Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Draft:Marvel's Disney+ series

There seems to be a draft at Draft:Marvel's Disney+ series. Do we really need this? -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that is very underdeveloped as we already have all the necessary information about them is covered on this page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also an unnecessary duplication of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Marvel Studios, and as Trailblazer said, the content here (and what will also be done at future Phase articles). I'm going to nominate it for deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Marvel's Disney+ series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Release schedule

The article is currently divided between films and TV series, which is understandable. But I think we should include a merged Wikipedia sortable. Since the TV series are just as integral to the phase as the movies, it would be better if the release dates were in order. --Sricsi (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that would be very helpful given the films and television series have different formatting and contents in their respective tables, which in of themselves are different, and it would clog the tables more than is necessary. The reason why its listed the films then TV series is because the films are the main content of the MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"the films are the main content of the MCU."

I mean, Kevin Feige would beg to differ. --5.38.148.118 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

Due to the semi-protection I cannot edit the page. Could someone please remove Kirsten Dunst reprising her role as MJ from the Spider-Man 3 section as that is not confirmed by a reliable source yet. Only Alfred Molina is confirmed to reprise his role as Doc Ock so far. - MovieFella (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Collider is a reliable source. El Millo (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I have seen confirmation of Dunst's planned appearance in other sources as well. And IMHO, with all due respect to the individual who started this topic, you can't just remove sourced material based on a personal belief that the source from which the information is pulled is not reliable. Each individual can use their own personal metrics. But in practice, when it comes to Wikipedia, it a a group of editors forming a consensus that defines what is reliable and what is not when it comes to sourcing used in articles like this. MovieFella, if you are truly conscerned about whether or not Collider should be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, that would be a discussion point to take up at the MOS page for the relevant family of articles under which this article falls. And if you have specific information that proves it is not a reliable source, it's best to take that up at the talk page for the relevant project so that this issue, if it is a genuine issue, can be addressed on a proect-wide basis. So that would be my encouragement to you as far as pursuing further action. That being said, unless and until it is determined at the project level that Collider cannot and should not be accepted as a reliable source, then any information supported by Collider that is currently featured in Wikipedia articles such as this needs to stand. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: Given that the link to the actual 'Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel' page does not have Kirsten Dunst or Andrew Garfield in their cast list, I don't think it's appropriate to not have it in the official page but to have it in the abbreviated section for the Phase Four page. If you look at the actual talk page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Untitled_Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home_sequel#Garfield,_Dunst,_Maguire then you'll see they have reached the same conclusion as I have, that until a reliable trade production such as Deadline or the Hollywood Reporter confirms this news. MovieFella (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The consensus at that article is to not include Garfield or Dunst in the lead, infobox, billing, or prose, but to include the information of their involvements in the production section. There is no billing on this page, so the information about their involvements is treated here like it is in the production section at that article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Legends

Do we know that this series is going to be completely tied to Phase Four, or do the first two episodes just happen to line up with WandaVision? Will it still make sense to have a whole section and transcluded episode table here if they start doing episodes on Iron Man and Captain America? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the Marvel.com announcement (middle of the page under Marvel Studios: Legends): Each dynamic segment feeds directly into the upcoming series premiering on Disney+ — setting the stage for future events. (bolding mine) That refers to all the known Phase Four series and nothing at this time indicates it will be on anyone else. The prevailing internet theory (mine included) is our next episodes will be on Falcon and Winter Soldier on March 12, in that week between the WandaVision finale and premiere of FWS. So given nothing at this time suggests it will deviate to include non-Phase Four characters, I think it is okay at this time (and why I originally included it as a section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yep, makes sense. I hadn't really looked into it and assumed there would be more episodes coming before then. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

All good. It's possible we could get one for Black Widow ahead of the movie, but at least at the moment, it appears to be for content ahead of Disney+ series featuring returning characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Investors Day Order

