vincent D'Onofrio described Hawkeye as him joining the MCU, that wasn't some definitive statement that everything before wasn't part of the MCU world, just an ambiguous usage of the phrase MCU, which has been accepted on this wiki as indeed being an ambiguously-used term broadly these days. And that bit about "canon" I've addressed, I don't see that as any more relevant. Meanwhile, Zbyszewski described it as a pocket of the universe, just siloed off. Ambiguous, murky statements.
Indeed, one could also frame all this the exact opposite way. "A pocket of the universe" is a pretty strong statement, saying it's a part of the universe. And that the "It's not part of the MCU" quote could then be used to recontextualise that quote, but that's presumptive. But I'm not going to actually say that, because the truth is, it's all mixed. It's probably actually the clearest part of the quotes, because it's the most clearly about being part of a world (the subject in question), but I'm not claiming he couldn't have misspoken. Because he could have with any of this, and I'm not here with some agenda to prove that it's definitely definitely definitely canon. There's a tiny ambiguity in the "A pocket of the universe" quote, "Could he maybe just mean "the Marvel Universe" in the way people say when they really mean "The Marvel Multiverse"," but that's of course presumptive... just like presuming more layered meanings to the other quotes, as you suggest. All mixed.
"Both Eternals: The 500 Year War and Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude have much better justifications for their canon status than Helstrom does, because they actually have official statements of canon from Marvel, even despite their murkiness."
But so does Helstrom? And I don't feel like Eternals: The 500 Year War has a direct official statement from my understanding.
"While I agree, we cannot predict the future. We only have the facts as they are *now* and that's all we, as a verifiably accurate encyclopedia, should care about. The future may require changes. We will adjust to those changes when they come. They have not come yet, and we have no indication they are coming at this time."
I covered the fact we can't predict the future, but was perhaps not clear in my rushed message. We can't predict the future at any point for what Marvel might change/retcon. For example, let's pretend they'd not just said Wasp was 8 in 1988 but specifically was 8 on December 30, 1988 (this is a bad example, but hope you get the idea). If someone said to me, "Okay, Wasp was 8 at the very end of 1988, she was clearly born in 1980," I would say, "Yeah, probably, but not definitely. We can't assume for sure that Marvel won't in future say she was born December 31, 1979." And they might reply, "Well, we can't assume Marvel won't say she was born in 1978, we can't predict the future, Marvel could change any of these dates," and I would say, "Yes of course, but then the wiki would never have info - there's a line, and that line is that the info put onto articles should be without assumption, what's confirmed by Marvel, where having to entirely change it (not just hone in further on a date, in the Wasp example) would only be because Marvel contradicted what they gave us before, retconned it." (And in the Wasp example, December 31, 1979 would not be a contradiction, so that possibility needs to be within the article info.)
As such, we can't predict the future, no. We can't predict that Marvel might one day full contradict what they said about Helstrom being in the same world as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. The fact that it's perfectly possible that, without any proper contradiction to anything clear/significant, Marvel could clarify in future that Helstrom is indeed canon, means we should not jump to putting an alternate universe template on it that could have to be undone. (he same way, in our example that we should not jump to just putting 1980 as Wasp's possible date of birth when it is perfectly possible in future that that would have to be undone/rewritten when they say she was born December 31, 1979, despite that being no retcon/contradiction, just clarification.) Nothing should have to be undone on the wiki articles without an actual retcon/contradiction from Marvel, and it is not a retcon/contradiction to clarify Helstrom is canon.
"No, it's not only extremely speculative, it is fundamentally, objectively and factually wrong." "Keeping Helstrom as main universe is us being the exact opposite of that."
Not at all. I have tried to stick to the objective facts in my previous statement when I have cut things down to what is undeniable, as objective should mean. This is not objective. There is no objective direct statement clearly stating Helstrom is not part of that world, only statements where it is described as not tied to the MCU, not part of the ambiguously-defined "MCU", and free of a canon burden - mixed with statements from the same person saying it inhabits a pocket of the universe, siloed off, and objective official previous comments about how it is part of that world. One could turn around and say that it is fundamentally, objectively, and factually true that Zbyszewski said it's in its corner of the universe - it is - "so it's fundamentally, objectively, and factually true that is should be designated main universe canon" - no, it isn't, the same way it isn't that it shouldn't be. Because the objective truth is there are statements pointing both ways. Neither option is perfectly factual, neither option is the exact opposite of factual. We are left with a soft open endorsement or a hard anti statement as our options sadly, and one is clearly a lot better for something with mixed info. My previous point about specifically calling it alternate universe canon being far more speculative, somewhat plucked out of thin air, also stands.
"These arguments against Helstrom's non-canon status are simply mental gymnastics used to justify something which is verifiably not true."
Again, the truth is that both things are verifiably true/not true, so no 100% clear definitive verifiable solution exists. And that is your opinion on what to call "mental gymnastics", but the fact is that the full picture of Zbyszewski's comments is mixed:
  • "It's not tied to the MCU." Not particularly important, of course this was also said about Moon Knight.
  • "It's not part of the MCU." Taken on its own, good chance he's referring to it not being part of the MCU franchise at all or extended world, but charitably, if other context comes in, could just refer to not being part of the Marvel Studios main contact/central stuff in the universe, as many use to refer to the "MCU".
  • "We are our own thing. There was a freeing sort of feeling about it because canon can be heavy." Taken on its own, good chance he's referring to being standalone in every meaning of the word, but charitably, if other context comes in, could just refer to being standalone and free of existing characters and stories to build off/connect to.
  • "It's in its own pocket of the universe". Taken on its own, good chance he's referring to being part of the universe, just off in its own corner, but charitably, if other context comes in, could just refer to being its own pocket of "the Marvel Universe" (the Marvel brand, the Marvel multiverse).
  • "It's siloed off." Taken on its own, good chance he's referring to it being kept very separate from the rest of the universe, but charitably, if other context comes in, could just be bad wording to not mean it's kept on its own within a larger thing, but rather it's kept on its own just full stop.
Where one falls on which of these comments have more weight is opinion-based, and to call the opposing quotes mental gymnastics excuses is opinion-based, as anyone could say the opposite just as much. The fact is that a healthy debate can be had about Zbyszewski's comments meaning when the full picture is clear, as they can be taken to mitigate each other. And when there is also this other information of a clear canon confirmation from Jeph Loeb (and connections in the show, though I know this isn't entirely valuable - I also want to stress they literally reference, just non-explicitly, Robbie Reyes' activity in Texas, whom we know to be the Robbie from AoS, making it a very strange idea to break them apart somehow), mixed, debatable comments that mitigate it are not enough to overthrow it. If further information comes along adding to the evidence against it being canon, happy to say it's earned decanonisation. His comments have gone a good way to that. But also supported it somewhat at the same time, and the starting point was strong. It's not enough.BEJT (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"which is an assumption about canon only meaning one thing"
Paul is aware of what the word 'canon' is going to mean to people when they hear it in regards to a media franchise in this context. While canon can be used to describe simply the connected continuity within a universe rather than occupancy of the same continuity, it is simply unreasonable to believe that that is what it is referring to here, especially with the direct statement of "it is not part of the MCU". To interpret it any other way would simply be mental gymnastics to avoid the clear intention of what he is saying, as I mentioned before. You mention here that we should preserve it simply because "it could be a possibility," but we currently have no indication that that even could be the case, and the only grounds which you argue that on is that some of his initial quotes were murky. It's not that those murky quotes recontextualize his direct and explicit quotes about canon, it's that his quotes about canon recontextualize his murky quotes and make clear that his intention from the beginning was to say that Helstrom is not canon to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We have been looking at this from a warped perspective in the past, looking for evidence to support the conclusion we had already come to because of our knowledge of the series' MCU ties. You use the AoS quote as an example, but that doesn't help your case at all. The quote from AoS shows that AoS is intended to be within the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The quotes for Helstrom show that it is intended to not be within that canon, and thus does not have to "weave" around it.
"Not at all. I have tried to stick to the objective facts in my previous statement when I have cut things down to what is undeniable, as objective should mean. This is not objective. There is no objective direct statement clearly stating Helstrom is not part of that world, only statements where it is described as not tied to the MCU, not part of the ambiguously-defined "MCU", and free of a canon burden"
If I am to be completely honest, this is just cope. I have no better word to use, because it is simply denying the clear indication and context of what he is saying in order to justify defying what has been directly said to us. What was said about Moon Knight is not relevant, because we have plenty of other indication, and had plenty of other indication at the time, that Moon Knight was then currently canon to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We don't have that for Helstrom at all. And yes, it is objective. It is completely objective. You did not stick to objective facts, you are trying to assert the usage of another definition of canon in defiance of the context we have in order to maintain the status quo, but the status quo is blatantly wrong. Even if we want to grant that, as you would like to, Helstrom's canonical status on the wiki is simply a soft endorsement of its canon status, it is still an endorsement nonetheless, and it is an inaccurate one. The line that you speak of is one to be treaded, but we have explicit quotes here, and we have no reason to assert an unsupported possibility. Anything is possible in media production, that doesn't mean we should state false things until what we currently state happens to be true. That is not the goal of a verifiably accurate encyclopedia.
