Talk:Marvel One-Shots

Item 47 synopsis corrections

IP edits sometimes get automatically reverted, so in case that happens, the synopsis for Item 47 contained several fundamental errors that didn't actually reflect the plot, so I revised accordingly (i.e. only one agent assigned to find the couple, and the agent ordered to kill them). 70.72.211.35 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Agent Carter will be released..."

This is technically inaccurate in Japan and probably a few other territories, where the Blu-Ray of Iron Man 3 is already out (my pre-ordered copy arrived from Amazon a few hours ago). What's the right protocol here? Should we add a sentence after saying it has already been released in certain territories? Or before? My Blu-Ray isn't technically a reliable source for either statement, though ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviews to possibly use

• http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/08/29/first-impression-thor-3d-blu-ray-special-features The Consultant (note: look for main film Blu-ray reviews for these!)
• http://www.craveonline.com/film/reviews/192191-comic-con-2012-review-marvel-one-shots-item-47 Item 47
• http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/20/comic-con-we-have-seen-agent-carter-the-new-marvel-one-shot-and-it-rules Agent Carter
• http://www.totalfilm.com/news/marvel-s-agent-carter-one-shot-comic-con-2013-reaction Agent Carter (bottom paragraph)
• http://www.craveonline.com/comics/reviews/538805-marvels-agent-carter-one-shot-a-happy-ending-and-a-new-beginning#/slide/1 Agent Carter

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I wish we had more reputable sources but they are few and far between.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. But like I said for the first one, if you can find Blu-ray reviews, those might have a sentence or two to use. I hope that as they are becoming more prominent, they start getting individual reviews. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I did :) --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! Haha. I'm working a bit elsewhere at the moment, but will get back to the clean up I started yesterday. What format do you want for each film section? I was thinking Paragraph 1: Release date, production team and cast, any production info/quotes. Paragraph 2: Plot (with the beginning trying to place where the shorts take place relative to the films). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Leythum"

Shouldn't it be explained what that is ? It's mentioned several times in the article, but nothing explains what Leythum is. 213.47.30.218 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Leythum is the director of The Consultant and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's Hammer.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps a link/ref to Leythum credited elsewhere would further explain this to the general reader(?).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

This page is about all of the Marvel One-Shots, not just Item 47, so is there a different image we could use for the info box? A logo for the series of shorts would be nice, but i don't know if there is an official one or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the best one at the moment, and is noted as such that it is not representative of the whole article, below the image. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Marvel Studios has official resolved this issue by releasing an official logo for the One-Shots via Disney+.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Team Thor?

Since the "Team Thor" mockumentary is included in the Captain America: Civil War Blu-Ray, should that count as a one-shot? Even if it is rather obviously non-canon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.242.205 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not unless it is actually called a Marvel One-Shot. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Team Thor series will never count as Marvel one shotsMarvelssecretsource (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)marvelsecretsource

I kinda feel it could work here mostly since it really doesn’t fit anywhere else. At least unlike the to-do list thing with Far From Home it made much more sense to not add since it was just a deleted scene. This was a different project from any movies. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is now resolved, and Marvel Studios officially considers Team Thor as Marvel-One Shots.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

TV notes

In the table of characters, Felix Blake has a note that says he also appears in television. Should we not also do this for characters like Peggy Carter and Phil Coulson? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The notes here are just for the characters introduced in One-Shots, not for any character introduced elsewhere. The idea is that we have the link to the film list, so you can go look for more info on the characters there. At that page, readers will see all the places they can find the characters in the MCU. Likewise, we don't have a One-Shot note by Blake at the TV list. Readers would see him there, come to this page, and then learn that he has only been here and on TV. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

But that's because Blake is listed under the Introduced in the One-Shots section. I understand we don't have an OS note for characters like Peggy Carter and Phil Coulson on the TV pages either, but perhaps we should? It'd be more comprehensive. So you don't have to go to the films page to see when characters that appear in the One-Shots also appear in Television. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought we decided not to repeat all the little notes everywhere. When a character is appearing here after being introduced in a film, the important thing is that they are crossing over, and only discussing other appearances in a single place keeps it all clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why should we accept ridiculous redundancies just because some lay/industrial people do?