I know we just had a discussion about what to move over to here after the Investors Day reveals and how we agreed not to include Blade in this per Feige's comments from last year. While I still feel that held up, I took a look at Disney's presentation guide (archive) of the Investors Day content and in the Marvel Studios section at pg. 12-15, they have a list of the upcoming content discussed at the event. Now, while this could just be in order of when Feige discussed them for the films and series, it may be the official release order of the phase. I don't want to sound so WP:CRYSTAL here, but it does appear that Marvel Studios' listing is by release order, with the films and series we already know have dates in the set order, along with Blade placed in-between Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (which Pfeiffer individually confirmed is slated for 2022) placed after Captain Marvel 2 and before Guardians Vol. 3 in 2023, then Fantastic Four is after that. With the series, everything from WandaVision to Hawkeye is the same as it is currently at the article order, with this listing following with She-Hulk, Moon Knight, Secret Invasion, Ironheart, Armor Wars, Guardians Holiday Special, then I Am Groot (all under the "Disney+" section). I'm wondering if we could take this as a concrete basis for the order of the phase and adjust it accordingly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Trailblazer101, you raise some interesting questions. I've perused the history of MCU announcements many timeas myself. I know that originally, the plan had been for Doctor Strange 2 and Thor 4 to be the last moviews in this phase. When the sequels to Captain Marvel and Black Panther were announced, some sources contended that both could be part of phase 4 as well. We now have confirmation of the details and timing for many other projects, and the fact that COVID-19 has shifted the phase 4 slate in a few different ways. To my knowledge, I have not seen a source definitively indicating where phase 4 ends and where phase 5 begins. What might that mean for this page? I don't know. On the one hand, including reliable information on upcoming projects would be consistent with past practice for MCU articles. On the other hand, it's possible that all projects in the works are now part of phase 4, or that some could contribute to phase 5, with the defined phases being clarified later. So how do we handle that on our end? I have no personal preference, so if the consensus prefers one option over another, I think I'd be on board with whatever is decided. Odds are, even if the end of phase 4 and the beginning of phase 5 aren't presently clearly defined, that information may come down the pike sooner rather than later. Sorry if that was unhelpful. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I know this document was brought up in the above discussion, but I still feel it fully contradicts Feige's earlier statements about Blade not being a part of this Phase. I think as we've seen in the past, Feige is really deliberate in how he answers or reveals things, so I'm just feeling if back at SDCC 2019 with that question, he would have said something like "we'll see/things can change/etc." but he clearly said "no", it wasn't part of Phase Four. Now, in a year's time, could that have changed? Yes, but since we don't have a release date for the film, I find it hard for us to use that document to confirm it as part of Phase Four. While it does seem to be in release order, which was mostly how Feige revealed everything on the day but not quite, I think it'd be WP:OR on our parts saying because Blade is in that position, it's in the Phase. But on the other hand (again this would be our assumptions), putting it where it is in the list, it could be this October 2022 date that's not attached to a film yet, and we'd have to assume Pfeiffer might be incorrect, and Quantumania could be the Feb 2023 date with Vol. 3 in the May 2023. That makes sense to me, but again, that's all my thoughts, nothing concrete. TLDR, I say hold off still on Blade until more info is confirmed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, that's what I figured. All we can do is wait and see. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The October 7, 2022 date has been reconfirmed as still existing, so I believe it potentially gives more weight to the order in the PDF being correct, and that date going to Blade (Halloween-time release fits for that film), Pfeiffer being wrong and Ant-Man 3 is actually the February 2023 release, and Vol. 3 is the May 2023 release, with Fantastic Four after at some point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same. The films will need to be adjusted once we get confirmation of them. But for now, I think it may be best to drop Quantumania's 2022 release as it has the likelihood to be wrong, but we can still say it is expected for 2022 based on those sources. Looking back to the PDF, should we reorder the 3 new shows (SI, IH, and AW) to be before the GotG Holiday Special or should we keep them where they are as no release windows are indicated yet? Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are we ruling out that Quantumania will be the film released on October 7, 2022? It seems perfectly plausible that Pfeiffer was indeed correct and that that's the date she was referring to. I had removed the One additional film for 2022 bit from the lede, not because the date wasn't confirmed, but because it gave the so-far not confirmed notion that there would be six films releasing in 2022 instead of five, given that we mentioned Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, Thor: Love and Thunder, Black Panther II, Captain Marvel 2 and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania before stating that there's an additional film coming out that year. El Millo (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Quantumania should be taken out from the lede and table as the 2022 date wasn't officially scheduled by Disney or Marvel Studios, it was the timeframe expected when Reed signed on and Pfeiffer's post did confirm it would be coming in 2022, but she did delete that, which could be because that timeframe is still only expected, Disney has yet to officially schedule a date (whether it be the Oct. 7 or some other date), or it is scheduled and wasn't revealed for whatever reason. No mainstream reliable sources have reported on Quantumania being scheduled for a 2022 release, unlike Vol. 3. It is likely Blade will be the Oct. 7 date, but so could Quantumania, so I do think the latter shouldn't be included in the table or lede or be concretely stated as scheduled until we get a more official statement from Disney about this schedule. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

So, removing Quantumania's year of release altogether? El Millo (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking we remove stating it is scheduled for 2022 and instead list it with Fantastic Four in the lede, while in the body, we can say it is expected for a 2022 release based on the current sources. I'm alright keeping it in the table with the release as TBA given it was officially announced. I am also just as fine leaving the film edited out from the table and mentioning it along with Fantastic Four as part of the phase in the note for the films list while keeping the one additional film for 2022 bit at that article until we get more concrete confirmation of the schedule. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As an extension to my thought process, I'm thinking if we do minimize the 2022 Quantumania date as only expected and leave it as "TBA" for the table, we could still keep it in the table and list it after Vol. 3 and also use this to include Fantastic Four in the table as we know Feige officially confirmed it and Jon Watts as director. Also thinking we can just list these two without a year release in parenthesis after Vol. 3 in the body and remove the "Future" sub-header as that feels redundant. Thinking this would be helpful for readers to navigate more fluently with what's in the phase while we still don't know 100% the releases for Quantumania and FF, but including them would be like what we do in the TV series with the 3 new series with how those have a first season confirmed, the same could apply to these films as they have been confirmed but not officially dated yet. If so, we could remove FF from the note to avoid it and Quantumania from being sidelined and have an easier transclusion of them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be remove (2022) from Quantumania and in its section, say "It is intended to release in 2022." until we get clearer info. As well, we should then put it in the table note with Fantastic Four because we have never previously included films in the table without attached release dates (or at lease a year), so I don't think we should change now. As for the three series, they probably are releasing before the Holiday special, but again, as they are TBA, they should stay below the special. And TV series overviews generally keep content without release dates, hence why I'm saying it's okay for those and not the films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think that should be changed. Right now the exclusion of Fantastic Four from the table is really counterintuitive. Especially in the 'List of MCU films' article. In that article, when you go to the table and scroll down, you expect to see a list with all the movies. Now, you have to actually read a small note to see that there is an extra movie that will release, which is not included in the table or in the section below. And now Quantumania would be placed in that limbo as well? In the table for the TV shows, there's multiple shows in there with their release dates TBA (even ones without any information beyond their title!). Why the difference between the two tables? Looks confusing and counterintuitive to me. So, I agree with Trailblazer101 (talk) and say that both FF and Quantumania should be included in the table. There's no real logical reason for keeping them out of there and relegated to a small note (in the List article) or the 'Future' section. UnderIrae (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at perspective articles on the potential 2022 release, Digital Spy's article says "The official confirmation of the threequel didn't come with a release date, but it was previously reported that it is apparently set for "a likely release in 2022" [...] before the current global situation affected film production everywhere and the releases of already-filmed movies, such as the MCU having to shift the release schedule for Phase 4." going on to state "Michael Peña had originally suggested that the movie would film in early 2021 and that was backed up by Michelle Pfeiffer, opening up the possibility for a 2022 release." and also speculating along with the MovieWeb source on the Oct 7 date is with "However, Marvel only has one other 2022 release date set aside after the schedule shuffle and that's October 7. The previous Ant-Man movies have been late summer releases though, so we reckon it's more likely to arrive in 2023 in either the May 5 or July 28 slots currently set aside for 'untitled Marvel movies'. This is all speculation for now until we know exactly when the threequel will film and Marvel's plans for the release."" I think it's pretty clear the 2022 release is still only expected at this time and could very well change, given it wasn't confirmed by Feige during the panel and Pfeiffer's post not being as concrete confirmation, and with how Marvel Studios and Disney still have the Oct. 7 date scheduled but did not confirm it to be this film or Blade. It's still too early to say with confidence that Quantumania is the remaining 2022 date while also disregarding the Oct. 7 date. I do believe that Quantumania and Fantastic Four still should be listed in the table as they were officially confirmed by Feige and have directors, plus Quantumania is in pre-production currently to begin filming early next year, and this year is almost over. Blade shouldn't be in a table despite it being officially announced as no hirings have taken place, but I do think the remaining Phase four films have enough notability for inclusion in the table without date timeframes officially set. I do think it would be easier to include the information this way rather than negating them to a small note. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

