Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Art of the Title

I came across Art of the Title and found these interviews with the studios that did the title sequence for these films:

• The Incredible Hulk: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/the-incredible-hulk/
• Captain America: The First Avenger: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/captain-america-the-first-avenger/
• The Avengers: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/the-avengers/
• Iron Man 3: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/iron-man-3/
• Captain America: The Winter Soldier: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/captain-america-the-winter-soldier/
• Captain America: Civil War: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/captain-america-civil-war/
• Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2/
• Daredevil: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/marvels-daredevil/
• Jessica Jones: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/jessica-jones/
• Iron Fist: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/marvels-iron-fist/
• She-Hulk: Attorney at Law: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/she-hulk-attorney-at-law/

I checked a few articles that didn't have any information about the title sequence design, so these could be helpful in adding information to the above articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is really great, good find @Gonnym:! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Multiverse structure

So, up until today I was pretty much content with how we’re handling the Multiverse stuff for Marvel. However, after I watched a video explaining what the tree at the end of Loki S2 could really mean I am not so sure anymore.

Some takeaways:

• He notes how Loki was primarily dealing with the 616 universe. As such, in the show there are numerous references to branches of 616 but never a full fledged separate universe. Möbius’s “616-adjacent realm” comment feeds into this.
  • Additionally, Michael Waldron, who practically made most of the multiverse logic, said himself that with Loki and time branches, you’re still anchored to some original timeline. Then he says how America Chavez can do the “impossible” and jump from one universe to the other. So essentially he’s saying Chavez is the only one that can go from one universe to the other (hence we have 616 and then 838). NWH IIRC also made it clear that the previous Spider-Man villains we see are from different universes and not 616 branches.
    • I think the end of Loki S1 with those two black hole shots and then zooming into the right one to the Sacred Timeline implies this but I don’t think that’s been confirmed, but this is what the episode shows us so we should maybe note it in some form?
    • Its also mentioned how the Ant-Man book gives some lore to Endgame’s time travel shenanigans so if someone gets a hold on that please feel free to update it

So what I’m suggesting/proposing:

• Split off the branched realities to an MCU Earth-616 page for the sake of gathering all Sacred Timeline branches (not sure about What If but given they also deal with diverging from main MCU timeline maybe? This needs more discussion IMO).
• On the Multiverse page, the Notable realities section should have only the ones established as separate universes and with clear story and plot purposes to the specific film it’s in. So that’d include 616, 838, Peter-Two and -Three’s realities, and the recent X-Men one shown at the end of The Marvels. As it stands, the others on that list are all diverged Sacred Timeline/616 entries (specifically the Time Heist ones).

Could this be all moot and be nothing more then me WP:SYNTHing? Possibly, but I’m trying to convey this in logic that the movies and shows themselves and the creators behind it have explained before, without trying to fill in gaps with stuff not explicitly said. Let me know what you think of this and if you have any alternate ideas to clean this up. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Without any adequate sources beyond some random YouTube video to back up these claims, they are SYNTH and somewhat merely conjecture. We need WP:Reliable sources to state any of this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

He does bring up several commentary and sources from the producers and writers but I’ll scour for them and post them here tonight. Yes some of his talk is conjecture and SYNTH but the producer/writer statements he talks about/refers to are what I am trying to convey here. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: the link appears to be broken, could you link to it again or put the name and author of the video? —El Millo (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this section saying that there is a difference between the branches from the sacred timeline and the multiverse? Because that seems like someone is way overthinking this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal regarding season article naming

There is a proposal to change the naming conventions of TV season articles from the current practice of XXX (season 1) to XXX, season 1 or XXX season 1. As such a change would affect a substantial number of articles, you are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Feige MCU importance scale rating

Shouldn't Kevin Feige have a higher MCU importance rating in WikiProjects? I noticed today he's marked as low importance. I know it isn't an exact 1:1, but Star Wars has George Lucas as a top importance rating, which I wouldn't be against putting Feige at the same rating within the MCU. -- ZooBlazer 05:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Totally. Kevin Feige is considered as the creator of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so he should have a top importance rating such as George Lucas with Star Wars and Walt Disney with Disney. If we were talking about Marvel Comics, I would disagree. But since its Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, I totally agree. BigLordFlash^talk 14:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Directing/screenwriting duos

@Gonnym: Regarding your recent edits turning the line breaks into two separate links, is there a policy or guideline that says not to do this? I ask because I know this is also done on many other articles, including the several MCU films co-directed by the Russos and/or co-written by Markus and McFeely. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to stop with the arguments like "this is also done on many other articles", which is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Infoboxes in general are in very bad shape and even are sacred MCU articles are not above obvious and horrible misuses (see the horrible usage at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series).