"Where one falls on which of these comments have more weight is opinion-based, and to call the opposing quotes mental gymnastics excuses is opinion-based, as anyone could say the opposite just as much."
I really struggle to see how you could even assert this. It being free from the MCU's canon and not being part of the MCU continuity are very direct, explicitly-confirmed details provided by Paul. Again, we cannot assert false context into something that we have no reason to believe he did not intend it to be taken exactly as every other encyclopedia on the internet has taken it as. The quotes specifically referring to the canon of the series in the MCU have much more weight, objectively, because they make direct and explicit statements that the murky quotes could not hope to recontextualize. It is quite the opposite, those quotes are recontextualized by the direct quotes of canon.
The references to the Ghost Rider series are notable, of course. I would not deny that. Given that we now have an example of a Marvel Studios production treating cancelled projects as non-canon, however, we have no reason to believe that the same is not true of Ghost Rider, and that reference was only vague to begin with. It simply no longer holds as a justification given that, and it makes perfect sense to break it off knowing that. It is plenty enough rationally. Helstrom being canon in the MCU, at this point, is a fringe theory. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 22:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"Nothing should have to be undone on the wiki articles without an actual retcon/contradiction from Marvel, and it is not a retcon/contradiction to clarify Helstrom is canon."
I also want to note that this logic is pretty horrible. If we followed this, Thanos: Titan Consumed would be considered canon even despite it being officially confirmed not to be, simply because it does not contradict established lore. That is not remotely close to a standard this wiki should follow. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 22:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"This was settled in 2020 and the wiki found stability in that decision. I don't understand why 2 years later we have to suddenly upturn it all, when the cement has set, and mindsets have settled into this way. Fandom themselves have released information to the public based off this settled decision."
From your original argument, this statement is also problematic. The wiki did not settle this in 2020, we didn't settle it at all. We ignored the issue and deleted a talk page that was created to discuss it. The only stability was in purposeful ignorance. That's why it's being upturned, because it's never been addressed. The cement being set on something that is wrong is not an excuse to not address it. These videos recorded from Fandom are derived from the wiki at the time that they were created. Therefore, we cannot use them to say that Fandom as a company is making a statement about Helstrom's canon as a news source. They are simply making a video essay based on this site. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 03:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I had decided not to look at whatever further replies, because it's stressful, I don't like arguing, and don't feel much more progress would be made beyond what I've had to say. But I realised I have a better example of what I was trying to say before, so have come basically just to say that. And as such, have read the replies. To which I will still make sure I don't get carried away replying in detail, but will briefly reply.
  • "Paul is aware of what the word 'canon' is going to mean to people when they hear it in regards to a media franchise in this context [...] it is simply unreasonable to believe that that is what it is referring to here." This is making an unreasonable assumption about Paul's language and mind. Through all of this, my point is not to make a counter-assumption, but to consider that we cannot make assumptions when possibilities remain open.
  • "You mention here that we should preserve it simply because "it could be a possibility."" "We have no reason to assert an unsupported possibility. Anything is possible in media production, that doesn't mean we should state false things until what we currently state happens to be true." No, that's not what I was saying. It's a possibility that anything happens, of course that's not an excuse, as I've said. I've explained the difference earlier, I won't repeat myself.
  • "The only grounds which you argue that on is that some of his initial quotes were murky." "It's not that those murky quotes recontextualize his direct and explicit quotes about canon, it's that his quotes about canon recontextualize his murky quotes and make clear that his intention from the beginning was to say that Helstrom is not canon to the Marvel Cinematic Universe." No, I am calling the totality of his quotes murky, because he has explicit quotes that indicate both ways. I am not saying one side's quotes are murky. You have classified one side as explicit and one murky, which is not true.
  • "You use the AoS quote as an example, but that doesn't help your case at all. The quote from AoS shows that AoS is intended to be within the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The quotes for Helstrom show that it is intended to not be within that canon, and thus does not have to "weave" around it." That was your original point about the contrast to AoS, I know. Nothing I said further emphasises that, when I talked about how it's clear that Zbyszewski wants to discuss the benefits of not being a show like AoS that has to weave through core MCU canon, the way we know it was restricted by the films.
  • "If I am to be completely honest, this is just cope." This is not a productive discussion phrase, as anyone can use it on each other to make the other's argument just sound desperate.
  • "What was said about Moon Knight is not relevant." I didn't say it was, I was writing off that particular part of the comments about not being "tied to the MCU", which wasn't really in conversation anyway, as I set it out as a separate point to saying "not part of the MCU". I was making sure I was thorough with covering everything Zbyszewski said instead of presenting a biased argument.
  • "Not being part of the MCU continuity." These words were never used. If they had been, it would be time to write off the show, sure.
  • "Exactly as every other encyclopedia on the internet has taken it as." Firstly, this is not true. Wikipedia kept it like this for 2 years, and was only undone because someone swooped in and changed it, I hear out of spite, while also being kept on other pages. Secondly, Marvel Database never had a productive discussion. I'm not sure why our standards should be "Other people made a decision without thought, we should too".
  • "The quotes specifically referring to the canon of the series in the MCU have much more weight, objectively, because they make direct and explicit statements that the murky quotes could not hope to recontextualize." Except I could say: "The quote specifically referring to being a pocket of the universe has much more weight, objectively, because it makes a direct and explicit statement that the murky quotes could not hope to recontextualise." All these points are just perspective on what is more or less specific. I'm not here to say that. I'm here to point out that the truth is, there are explicit quotes both ways, making the totality murky.
  • "Helstrom being canon in the MCU, at this point, is a fringe theory." Again, this is an unproductive thing to say. We're not talking about flat-earthers and climate change-deniers here, to compare to make the argument sounds desperate is harsh.
  • "I also want to note that this logic is pretty horrible. If we followed this, Thanos: Titan Consumed would be considered canon even despite it being officially confirmed not to be, simply because it does not contradict established lore." No, because that was explicitly said not to be canon. So if they said it was canon, it would be a contradiction to what we've been told, an actual change. It's okay to call that non-canon given what we've been told, because we've definitely been told that. This is the difference. And I never said anything about no contradiction to established lore being the importance.
  • "The wiki did not settle this in 2020, we didn't settle it at all." Well, that's a shame. It seemed settled to me.
  • "Therefore, we cannot use them to say that Fandom as a company is making a statement about Helstrom's canon as a news source." I did not say this. I said we are relied upon for reliable information, including by Fandom, so it's a shame that things are being thrown into chaos 2 years later with no clear new reason. I did not make it as some sort of argument that "Even Fandom say it's canon!".
Finally, just to clearly state the much better example that came to mind of what I've been saying about fact and making statements in the face of murky information: Wong and the Snap. Much better example than my Wasp one. There was mixed information about whether Wong Blipped. The "Avenge the Fallen" posters "confirmed" he didn't. The shooting script "confirmed" he did. Both had a claim to call direct/confirmed, and while I would argue one was much stronger, others argued the opposite one was much stronger. Objectively, the totality was mixed, murky. But for whatever reason, the wiki decided Wong's profile should include "Date of Death: Spring 2018 (resurrected by Hulk in October 2023)" and information about him being Blipped. It made a definitive statement that he had been Blipped, instead of leaving it open. And it was wrong to. This eventually needed to be undone, because Marvel clarified he didn't Blip - without ever contradicting themselves, clarified. They told us he survived with the posters, some of us just doubted it because of conflicting information, but they never said "He Blipped" clearly/definitively, this was clarification. And it highlighted that the wiki had false information declared on it for 2 years. Now if Marvel suddenly go "Howard Stark died on April 17, 1987" tomorrow, did it mean we had false information on the wiki? No. We had the definitive information, with no way of predicting they would change that. But we had false information declared confidently on the wiki on Wong's page for 2 years based on jumping to conclusions within murky, conflicting information, with Marvel then never changing anything with him and what they'd said yet us having to undo and remove a declaration we made, embarrassed. (Bonus one: The fact people added that Strange was Sorcerer Supreme to his wiki bio despite the information being unclear, then it was clarified that he never was, highlighting how yes, it should never have said that. And I hope it's clear that what I'm saying is not "What if the same happens here and they clarify in the future?", but that with these two examples which actually did get clarified, that clarification further highlights the mistake that was always there. And indeed we should learn from that lesson for other articles in similar situations.)
Adding the alt-universe stamp to Helstrom off this murky information is a similar situation - except with arguably even more reason to keep it as it is than the Wong situation. We should not be jumping to hard declarations off murky information. And the fact that with simple clarification, not contradiction, a declaration could be revealed to have been wrong, is a revealing factor that highlights when declarations should not be made on a non-assumption encylcopedia. The concrete idea of a future clarification being possible is not relevant to this, hence the arguments about "Relying on something in the future we can't predict/not know is coming" missing the point.
I also don't want to get lost on this argument as if it's my only argument. I refer back to my original post and all the arguments made in totality. And hopefully am done replying here, with nothing much more to gain it seems other than clarification.BEJT (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