Someone tried to get me to believe that just because the logical redundancy "digital download"—which is a redundancy because it's like saying "digital digital acquisition of data from an outside system," etc.—supposedly shouldn't be corrected to just "download" simply because it's a "widely accepted term." My concerns against this awkward rationale are:

1. There is a lot of things that are widely accepted, but that doesn't make them correct, such as that so many people confuse "you're" as "your."
2. We've been fine with correcting other silly redundancies, whether they are direct or merely implied, such as "DVD and video," which the movie industry liked making the mistake of using a lot; or the common mistakes made with abbreviations, such as "PIN number," etc. So why shouldn't we correct this one too?
3. The word "download" by itself is already understood even by lay people. Why should they need to be coddled by adding "digital" to it just because it's another term or phrase that the movie production industry likes to make the mistake of using a lot?
4. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias aren't venues that bend to accepting the common mistakes of the general public. So why should this redundancy be any exception to that?

Based on the above points of sensible logic, can we restore more order to this article by restoring the edits that eliminated the senselessly unnecessary redundancies of "digital download" to just "download," since again, all downloads already are digital? Be Your Own Hero (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer just "download". It's simpler and less rankling to language lovers. I don't see any advantage that "digital download" has over "download" for a Wikipedia article. It just seems to be a marketing term. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bryan, A.K.A. "Giraffedata," for being another person here who like to help the place make better sense! Okay, great! So do you know of some other editors who might like to discuss this same point accordingly? (Right now, as far as I can see—at least "vocally" (heh, outspokenly in text)—there isn't a consensus in either direction. So you and I as a sense-making team need some help! Do you think you can find us another person or two to join our sense-making team?

Also, I've done my best to find articles that use this duncy (non-)term "digital download," and only found this one and just a handful of others. But will you go on a hunt with me for yet more articles that pander to this error so we can clean them up?

Thanks! Be Your Own Hero (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not an error, it's what they are called. We go from reliable sources and the commonly used term, not what "language lovers" want. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh, it's not about being "language lovers" (which, by the way, I'm not one of). It is an error, because the word download, by definition, already means "digital" something. So it's an error of redundancy. Just because a source says something in a certain dumbed down and incorrect way doesn't mean WP:COMMON sense tells us that we have to say it that way in order to be correct and understood. Can we ever get an analog download? NO, because downloading something is to acquire it by way of electronic remote transmission in the form of a digital signal.

Have you ever once met anyone—even the dumbest person you've ever talked to—who, when you suggest that they download a certain song, movie, photo, or book, etc., didn't understand what you meant when you said just "download"? Like maybe they said, "Huh, what? 'Download'? I don't get it. What do you mean?" And then have you ever had to dumb it down for them by wronging yourself, saying, "Uh, 'digital download'"? And then did that dumb person say, "OHHH! A 'digital download'! Ohh yeah, I got it now! Okay, thanks!"? No, I highly doubt you've ever met anyone who knew what a so-erroneously-called "digital download" is who didn't also know what the correct term of just a download is. Therefore, we, as an encyclopedia, do not need to pander to the lay folk just because the industry insults their intelligence by thinking they need to do it.

Be Your Own Hero (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't get the language for Wikipedia from reliable sources. We get the facts from there, and then explain them in our own voice. We do get commonly used proper names from reliable sources, but descriptive phrases for things like downloads we choose based on our own understanding of what works best for our readers. Heck, our reliable sources don't even have to be in English.

By the way, only language lovers care about language errors. If you don't care about language, it doesn't bother you to read, "I could of done it" or "I could care less." They're both perfectly understandable; only a love of language would make you cringe and work to fix it.

And I think it's a waste of time to try to identify errors in English, because there isn't any official specification of the language and it's easier just to talk about better and worse phrasing than correct and incorrect. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Giraffedata, a.k.a. Bryan, thanks for your reply to Adamstom.97 and me. Your first point—that about not getting the language for Wikipedia from sources; just the information—is spot-on! I probably couldn't have thought of a better way to convey your first paragraph in your latest reply than how you just did it! Thank you very much!