Regarding this specific issue, the infobox has for years stated that we should use list templates when dealing with multiple people. This is not a stylistic choice but done for accessibility concerns (MOS:PARABR, MOS:PLIST). In the guideline for it there is no example of usage inside a link. The question is then, how do screen readers handle a Wikilink that its display is the only part that is a list. Does it provide the same user experience a user with a screen reader is used to? Is it inferior? Whoever wants to change to that style, should first ask this at the accessibility guideline page. If their answer is that it's fine, then we can change it here but we shouldn't ignore accessibility. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that this is correct because OSE, just that if we are removing these on some articles, we should do the same elsewhere, and perhaps notify the film project at large. Anyway, if the rationale for your edits is that MOS:ACCESS doesn't mention line breaks within links, then perhaps we should seek clarification on its talk page. MOS:ACCESS, along with all PAGs, are not meant to be exhaustive. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes episode ratings

It looks like Rotten Tomatoes no longer displays the X/10 ratings for TV episodes. If that's the case I'd assume most of the episode articles would have to remove the scores since it is no longer sourced. -- ZooBlazer 04:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. The Glorious Purpose S101 page does list the 97% with 37 reviews, but no indicator of the X/10 average score. As I don't edit much with the episode articles, I'd have to take a look into this, though from what I can tell you are correct, Zoo. This is an unfortunate change in their aggregation model. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there was an update some time between SI and Loki season 2 that removed or hid those scores on the site. Also seems like they no longer do a critics consensus for newer episodes, but luckily the older ones are still on RT. -- ZooBlazer 18:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

John Rocha

I am aware John Rocha is considered a subject-matter expert based on WP:SPS but may I ask how? The policy states that a reliable, independent source must publish them for them to be considered a subject-matter expert, but I don't recall a rumor from John Rocha specifically, not Jeff Sneider, being published by a reliable source. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. In the Wonder Man article, his rumor about the series being canceled is reported on by ScreenGeek, a non-reliable source.

However, if it is actually the Hot Mic Podcast as a whole that is considered a self-published source and Rocha is basically grandfathered into being considered an SME, I strongly believe we should make an exception and stray from that as there is a significant disparity between Sneider's and Rocha's level of reliability, and he even admits this himself. Anytime he's about to share something he heard, he prefaces it by saying "Jeff's the credible one so takes this with a grain of salt," essentially admitting that his rumors are not credible, here's one example.

In that one example, he proceeds to claim that the Fantastic Four cast would be announced "by the end of next week", which of course has not happened. Ten days after his "Wonder Man is dead" claim, THR and Deadline said the series was still happening. On his latest stream, he said he'd seen reports that Ayo Edebiri might be pulling out of Thunderbolts. I've scoured Twitter to find such a report but I don't believe it exists. Three days later at the Golden Globes, Edebiri reiterated she's still in the film. (Besides, why is someone simply saying they saw a rumor even being mentioned on Wikipedia in the first place?) Later in that stream, he read out a fake Thunderbolts premise, thinking it was official, that actually traces back to one of those shady Marvel Updates accounts on Twitter, and the premise is clearly supposed to be a joke as it is almost a 1:1 match for the Suicide Squad plot.

I am aware that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether a source is credible or not, but I felt the need to share my thoughts and to see what others may think. What's happening here is we're basically considering a self-admittedly non-reliable source reliable and sometimes even reporting on things he says he saw online. As I said before, if Rocha is being considered an SME under the umbrella of the Hot Mic Podcast, I believe an exception should made in this case and his rumors should not be included on Wikipedia. What do you guys think? Aldwiki1 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I was admittedly skeptical of including Rocha's most recent claim on Edebiri as it raised a few eyebrows for myself given the lack of backup evidence of said rumors, and others I have shared that claim with have expressed this same sentiment. I do believe Rocha is a less credible source than Sneider is, though he has gotten a few things correct (though I don't recall them off the top of my head). The Wonder Man report is somewhat questionable, though we include that more for neutrality's sake. ScreenGeek appears to have some editorial oversight, so that was why their article on Rocha's comments was included there, although we can revert back to the direct YouTube source if that satisfies concerns. I am also lenient in removing Rocha's claims from the Thunderbolts draft as those do seem less accurate/plausible. Regardless, we do know Sneider is the more reputable of the two, and I should have been more cautious with what to include from his co-host. (We did have a discussion about Rocha's reliability at Talk:Wonder Man (miniseries)#Reliable of source and contradiction, so this is an extension of that.) I am willing to be less inclusive and more skeptical of Rocha's comments on rumors/reports moving forward, after all, this is all part of the process of determining reliability among sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree Rocha probably shouldn't be considered reliable. But Sneider has worked previously at Hollywood trades (I can point to Collider specifically) and he can be viewed as a SME. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to say this as if it proves Rocha's unverifiable claims (which Sneider himself said was something he "speculated"), though it turns out true that Edebiri dropped out of Thunderbolts. Just putting this here for context, that's all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Iron Man and/or Endgame as a vital article