So is the plan then to remove (2022) from Quantumania, and then have it be "TBA" in the table, in addition to adding Fantastic Four into the table? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm proposing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with doing that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, at the press day for WandaVision, Feige was asked about when Phase 4 ends, and he wouldn't comment on that. See that info here and here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Year of release in headers of shows

Is there any reason we don't have the year of release in parentheses in the headers of the shows? Only WandaVision's 2021 got added when the show started airing. Why not add the years of release for all the shows we know them of as well, just like with the films? We have a separate header per season (where applicable) anyway. Just wondering if there's a valid reason. Else they should be added, I think. UnderIrae (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't talk on behalf of the film headers, as I'm not part of the Film WikiProject, but in the Television WikiProject, we don't add years to series or seasons until they air per MOS:TVSEASONYEAR. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh, okay... You learn something new every day. A bit odd though, but alright. Well, I guess my question is answered. Thanks! UnderIrae (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

All good! I personally wouldn't add years into the film headers for the same reasoning, so that we have consistency betwee films and series, but that's up to MOS:FILM. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this article is literally split in half between 2 MOSs: the films listed follow MOS:FILM and the tv series listed follow MOS:TV, where years get added to the headings once an episode has premiered in that year. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming Blade movie

So, I Have been reading this article and have realized that the upcoming Marvel Phase 4 movie "Blade" reboot. Played by Mahershala Ali. Is not on the "upcoming" section and should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loading...56% (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Blade has not been confirmed to be part of Phase Four, so it is listed at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Blade for the time being. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Studios: Legends

What further information does transcluding the Marvel Studios: Legends to this article provide? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It informs readers of this article's section for it which characters are featured for each episodes by their titles, rather than just leaving it with an ambiguous description and mentioning the first two episodes (the only episodes so far) without providing any additional info that can be helpful. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So, should we transclude the WandaVision table here, to clarify that each episode is based on a specific decade, and clarify the different writers? Can you show standardized examples where an episode table has been transcluded outside of one of the three regular locations? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like undue weight to include a table for this, given that it has its own article. If the wording is ambiguous then we should change the wording, instead of adding a table. —El Millo (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems better, given the table will inevitably increase. I've expanded the wording to detail the first two episodes are for Wanda and Vision and removed the table. The episode table transclusion is now on the MCU outline in "Inspired", where I feel it has more of a necessity there given the outline's nature, instead of clogging up the Phase article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I felt in lieu of using prose to continually state which episode was which, and their release, simply transcluding the table was the best option. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's fair. I've reverted my edit changing it. Is there a way we could set up an indication of which shows each episode are for? I think that would help for this transclusion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's less important for here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Or we make a prose sentence stating that, such as "Episodes released ahead of Disney+ series featuring those characters." That statement isn't fully confirmed yet. We'll need to see what happens come March 12, the week between the end of WV and the start of FWS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the Marvel Studios: Legends section here should only be a summary of another article, why do we need to list the characters? That sort of detail should be kept to the series' article, and this article only summarizing that it does, in fact, focus on separate heroes each episode (without needing to say which characters). -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at it more like the overview tables for the films or television series (or the comics), and the best table for this section would be the episode table, in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs an table at all, overview or otherwise. Are there other examples of where a series' parent article's episode table has been transcluded away from that parent article? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Favre. The best way to present the content of Legends is with the episode table as that is the organized information all there. That way, when new episodes for characters release, it instantly updates on this article rather than us having to add in more info in the summary for each episode. I feel each character is notable for this section and the table provides the best way to present that. I think the wording Favre suggest could very well work in some fashion for explaining these episodes in correlation to their Disney+ series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does this article need to state every character that's been featured? It should only be a summary, further detail (i.e. individual characters) only belongs in the original series article; this article should only state that original characters are featured. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alex 21. The character each episode is centered in is barely relevant for this specific page. A general summary should do. —El Millo (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There's still some notability in stating which characters were featured in the series, especially if it extends past this phase at all (obviously too soon to know that). I felt the table was best, because we'd get characters and release info, but if we just want to change that to prose for the characters featured, and that they appeared before the D+ series (not each release), that's fine too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It is notable but not notable enough for this article, the same as certain information on the films and TV shows aren't notable enough for this page. I feel that with a table Legends would be getting "too much attention" and taking up too much space in comparison to the other, arguably far more notable, media listed here. —El Millo (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to removing it now? —El Millo (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the table. The prose I've added might need some work for now, and will need to be reworked come the Falcon and Winter Soldier episodes (as anticipated) to mention the characters covered, and a general statement that the Legends episodes released ahead of the Disney+ series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline section

