Talk:Marvel Studios: Legends

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Audience reception

I know this is generally not included, but if there becomes an opportunity to integrate it, here's a source stating some viewer's disappointment that this didn't have any creatives involved and was just a clip show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be of use for this article, if not now, then sometime down the road. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given it's a third party source discussing the audience and isn't user generated, I'll try adding something in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why are we titling this Marvel Studios: Legends and then we simply have Assembled? As far as I know, we've never included the company in the title (it's "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." but we don't title it as such), meaning Legends (2021 TV series) would be much more fitting. -- /Alex/21 00:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the same case as the other examples. The Marvel Television shows are a whole different story because they were clearly adding their brand to the name of all their shows and we chose to leave that out. Marvel Studios doesn't do that, they generally say "Marvel Studios' Avengers: Endgame", for example. That is also the case with "Marvel Studios' Assembled: The Making of WandaVision", but "Marvel Studios: Legends" appears to be intentionally different. And that makes sense, as this is not a series about "legends" generally, it is a series about legacy characters from Marvel Studios films appearing in Disney+ series. I don't see a need to change. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not a series about legends as such, but the series is still titled "Legends"; "Marvel Studios" is still just a brand name. They're both titled the same way on Disney+: "Marvel Studios: Legends" and "Marvel Studios: Assembled", with a colon instead of Marvel Studios', whereas the movies do indeed use the latter format (e.g. "Marvel Studios' Avengers: Endgame"). There needs to be consistency; either "Legends" or "Marvel Studios: Assembled". -- /Alex/21 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I was going off the Marvel.com sources at each article as they use "Marvel Studios' Assembled" and "Marvel Studios: Legends". If Disney+ is different then we should probably get updated sources for those since the title will be wrong inside the article as well as the title of the article itself. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used the links in the infoboxes of each article for Legends and Assembled. -- /Alex/21 06:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As they were each announced by Marvel.com (as Adam noted), this was consistently stated as Marvel Studios: Legends being the full name, whereas Assembled was just "Marvel Studios' Assembled", much like saying "Marvel Studios' Captain Marvel", "Marvel Studios' Avengers: Infinity War" etc. And as such, keeping "Marvel Studios" in the title here was a WP:NATDAB. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was, yes, I agree. But now I've shown that it's no longer the case, and that, given consistency; either "Legends" or "Marvel Studios: Assembled" would do. -- /Alex/21 20:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel's page for the series titles it "Marvel Studios: Assembled", which is also used by the Disney+ pages. "Assembled" would be a WP:COMMONNAME in this case, and be used as the article title and such, but its' full title is "Marvel Studios: Assembled". That's why I had previously added in the full title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Given that the full title is indeed "Marvel Studios: Assembled", we also have "Marvel Studios: Legends", with its title formatted identically, so using the common title for the former and the full title for the latter does not portray consistency. -- /Alex/21 01:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trailblazer101 That Marvel link only calls it "Assembled" in the prose description so I don't know where "Marvel Studios: Assembled" keeps coming from, whereas Legends' clearly uses "Marvel Studios: Legends" both times. I know the urls include "marvel-studios", but that doesn't seem to indicate it's part of the title of Assembled, whereas it is for Marvel Studios: Legends. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a quick search shows third party sources for the WandaVision episode show a majority of simply "Assembled". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page display in the tab lists it as "Marvel Studios: Assembled" is what I meant. I'm not saying we need to make any changes as this is mainly just called "Assembled" by all other accounts of Marvel, though I don't see why everything from Disney+ would be inherently wrong. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, both Marvel and Disney title it as "Marvel Studios: Assembled". I'm now more inclined to leave Legends as it is and correctly title the Assembled article, noting that we'd be retitling the series as a whole, and not the individual episodes, which may be titled how they are listed on Disney+ (is it simply titled "The Making of WandaVision"?). "Assembled" is also quite a ambiguous title. -- /Alex/21 04:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: one, I don't know why Marvel's tab name is saying such, when everywhere else and at additional sources call it simply "Assembled". There are no other Wikipedia articles named "Assembled" so I don't believe disambiguation would be necessary. And second, for each special, I've come to find there are two naming conventions. The special as a single entity is Assembled: The Making of WandaVision, but when talking about the docuseries Assembled, the first episode is "The Making of WandaVision". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We may not know why it's saying such, but both Marvel and Disney+ title it such. -- /Alex/21 20:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's hard to claim for support, when more instances from Marvel call it simply "Assembled" and third party sources as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard at all, we've already shown that both the official Marvel and Disney websites formally title it "Marvel Studios: Assembled", where "Assembled" is indeed it's common name, just as we have "Marvel Studios: Legends" with "Legends" as its common name. Identical situations. How can we claim that there's more instances, do we have the number of sources that proves such? -- /Alex/21 23:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Official primary sources such as Disney+ and Marvel don't make a name the common name, independent secondary sources do. —El Millo (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't necessarily need to use the common name. For example, we don't title "Game of Thrones" as "GoT". Alternatively, if the first episode's common name is "Assembled: The Making of WandaVision", to indicate it's status as a single-entity special release, then why do we not list it as such, but instead exactly how it's titled on Disney+? Given that there's clear disagreement, I'll put it through as a formal requested move. -- /Alex/21 00:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"GoT" isn't the common name for Game of Thrones. The WP:COMMONNAME isn't what people use most on Twitter, it is the term that independent secondary reliable sources most commonly use to refer to a subject. —El Millo (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my second question, or why Legends is a common name for the series titled Marvel Studios: Legends and yet it's located at the latter. -- /Alex/21 00:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out a flawed argument. Checking the references used in this article, it seems like Legends is the common name, though Marvel Studios: Legends seems to be the official name. Still, I think Marvel Studios: Legends should probably still be used here as natural disambiguation, given that "Legends" is already redirected to "Legend" (per WP:SINGULAR I presume), whereas Assembled doesn't require any disambiguation. —El Millo (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm become happy with Marvel Studios: Legends as the location for this article, whereas I believe "Assembled" is very ambiguous to "Assemble", in the same way that "Legends" is ambiguous to "Legend", thus that article requires retitling. -- /Alex/21 00:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ambiguous if there's nothing else titled the same? It might be ambiguous colloquially speaking, in that you wouldn't know just from the name that it's a series on the behind-the-scenes of MCU series and films, but not in the sense of ambiguity we have in Wikipedia, where something is ambiguous if something else has the same or a very similar name. There's no policy or guideline that I know of that says adjectives such as this "Assembled" (or verbs in past tense, which is written the same way) should redirect to the infinitive verb. —El Millo (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's ambiguous to the reader, i.e. exactly how you described it just by reading the name and not being able to understand what the article concerns, then it's ambiguous and needs fixing. Not everything needs to be policy-based; if it benefits the reader, then it most likely benefits the article.
I'm not sure if a full page move is necessary, as it is commonly called "Assembled". What I personally think should be done is addressing the "Marvel Studios: Assembled" title from Disney+ in the Assembled article, as it should hold some merit. Marvel's website title, even from a quick web search, lists it as "Marvel Studios: Assembled", and a quick search does bring up some articles using it, along with others using it without the colon on its own or with The Making of WandaVision. I don't think each special episode needs a title change from what we currently have, but I feel the Marvel Studios usage in the title should likely be included somewhere in the article. A search on Marvel.com when searching for assembled in the search bar brings up "TV Show Season: Marvel Studios: Assembled", and the other articles there vary by using "Marvel Studios' Assembled" to refer to the docuseries and with "The Making of WandaVision", whilst the categories on the site use "Marvel Studios: Assembled". As such, I don't think I will support a move, given most outlets refer to it as "Assembled" unlike with Legends, but am inclined to believe the title is official based on its categorized and search presence and Disney+ pages, which are in-line with Legends. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked all the references used in the Legends article as a sample, and most of them do refer to it as Legends often, when mentioning it more than once. —El Millo (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above comment on Legends being referred to as just Legends; the two of them are referred to identically, given their very similar nature. That's as well as the fact that we list the episodes as they officially appear on Disney+ (i.e. as "The Making of WandaVision" rather than any other format like "Marvel Studios' Assembled: The Making of WandaVision", so I see no reason to name episodes per their official name but not the series itself. -- /Alex/21 03:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm convinced based on the above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Do we think it is necessary to add each episode to the development section when we already have all those details in the table, including references? I feel like the development section can just be about the series in general and then new episodes only have to be added to the table unless there is something noteworthy about them. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the release/announcement of episodes isn't consistent, I think there is some value in having when something was revealed and what property it is for outside of the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, I know I'm late to this, but I agree with Favre. It aids in letting viewers know when each episode was revealed since they are inconsistent and because it allows the main information of this series (which are the episodes and what they're for) explained outside of the table. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this again, what if we move all the announcement-related info to "Release"? So basically keep the first two paragraphs as is in "Background", then copy the WandaVision ones to "Release" and move all the info from the FWS ones and the third paragraph down there as well. Does that work better? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Release of Mantis/Drax Episodes