I nominated Iron Man and/or Endgame to become vital articles if anyone has anything they would like to add to the discussion which can be found here. -- ZooBlazer 19:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I cast my !vote! - Karl Mordo Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Based on the other comments and votes there, I'm thinking we should look into nominating the main MCU article to be promoted to a level 4 vital arts article (as it currently is under that level 5 here) and then repurpose this nomination as level 5 under that umbrella should that get promoted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 Nomination done. -- ZooBlazer 05:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Unused episode reference lists

Are unused episode reference lists such as those at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters#Season 1 a valid usage? When a normal reference is unused it will throw an error "ref is not used in the content" and be placed in an error category. Using them this way bypasses this check. Additionally, we end up with a situation where have duplicate references (such as to "One of Us"). I think we should comment out the unused list so any future use is already ready, but when used, they should be added to the normal reference list. Gonnym (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If I recall, for that list specifically, the episode refs were included to just have a "general" citation on the list to claim that it could source info for characters if third party ones weren't available. Obviously, adding those tapered off at some point, so I don't really know if they are worthwhile on the whole to include. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea was we could have unsourced character details (which people kept adding anyway) and they would be covered because all the episodes were referenced. Ideally, we would go through and make sure there were reliable third-party sources for all information in the article and then we wouldn't need those general references. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how these are helpful though. If the point is just throw a general source that isn't easily verifiable or helpful, then lets just give the series as a a source. A reader wanting to confirm a specific detail and has a list of 100 episodes that one of them -might- have the information, realistically won't find it. Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool

Yesterday, @Gonnym went through a bunch of articles, files, and redirects related to Deadpool and Deadpool 2 and tagged them with |mcu=yes. I was halfway through reverting them but stopped when they began re-reverting. You can see the subsequent discussion here. We currently do not regard Deadpool and Deadpool 2 as part of the MCU on any of our articles, including List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and neither does Deadpool (film) nor Deadpool 2.

I'm fairly certain we've discussed this before with multiversal films in general, but I guess this is trickier since Deadpool 3 is a direct sequel to the previous films. But even then, I don't think we can treat them as MCU because from a real-world perspective, they were still produced by a different studio and set in a different franchise. That Disney has decided to keep the same actor for Deadpool as they have done with several other characters (for fan-service/$$$ reasons) does not change this or make the previous two films canon. Gonnym, however, believes that Deadpool 3 connects to the MCU [so] it does mean that Deadpool 1 and 2 belong to the MCU. They also argue that |mcu=yes doesn't necessarily mean it's MCU, but I'll note that we don't tag any of the SSU films, or the X-Men films, or even other articles tangentially related to the MCU like Walt Disney Studios (division) and Marvel Comics. Thoughts?

InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed these as well and already commented at that talk, though I'll reiterate some of my concerns here. It seems that what is defined as the scope of the MCU taskforce has been perceived to be ambiguous with several tagging in the logs lately for articles only remotely related to the MCU (which I don't think is the best practice), especially when it comes to adding it for films clearly not part of the franchise. If notifying the taskforce of article alerts is a concern, those can be done through tagging them with {{WikiProject Comics}} with |marvel=yes and through WP:FILM discussions that many of us are also on. Deadpool 3 was never an official title so one could argue that Deadpool & Wolverine is somewhat separate from the prior films, though it cannot be argued that it being in the MCU would make the prior films (let alone other X-Men films) worthy of the MCU tag. We don't (and shouldn't) do that for the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man films, Elektra, the Venom films, or any appearance of Charles Xavier. Same with X-Men '97. The comics articles don't and shouldn't use the MCU tags. Making an exception for the prior Deadpool films seems unnecessary and counterintuitive. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that one of the main reasons Disney insisted on not calling it "Deadpool 3" was likely to convey that it is its own thing. Same faces, presumably loads of references and Easter eggs, but different characters and continuities from a real-world perspective. They already did this with Professor X in a yellow wheelchair and a different-looking Beast who knows Maria Rambeau (same case for DC with Michael Keaton's Batman, who has the same Batmobile and the same catchphrases, but evidently a different character). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with InfiniteNexus, having a sequel in the MCU doesn't mean they're connected enough for the tag, should be a more explicit connection for the tag. Maguire's Spider-Man 1 and Garfield's The Amazing Spider-Man are more connected from their appearances in No Way Home but aren't and shouldn't be tagged. Indagate (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I was getting to the content table and saw these adds after glancing at this discussion. I've removed the remaining Deadpool-related articles from being tagged. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed any other mcu tags that remained on the articles and tagged them all with more appropriate ones per my suggestions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote Discussion