So we have a dedicated "Timeline" section on the previous Phase articles, and given the clarification of where WandaVision takes place, is there a benefit to creating that now? The past ones have more info of like "Phase 2 is more or less in chronological order" and "Phase 3 things are on top of each other" which we don't really have yet for this phase. Also, is there any benefit to having a singular timeline section somewhere? We have one each on the films and TV lists that are dedicated to those specific mediums, but with the Disney+ series integrating, there might be a benefit to a singular section covering all of Marvel Studios' properties and their timeline info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful of having too much duplication of the timeline info. Perhaps it makes sense to move the full timeline section from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films to Marvel Cinematic Universe, and then move the TV stuff from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series to be a more general Phase Four section here. That way there will be a section for each Phase and a combined section for all Phases, with no other duplication. The only issue I could see with that is people wanting to add Marvel TV shows to the main overview one, but I think we will be fine if we restrict the full MCU section to only include details from the Phase sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Adam's suggested approach would work nicely for this. I was thinking myself of suggesting moving the timeline info to the main MCU article, and am in favor of that and implementing the timeline info on each Phase article rather than at the lists. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok so separate question. If we move all this, is there a benefit to making some sort of table laying things out concretely (as we know) or using {{Horizontal timeline}} to make an actual timeline with dates and such? I can see a benefit of having some sort of visual that is quick to look at to see like Avengers is in 2012, Guardians and Vol. 2 are 2014, Endgame is 2023, WandaVision is 3 weeks after in 2023, Far From Home is in 2024 etc., but I also realize it could be too in universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It might be too much, and it might become too convoluted rather quickly, unless we were establish rules for what qualifies for inclusion in the timeline. It seems to me like an unnecessary complication. —El Millo (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved over the text from the lists to the main MCU article. Something (if desired) can still be created here. I also think this new timeline section could use some reworking, which I'm going to take a stab at. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I like it so far and I'll see what help I can provide once you're done with your revisions to it. I do think an updated timeline table could be useful as the First Ten Years sourcebook has become outdated with the Disney+ order, and I feel we might be able to use both and other sources on the article to compile a thorough yet simple table for the films and series, especially since the timeline seems to be getting more prevalent since Endgame. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So I started a mock up using {{Timeline of release years}} which gets us mostly to what I think we'd want visually, but I think the final product would have to be custom coded. And whatever sort of timeline table we end up with, we need to source it really well. And I think I'm done with my content adjustments. I think c/e and link fixes need to be done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's a wonderful concept. Looking through it, we probably are going to need a custom one made for this. Maybe it could be it's own template once we've assembled one we're satisfied with? That could include all of the extra properly sourced info as stated in the article. I for one am all onboard for this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That template was never hardcoded, only every created as a module, so I don't what the basis it's using to look at. We should also investigate other table and sidebar options for how we want this to visually be formatted for the content. We can use my sandbox I linked to experiment to find what works. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So I've got a hardcoded version of the timeline-style template working in my sandbox. Please give me thoughts, and then we can figure out sourcing and if I've indeed put everything in the correct year and order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I really like how this is going and do believe we can use both versions. I'd like to point out that Doctor Strange begins in 2016 and goes through 2017, so the 2016 bit should be included. According to The Art of the Avengers, Iron Man takes place in 2009, with the content placed in 2011 actually being set in 2010, along the same week. Aside from that, everything looks correct to me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The new section at MCU is looking good to me, and I like the "Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline (as of WandaVision)" timeline from your sandbox Favre1fan93. A couple questions on the timeline: where in the article/section were you thinking of putting it exactly, and do you want to have both the timeline and the First 10 Years table or do we think that is going to be too confusing? I'm unsure myself. I believe the 2010/2011 dates are correct as of our latest information (Endgame firmly setting The Avengers in 2012) so I don't think we need to make changes for that Art of the Avengers source, and I am happy to leave Doctor Strange just in 2017 to keep the timeline clean/simple if that was what the intention of leaving out 2016-17 was. I am reluctant to include that "Upcoming media" timeline in the article as I think it is kind of misleading and not that useful, I think we should just leave them out and add new projects to the timeline once we know what year and order to put them in. The only other thing I can think of is we need to add the Phase Four details from the MCU page to this page just like we have Timeline sections at the other Phase articles, and I think we should add the One-Shots to the Phase One and Two articles as well for consistency. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! So my thought was to include my sandbox timeline at the start of the "As depicted in the MCU" section, so it is along the right side there. We still need to come up with how sourcing will work on this timeline. I was thinking note labels like with the cast lists, with each meaning something. For example: "A" - As depicted in that media (so like Captain Marvel ^A for 1995 because that's depicted in that film); "B" - As depicted in other media (so like The Avengers ^B or The Dark World ^B for 2012 and 2013, respectively, from Endgame); "C" - As confirmed by creatives (for the One-Shots?); "D" - From the Avengers infograph; "E" - From The First 10 Years timeline (Doctor Strange?); "F" - From the Disney+ order. These are just examples to just show what I was thinking. For Doctor Strange, I would be okay spanning that film across the 2016 and 2017 years, or making a new cell that's 2016-2017. With the upcoming one, I did that just to see what it would look like, but I agree we probably shouldn't use it. I agree with adding in timeline info here and updating the Phase One and Two ones for the One-Shot info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok so fun fact, if I hide or remove the first example in the sandbox, which is using the existing timeline template, the second one that we want reverts to simply a large table. So before we implement, I have to figure out why that is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Everyone stand by. I'm working with Alex 21 to figure out getting the actual template adjusted to handle year spans for a release so we can use that. In the mean time, we can keep adjusting titles and positioning if need be and figuring out how references will work for all of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Mention of seasons in subtitle

I initially removed the mention of the first seasons of Loki and What If? on the grounds that there was no need to mention it in the subtitle, as well that the subsection was dedicated to the series as a whole now. Now, I was reverted by Facu-el Millo on the grounds that season 1 is part of phase four and the second season would be part of another phase. Nowhere does it mention in the sources for each show that the second seasons would be part of the next phase. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor does anywhere in the sources state that the second seasons are part of this Phase. At the moment, we don't know what Phase they will be a part of. Thus, we stick to what we know: the first seasons are part of Phase Four, and that's it, thus we section them by their first seasons in this Phase article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup exactly. What we know is as follows: Loki and What If...? were announced at SDCC 2019 as part of Phase Four. Since that announcement, we've come to learn that both will be getting second seasons, but we don't know any release date/plans for either, only that they are in development. Thus, that means the initial announcements at SDCC 2019 were for at least season 1 of each series. Once additional info on the season 2s are revealed, we can adjust as necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I just had to address the revert as it was flawed. This logic makes more sense, even if I disagree. At least per consistency with TV series, the mention of the season should be in parenthesis. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

