This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: Marvel Cinematic Universe This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. Television: Marvel Cinematic Universe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force.

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Moved from Template talk:Series overview § Increasing column width

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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