Hello all! After some editing at Thor: Love and Thunder regarding the use of a hatnote for Marvel Studios: Assembled in its "Documentary special" section, there is now a whole discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnote overuse? regarding this and an alleged "overuse" of this, which would benefit from the perspectives of other contributors here, given we strive to keep our articles consistent. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agatha All Along

Thanks to those helping out with the clean-up after this name change, and thanks to everyone here for their continued good work across the MCU articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks adam, and right back at you! It's good to have you back helping out with the cleanups lately. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

X-Men '97

There is a discussion at Talk:X-Men '97#Inclusion in the Disney+ Multiverse Saga row that is relevant to this taskforce. This show is not set in the MCU, but Disney+ is listing it as part of the MCU's multiverse so it may be that we should be treating it the same way that we treat other multiverse shows like What If...? and Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

MTV News sources

I've made this post at both WT:FILM and WT:TV but MTV News articles have been pulled offline, with it also noted that some of them are not even accessible in the Wayback Machine. I know that some of the early MCU films have sources from them (I want to say probably into the early Phase Three films?) so if there is a way we can possible gather all the articles using the site and ensure they have working archives (plus mark them as dead) that'd be great. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is being worked upon per this. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Features Split Notice

Hello all! There is currently a discussion proposing a split of the Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe list, in which more input would be greatly appreciated. I have outlined a rough counter-proposal to better manage this list and avoid a full split: The discussion can be found here: Talk:Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe § Propose Split. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

New "Marvel Television"

[1] [2] Things just got trickier. Unlike Marvel Animation (which ended with no clear resolution), we don't have a separate article for the "new" Marvel Television. Unless such an article is created (not fan of this idea though), the old Marvel Television is the primary topic, but a redirect should be created for the new branding/division or Marvel Studios links should be piped as [[Marvel Studios|Marvel Television]]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article should be made either, and I will note I don't think we know if this is an actual new unit or if it is just Marvel Studios repurposing the name as a production banner that has been a possibility since it was folded years ago. We should probably add about the name being repurposed by Marvel Studios in the Marvel Television#Studios label section which would also point to the Marvel Studios article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This should definitely be treated like Marvel Studios reclaiming the "Marvel Television" brand and not the old Marvel Television entity returning. I think we just need to say "As of X, Marvel Studios began using the name Marvel Television with its series projects" or something like that. Any links should go to the Marvel Studios page rather than the Marvel Television page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess the thing that will be the most tricky will be what to do with section headers and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors. Personally, I would say "do nothing" and clarify through hatnotes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur. For years, Marvel Television has referred to the company launched in 2010 and their series. I don't think anything needs to be changed drastically anytime soon, given the WP:RECENTISM of it all. Trailblazer101 (talk) Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have created two DABs to help aid in navigation: Marvel Television (disambiguation) and Marvel Animation (disambiguation). Given there was no real contention to one for the Animation being made, I also felt it best to have one for the TV side. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If this ends up being the same as X-Men '97, which says "Marvel Animation" in the logo but "Marvel Studios" in the main credits, then we could go with "produced by Marvel Studios as Marvel Television" or "produced by Marvel Studios' Marvel Television" or something like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that we could go with something to the effect of "produced by the Marvel Television label of Marvel Studios" or "by Marvel Studios via the Marvel Television label" if this ends up being the case. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have tried out some updated wording at X-Men '97: "produced by Marvel Studios, via its Marvel Animation label". Thoughts? I'm also questioning whether we should be listing "Marvel Animation" as the production company in the infobox. I've just watched through the X-Men '97 credits and it only lists Marvel Studios all the way through, including in the final logo which is what we usually base production company credits on. The only place that "Marvel Animation" is used is in the opening logo, so it feels to me that we should be treating "Marvel Animation" as a division of Marvel Studios whose name is used for marketing purposes rather than as a separate production studio. The same will probably apply for new series with the "Marvel Television" label. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I like that approach. It does seem increasingly likely that “Marvel Animation” and “Marvel Television” are labels. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, just in case anyone was wondering, I found a proper version of the logo and uploaded it to Commons here. I do also want to re-address the other Marvel Television logo that has been used in the past. I know it was removed, despite being on Commons, because it wasn't clear if it was used in any official capacity.