As for only language lovers caring about language errors, I'm not so sure that's true. How about people who just want sensible logic to be in place? What I mean by that I'm not really a language lover is that I don't really have the patience to learn other languages or to study them, or even English, in much depth. So while I'm not a lover that way, what I am is someone who likes to make sure that things make at least logical sense. And things like "I could of done it," "I could care less," and "What else is new" shouldn't be "perfectly understandable," simply because what they say literally do not make sense. So if a moron says "I could of done it," I ask them what they mean by that "of" there. Or if someone says "I could care less" (instead of the phrase that means they can't go any lower in how much they care, "I couldn't care less"), I say, "Oh, so at least you do care a little!" And then if a moron asks, "What else is new?" when they probably meant "What's new?" then I might say to them something like, "Well, I don't know, because you haven't even told me what the first new thing you're trying to talk about is."

Also, yes, there are actually official specifications of language: they're written in grammar books and dictionaries. For example, the word "you're" will never take on a possessive form, simply because there's a hard-and-fast rule that it means the short form of "you are;" just like the word "your" will never be the correct way to contract "you are," simply because it has been and always will be reserved as the possessive form of "you."

So now that we have those things straightened out, and now that you've made such a beautiful point about language usage vs. fact-gathering from sources, would you like to go ahead and have the honor of being the one of us two who restores my edits that you agreed with?

Be Your Own Hero (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to plain "download".

I wouldn't call grammar books and dictionaries official. They can be for specific purposes (like a dictionary that is the official dictionary of a scrabble game or a style manual that is the official style guide of a newspaper), but to call it an official specification of English, it would have to be a widely recognized international standard or something like that. There isn't even any country that defines English as its official language and has a detailed specification of what language that is.

And, finally, either I have never heard "what else is new?" used incorrectly, or you haven't. It's normally sarcastic, which means it does say the opposite of what the speaker means. "He's late for work? What else is new?" That means, "I appreciate that news, do you have any more like it," and that, as sarcasm, means, "That isn't news at all because he's always late for work. You're wasting my time telling me." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Giraffedata Bryan, for supporting my edits there, including helping to restore them.

Dictionaries, grammar books and their sources, and school teachers of English as the native language are the most official things we have, I guess. No English teacher in their right mind will dispute such elementary things as "your/you're," "there/their/they're," "to/too/two," and where apostrophes belong and don't, etc. Neither do the dictionaries and grammar books. So by extension, sentences made from those words that are defined shouldn't be disputed by those teachers either. As for the logic that's attempted from there, don't forms of language classes that build on the knowledge from the basic language classes go into the logic behind certain phrases? I don't know what other kind of official educational setting would teach logical things except maybe psychology, but then those classes go more into how to train people and animals, and all that stuff. But somewhere there has to be some basic sets of logic that should make everyone say, "Oh, DUH, yeah!" One example being "I couldN'T care less."

As for the phrase "What's new?" the reason that's actually the logically correct phrase over "What else is new?" is that the idea is that what person 1 just said before person 2 asks that is that what person 1 said is not new. It's not sarcasm; it's actually implication. It's like saying, "Hmmm! Well tell me something I don't know!" or "Tell me something that's new, 'coz that sure ain't!" etc. So "He's late for work," being followed by the question "What's new?" implies the idea that the guy being late for work is nothing new; it happens a lot, and thus should not be surprising to a:nyone who's been around him for a little while.

Anyway, thanks again, and let's keep in touch, because we may want to collaborate on other editing projects. Huh? Be Your Own Hero (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with these changes. First, it gets rid of the digital distribution link in the lead - no reason to do that. Second for the remaining changes, once again, there is no issue with "digital download", especially since (as stated repeatedly), it is a common term for the film industry and one that readers should not have any issue with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

From our own sources in the article: [1] "Own Captain America On Blu-ray, DVD, & Digital Download Now". We shouldn't be unnecessarily deviating from the terminology. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, though, Favre1fan93, the good reason to replace "digital download" with just "download" is because of what I already explained. Did you not read it before? What part of "the word 'download' _already means_ 'digital' (something)" don't you understand? So the reason to replace it isn't because "readers would have a problem with it," but because it's erroneous language due to it being that kind of redundancy.