It's complicated. Zbyszewski's quote, "it's not part of the MCU", seems to be putting Helstrom in the same boat as Legion, The Gifted, or any non-MCU show/movie based on Marvel Comics. Remembering that Helstrom was released before Phase Four, before the MCU started having TV shows set in alternate realities but still labeled as MCU. If Helstrom - in the showrunner's words - is not part of the MCU, what makes it different from a show like M.O.D.O.K.? Ignoring Loeb's comments, Zbyszewski's comments cast doubt if Helstrom even belongs to the MCU Wiki. I don't think the "Alternate Universe" tag really solves things. David Kaique (talk)
Essentially agreed, on the grounds of what I said above which I think is similar to what you're saying, "So okay, the question is: is it MCU franchise, MCU non-canon? Well, no. Because that's never really been a floated option. The question, and the discussion from the producers, has always been simply is it MCU or not? To designate it an alternate universe in the MCU franchise feels somewhat like plucking a third option out of thin air, without either side's quotes backing it, which would be very strange and speculative." You may have said it better, in which case: everyone listen to David Kaique on this point, not me, lol.BEJT (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You are both wrong, in my view. I have stated this above. We can document that Helstrom was clearly intended to be a Marvel Cinematic Universe production. We all can agree on that knowing what we do. It was then stated to not be part of the MCU, which taken on its own would mean that it just doesn't fall as part of the franchise at all, but of course then he specifically used the word "canon", clarifying exactly what he meant. Beyond this, we have evidence within the series that it is set in some version of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There is not sufficient grounds to simply remove Helstrom from the site, even if we acknowledge that it is not canon. Even if we were to "pluck a third option out of thin air" in this case, which I very much disagree with in terms of phrasing, we are still being as accurate as accurate can be. Helstrom is not canon to the MCU, but it is set in a version of the MCU. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 22:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(I know my opinion doesn't carry much weight on this Wiki, but as one of the biggest supporters of the canon, I'd like to leave my brief opinion before the discussion is closed. I don't have much to say, since pretty much everything has been said. I agree with BEJT, but I totally understand Marvelus and Rman's arguments).
The central debate should be about how to interpret Zbyszewski's words, and how much weight they carry for the Wiki. As BEJT exposed, Zbyszewski's words, while seeming quite literal, are not:
First of all, because he starts by saying that it is not part of the MCU, which is technically incorrect. If we take his words literally, we would have to remove Helstrom entirely from this Wiki, which would clearly be a mistake, and that otherwise has already been ruled out by people who have commented here. Starting from this sentence, it is that his entire statement has to be interpreted (although those who think that this is "mental gymnastics" don't like it). The rest of his words have already been broken down by BEJT, with several other examples for contrast. The term "MCU" has already been used to refer to the main universe (even in this Wiki), or the main story created by Marvel Studios. And as some have already pointed out, Zbyszewski never explicitly said that "the series is no longer canon in the MCU" (just to be technical).
Second, although it would be easy to do so, we cannot take the words of a "minor" authority as a "100% fact". Even if that authority is directly related to the topic, such as:
  • James Gunn about Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude, I Am Groot and some other things related to the Guardians franchise.
  • Jed Whedon about the pre-Snap setting of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 6 (which was also supported by an actress); as well as his strong suggestion that somehow the agents survived the Snap because of the time-travel and the Quantum Realm in Season 7 (supposedly explained in the unreleased deleted scenes).
Plus, the authorities can also contradict each other or themselves. All of what I said it's just complementary to BEJT's words, and should be considered because of how complicated the subject is. And the "Alternate Universe" template/categorization doesn't help either; since is used in articles whose content have never been confirmed to be part of alternate universes by Marvel, as some of the (non-canon) comics, video games, books, etc. In my opinion the best solution is to create two or three different templates: one for the confirmed alternate continuities (like What if...?), and another for unconfirmed alternate continuities (non-canon) or with doubtful nature (which would include Helstrom). For which perhaps the non-Red Stamp comics and deleted scenes should be reconsidered.
The last is just a suggestion. I hope everything I said helps the discussion. -Steve Fuenzalida (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
"Second, although it would be easy to do so, we cannot take the words of a "minor" authority as a "100% fact". Even if that authority is directly related to the topic"
Paul is not a minor authority, he is the showrunner of the series. Unlike James Gunn, Paul does not have a history of constantly conflicting with Marvel on the topic of continuity. One is unlike the other, and they cannot be lumped together. Also, Paul did explicitly say that Helstrom is not canon to the MCU. He did that multiple times, and without reasonable doubt. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Rman that Helstrom is most probably non-canon to the main MCU. Gerald 23:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with this decision. Helstrom was intended to be part of the MCU at its conception, it should remain part of the MCU. It features MCU-exclusive easter eggs, and something that a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that Paul himself said that Iron Man wouldn't show up in this show because he was dead. Why mention that if it's not even canon? It's been two years since the Wiki decided to include it as canon, so like many others here I would also like to know what exactly shifted just last month? I mean, we haven't even finalized its timeline yet, and now we have to reckon with its canonicity? - Edward Zachary Sunrose (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a firm take on this matter, but I do think the one argument of MCU-exclusive easter eggs is redundant. If what I'm understanding to be an exclusive easter egg is the reference to the Roxxon Corporation, I disagree that it guarantees canonicity. Like an editor said on Wikipedia's talk page on Helstrom, it holds the same sustenance as for example, the OsCorp and Daily Bugle logos showing up in the trailers for Morbius. Showrunner's words, whatever they may be, take precedence in my opinion.
Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not Roxxon. It's things like The Dallas Record, the San Francisco Tribune, the New Orleans Gazette, and the Sokovia Accords, things that are original to the MCU, appearing in the MCU. It's not the same as the Morbius situation since Oscorp and The Daily Bugle exist in plenty of franchises. That isn't the case for these. -Jessica3801 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Roxxon is part of it, but it's not all of it. There are several props that were created for the MCU that don't appear in FOX's productions, SONY's productions and even the other Marvel productions such as cartoons, games or the comics. There's O'Harren's Scotch Whisky, which appears in episodes 1,4,7 and 8 and debuted in Agent Carter. It's exclusive to Marvel Television's MCU offerings, like Daredevil, Punisher, Agents of SHIELD and Cloak & Dagger. There's the New Orleans Gazette, which debuted in Cloak & Dagger and appears nowhere else in the Marvel umbrella besides Helstrom. (Cloak & Dagger is also where Helstrom gets the logo for Roxxon from, furthering their connection.) The San Francisco Tribune debuted in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and has only shown up in Helstrom subsequently. And The Dallas Record was originally crafted for Iron Man 2, and hasn't shown up since. The biggest thing is the Sokovia Accords being mentioned in a newspaper prop, since the Sokovia Accords don't exist anywhere in the Marvel Multiverse, not even in the parallel realities we visit in What If (they could exist in the zombies episode, but they're not mentioned). There's even a dagger in Caretaker's possession that is stated to be a replica of an ancient dagger stolen from a museum the Middle East in the early 2000's, and the replica looks just like Sersi's dagger that we see in Eternals in the London Museum. But that's all just props. If we take dialogue into account, Caretaker's just come from Texas, where the scrapped Ghost Rider show presumably still happened off-screen. And demon activity is at an all time high, because exorcisms and possessions are stated to be at an all time high by Louise Hastings. The show establishes that evil people can become demons after death, since the demons appreciate Ana for killing evildoers and adding them to their ranks. What could've possibly happened recently to make the number of evil people becoming demons skyrocket? This is obviously an indirect reference to the Snap. If half the population vanished, all of those who were evil could become demons, skyrocketing the need for exorcisms. And lastly, again I bring up the showrunner mentioning that the Helstrom siblings couldn't team up with Iron Man because he was dead. If this is not set in the MCU, then Iron Man shouldn't be dead, so why bring it up? And although this carries significantly less weight, Alain Uy (Chris Yen/Keeper), June Carryl (Dr. Louise Hastings) and Robert Wisdom (Henry/Caretaker) have all referred to this show as being part of the MCU on their social media accounts, particularly during rewatches of the show on Twitter.-- Edward Zachary Sunrose (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, after months of thinking about it and going through many articles, the "It is not part of the MCU" line is way to direct, even with all of my excuses above. I'm not going to be too active about this, but it's not canon sadly. - RaffMessage WallContributions 22:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between Thor: God of Thunder game and its DS version