So, "Loki (season 1)"? I would agree with that, but is that still acceptable when we list it as "Loki (season 1) (2021)" (i.e. doubled parenthesis)? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We could do it like (season 1, 2021), but I think once we have the year it would be better for the season 1 to go back outside of the parentheses. —El Millo (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think parenthesis is needed, as we aren't disabiguating it in the heading. It's more or less a prose statement, so "Loki season 1" is accurate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but if we were to put it in brackets, we shouldn't have double brackets when the year is included in the header. —El Millo (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct, double parenthesis should not be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to make this quick and simple; but despite what Feige said in 2019 about Blade not being part of Phase Four; it is now as Phase Four will extend from 2021 to 2024. Blade will be included in this lineup; however Deadpool 3 will not (as of now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronMan287 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Present a reliable source that backs up your claims. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters

Under the section "Recurring cast and characters", several characters from MCU movies are greyed out under films, implying that the characters weren't in them, when that is where they got their start. Does anyone know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.148.0.212 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Phase Four, and while characters like Bruce Banner have appeared in the films, they aren't confirmed to appear in any Phase Four films. —El Millo (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

I think that the table with release dates should take into account this official document of Disney: https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/documents/twdc_investor_day_programming_fact_sheet_ecbccd9a.pdf

It literally says in Page 12: Following are the projects included, listed in chronological order. The document places Blade between Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2, for that reason, it's easy to deduct that Blade is placed in the October 7, 2022 slot. Meanwhile, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is placed after Captain Marvel 2 and before Guardians of the Galaxy 3, so it has to be a 2023 film, Michelle Pfeiffer said 2022, but I think that Disney himself is a more direct source than an actress, this 2022 date could have been an initial plan.

About the Disney+ series, the document places Secret Invasion, Ironheart and Armor Wars before the holiday special of Guardians of the Galaxy, which is placed in Christmas 2022, implying that all of them has to be for 2022.

I think that they are vey clear with chronological order, in the Disney Animation and Pixar sections of the document, they use the same words and the films and series are in release date order. The chronological order in no case refers to the order of the presentation, because the order of the presentation was different, and in Lucasfilm section it says in announcement order to refer to order of the presentation.

Sorry if my english is not the best, it's not my native language, but I think that my argumentation is understandable. 31.131.176.228 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Per nothing new or changing from the last discussion on this matter above #Investor Day Order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

this article states jammie fox and andrew garfiel and toby magurie will be in spiderman 3 but none of that had been confirmed 2600:1702:40C0:D1FF:70DC:DE0E:837F:3C7A (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The content is reliably sourced and has already been discussed. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Change the Black Widow movie release date, Marvel just announced, through a tweet, the new date, July 9.

Source: https://twitter.com/MarvelStudios/status/1374429041877389320?s=19 LewMontes (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Already adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic Four Release Date

Because Phase Four ends in 2023, and Fantastic Four is in Phase Four, I think we should change the release date for Fantastic Four to 2023. MarvelMovieFan (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that isn't your own thoughts to support this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Verse?

Tom Holland tweeted himself that Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire wouldn't be appearing. NathanGamerdog (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length numerous times at Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home. You'll find many discussion on this topic there and at its archive 1. —El Millo (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dark Brood Please see this comment above. Also, WP:VNT regarding this material. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Does it look like I care? At least I don’t lack a spine and decide to treat rumors as official. Unless Kevin fucking Fiege himself says it’s official, then quit acting delusional and say that it’s happening.. Dark Brood (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Dark Brood - Please be civil with your comments and communication with other editors. Civility and respect is one of Wikipedia's founding principles, and you're expected to comply with this policy at all times. Personal attacks toward other editors like this is unacceptable, and repeated incivility can lead to being blocked from editing. Please re-consider the demeanor and tone that you're using here, and please be respectful toward other users. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if they are a reliable source I think the main actor of the film is even more reliable. NathanGamerdog (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

On the section on Loki, it says that it takes place after the events of Avengers: Endgame. While not entirely true, it's slightly misleading, and may make readers think it takes place in 2023 in that alternate timeline. The line that says "Loki takes place after the events of Avengers: Endgame" should be rephrased to something like "Loki takes place after Loki steals the Tesseract in an alternate timeline created by the events of Endgame." MCAvenger25 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) MCAvenger25 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This is accurate wording, as the series is indeed after the events of Endgame. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 I don't understand How can the series be "after" Endgame? The new timeline branched from Avengers 1 timeline (2012) in Endgame like it was shown. Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The series is centered around the Loki that escaped with the Tesseract in Endgame. —El Millo (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source to show She-Hulk has started filming?

https://onlocationvacations.com/2021/04/09/weekend-april-10-11-filming-locations/ This website seems to show that location filming has begun on April 10 for She-Hulk. We know main filming will begin on April 12, so this lines up. - TrixieCat123, 10 April 2021

Yes, On Location Vacations can be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: where's the evidence for editorial oversight at OnLocationVacations? I wasn't able to find it. —El Millo (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Here's some. This has also been used in the past on MCU-related articles, and I don't believe it has been an issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moon Knight now filming?

https://thedisinsider.com/2021/04/21/hawkeye-series-has-wrapped-filming/ This appears to show that Moon Knight is currently filming in a brief mention. Not really sure if this is a good confirmation on this however. - TrixieCat123, 22 April 2021

TheDisInsider is an unreliable source. —El Millo (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic 4

Is fantastic 4 confirmed to be in phase 4? Samudragupta007 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes

It is part of Phase 4 as confirmed Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

First phase to include television shows?