I can personally verify that the Mantis episode is available on Disney+ in Germany, and hence has been re-released (likely in other countries, but I cannot verify). I don't know how to cite that for the purposes of documenting that fact. This clip show is not notorious enough to attract the attention of online news after the episodes are re-released, so it seems to be a matter of "look. It's there, therefore it has been re-released". It seems likely that the Drax episode will also be quietly re-released at some point, and maybe then a news outlet will update their article. Maybe it has to wait until the USA gets a re-release. 2A02:8108:1380:23C4:88A6:9E50:48FC:1E27 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's also been restored here in the US, but we'll have to wait until a third-party source notices this before we can mention this in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2A02:8108:1380:23C4:88A6:9E50:48FC:1E27 @InfiniteNexus
Are we certain there were two episodes?
The episode(s) were removed from Disney+ before I got to them, and I saw several reports that described them as two episodes.
But on noticing the presence of a single episode, titled "Mantis" and listed as "episode 25," on Disney+, I backtracked to see if I could see when it had been re-added to the service — and found stories from its original November 23 debut describing a single "Drax and Mantis" episode.
E.g.,
— Secret-HQ (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If my memory serves me right, yes. The Digital Spy source in the article also says "episodes", in plural. The Drax episode has not been restored. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I'd read at the time (that I recall) indicated two episodes, as well — but searching for info from November 23 and earlier today, I'm finding many descriptions of it as a single "Drax and Mantis" episode focusing on the two characters' relationship. That would certainly describe the single restored episode title "Mantis," as well. I haven't found any sources referring to two separate episodes that predate coverage of their removal from Disney+ in response to complaints about the spoiler. I'm starting to doubt there were two episodes and think many of the sources reporting on the removal had picked up and spread a misunderstanding. I'd be curious if anyone actually saw the two episodes on Disney+ and could speak to the content of the missing "Drax" episode (if it exists). Secret-HQ (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the best "source", but I found a screenshot someone posted on Twitter. It was two episodes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging that up and sharing it, @InfiniteNexus! That's the sort of confirmation I was looking for back on January 1st when finding those earlier sources made me doubt whether there had actually been two episodes.
Nice to see they're both back on Disney+. I hadn't checked again until reading the comment from @TrixieCat123 below.
Makes me wonder when they went back up and why it didn't happen at the same time — especially given the impetus for taking them down was in the "Mantis" episode, which was the first to be restored. (Or maybe they did go back up together, and "Drax" was down some more mundane, logistical reason when I checked on the 1st. I can't say for certain, I guess.) Secret-HQ (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a source now. It is in a lot of articles, but was reverted as unreliable source, so you should remove it from all this articles either. The Direct – 88 links in articles. IKhitron (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be both episodes are now streaming again on Disney+ US, so I think the removed bit should be made retroactive. TrixieCat123 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually against this, but since no RS has picked up on this (come on, it's been a month), I guess it's fine if we use The Direct, but it should be tagged with {{bsn}} or {{unreliable source}}. Our only other option is We Got This Covered, which is an even bigger no-no than The Direct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new one, Disneyplusinformer, 51 links in articles. IKhitron (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely unreliable. I'll add in the The Direct source, as discussed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to understand one day why do you call sources unreliable and have lots and lots of them in articles. IKhitron (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's not community-wide consensus on every source and its reliability, and many editors add sources without checking whether they're reliable or not. There's also many varying degrees of reliability, and sources that, even though they could technically qualify as reliable, publish so many news based on unconfirmed rumors or fan theories that they're just generally viewed as not reputable. Remember Wikipedia is not one uniform mass, there are millions of editors who work in different pockets-within-pockets of Wikipedia, who have different common practices, implicit consensuses, and thresholds for the reliability of their sources. —El Millo (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what El Millo said, many WP articles are not watched by many experienced users, so it's easy and fairly common for unreliable source additions to be overlooked. You can help by removing any statements you come across that are sourced to an unreliable source, or by tagging them with {{unreliable source}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do not have time for this. And about watched by users, there are very watched articles in these lists, even MCU article itself. IKhitron (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which are they? Remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact that an unreliable source being used in many other articles doesn't make it reliable, it just means those sources should be replaced with better sources. There were a few instances in which we arrived at a consensus to use TheDirect for simple statements of fact about the timeline placement of an MCU project on Disney+ or something like that, very minor things that no other sources have commented on and which we already know to be true because they're visible on the platform, but we cannot link directly there. —El Millo (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to the list I gave above. IKhitron (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as I expected, there are no links to https://www.disneyplusinformer.com/ in any page closely related to the MCU. —El Millo (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an infrequent editor unfamiliar with community consensus who treads carefully when adding, removing, or changes content in Wikipedia articles, I have what may be an old and obvious question: Is a primary-source citation for Disney+ off the table?
I understand the prohibition against original research, but would there be a problem with a statement like, "As of [DATE], both episodes were again posted to the platform with a link to the series episode list at [1]https://www.disneyplus.com/series/marvel-studios-legends/7YmtoS60RMH6? Secret-HQ (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, the primary sources wouldn't hurt in addition to The Direct one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Episode summaries