Collapsible Appearances List

For certain character articles, from the perspective of a reader, it is a detriment to see that a lot of the appearances are fluffed with every possible mention, poster, and photo, many of which are only a brief throwaway line or prop. My suggestion is not to remove them, but implement a collapsible table within the character infobox for the appearances section that prioritizes actual, in-person appearances of the character in a project.

This would especially be helpful as an increasing amount of characters have (or will have) over 10-15 movie appearances, and many older characters such as Iron Man will have lists that will only grow more and more as time goes on. By having the option to condense the more lengthier lists into a series of in-person appearances, I believe this will make the article look cleaner and the list appear more organized. This would also save time for readers on mobile from scrolling down (in the case of many appearances) to make reaching other parts of the infobox and the rest of the article faster and less time-consuming.

I believe this idea can be used for any article over a certain appearance number cap, and it is also possible that this collapsible list can be extended to other types of articles in similar situations, such as some organizations or items. However, I also acknowledge that this function likely cannot extend to characters with lists of TV series appearances, as there are very few characters who make multiple in-person appearances. I want to show that this function is an option that can be considered in whatever context the staff decide is appropriate. The main purpose of this proposal is to integrate a collapsible table for long lists of appearances in the infobox, as I think it is beneficial to both editors and readers.

Examples of these collapsible lists with popular characters can be seen here.

Criszz (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I honestly really like this idea. Aside from everything stated above, it also looks much cleaner without the (mentioned) and other things that fit into parenthesis. - LR2159 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks very clean, I agree. Ewysgarcoyustcrouiwetsnro - My Blogs - Message Wall - 20:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
If it functions anything like the Collapsible Alias List, I would not be opposed to the idea.
Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 20:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I like this a lot. Especially the fact that it helps mobile readers as well, while also cleaning up the appearance of the general infobox without actually removing info. MJLogan95 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. It doesn't seem necessary like the collapsible alias list one that was proposed, and for that matter, how would it work for characters have only have a "mention" as an appearance? I am very much not in support.Marvelus (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think mentioned only characters should have an exception as there is nothing we can really do about it without it looking ugly. Additionally, I think this is a great idea now more than ever with the new batch of video games that have been added to the wiki. This would allow the "non-canon" video games and even "non canon" comics to be put in the collapsible list. We can maybe even tie this in with the new canon policy if people agree. Media that is not fully canon can go in collapsible as well. However, that is just as idea. My main point is my first three sentences. - RaffMessage WallContributions 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Transcripts

I'm writing this proposal to bump up a conversation that occurred in February 2022 on the Discord server, regarding the integration of transcript articles to MCU movies and television series (ex. "Iron Man (film)/Transcript", "Pilot/Transcript"). Not to be confused with the official film scripts used during production, the transcript is different in that it is a documented publication of the dialogue and original scene descriptions written by the viewer (not plagiarized from the screenplay).

I think this would be a very serviceable inclusion to the MCU Wiki. It would not only be helpful as a supplementary addition to the film/TV series articles but also would have applications outside of the site as a valid citation for readers looking for sets of dialogue. Proofs of concept can be seen on other FANDOM wikis, such as the Avatar, Spongebob, and South Park wikis; they can be hosted on FANDOM without fear of legal repercussion, and the MCU Wiki isn't exempt from that.

This would mandate an update to the Layout Guide, clarification on other guidelines including plagiarism, new categories (Category:Film Transcripts, TV Series Transcripts, etc), and a link in the info boxes for those films and TV shows.

This proposal focuses only about the inclusion of transcript pages as a concept to the site. Discussions with regard to the specifics of scriptwriting formats and styling (what to bold, what to italicize, if the transcripts should be written in a table, etc) is what I invite community conversation for if this garners a positive consensus among the editor body.

I think the integration of transcripts would be to everyone's benefit if properly applied, and I encourage anyone entertained by this idea to respond to this proposal.
Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 21:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal could be one of the most beneficial on the wiki. It would be very helpful for quick needed edits without having to watch the entire episode/movie over again. It could work for quotes, scenes, simple write-ups, etc. The only thing is getting enough people who want to take that time to do it. RaffMessage WallContributions 21:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, the number of people contributing wouldn't be an issue in my opinion. After I get to work on finishing the Conjecture Citation Proposal over the holiday break, Transcripts would receive my full attention (should it be greenlit). I'd have no issue proposing this as a WikiProject if it means we can attract more contributors. Rome wasn't built in a day, after all.
Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 00:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. I already primarily use transcripts for editing, and making them available on the wiki would make the process easier for me and other editors as well as provide the resource to other users who haven't tried it yet. I also don't think this will take as much time to implement as others might think, as almost every transcript of each MTV episode is already available online, minus some like Inhumans, LC S2, IF S2, C&D, and other misc episodes. The only process needed here would be to format them all consistently. Transcribing those missing episodes for this proposal would be great as well because I hate needing to open Disney+ and start skipping through episodes in order to for a specific quote or scene. Criszz (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, although I have a very specific set of criteria that I want these to follow (one which I agreed upon with Shabook in the Discord server). That being that all transcripts would have names of characters entirely capitalized (Iron Man -> IRON MAN) in order to match film script conventions. Beyond that, all I can say to this is yes, and I think this is especially valuable for media like documentaries, where our coverage of them on the wiki is currently very slim given their nature. We also need a new template to link to transcript articles, similar to the Template:Gallery and Template:Wq links. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 02:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I have created a draft page for what transcripts should look like here, taking into the considerations provided by myself and other users. The templates used would be Line, Desc, and TranscriptStart respectively. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 08:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
A separate template simply called Transcript would take the place of the Gallery and Wq equivalent I mentioned in my original reply; forgot to mention that. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 08:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I have been making my own personal transcripts for the wiki and it would be great for editing purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewysgarcoyustcrouiwetsnro (message wallcontribs)
support. Evalprime (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Given some users have created a few of these in their personal blogs, and how long it took, it seems unnecessary to create these for the wiki.Marvelus (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Focusing only on your comment about user blogs, I think it's important to note that not everyone may be aware of the various fan blogs that exist. By incorporating transcripts into articles instead, we greatly widen the scope of availability within this website, so that all users can easily find what they're looking for. This is a lot easier than readers & editors having to sift through multiple links to reach one blog, saving people time and possible frustration. Additionally, transcripts on user blogs are more prone to errors and mistakes because they are edited by a single individual—the blog's publisher—as opposed to articles that undergo peer review to ensure accuracy.
Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 03:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstood completely what I said. I said that given a few users had already made some transcripts in user blogs and HOW LONG it took for them to finish that endeavour, it seems unnecessary and a big amount of energy to make all the transcripts your proposal required in the wiki.Marvelus (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I did not misunderstand at all and am sorry you feel this way. I knew full well what you were saying, but my counterarguments still apply, none of which you chose to address in your previous reply. While it's understandable that some editors spent time on those blogs, but there's also the fact that needs to be considered for everyone that some of those user blogs have also been recently deleted from this site (the example I'm thinking of particularly is Ewysgarcoyustcrouiwetsnro's blogs, a prominent contributor of transcripts stationed on user blogs, which were very recently removed to meet FANDOM's requirements of reducing redundant content and having fewer than 100 red links on the site). So, any chance of salvaging them is also redundant. Alas, although it may be a massive task (which can be fixed with WikiProjects), the replies above prove that there are people who are willing to put themselves up to this task. As said earlier, I (and the others who responded to this) believe this will do more good than bad. I've reiterated earlier what good this can do to this website, which I believe is fruitful in the long term, especially with a dedicated team behind it.
Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 02:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
And, to address the risk of further red links on this website, as that may be a concern to some, that only further encourages the necessity for WikiProjects to ensure that does not happen.
Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 02:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to Revamp Aliases