The first paragraph states that "it is the first phase in the franchise to include television series", so does Agents of SHIELD not count as part of any of the phases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horse Battery (talk • contribs) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

None of Marvel Television's series were ever integrated with a Phase. They just existed alongside the films Marvel Studios was making, whereas the Disney+ shows are fully considered properties of Phase Four. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, after all 'phases' are of Marvel Studios and not Marvel Television. Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Marketing

What do we think about including trailers/other promotional material that covers multiple Phase Four projects in this article? I think it makes sense since we should be able to add commentary about the collective. I am specifically thinking about the Disney+ teaser that included WandaVision, WinterFalcon, and Loki, as well as the MS celebrates the movies video. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree —El Millo (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think those such marketing would be beneficial here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

So when are they going to appear here? Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Okoye and Wakandan Series

There seems to be no confirmation that the series are definitely one in the same as the wiki entry suggested. They could very well be separate Wakandan based series. 32.213.92.111 (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources beg to differ with you. See this article, which says that both elements are contained in one series. That is further confimed here, here, here, and here, just to name a few. If you are going to claim something and expect anyone to take it as accurate or reliable, you'd be well-advised to do the research so you and present sources that back your claim. Absent such sources, it's just your word against what the cited sources actually do say. Aside from that, there's no such expression as "one-in-the-same". The correct phrase is "one and the same." The sources demonstrate quite concretely that the concepts are for one theory. Unless you have sources you can cite here in your next comment that prove they are not one and the same, then we'll continue to go by what the available sources actually say, not on what you think they say. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, no need to be a jerk. Secondly, Deadline is the original source, the rest are news aggregators which aren't sources. lastly, Deadline says Okoye is staring in their own spin off series and it 'wouldn't be a surprise' if she stars in the Wakanda series. The rest just assumed based on wording like you did.

How's that for one in the same, pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.111 (talk) 02:46, June 2, 2021 (UTC)

Awaiting release / Post-production

Opposing how we list films, how does a series' production go straight from "filming" to "finished and ready for release"? Does a series not have post-production? What have we based "Awaiting release" on? -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

One argument I've heard is that post-production is done on individual episodes while other episodes are filming. —El Millo (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It doesn't skip post, but the thought is that post-production is also happening alongside filming. But having gotten more information over the past couple of months that Marvel Studios is treating the series a lot like the films, perhaps in this case, we should adopt the stages of production we use for the films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Even then, if post-production begins on earlier episodes while filming continues on later episodes, we still list the status as "Filming" until all filming has concluded. So then, by the same reasoning, if post-production has been completed on earlier episodes while it continues on later episodes, the status should be "Post-production" until all post-production has concluded, and then it would be "Awaiting release", as the series would be awaiting release, not individual episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur. The thing is, when exactly can we change Post-production to Awaiting release? Only in the rare event that they confirm post-production is done or if they say something like "It's finished" or "I haven't touched in so long" (as they said with Black Widow for example)? —El Millo (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If we implement such change, it's possible we might never reach "Awaiting release" unless like you said Facu, we get someone saying it's completely done and they are just sitting on it to release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

And it's also possible for series that post is still happening for later episodes once the early ones start airing. That happened on WandaVision. They finished the finale around the time episode 6 or 7 was releasing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so we keep post-production then. Do you know why is Awaiting release generally used for TV shows? Is there any guideline that explains it or consensus on doing that instead of just using Post-production? —El Millo (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm also interested in this; where did "Awaiting release" come from? And in the case Favre proposed, I'd say we just go straight from "Post-production" to "Streaming" upon its premiere. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I've done/come across, for your "standard" TV series that is literally filming episode 1 for 8 days, that goes into post, then episode 2 starts filming etc., if all "filming" finishes well before the series release date, in theory, episode 1 (and 2 or 3...) is essentially waiting to be released; hence "Awaiting release", even if later episodes are still finishing post. That was more or less always my understanding of how it came about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any guideline on this, I think it just came about. There isn't necessarily a perfect solution here since the stage of production for each episode can always be different at any time, but if a series finishes filming then technically describing it as "post-production" is not incorrect, and all that would be is a way to say that it has finished filming, they are still working on it, and it hasn't started releasing yet. The only one I would be hesitant about saying this for is What If...? since that was never filming so it can't really be post-filming. Perhaps just "In production" for that one until it starts releasing or we are told that it is finished? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That would work for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am Groot and Blade

Kevin Feige confirmed I am Groot and Blade Nickest00 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Great. You got a source? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It is in the 2019 SDCC and is part of the Phase 4 announcement line up. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I Am Groot

Why is 'I Am Groot' in the tie-in media section? It's not tie-in media, it's just another show. If any of the shows should be considered tie-in media, it should be 'What If...?'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icoll52 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it's not a television series comprising episodes, it's a set of short films -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's still not tie-in media. It's not a tie-in, it's a proper show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icoll52 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a reliable source stating so? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Tie-in means "a connection or association". I Am Groot isn't just a show associating with the MCU. It is a part of the MCU. It has a plot etc. Legends and Assembled are tie-ins because they are just exploring parts of the universe. Do you see how they are very obviously different to I Am Groot?Icoll52 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Again: do you have a reliable source stating so? "Obviously" is not a reliable source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alex21, do you have a reliable source that specifically says that I Am Groot is tie-in media? Samudragupta007 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Samudragupta007: There is this source from Marvel themselves, describing it as a "series of short films". Can't find anything to the contrary, and Marvel's own word is good enough. IronManCap (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap this source is indeed good enough. On a seperate note, shouldn't the series What If be considered tie-in too? It will be non-canon to the main mcu timeline. Samudragupta007 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@samudragupta007 But What if 'What if' is going to show us different universes from Marvel Cinematic 'Multiverse'. So it can be a part of. Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums to discuss theories and the like. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that I Am Groot should maybe be under the Film category as it is a collection of Short Films, but I think its fine where it is, as long as it is noted. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Blade under the film column.