However, in the name of providing a visual distinction between the two, I did a little digging and found that while that Commons file was uploaded in June 2016 without an immediately clear point of origin, I did find the earliest use of this is in a ComicBook article about Marvel TV's SDCC schedule from June 2015, leading me to believe it was sent to the site via a press release. It has also been used by IGN, CBR in 2018, and in 2019 by CBR again and Gizmodo.

There's also this logo, which has its earliest use dating back to Sep. 2017 from Flickering Myth, or a more standard logo used for the auctions here, here, and here. I'm just putting this all here to see what we want to do (if anything) now that there are two different subjects of this name and it may be better to have more distinct visual identification for them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's tricky to tell since they only used the standard "Marvel" logo for the TV show logos, but either of those would help differentiate from the Marvel Studios logo style. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Winderbaum says in this interview that "Marvel Studios, Marvel Television, Marvel Animation, even Marvel Spotlight" are different brand labels that are being used to indicate that audiences don't need to watch everything Marvel produces, so I think we are right to treat Marvel Animation and Marvel Television similarly to the Marvel Spotlight banner and still use Marvel Studios as the actual production company behind each project. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding on to this is an interview with Feige confirming that Marvel Television and Animation still come under Marvel Studios in a way that the old Marvel Television didn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Added that to the Marvel Television draft here and Animation article here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Production draft for Doomsday and Secret Wars

A while back I started a draft for a production article for what was then Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars, but it was obviously far too early to know if it would be necessary. Now, I'm wondering if it is worth starting a new draft now that it appears the movies are closely tied together, with Doomsday sounding like it is essentially a set up for Secret Wars/Doom, characters, and obviously the Russos, Stephen McFeely/Michael Waldron, and Alan Silvestri all tied to both. Or is it still too early to know if it is necessary?

I'm not sure what the deciding factor for IW/Endgame's production article originally was, unless it was made around the time when they were Infinity War part 1 and 2. Which is why I figured I'd bring this up here before committing to starting the draft. -- ZooBlazer 03:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The contents of that prior draft were moved to RebelYasha's sandbox here, where they have done more work on it. I know from some Production Weekly listings that they will film back-to-back with a planned 4-month break in-between those scheduled shoots, though I'm not sure if there is enough production information for the both of them to warrant reviving this draft anytime soon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know RebelYasha had info put together already. -- ZooBlazer 04:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe we created the IW/Endgame production article when those two films were being produced back-to-back. They ended up not being quite as joined as we thought, but it always made sense to keep the combined production article. It looks like a similar situation could be happening here, and this article talks about filming Doomsday/SW together in some form, but I don't know if that is enough to go ahead with a combined production article just yet. At the moment there is a lot of shared content between the two articles, but that won't necessarily always be the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I actually think that Avengers: The Kang Dynasty should be its own article. It is highly notable as a cancelled project, with a substantial history that is or will be only tertiary to Avengers: Doomsday. BD2412 T 18:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be a pretty short article considering all the details for it fit in the existing development section at Draft:Avengers: Doomsday. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think just keeping the info on the Doomsday article is fine. -- ZooBlazer 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I had a feeling that a dual production article could also be helpful again, if it comes out that there is a concerted overlap between the two and hopes to do similar "back-to-back" filming as with IW and Endgame. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Compare Gambit (unproduced film). BD2412 T 21:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Except in this case some of the plot points probably still carry over to Doomsday, so it isn't a fully unproduced movie like Gambit. -- ZooBlazer 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Should a joint production document get created, I feel the Kang Dynasty development stuff should largely stay at that article, and then the "split"/concise summary start from July 2024 on with the announce of the shift to it becoming Doomsday and the Russos joining. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have put together an updated draft of this potential article in my sandbox, User:Adamstom.97/sandbox/4, which is in sync with the two drafts that we currently have. It is mostly just the Doomsday draft with a few missing things from the Secret Wars draft added in, and I gave it all a c/e to make sure it still flows. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we greatly condense the "Announcement as The Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars" and "Firing of Jonathan Majors and creative shifts" sections for this production article into the "Background" section, so the vast majority of it stays on the Doomsday article (where it's largely most applicable) and then start the "true" unification with the Russos stuff under "New work as Doomsday and Secret Wars". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahh I misunderstood your last comment, but I think I'm happy with us doing that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking good! Much better than what I had. -- ZooBlazer 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I like the work done on this! Nice job. I also agree with Favre's comments, considering we will receive much more production information on the current iterations. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)