Family Rules

Film reference template

Hi!! I made a template at User:Larry Feinberg/FilmReference for this wiki. It makes references easier, so you only have to put in the template and then the film code and it will generate the reference for you. Larry Feinberg (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to a user subpage until the discussion has been had here. latest?cb=20221206070401&format=original Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 05:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Rename

Episode Galleries Template

So all episodes currently have templates at the bottom to show each episode in order. My suggestion is pretty simple, having a template under episode galleries as well. As someone who monitors galleries, I find it hard to check episode by episode when the gallery categories are arranged in alphabetical order. This would allow easy access as well as an order to go by. - RaffMessage WallContributions 00:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I made this page to show what I mean. It’s pretty much just the regular template, but with galleries and it would go at the bottom of galleries. - RaffMessage WallContributions 15:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. -Jessica3801 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Alt Universe Tag for Corporate Advertising Comics

This wiki has a long-standing tradition of treating corporate advertisements as non-canon or alternate universe material. However, this policy is not consistently applied to all forms of corporate advertisements within the franchise. Specifically, there are some comic books that serve as corporate advertisements for various companies, yet these comics are treated as main universe canon on the wiki. This proposal argues that corporate advertising comics should also be treated as non-canon. This would not apply to all comics. Here is the list of main universe comics that serve as a glorified advertisement for corporations that sponsored them:

An advertisement for Target stores and their Iron Man toys and products.
An advertisement in which Tony Stark is given the newest LG phone and gushes about its capabilities for the entire story.
An advertisement for Royal Purple automotive lubricants and its potential in racing.
A generic Audi car commercial in comic book form.

All other comic books either tell independent stories or are already designated alt universe. I believe extending our treatment of corporate advertising to all other mediums of advertisement will keep our wiki more consistent in its policies. Criszz (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with this proposal. While the stories are intended to be corporate tie-ins, they are still independent stories on their own. The comics were created with the MCU in mind and do not contradict anything. We consider Eternals: The 500 Year War canon despite it having significant contradictions because it was created with the MCU in mind, I don't see why these would be any different simply because they're corporate tie-ins. -Jessica3801 (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I fully support this proposal. Corporate tie-in comics should not be treated as canon to the main timeline and should be appropriately labeled, and treated akin to the live-action corporate advertisements. MJLogan95 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: If this proposal is approved, it would move these comics from the "Inspired Canon" tier to the "Non-Canon" tier of the proposal below. Criszz (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Bringing back the canon policy

While it was initially taken down because it led to unnecessary debates about what is canon and what is not based on personal preferences, biases or people being misguided on the subject, time has proved the canon policy is very necessary. And it would be helpful to bring it back, we can't label everything as an alternate universe, because at it happens, they don't belong to the same criteria of canon. The videogames aren't comparable to stuff like What If...? or the upcoming Spider-Man: Freshman Year TV series. Helstrom's canonicity has been constantly debated among the users of this wiki, and no consensus has been reached despite months of discussion. This could be solved by bringing back the canon policy, since Helstrom's canon is not confirmed like the rest of the shows, it is currently "dubious canon". This also could apply to the comics Criszz pointed out earlier in this page: the sponsored comics are also not in the same tier of canon like the Red Stamped comics.

So we need to establish the difference between them, I thank Rman41 and BEJT for giving me an idea to bring back this policy. Based on BEJT's personal suggestion, we can establish five types of canon.

  1. Main canon (Marvel Studios movies and TV shows, Marvel Television TV series, but Helstrom, Red Stamped comics, Wakanda Files book, promotional campaigns, etc)
  2. Inspired canon, which would apply to some of the comics. A possible templated could read as, pitched by BEJT: "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story "inspired" by the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and is thus not considered official canon."
  3. **NON canon**, which are distinctly not canon to the MCU. Videogames, some comics, etc. "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story that has been officially deemed to be non-canonical to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."
  4. Unconfirmed canon (except Wakanda Files, more like the Aftermath content). "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story whose canon status has been neither confirmed nor denied. It is possible that its story may not be canonical to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."
  5. Dubious canon. Helstrom. "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story where executive statements on its canon status have highly conflicted. It is possible that its story may not be canonical to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."

Now, for the last two types of canon (dubious and novels/books) and inspired canon (unless proved it really isn't canonical to the MCU), the content from those productions would still be included in the other articles: timeline, species, items, race, etc, in order to not create unnecessary subsections based on unconfirmed statuses.

We would create alternate pages for stuff that happens in non canon content (videogames and some comics) and the Hubs would have a section for "Alternate Universes" version and "Non Canon" version.

As suggested by Raff2159, the current AltUniverse template would be used for stuff (characters, events, timeline) that comes from other universes in canon, like Loki, What If...?, some AoS stuff, but this is open to be discussed, as it needs to be properly argued.

As for possible contradictions in the main canon, my previous proposed "continuity" section would help to note the inconsistencies and retcon within the MCU.

NOTE: Reference books like the guidebooks, artbooks, dictionaries, etc, won't be affected by this.

