Talk:Marvel Studios: Assembled

Assembled and Legends Images

As Assembled has now released, I'm sure this article will be getting improvements and expansions based on the contents of it. I have already added some of the basic credits from the first special. I was wondering if we should replace the image for Assembled with the logo used during the series intro as we did for WandaVision upon its release, and if we should do the same for Marvel Studios: Legends. I'm not experienced in image uploads, so I thought this should be addressed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Potentially. I have yet to watch the WandaVision Assembled and can give thoughts after I do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: Okay, so here are my thoughts. The Legends image is the same as the title card in the episodes so that can stay as is. For Assembled, the one in this episode looked to be "WandaVision" centric, and I have a feeling the other ones will adjust colors etc. for what ever property it is talking about. We should keep the image we have since it's a good "neutral" one, with the only changes I would suggest would be a crop to remove the Disney+ info, and removing the line below the "S" to the "E". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, those are both fair assessments and I'm on board with them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted this logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Assembled → Marvel Studios: Assembled – Given the titling of the series by both Marvel and Disney+. The primary decision/support for this request is consistency with the related docuseries Marvel Studios: Legends, the article for which is based as its current location given the title of the series by, again, both Marvel and Disney+. To the casual reader, "Assembled" is very ambiguous to "Assemble", a disambiguation page, in the same way that "Legends" is ambiguous to "Legend". -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak support — Whereas it isn't strictly ambiguous on policy's terms, it is consistent with Marvel Studios: Legends and it would be beneficial to the reader, plus it seems to be the official name of the show, though not the WP:COMMONNAME. —El Millo (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - not primary, and this provides perfect natural disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 09:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support: per nom and El Millo. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I retract my prior stance as I still feel there isn't much pointing to why we should change the article title, especially since Assembled is what it is mainly known as, so I'll have to oppose this. Again, if it is determined on the talk at the Legends article that "Marvel Studios: Assembled" be mentioned (which it doesn't appear it will), then I'd say give this another shot. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As originally announced, the series is simply "Assembled" versus Legends which was announced as "Marvel Studios: Legends". In that case, "Marvel Studios: Legends" provides the natural dab for that series, but we can't make that claim here when "Marvel Studios" is not even part of the series name. Third party sources also call it "Assembled". I also don't see "Assembled" as being too close in name to "Assemble" to need any sort of disambiguation, but if that's what is determined Marvel Studios: Assembled isn't the article to move it to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Marvel Studios" is not even part of the series name? I've linked to Marvel and Disney sites that prove that it is; just because it wasn't announced as such, doesn't mean it's not now/currently titled as such. This party sources refer to "Marvel Studios: Legends" as "Legends"; should we retitle it? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  The Marvel source you've linked does not have "Marvel Studios Assembled" anywhere on its page. That then diminishes the Disney+ source in my view, when the the announcement article, third-party sources, and that Marvel source you linked all exclude "Marvel Studios". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  Browser tab: "Marvel Studios: Assembled (2021, TV Show)". -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Given the writing in article never actually uses "Marvel Studios: Assembled", I don't think we can claim the browser tab as supporting such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I think there is a decent argument to be made that "Assembled" should redirect to "Assemble" just like "Legends" redirects to "Legend", in which case "Marvel Studios: Assembled" would be natural disambiguation here since it is the official name listed on Disney+ according to Alex's link. I also think that "Assembled" is a vague, unclear name for this article. The sources we have may use it, but they are using it in the context of their readers already knowing what they are talking about. As far as us introducing this subject and being clear about what it is I think we would be better off to have the full title. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  True. In the instances where they refer to it as Assembled, they do so after calling it Marvel Studios: Assembled, the same way they'd refer to, e.g., Avengers: Age of Ultron as plainly Age of Ultron after its first occurrence. —El Millo (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  You do bring up a convincing point, Adam. It would be a proper disambiguation and is the full official title despite most sites simplifying it. Even Marvel simplifies it as they did for Legends, so I'm moving to support the move (and redirecting "Assembled" to "Assemble") and add the "Marvel Studios: Assembled" title to the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  If editors believe this needs to be better disambiguated, I can fully support such, with a move to Assembled (TV series). But I still can't support calling this "Marvel Studios: Assembled", when I've pointed out that it is not part of its name as announced, or used in third-party sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Except it is titled "Marvel Studios: Assembled", by both Disney and Marvel (yes, the tab counts, as it's just as important, if not more important than the rest of the article as an piece of identifying content). If the series was renamed before the second episode, would it still be titled as such as it's "not part of its name as announced"? The announcement is not the be-all-end-all. The title of "Marvel Studios: Assembled" is also indeed used in third-party sources. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviews?