Also again, what part of "the industry also used redundant terminology like 'DVD and video', but we don't lean towards that" don't you understand either? Since DVDs are videos, it's redundant to say "DVD and video," in nearly the same way as "digital download" is redundant because of what just "download" means. So if we would not bow down to that redundancy just because it was "common in the industry," why should we do it with this, especially since the readers would be fine with just "download" just as the would be with replacing the erroneous "DVD and video" that they used to say with either "home video" (because that covers both DVD and VHS and others) or the more specific "DVD and VHS" that the smart ones used to say when VHS was still being offered?

Of course we don't change it in the reference, because it's been a rule that we aren't allowed to do that to reference titles even if they are worded wrong, or I would do so.

Why is it that you're acting like what you say is supposedly "more of an authority" over what the consensus that GiraffeData and I have built already says, including everything he has already explained about how the sources do NOT dictate how we say things, but only the information we give?

The reason "digital distribution" is also incorrect, at least as compared against DVDs and Blu-ray Discs is that they _are_ digital. So to say that is like saying "digital and digital," or it's like saying that those discs "aren't digital" even though they are.

Bryan and I have already generated a consensus on this and he has already explained to you why your belief doesn't hold the water of supposed wikipedia authority.

Be Your Own Hero (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion of "digital download" vs "download" is going in circles - Favre1fan93 argued that the article should use the same terminology as the source, Be Your Own Hero and Giraffedata considered and rebutted that, opining that simplicity and logic are more important than copying the terminology of a source. Then Favre1fan93 repeated the same argument about using the terminology of the source and Be Your Own Hero repeated the same rebuttal. I'm not going to continue the cycle; I'm just going to point out that this part of the discussion is done, unless someone wants to expand it with other participants.

By the way, saying "there is no issue" just complicates the discussion, since there's clearly an issue or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Moving on to other points, I don't agree with removing the link to the digital distribution article. Regardless of what we call digital distribution, there's an article about it and it should be referenced.

I don't find "digital distribution release" to be annoyingly redundant like "digital download" because "digital" has come to just mean by computer or disembodied information. So non-engineers would not think of shipping DVDs as distributing digitally. But beating the simplicity drum again, I believe "download" says what we want to say much more simply than "digital distribution release". Like "digital download", the latter is not only more syllables, but it comes off as marketing obfuscation, which tends to irritate people. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hayley Atwell by Gage Skidmore.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A new Marvel one shot featuring Korg and Miek

Marvel Studios president Kevin feige says that they are going to do another Marvel one shot featuring Thors friends Korg and Meik (Introduced in Thor Ragnarok) but he dosnt know when they can at all.Marvelssecretsource (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)marvelsecretsource

Do you have a source for this? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

New short

Though this likely doesn't fall under the 'Marvel One-Shots' banner, a new short film is being released with the home release of Spider-Man: Far From Home. The short is evidently going to be called "Peter's To-Do-List". This should be listed somewhere, though I do not know if it would be considered a One-Shot.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Attention @Adamstom.97:, @Favre1fan93:, @TriiipleThreat:, @Corvoe: -- any thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a one shot, nor a "short". It's deleted film scenes packaged and marketed as such for the home media release. It's just a long sequence that happened to be cut from the theatrical release. It was not created as a short like the One-Shots or the Thor mockumentaries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this should just stay as a mention in the home media section of the film article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:1107:C401:74D2:7626:A9B8:977F: has been adding information and links regarding this short film to the article (and to my talk page). Pinging the user here so that they can see the consensus on this. Hog Farm (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