Marvelus (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with all of the changes outlined. No comments from me. latest?cb=20221206070401&format=original Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm in support of this initiative. No additional feedback here. MJLogan95 (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Fully in support of this, and I eagerly await its implementation - latest?cb=20221206082006 E-Scope | Message WallContribs - 00:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm very much in support of bringing back the canon policy. I will ask though that before the templates are made (as I'm assuming there will be templates on pages similar to what we see with things like the Spoiler template) that the designs are checked with other templates first (so no repeating color templates, fitting images, etc.). Other than that, you've got my full support. latest?cb=20230220163617   Pr0tato210 | Message WallContributions   01:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I defintely agree. I have a follow up proposal that works along with this. Keep the AU template and use it for characters from alt. universes. Deke, What If, Loki. There is no easy way to realize that some characters are from alt. universes when there is no "/universe" on it. - RaffMessage WallContributions 01:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree. however I'm confused about the point of the "Novels and books canon" section. Why specifically them? I mean there could be other types of media that falls under what might more accurately be described as "Unconfirmed Canon".DavisRanger (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Books and novels are the only ones that came to mind. Obviously "unconfirmed canon" includes "novels and books canon".Marvelus (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm mostly in support of this proposal, but I am concerned about calling all non-Red Stamped comics "Inspired Canon."
Official MCU guidebooks have collected information from the following non-Red Stamped comic books:
Additionally, Marvel Support on Twitter said Jessica Jones was MCU canon.
Will these comics still be "Inspired Canon" under this proposal? Or would this special recognition elevate them to "Main Canon"? Personally, I don't think the wiki has the authority to dispute these designations. I would support the proposal as long as these specific non-Red Stamped comics can be Main Canon as well, due to their acknowledgement as such by Marvel. Besides these, there would still be many comics left under Inspired Canon. Criszz (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
By no intentions I tried to imply we would call non red stamped comics as inspired canon, especially when we know most are either official canon or inspired canon, like those you listed. They would fall under their respective type of canon, which for those, would be "main canon".Marvelus (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
In that case, I am in full support of this proposal. Criszz (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
For basis, with approval from Marvelus, I've gone ahead and created a draft page which can be found here (or here: User:Pr0tato210/Drafts/Canon Policy Templates). Multiple quotes based off multiple suggestions, and the description of each "template" is bound to change. As of right now though, it's mostly a straight copy-paste from the original proposal for descriptions. latest?cb=20230220163617   Pr0tato210 | Message WallContributions   04:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Some responses here. Firstly, good work of course. Secondly:
  1. I think at least if the wiki is going to keep treating inspired canon as effectively canon, the Radcliffe quote is perfect.
  2. I think using a Helstrom image/quote for non-canon is potentially misleading/confusing. The other two options are alright.
  3. The No Way Home quote seems decent, the only problem possibly being a conflation between canon and universe we're trying to avoid. But it's good.
  4. I don't think "Everyone fails at who they are supposed to be" works for dubious - if anything, it's more suited for non-canon. The other two options are alright.BEJT (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Yep so, this is by and large a categorising suggestion I came up with with Marvelus once the prospect of restoring the canon policy arose. While well-intentioned, I was never a fan of the way the alternate universe template was implemented, as it muddied the distinction between inspired stories and proper multiverse canon like What If...?.
To expand upon, and slightly rephrase, the Helstrom point: I wouldn't say "no consensus has been reached despite months of discussion" on Helstrom, so much as just the conversation died out not entirely properly resolved. However, for those not in the know: when Rman41 and I were discussing the subject again the other day on Discord, I mentioned a hypothetical template for it, and that hypothetical suddenly became a legitimate discussion, which Marvelus, Rman41, and myself agreed would, if genuinely feasible, be a good compromise solution.
I consider this my resolution point to the earlier Playground discussion about Helstrom: That all I ever was arguing was that when there is direct executive confirmation (I object to Marvelus' phrasing of "not confirmed", but know he just means not still clearly of confirmed status), unclear-in-context apparent de-confirmation is insufficient to take a hard "non-canon" stance, and so the soft endorsement of leaving it as is would be better. I only hadn't suggested a middle ground because I didn't think it was a possibility, but that was always likely best, as I would never argue that treating Helstrom as hard canon is fully appropriate. The idea therefore is to keep everything on mixed articles like timeline pages and locations (no complicating things), but on Helstrom-exclusive articles like the show page, season page, episode pages, character pages, item pages, to include a warning template that there are conflicting comments, it might not be canon.
Within the discussion, I had the idea of the categories he mentioned. I therefore also consider this basically my response to Criszz's topic, because I think the answer is not just about those comics, but about a wiki-wide improved canon policy.
Other notes:
  1. I get why Marvelus has listed main canon as a category, but just so it doesn't look like we're making tonnes of categories: That is the default otherwise. It's not a category to introduce, of course. Just four of those.
  2. I would focus on calling the categories by their statuses rather than the examples, so like it's not the "novels and books canon" section, it is the "unconfirmed canon" section, with many novels/books being good examples of when to implement it. Just to avoid confusion. But I see that's been clarified somewhat. So, just to be clear, it's:
    • Highly conflicting/dubious canon (extremely conflicting credible comments, e.g. Helstrom). Just a "pinch of salt" warning template for articles that it might not be canon.
    • Unconfirmed canon (no comments made to suggest either way, e.g. many books). Just a warning category. Just a "pinch of salt" warning template for articles that it might not be canon.
    • Inspired canon (e.g. inspired canon comics). Either a "pinch of salt" warning template for articles that it might not be canon, or a full-on designation as not official canon, just in a looser sense.
    • Non-canon (e.g. video games). A full-on designation.
  3. On a similar note, yes, it's red-stamped comics + the otherwise officially confirmed comics for proper official canon. But I see that's already been discussed and clarified too.
  4. Would inspired comics that are already surmised non-canon anyway through contradiction go in the inspired category or non-canon category? I can see arguments for both and I'm not sure. Nothing about contradictions then arising later changes their original status as "inspired, and not official canon", so it kind of should just stay as inspired anyway. But given they are more directly and clearly not canon, and the way the wiki currently treats inspired canon as effectively canon for articles, perhaps if that policy is staying for now, it should be that the "surmised non-canon anyway" ones get the non-canon stamp. I know Rman has suggested splitting "inspired" + "non-canon" categories into three, "inspired (and still fits canon)" + "confirmed non-canon" + "surmised non-canon", but I think more than four canon categories might get too confusing, and would prefer making an agreement that limits it to these four.
  5. The phrasings Marvelus mentions for the templates were only rough, vague first drafts in my pitch. I'm not attached to those exact wordings, they're the general idea,
  6. I would be very big on this being extremely careful, particularly "dubious canon". There are many things with conflicting comics, but Helstrom I believe is possibly the only thing that should merit it currently, in being both explicitly/sufficiently directly confirmed by executives and somewhat directly de-confirmed by another producer. I think this canon policy is a great and important thing for the wiki and its classification, and clarity for users. I do not want this to slide out of control.
  7. I am also very big on the idea of not separating out the stuff in shared articles for the dubious/unclear canon, and appreciate Marvelus mentioning that (not so sure about inspired, but so be it).
  8. However, I do think that non-canon should be separated out on Character Hub pages, for example, as Marvelus says. What If... Zombies!? Spider-Man should be on the alternate universe Spider-Man row, but things like the Toys 'R Us comics Spider-Man should not share that row. They should be on a subsequent, smaller, extra row for the non-canon stuff beneath the proper alternate universe canon. There's a big difference between the two.
  9. I have no real opinion on Raff2159's suggestion about the AltUniverse template, because it doesn't feel particularly necessary, but I also don't have an objection to it. Certainly it's a more fitting usage of that template, I'm just not sure the template would need to exist anymore.
  10. I will respond to the exact template design stuff in its own sub-thread under Pr0tato210's comment, since it's specific to that one part of the discussion.
Thank you everyone, and TL;DR is: I agree very much (as it's largely my proposition).BEJT (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal, besides Helstrom being dubious canon. The rest of the MTV shows are also highly debated, so why are we not adding it to those? We know that all of these shows are canon for now, so I do not see why we need to add this for Helstrom.ShyGuy1992 (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Simply put, this is NOT being added to Helstrom because of the community doubting its canonicity, but because we have contradicting statements among producers and writers regarding its place in the MCU since its release. This has never happened to the other shows. Please, focus on what is actually being discussed.Marvelus (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have had time to give it some thoughts and to polish this proposal.

FIVE TIERS OF CANON

As discussed, there are fives tiers of canon that comprise the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise.

  • 2. Inspired Canon
    • Most comics (i.e., The Incredible Hulk: The Big Picture, Iron Man: I Am Iron Man!, Iron Man: Limited Edition, etc)
    • Novels (Mostly adaptations of the movie that expand on it. If someone finds something on the Internet, or owns them, and is able to provide evidence for something that contradicts the MCU, then the novel will get a non-canon category.
    • TEMPLATE ATTACHED: "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story "inspired" by the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and is thus not considered official canon."
  • 3. Non Canon
    • Videogames
    • Comics which evidently contradict the canon of the MCU (Iron Man: The Price of Doing Business, etc)
    • Novels (Iron Man 2 Novelization states Stark's new reactor material is Vibranium, which as we know, is not true)
    • TEMPLATE ATTACHED: "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story that has been officially deemed to be non-canonical to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."
  • 4. Unconfirmed Canon
    • Novels that tell stories within the MCU but are not confirmed to be set in it, but could very much be, like Black Panther Junior Novelization. The Aftermath books would fit here.
    • TEMPLATE ATTACHED: "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story whose canon status has been neither confirmed nor denied. It is possible that its story may not be canonical to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."
  • 5. Dubious Canon
    • Made mostly to include Helstrom and content that does not contradict the current continuity and has contradicting information regarding its canon (people involved saying it is and it isn't part of the MCU)
    • "The subject of this article is part of an MCU franchise story where executive statements on its canon status have highly conflicted. It is possible that its story may not be canonical to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."
  • NOTE: These templates WILL NOT be added to reference material: Guidebooks, artbooks, Visual Dictionaries, etc.
  • NOTE 2: The current draft for said templates can be seen here
HOW WILL PAGES DEAL WITH IT?