I've been thinking, do we even need these? After all, this is nothing more than a glorified clip show, and we're missing summaries for the nine most recent episodes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need them, as they're just summaries of the films and TV shows. —El Millo (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus I think we don't need this. There are no new clips or scenes in every episode that warrant audience to keep an eye on. Centcom08 (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be ok with removing them. We could add an extra sentence or something at the start of the Episode section reexplaining why there are no summaries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. I'm wondering if it's possible to merge the duplicate rows in columns 3 and 4, and if that's necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not with using {{Episode list}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, stand by, I can attempt something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done with |NumParts=, and then |Title_#=, but there's currently a recent, but not active discussion at the template talk to add this "part" functionality to |EpisodeNumber= which we would need implemented to accomplish this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season 1 and Season 2

Apparently, Disney+ tags the Ant-Man's Legends episodes as "Season 2". Do we have to keep the section titles "Phase 4" and "Phase 5" or switch it to the season numbering? Centcom08 (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I figured they would be classified as seasons, and prepped the series overview at the outline that way. We can make the change as the phases were used in place of seasons because we didn't know officially how it would be done. I think we can note above each eps table which phase the season constitutes content from. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and implemented the changes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101 Thank you. Centcom08 (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source that actually sais that seasons have something to do with phases? I'm sure they do, but there could me many other possibilities, and the description of season 2 as phase 5 may be original research, if there is no source. IKhitron (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only semi-decent source I found that connects the seasons to phases is this article from The Direct, which is considered an unreliable source for rumors it features, though can be used for exclusive interviews per WP:MCURS, as well as timeline info we cover. Given Legends does not receive much coverage from the big trades, it's doubtful we'll get anything better than this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For these purposes, that Direct article seems ok to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Placement of Eps Release Info

In the earlier "Development" discussion, it was wagered the release information for each episode could move to the Release section, and with the YouTube playlist, the initial Mantis and Drax removals, and season 2, I was wondering if this would be a good approach, as to not overload the Background with a bunch of dates in-between the announcement and commentary on the announcement. It could also avert some repetition. The same approach could be had for Assembled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm still in agreement with my most recent comment above lol - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

The IP has a point. Other than the first paragraph, the Background section basically repeats the title of each episode and its associated project. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some merit to discussing when shorts are announced, but maybe not all of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the only relevant details are the ones that had their releases adjusted, such as MoM, Quantumania, and the Holiday Special? I do think it has gotten quite excessive. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus and Favre1fan93: I have gone ahead and trimmed the Background section to simply noting that episodes for the individual subjects were released along with the seasons usage. I moved the Hawkeye D+ Day info to the Release section as I think it is still relevant. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Trail. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Echo

I see that we have added some details on how Echo includes flashbacks to Hawkeye. This source has a quote that explicitly talks about filling in the blanks for Marvel Spotlight projects so there is no homework required, which I feel could add to what we have here. It could also probably be added to the Echo article and TV list but I am not up to them on my watchlist yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The info was pulled from the Echo article, and I agree we can definitely extend it to others where relevant. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marvel_Studios:_Legends&oldid=1195506540"