I've been wondering for a while now if we could, or rather should, include reviews for this series in the article. As this is even more of an actual documentary series than Legends, I'm not too sure what reviews would be out there, or what would be helpful, and with a quick search I haven't found any reviews or commentary of the series' first episode from sources like Comicbook, /Film, Collider, ComingSoon, Rolling Stone, The Playlist, etc. I've found articles of theirs discussing the trailer and/or the poster, but nothing of the first episode or just general commentary about it after release. I think maybe after the Falcon and Winter Soldier special, there could be some commentary to pull from, but I'm not too sure. I know we don't have to have reviews and commentary for this, but it would be nice to have a grasp on the general reception of these specials. Maybe we'll have to wait until more are released later this year? Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I was searching after WandaVision's released, and like you said, there really wasn't much out there. But I agree, if anything does come out, we should add what we can. I just haven't seen it yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: Hey, I feel like some of the info you have added to the background section is more appropriate for the review section. What criteria were you using to make that split? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I determined any statements regarding the general possibilities of Assembled from its announcement (LRM, GameSpot) and the small bit from Game Informer were more so commentary on what it is and could offer, while the reviews would be commentary directly reflecting on the specials. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that stuff could also go in the reception section with a note that it came from the initial announcement and then another note before the rest of the content about it being for the specials themselves. I'm just concerned that the background section has more speculation in it than actual background details. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've done another round of c/e-ing to try and make the pre-release commentary sound less speculative and be more of a general overview of what Assembled is. My thought process is as this is mainly just about what the docuseries is, it doesn't really need to be in the reception section, but I am not opposed to that if need be. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It's looking better to me now. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Unofficial section template

I feel like the sections on the MCU shows and movies are becoming more about the series itself instead of the individual episode the sections are supposed to be about. Like, is every show going to have to go back to the announcement? Here's a reword I tried at Moon Knight. I'm thinking WandaVision's can remain the same, but to insist on it being the framework of a template feels a little much--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

We can't assume that someone reading the Moon Knight article has read all of the other MCU series articles and already knows what the documentary series is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

She-Hulk finale

We should probably at least give the She-Hulk finale a mention on this page, perhaps in an In other media section. Or is that too trivial? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's trivial. Because in the finale, she's just entering She-Hulk's Assembled episode so it's more or less circular logic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree it seems more trivial than necessary. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Suit-kovia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Suit-kovia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6 § Suit-kovia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Increasing series overview column width

Moved from Template talk:Series overview § Increasing column width

 – See that talk page for original attribution. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to increase the column width? Specifically, Marvel Studios: Assembled#Specials has a very cramped "Season" column. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: |width= does exist. I've implemented there with a number that looked like a small increase for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That actually made it even more cramped on my end, but I take it you have one of those massive Mac screens. I've upped the number to 50%, let me know if that works for you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, 15" Macbook Pro for me. It's definitely not cramped, but it does look a little "wide" now for the other columns. How would 45% look to you, split the difference? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, 45 works. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The series overview table at that article should realistically be updated. There aren't two separate seasons (the infobox only lists one season), which makes the "Season" header redundant, so that particular column should probably use |seasonT=Phase. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense so I have made that change. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that, though, is we have already another column called Phase covered, where the links lead to the actual Phase Four and Five articles. The Season/Phase column, however, links to the sections below. That could potentially create confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus, Trailblazer101, and Alex 21: I have moved these comments to this talk page. I feel the overview table should look as follows to avoid some of the repetition:

Season	Phase covered	Episodes		Originally released
				First released	Last released
1	Four	14		March 12, 2021 (2021-03-12)	February 8, 2023 (2023-02-08)
2	Five	1		July 19, 2023 (2023-07-19)	TBA

Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this can be confusing. I think the current issue is that Assembled has not used the "season" term unlike Legends, hence dividing them up by Phases as each special releases individually (come to think of it, the external D+ link is dead). I think using "season" anywhere in the article (infobox and series overview) is misleading, and we should be using |num_specials= instead for the infobox. I'm thinking we use the Phase name for the column, link to the section, and have the section link to the Phase articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding onto that, I think we should do away with "episodes" entirely. I've started experimenting with a mockup of what I'm thinking the changes to the infobox and overview look like in my sandbox. Though {{Series overview}} lists |episodes= as optional, it still forces it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to paste something similar. I think, without changing the overview template, we can get by with just using the "episodes" heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to implement an option to hide episodes from the overview? I know there's the "hide" option for |episodesA with split seasons. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Or is it possible to add an equivilent of the |seasonT= used to display the Phases as an |episodesT=? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Those would be questions for Alex 21. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Implemented |episodesT=. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made the change. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party (I've been away for a few days), but I agree with this change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Phases

Should we divide the soecials into phases? I mean, X-Men '97 isn't even an MCU project. BestDaysofMusic (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is still the easiest way to divide this. And X-Men '97 is releasing during this phase, even if it isn't set within the MCU (or its larger multiverse that we know of yet). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

While I still think we may need a more concrete source to place X-Men '97 in Phase Five, we do have enough evidence that it is part of the MCU multiverse and the Multiverse Saga, as discussed at Talk:X-Men '97#Inclusion in the Disney+ Multiverse Saga row. Perhaps we may need to reconsider how we incorporate these specials? I don't think retaining X-Men '97 in Phase Five is the best course of action, though I'm not quite a fan of how the article is currently handling it, either. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the new approach is not ideal, makes it unnecessarily complicated. I support going back to how it was before though I agree that it would be good to have a source that places X-Men '97 in Phase Five. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have restored it for the time being. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)