For the tiers of canon known as Unconfirmed Canon, Dubious Canon and Inspired Canon, their content will still go in the main pages with no comment on its current state of canon. For example, Helmut Zemo's page includes the content of Black Panther: The Junior Novel despite this novel being "Unconfirmed canon", and the page will not comment which type of canon it belongs to. The content from those products that belong to those three tiers of canon will belong in the other articles: timeline, species, items, race, etc, in order to not create unnecessary subsections based on unconfirmed statuses.

Alternate pages for stuff that happens in non canon content (videogames and some comics) will be created. The Hubs would have a section for "Alternate Universes" version and "Non Canon" version to create a distinction between them.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE ALTUNIVERSE TEMPLATE?

The current AltUniverse template would be used for stuff (characters, events, timeline) that comes from other universes in-canon, like Loki, What If...?, some AoS stuff, but this is open to be discussed, as it needs to be properly argued. But it will not be used for "Non-Canon" content like it is currently being used for. I.e., the AltUniverse template currently being used in the videogames articles will be changed to a Non-canon template.

CONTINUITY SECTION

Several months ago, I proposed a Continuity section. This one will be vital for this proposal.

  • USE for main canon: There are several retcons in the main MCU canon, this section would be included in the "Behind the Scenes" section and will be written in pragraphs and when possible will be properly sourced. This will be in order to note retcons in the MCU to have a well documented section to inform other users and make decisions when, for example, a new inspired canon content (like Eternals: The 500 Year War) releases and we see can see if it contradicts the canon, if it contradicts it, then it gets a "non canon" template.
    • Now I want to notice something, Captain America: Road to War and the Aftermath books use Wanda Maximoff's alias "Scarlet Witch", in WandaVision Marvel Studios retconned it so she had never been called that in the MCU until WV. However, official MCU reference books like the Guidebook and Artbooks and Visual Dictionary state Wanda's alias when joining the Avengers was Scarlet Witch, which was used for RtW and Aftermath books. Given the time of the retcon, RtW and Aftermath book would get an "inspired canon" and "unconfirmed canon" category, respectively. The former gets an "inspired canon" because it is a book that was inspired by the canon of the MCU at the time, and the latter gets a "unconfirmed canon" because it is a novel telling an individual story in the MCU without confirmation or negation of its canon.
    • Captain America: First Vengeance is a clear exception. It includes big contradictions to the MCU, but it has been confirmed in the Artbook and Guidebooks to be an actual canon story, and it also got recognition in The Wakanda Files book. However, its continuity section will note those contradictions, and why it remains canon despite those big contradictions.
  • USE for other tiers of canon: If there is something relevant about said content that can be documented through a behind the scenes quote, then the Continuity section will be used to detail why it is using the current canon designation based on this new policy.
  • USE for non-canon: This section will be used to notice (with sources and/or details within said content) on how it contradicts the MCU continuity, and they need to be properly sourced.Marvelus (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with everything here. But I do want to note that the AltUniverse tag for What If…? etc. is very necessary in my opinion as it properly shows that it’s from an alternate universe. It could be argued that the “/“ tag shows that, but Life-Model Decoys, Chronicom LMD, etc. proves that false. Additionally a bonus is that we can edit the AltUniverse tag to have it say which universe it’s from. For example the tag could say “The subject of the article takes place in an alternate universe known as “Enclave Attacks” …” - RaffMessage WallContributions 21:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It could be benefitial. But it would only be used for the AltUniverse templates in my opinion. I don't see the need to implement it to the non-canon articles.Marvelus (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the vast majority of this proposal. The one bit I disagree with is the change to hubs, which I don't see as necessary. We can simply prioritize non-canon material on the bottom of the hub. I'm not going to argue that point too much though, just my thoughts on it. -Jessica3801 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it is very important. What If...? version of Spider-Man is not comparable to the Toy-R-U version of Spider-Man like BEJT pointed out earlier.Marvelus (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Have to agree with Marvelus, even if it will take some work once we implement this. The hubs right now do not do a particularly good job differentiating between the two, and at a glance it could make people believe that some of these alternate versions are canon to the MCU. latest?cb=20221206070401&format=original Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 04:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal, but I'm still concerned about the use of mixing canon in main pages without any indication of the tiers. Is there no way inform the reader about this somewhere in the page without it being disruptive to the content? Criszz (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The first thing that comes to mind to me is to just note in the citation that it is said category of canon, so that way it doesn't mess with the flow of the actual article. DavisRanger (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The policy is to make an impartial distinction outside of the articles that contain in-universe information. My intention is not at all to overwhelm the reader and confirm canonicity of either project. There are just two main things: canon or non canon. Both can be officially distinguished, and the latter will get their own articles. Unconfirmed, dubious and inspired are stuff that can't be labelled as either and that is the most impartial way to keep it in the wiki without making a decision on them that. When the policy is written, I will make sure to make that clear so no one is confused.Marvelus (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I can't find any problems with this. It seems like a well thought out proposal. DavisRanger (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I already agreed to this above, although I will voice it again just to say that this breakdown really helps visualize how it is going to look. Integrates well with your previous continuity proposal as well. latest?cb=20221206070401&format=original Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 04:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree, there's a lot of appearances that aren't or are less notable as MCU Canon, and the introduction of this policy should streamline the wiki contents a lot. Mshcollector (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I too had one scrupule about adding information from unconfirmed canon onto character pages, but it's not that big of a deal for me to have a lengthy debate about. I'm on board on the whole. MJLogan95 (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I made a draft for the policy I am proposing. Any suggestions, or ideas can be relayed to me through my message wall and/or Discord DMs. Marvelus (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I have updated the templates to reflect the Canon Policy Draft linked above. This revised proposal of the templates can be seen here. latest?cb=20230220163617   Pr0tato210 | Message WallContributions   04:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between events actually named in the MCU and those that aren't

Pages for Concepts and Ideas

IMDb Casting

The use of IMDb by the wiki in order to expand the Cast section for our upcoming projects articles have always been subject of debate among our community. While it served its purpose before (thanks to it we knew that Rene Russo was coming back in Avengers: Endgame, Vincent D'Onofrio was coming back for the second season of Daredevil, and other cases), the MCU has grown way too much in content and popularity, that IMDb pages do not have the integrity they had before, and they cannot be reliable sometimes. For said reason, I propose to stop using IMDb to confirm main actors' involvement in MCU project (i.e.,see the current The Marvels page,). However, given it is not totally untrustworthy, it can still be used for crew members, background actors, makeup artists, etc, etc. If there is a cast member that is added in IMDb, and there are other sources that corroborate said addition to the cast, then said actor can be added. Lets say, Elden Henson's makeup artist is credited for an upcoming appearance in Born Again on IMDb, Henson's involvement won't be noted in our articles unless there is a reliable source (trades) to back that up. Marvelus (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This has my vote as it is something that has been bugging me for a while. A big mistake that was caused with using IMDb was when we said Sophia Di Martino and Tom Hiddleston were in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. - RaffMessage WallContributions 22:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I largely agree with this proposal. I think the bounds should actually be defined by whether or not the media has released. To my knowledge, there is virtually no misinformation on IMDb pages for media that has already released. For unreleased media, there is a wealth of misinformation based on speculation and rumors, and our current standard for dealing with this is far too subjective to be properly enforced; thus it hasn't been, which is what led to us falsely stating for the entirety of Multiverse of Madness's pre-release period that Loki, Mobius, and Sylvie were in the film. I suspect that the support for this proposal will be fairly unanimous. latest?cb=20221206070401&format=original Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 03:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Rman. It's helpful after the media releases, but not before. -Jessica3801 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that Bron-Char not being in Secret Invasion despite what IMDb said is the nail in the coffin. It is misinformation at this point. - RaffMessage WallContributions 13:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree as well, information on sites like this before release should not be trusted so easily and presented as facts. MalchonC (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I strongly agree with this proposal. IMDb caused a mess for films like Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. Even Secret Invasion had Bron-Char on its page. The site now baselessly claims multiple Avengers who will allegedly appear in Avengers: The Kang Dynasty. The drawbacks clearly outweigh the benefits when the site is this untrustworthy. Criszz (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Being to blame for a lot of these inaccuracies myself (which I only ever did with the best of intentions), I'm behind this proposal.Greater Good (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Template That Links to External Wikis for Subjects from Other Franchises