Since the new Mahereshala Ali Blade movie was confirmed to be happening and is also confirmed to be happening in Phase 4 (in the 2019 SDCC MCU Phase 4 Panel), shouldn't there be an extra column for the film under the Film section, called "Blade" or "Untitled Blade Film" Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed for Phase 4, as at SDCC Feige said it would not be part of Phase 4 and per the recent sizzle, it was not included in the listed films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh OK, strange, I thought Blade was part of Phase 4. Thanks for lmk. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of the logos

I was also thinking of adding the images of the logos of the films and the TV series, perhaps as a gallery or individually putting them with each section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdiehardfan (talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be a massive WP:NFCC violation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I see, sorry. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Future seasons of TV series

The lead section lists some of the series simply by title (ex: WandaVision), and some series have been designated as "the first season of" (ex: Loki). If subsequent seasons are not yet confirmed, I think we need to remove that designation. Any objections? --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

GimmeChoco44, the only series that refer to "the first season of" is Loki and What If...?, both of which have had second seasons confirmed, both of which are sourced in this article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Alex_21 -- Re: future seasons of Loki -- the current citation mentions a rumor/conjecture, without confirmation. Another recent article also has the showrunner indicating a "possibility" without confirmation. So -- while probable -- I don't think these quotes offer enough solid commitment to stamp Season 2 as "confirmed".

Re: future seasons of What If...? -- yes, the source has definite confirmation vie Feige quote. So no need to change this one.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:VNT. We know per reliable sources, that a second season of Loki is in development, even if it has not been officially announced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we update the citation with the new reliable source?--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to update. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 I mean the current citation just contains conjecture by the article writer. I thought you were referencing additional sources.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A second season is in development. with this source is not "conjecture". That's how reliable sourcing works, in addition to WP:VNT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't really want to argue the point too much; just pointing out that the full quote in this article is "the deal also is expected to bring back Waldron in some capacity for Season 2 of Loki." That's what I meant by conjecture. The writer is making the statement based on supposition, but there's not a definitive statement in this particular article to make it fully credible.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The 'expected' is about bringing Waldron back, not about the second season. See, e.g., here: https://www.cbr.com/disney-plus-loki-reportedly-renewed-season-2/ Check out: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Loki_(season_2)UnderIrae (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic Four is the final film of the phase?

So I came across a MCU fan social site that made this post stating "Kevin Feige has confirmed that the last project of the MCU's Phase 4 will be the Fantastic Four movie directed by Jon Watts." I feel like 50% of the time these fan sites, in making such posts, also include "via X" or "H/T x" to say where the info came from, but this one didn't. I tried Googling a number of different phrase combinations to see if I could find any other site reporting this, but I didn't. Anyone have any ideas where this may have originated from? And yes, I know this is a fan site, and they sometimes post inaccurate or misquoted things, but if this one is real, that seems like something to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I found this from MovieWeb, this from ScreenRant, and this from ScreenGeek, all of which are from a while back and seem entirely speculative. Seems to just be based on the F4 logo being at the end of the Phase Four trailer. The only recent comments Feige has made are to do with Black Widow's opening credits and future prequels. IronManCap (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even think that the post (which was posted on June 20) could have been referencing something from the past. I thought he might have said something on the recent Black Widow press tour. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I contacted the fansite via their email listed here, and they told me that their "source" was this article from The Direct (an unreliable source), which briefly mentions that "Feige has confirmed that the last project for the MCU's Phase 4 will be the Fantastic Four directed by Jon Watts". InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems dubious, unless he has just said it while doing press for Black Widow. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't ever recall Feige explicitly stating such, so I'll chalk this up to that site pulling the wording from The Direct, which also seemed to make that up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever has started production

According to Variety, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever has started production. Is this greenlight to move Draft:Black Panther: Wakanda Forever to mainspace, or do they have to explicitly state that filming has begun? I'm not sure if we consider "starting production" and "starting filming" as synonyms in this instance. —El Millo (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comicbook.com confirms this is "the start of shooting". —El Millo (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I already added that into the article table and section, citing Variety and Complex. Its official now I think. Obviously, I'm sure the other people will help to FULLY integrate it into the article, but mobile editing is hard. Anyway, yeah, I think there's enough info and now that production started, its safe to publish the BP2 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdiehardfan (talk • contribs) 06:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

For Black Widow, it says " Robert Downey Jr. appears as Tony Stark / Iron Man, both from previous MCU films", I just returned from seeing it and he doesn't appear so needs editing 212.159.110.36 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 15:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What are those horizontal gray lines about?

While viewing the chart of the Phase 4 television series, I noticed that there were these weird horizontal gray lines separating each row. Is there any way to fix this? Red4Smash (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the result of this edit by Alex 21 at Module:Series overview. —El Millo (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo is correct. Alex performed that edit to make an WP:ACCESS supported edit to help delineate when one series' information ends and the next begins, if the previous, thinner grey line possibly created any sense of confusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

What If...?

The chart says that the end date for What If...? has not yet been determined. Does this imply that there's a chance that the show will have a 2-episode premiere instead of just 1? Red4Smash (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's just that we don't know. There's no source confirming when it will end now that there are nine episodes only, so we can't include an end date. —El Millo (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Once TFC's episode guide updates to the nine episode order, then we can re-include the finale date. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel

Due to Hawkeye beginning its run on Nov 24, 2021, many news outlets are reporting that the series is expecting to be delayed to early 2022. I was wondering if this was true and if this should be added to the article? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Ms. Marvel (TV series)#Early 2022 Release Date. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dcdiehardfan (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Television series Table

The television series table has an error. The Moon Knight series is inside the Ms. Marvel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiouilias (talk • contribs) 06:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed - adamstom97 (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

TV series Table

The production update section for GOGT HS in the table is missing Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

Secret Invasion has been rescheduled for a 2023 release. https://moviesr.net/p-marvel-studios-secret-invasion-will-release-in-2023-on-disney-plus 14.201.165.57 (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Doesn't seem like a WP:RS, and a quick Google search turned up no results. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Echo and Agatha: House of Harkness

I noticed that two upcoming shows, Echo and Agatha: House of Harkness are missing from this list. I don't believe release dates have been announced quite yet. Sb5713 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Those series have not been confirmed to be part of Phase Four so we can't list them here. You can find details on them at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Future. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