REVISITING: Though it seems this is accurate, given it wasn't developed as a Marvel One-Shot, I would argue that it should be listed under the "Short films" section of the main MCU page. Because Marvel Studios (jointly with Sony Pictures) decided to co-market the extended deleted scene as an "all new short"... shouldn't the main article also reflect this? Pinging: @Adamstom.97:, @TriiipleThreat:, @Corvoe:, @Hog Farm:. Thoughts, m8s?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Most reliable sources refer to it as a short film as well. Being made up of deleted scenes doesn't prevent it from being a short film, if the footage was repurposed that way. El Millo (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC) I hadn't checked that that section refers to just the One-Shots. El Millo (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Still no. Nothing has changed from a year ago when you started this discussion. What it is (deleted scenes) and what it was marketed as (a "short") are completely different things. We need to follow what it is, not what it is marketed as. At the end of the day, it's still just deleted scenes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Favre, the scope of this article is limited to "Marvel One-Shots", not all short format films produced by Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And to again state, the only other "shorts" from Marvel Studios outside the One-Shots are the Team Thor. And since those are mockumentaries, they are noted properly in the Outside media section at the main MCU article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

AGAIN: Pinging: @Adamstom.97:, @TriiipleThreat:}, @Hog Farm:, @Favre1fan93:, @Facu-el Millo: - Favre1fan93 previously stated that the "Team Thor" shorts are not a part of the mainline MCU. Marvel/Disney effectively incorporated the shorts into said franchise this last week by making them official Marvel One-Shots, via their addition to Disney+ as such. TriiipleThreat and El Millo previously stated that only Marvel One-Shots are listed in the Short films section. This is also inaccurate, as the I am Groot series is now listed here. A more accurate representation of MCU short films, would be to have a section "Short films", with sub-sections including: "Marvel One-shots", I am Groot, AND for lack of a better term 'other shorts'. The exact wording should be sorted out, but the fact that Marvel Studios chose to release a deleted scene - later on as a short film does not negate the fact that it is a short film. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting. Do you want to add "Peter's To-Do-List" to this article? Because I don't think anything has changed on that front. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential new logo

In the US, Disney+ added All Hail the King today, and as its own title to boot (Agent Carter is there, under Iron Man 3's "Extras" tab). With it, they have logo for the film with a new One-Shots logo above it, seen here. If this was edited to extract the "Marvel Studios" and "One Shots" logo cleanly, should we use it here? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should, especially since I believe the current logo is unofficial (correct me if I'm wrong). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We were confident with the current logo at the time, but this definitely seems like a better option to me if we can extract it cleanly. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this logo seems to be a more suitable choice. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have Photoshop or anything high end, but I do have some photo editing software that might do the trick. Let me see what I can make happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I made and am adding in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded a cleaner version made with Photoshop. Would you prefer it some other way than with the grey background? Perhaps with no background and a slight shadow? Or maybe a black background? —El Millo (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Awesome, thank you! I was actually just thinking, we should probably remove the grey background, then "invert" the white "Studio" text and what's white in the "One Shot" to black. Then it'll would be better. Does that make sense? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. —El Millo (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. —El Millo (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks perfect! I'm also going to readd the old logo in the development section, because it was what was used on the Agent Carter and AHTK posters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Team Thor

Disney+ now considers Team Thor: Part 1, Team Thor: Part 2, and Team Darryl One-Shots. Should we do the same here? I'm thinking yes, but we should make note of the fact that this was declared retroactively. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the two articles should become one. But a distinction should be made of a) their retroactive inclusion, and b) that Disney+ does not consider them canonical to the MCU. Mitchy Power (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try and add in some info here about Team Thor, but I think having the article separate works, and we can summarize those films here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

See what everyone thinks of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this approach too. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we make the tables one? That's the only other thing I can think might be useful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I could go either way I think, I don't mind having it separate since we are just including it retroactively. Maybe if we were to get more One-Shots in the future it would make sense to keep everything together? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I combined the tables. The fact that they were developed, and now are retroactively Marvel One-Shots is irrelevant. All Marvel One-Shots should be listed as such. I also agree that the "Team Thor" article should be combined into the Marvel One-Shots article. Having two separate articles is overkill.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

yeah add the team thor short films here as it's considered a one shot also it's basically in the mcu but in a different universe like they're tied in the same time XTRM XPRT KILR (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)