Starting in Spider-Man: No Way Home, Marvel Studios has started to retroactively included other Marvel film franchises into the MCU's Multiverse, and with the upcoming release of Deadpool & Wolverine this doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon. Currently this wiki on covers informations that's relevant to the MCU franchise and while its a good system that helps keep this wiki focus on one topic, it can leave out a lot of information. I think a good solution to this would be to add template to relevant pages that links to that pages subject on a wiki that specializes in the relevant franchise. I'd imagine this template would read something like "This article only covers information regarding (article subject) that's relevant to the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise. For more information, see (article subject [Links to the relevant wiki]) on (relevant wiki)." DemKnux (message wall) 00:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think this is necessary. We already have an external link at the bottom that directs to the character. Additionally, the nee canon policy that has yet to be implemented will kind of work into this. - RaffMessage WallContributions 13:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Quote Page Change

So there's a type of page on the wiki that I feel has been neglected and that is the quote pages for TV series. Right now, it is a collection of quotes from the series. However, these pages never get updated and are also inferior to quote pages for characters. Therefore, I suggest it should be changed to an index for quote pages modeled after gallery pages for shows like Daredevil (TV series)/Gallery. - RaffMessage WallContributions 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I am in support. Transparent Endgame Logo Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 17:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I also support this Luke2Max (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm also very much in support of this. DemKnux (message wall) 00:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I support this. Criszz (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Codename Clarification

While I think current "Alias(es)" section of character infoboxes works well enough, I think it would benefit from the "Codenames" section specifically being split up a bit so here's my suggestion on how to go about doing just that.
In my proposal the "Codenames" section would be split up into three new sections:

  • Primary Codename(s): This section would be for the codename(s), used in-universe, that are most relevant to character. These should be codenames people would likely search for if they wanted to find out information about this character. For characters who have multiple codenames that fall under this category, such as Sam Wilson, the codename they currently use should be in bold.
Example (James Rhodes):
Primary Codename(s)
War Machine
Iron Patriot
  • Out of Universe Codename(s): This section would be for official codename(s) that are exclusively used in an out of universe context. This would mostly apply to character who are variants of ones found on Earth-616, such as Amazing Spider-Man or Classic Loki.
Example (Stephen Strange):
Out of Universe Codename(s)
Defender Strange
  • Other Codename(s): This section would be for any other minor codename(s) a character has used in universe.
Example (Peter Parker):
Other Codename(s)
Iron Spider
Night Monkey
Peter-One

I think the rules for the "Primary Codename(s)" section could use some work but that's why this page is open for discussion. DemKnux (message wall) 10:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I definetely don't think this would work. We write from an in-universe point of view. Also, while drafting the Alias Policy, User:Mister Explicit and I were very considerate on what would classify as a codename or not. Having multiple headers just under codenames would also be too much for the infobox to the point where it wouldn't look good. - RaffMessage WallContributions 02:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Raff. The distinction isn't really necessary and breaks our in-universe policy. -Jessica3801 (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Video Games Platforms

So while playing the Nintendo DS version of The Incredible Hulk (video game), I realized that this version of the game differs from the console version to the point where they have to be considered different universes. With the help of others, we realized this was the same for all platforms on all games. To fix this, I created a draft page to show a change that I think would be beneficial to video game pages. This change highlights the differences between consoles as well as uses a tabber to separate the different versions of the game. So on one tab you would have the console info (Plot, Appearances, Achievements), while on the other tab, you would have the DS version of the game with it's respective headings. This would ensure a clean separation between the platforms to clearly show they are different versions. - RaffMessage WallContributions 01:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is very needed and is a very good way at distinguishing versions. -Jessica3801 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


I also agree with this. Listing drastically different games under one page is wrong. Luke2Max (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. Mvrr | Message Wall 5:54 AM, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also completely on board with this. DemKnux (message wall) 01:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Capital Section

With the growing number of locations in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I'm starting to notice more and more capital cities as I'm going through the location articles. With notable capitals like London, Washington, D.C., Moscow, and the Golden City as just a few examples, I strongly feel the addition of a "Capital" section to the Location Template would greatly benefit the infobox. This section would go in between the "Location" and "Interest" sections of the infobox template and serve to label the capital city of either the planet, country, or its first-level administrative subdivision. - Fish Master 41 (talk) 15:02, October 11, 2023 (PST)

I agree, I don't see any reason not to add it. - RaffMessage WallContributions 22:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Seconded, I also don't seen any reason for it not to be added to the template. latest?cb=20230220163617   Pr0tato210 | Message WallContributions   23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I 100% agree - latest?cb=20221206082006 E-Scope | Message WallContribs - 20:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleting Unnecessary Promotional Images

There are a lot of images that have been uploaded that are just repeats of scenes that we have seen in the episode or movie. For example, something like this and this are incredibly unnecessary and don't have a purpose. In my opinion, they should be deleted. - RaffMessage WallContributions 19:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I Fully support this - latest?cb=20221206082006 E-Scope | Message WallContribs - 20:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I've deleted some in the past. I think some might be able to exist, like the one used for List of Post-credits Scenes, but the ones that are just "scenes from episode with subtitles" like that first example are pointless. MJLogan95 (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Merchandise Problem

Some characters or media have a surplus of images in its gallery causing Fandom's system to do a thing where it cannot display the images properly. In these cases, the only photos that are affected are merchandise photos as they lay on the bottom of the galleries. To counter this problem, I suggest creating subpages for media that acts as a gallery for merchandises. For example, something like Avengers: Endgame, which suffers from this problem, would have a subpage titled "Avengers: Endgame/Merchandise" where it displays all merchandise as well as other merchandise related items in the merchandise categories of the film (this page). An example of what the page would look like can be found here.

As for character galleries, I think the merchandise sections should be redirected here as well. Although it is more rare for characters/items/etc., the problem still happens like with Iron Man's gallery. So instead of having a gallery of merchandise in the character/items/etc. galleries, it would have a heading to the media then a notice redirecting to the media's merchandise page. This way the issue notice won't happen. To show what I mean, you can see here.

This problem has been pretty overlooked for years and I'm hoping this could be an easy and efficient fix. - RaffMessage WallContributions 02:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea as it would fix the problem. Plus smaller articles take less time to display and therefore easier on computers.DavisRanger (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Event Pages

Hey everyone, just was thinking about how our event category of articles seem to be lacking in attention, I was wondering if it could be because of lack of links to it in other areas of the wiki. Like sure the media pages have a list of events, but most other in-universe pages don't really put any focus on them. So I was thinking about putting a section on character and organization pages for a list of events they were involved in? Similar to facilities and equipment. Maybe a similar thing for locations too? Similarly adding more event-based categories. SHIELD Conflicts or Events Involving HYDRA or something like that. Also I'm wondering why we don't already have categories like Iron Man 3 Events? I feel like as a result, these pages would get a lot more traffic. More people might start to see these pages and start filling out the pages that are still basically templates and expanding stubs. I get it would be quite an overhaul on the wiki but I for one think it would be worth it and would be willing to do as much as I can to work on this. -Burgundy69 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I proposed the category thing years ago and it got rejected. You can read it in either this or the most recent archive. As for the main point, I feel like it can get too convoluted for a main page on the wiki. However, if you were to ever create a user page, I think that could be a good idea. - RaffMessage WallContributions 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Another thing is that it is kind of an out of universe section, which we don't allow unless it is trivia or behind the scenes. - RaffMessage WallContributions 05:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Advertisement