References

TV table

The production update for The Guardians of the Galaxy HS is listed as Pre-production but didn't James Gunn say that HS will be filmed along with GOTG 3? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct, but he has since come out during his Peacemaker press tour stating that they actually have yet to begin filming the Holiday Special. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok Didn't realize that Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Michael Waldron.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

PostTrak

@Alex 21: I checked List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films after amend and looked fine, only previous contents seems to be transcluded. I can't change that article because protected but can you change if did break instead of just reverting. The MOS linked in edit summary said both should be included. Indagate (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It looked fine because I restored it; the edits broke the table when they were included. The MoS says both may be included, not should be. -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_reception says "include both if available" so sounds like if audience reception is used in article which it may be, then both sources should be included. Both reliable but always good to include multiple sources. Can edit the table at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films then so this is included and doesn't break, I can't because it's protected, seems like a pointless revert which you could fix Indagate (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It was already a strained consensus to include CinemaScore data, I don't think we should be adding PostTrak. That's fine for individual film articles, not for overview tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove the part of MOS that says to include both if available then if not going to follow it... Indagate (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Either there's consensus to include CinemaScore and PostTrak, or there's not and they should be removed from the MOS Indagate (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, it is not a requirement; the MoS says they may be included. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't like ambiguity in MoS, but it also says "include both if available" so seems like it means don't include one of the other but none or both

Both are reliable and both should be included for comparison and not relying on one source, especially for this where it concerns sampling the public Indagate (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS are guideline. They should generally be followed as laid out, but some elements don't have to be followed to the T. This would be one of them. And regardless, that section in the MOS is more for article prose than tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with Posttrak's use in articles like this? Indagate (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

nothing really 172.58.239.30 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

Pls add Echo to the list of Marvel Studios Disney+ series. Shooting has already began. 2409:4073:304:2E9:745C:EF38:5CA9:F286 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Echo will not be added here as it is not confirmed to be part of Phase Four. You can find it at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Echo. It is also at the draft article Draft:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Five#Echo until such a time it is confirmed for a phase. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Strange 2 timeline

Doctor Strange 2 is missing from timeline graph. It has been confirmed to be set a few months after No Way Home.

Signed:
Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

We know it's in 2025, but we don't know if it's before or after Moon Knight. We can't do much until we either get a reliable source stating where it's at on the timeline or it gets added to Disney Plus and they add it to the timeline order. -- Zoo (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Once we see where it is on the Disney+ timeline, that'll likely be when we can put its placement definitively on the timeline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, got it. Amazing film by the way. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Echo (TV series)

Do we need to add the Echo TV series based on today's announcement? It will be released in 2023, meaning I think we are still in Phase Four. I'm not familiar with the particular table used as the condensed list of shows and films. TNstingray (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The series has not been explicitly confirmed to be part of Phase Four, and unlike the Halloween special (which we found a source confirming it is Phase Four based on its 2022 release), we don't know if this series' release will fall within Phase Four's timeframe or not. We'll have to wait and see on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, right now it doesn't seem to be clear what is and isn't Phase Four, but we can only include those that have been confirmed to be Phase Four for now, even though that may change in the future. For example, both Ironheart and Armor Wars are scheduled to begin filming in June and in late 2022, respectively, so it's likely Echo ends up coming out before those two. The untitled Wakanda series was announced as part of Phase Four, but it's not even in pre-production yet. So the current tables are very likely to change, but it would be WP:OR until we have confirmation of which are and aren't, and which will come out first. —El Millo (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Being in 2023 is a step towards it possibly being in Phase Four, especially if it will come out before The Marvels. However, if as Facu-el Millo pointed out, we know Ironheart and Armor Wars are in this Phase, and they haven't started production yet and will likely come out after Echo. So it's looking extremely plausible it's in this Phase (which just seems to keep growing...) and we can move the info over once that's more definitively confirmed. Likely at SDCC or D23 this year. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess Phase Four will last until 2023, and 2024 onwards should hopefully be another Phase. —El Millo (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I hope that's the case, but there doesn't seem to be a "Phase-ending" project on the horizon, so it could go past 2023. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that the article on Marvel.com doesn't confirm it for Phase Four since they have previously made that clear for upcoming shows and films. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Television Table

The television table is missing in the TV section Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seaweed Brain1993 Issue should be fixed; you may need to purge your cache to see the table again. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Television Table Sourcing

Regarding http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Marvel_Cinematic_Universe%3A_Phase_Four&type=revision&diff=1092160405&oldid=1092159508, Why does standard practice and other stuff outweigh policy @Alex 21:, everything should be sourced clearly. Indagate (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Dates of events that have happened, by the very nature of the projects themselves sourcing such, do not necessarily need sourcing in tables. In a sense, though not an infobox, the spirit of WP:INFOBOXREF applies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (bold per source). Release dates are statements of fact but cannot be verified using the primary source, in this case videos. Someone can easily access the videos using a source that doesn't include their original release date.

Don't think WP:INFOBOXREF really applies, it doesn't mention tables, and the paragraphs with same information and references isn't transcluded to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series.

Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agent Cleary in characters table

Can someone add Agent Cleary to the characters table? He has appeared in one film and one series and is a starring cast member in the latter. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Untitled Wakanda series

Hi. Maybe it should be "Kingdom Of Wakanda" (capital O intended), instead of untitled series? See, for example here or here. IKhitron (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The original announcement of the series (and Coogler's deal) from both Marvel and Deadline only stated it was a drama based in the Kingdom of Wakanda for Disney+, with no title mentioned. The Futon Critic is likely just using that as a temporary title for their listing, while What's On Disney Plus is an unreliable source and doesn't have any other information to support that being the title. As of now, it is untitled, and we state that as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. But I never saw the Futon using temporary titles, always Untitled something. IKhitron (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If an official title had been set, Marvel would have announced it in some medium. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

We got confirmation that Thor Love & Thunder is the final movie of Phase 4. The list of movies remaining should be placed in a Phase 5 table. MrByo (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. MrByo, can you provide a reliable source that indicates this? Thanks! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 16:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Phase 5

Can someone delete what if season 2 on phase 4 and put in phase 5 Mr ezzat1234 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Already done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)