Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

she-hulk,ms marvel and moon knight disney plus

Abellapa (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC) i know this series were announced as part of phase 4 but unless phase 4 is extended to 2022,this 3 series will belong in phase 5,there are simply no place to release these series in the current phase 4 schedule

Kevin Feige specifically noted in his presentation (and overview/timeline graphic) that these 3 new series where in Phase Four. [1] - Brojam (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Television

I strongly oppose having the television series reside here instead of at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. Are they television series? Yes? They belong in an article titled "List of television series". I see little to no consensus to split the TV series here at the discussion linked, as that discussion concerned the splitting by company, not phase, and there was firm opposition to that, so we need to make the distinction between films and series, not companies and phases. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

They are TV series, but they're also and, most importantly, part of Phase Four. This article is about Phase Four, not about the films in Phase Four. And they're planning to split the TV series article anyway, what better place for the Disney+ shows to be than in the Phase they belong? El Millo (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Facu, this article is for all of Phase Four and the TV shows are definitely part of that. They are also actually going to crossover with the films here and not the TV shows over there so it makes more sense in that way as well. And as stated, the rest of the TV article is about to get split-up as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Facu-el Millo and Adamstom.97 here. This is the page for the MCU Phase 4 overall, not just the MCU Phase 4 movies. --Bold Clone 05:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree to keep the TV shows here because:

• the article is about Phase Four content - both films and TV shows
• the Phase Four shows are closer to the Phase Four movies than they are to the Netflix or ABC shows.
• the TV article needs to be split and no matter how we split them, the Disney+ Marvel Studios shows would end up together. So, we might as well bring them here. Starforce¹³ 13:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that all. The Phase Four TV series are part of Phase Four, so they belong on that page still. Eventually, we'll get to splitting all of the MCU television series pages into their own as we did with Marvel's Netflix television series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Recurring Cast and Characters Truncated

Does anyone know why most of the films for the recurring cast and characters are missing? I see they're present in the source but don't appear on the page. I've tried fixing it, but I am not very good at making tables and I can't figure out what the issue is. Feldssa95 (talk) 03:53, 06 October 2019 (UTC)

They have been hidden for now as there are no characters in those films that meet the criteria listed at the top of the section. Anything between <!-- and --> is hidden from view. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh. That's my bad. Thanks for the explanation. Feldssa95 (talk) 02:16, 07 October 2019 (UTC)

Showrunner vs Head writer

For shows originating from the U.S., the term used is "showrunner", not "head writer". Head writer is used in the UK. Also a showrunner is not necessarily a writer. (They're the masterminds who bring the entire show together. They're more equivalent to director in films.) We should stick to the term used based on the country of origin. The sources also use "showrunnner."

Similarly, we say "seasons" for U.S shows and "series" for shows originating in the U.K.

The individual show pages need to be changed back to "showrunner" too unless someone has a valid reason to not follow the U.S convention and sources Starforce¹³ 04:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Generically, yes. But every show and company is different and may not conform to such standards everytime. Doctor Who, for example, uses showrunners. I believe a reason was provided in the edit summaries for each of the television articles, as "head writer" was the term used in recent sources. (For example, direct from Marvel, "WandaVision head writer Jac Schaeffer".) -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

For the shows that specifically say "head writer" then that's fine. Otherwise, showrunner is the default. And yes, more uk shows are starting to switch to "showrunner."

Edit: On a second thought, let's just keep it as "head writer" even if not explicitly stated in all cases. Since Feige is technically the one "running the show", I can see why they would go with a head writer instead of a showrunner. Starforce¹³ 06:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's directly what Marvel themselves call it, per the source, so yes, we should definitely keep "head writer". -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this was changed at the individual series articles because Marvel Studios has been using "head writer", and our main sources are now switching over to use that term as well for the Marvel Disney+ shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Loki article

Filming has started for Loki according to these sources: Charles Murphy (a well known Hollywood insider)'s Twitter Profile (https://twitter.com/_CharlesMurphy/status/1221561838934155265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1221561838934155265&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Feuf1fl%3Fresponsive%3Dtrue%26is_nightmode%3Dtrue) and Tom Hiddleston's Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/B71b-krgpy7/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again). Therefore, an article on the TV series should be made and linked to the MCU Phase 4 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comidsa (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The first one is not reliable, and the second one doesn't say anything about filming. adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Make a separated page for ‘Doctor Strange and the multiverse of madness’

Please can somebody make a separate page for Doctor Strange 2 Bobob100 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Phase Start

Given how Black Widow has now been officially delayed to the November 2020 release slot from the former May one, I was wondering if the current wording on the article's lead would need to be altered. It currently states "The phase will begin with the release of the film Black Widow by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" and proceeds with the films listing with the television series all listed in the next paragraph below. Now, Black Widow is still the first film to release in the phase, but The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is still set to debut on Disney+ in August 2020, so, should the wording be updated to state "The films of the phase will begin with the release of Black Widow..." or should we have a different approach to this? Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! If we are just looking at it from a medium perspective, the films are still Marvel's "number 1" as it were, so I don't think we should alter the content order of the lead paragraphs or sections to adjust for the schedule change. How about at the end of the first paragraph we add that FWS will start the phase in August 2020, then the second paragraph starts as "The films of the phase..." as you suggested Trailblazer, and then I think if we do that, we can remove the leading sentence of the third/adjust to just go right into the stars of the TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed - Let's change the lead to make it clear that we're referring to the first film. Obviously, The Falcon and The Winter Soldier will most likely be delayed too because they weren't done filming. And it might have been set to include references to Black Widow. But we can't know for sure. The only thing we know is that Black Widow is the first film in the phase. — Starforce¹³ 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright than, what Favre suggested as the structure sounds fine to me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and adjusted the wording. Feel free to made any other alterations if need be. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks great. And we'll adjust again if the Disney+ shows move for any reason. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Phase End

About this edit by Jgstokes with this Vox article that seemingly puts Captain Marvel 2 and Black Panther II in Phase Four. Trailblazer101 reverted it claiming that the article is "Not directly referring to BP2 and CM2", but the article does in fact list them:

Here’s Marvel’s Phase 4 scheduled post-coronavirus pandemic release calendar

• Black Widow: November 6, 2020
• The Eternals: February 12, 2021
• Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings: May 7, 2021
• Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness: November 5, 2021
• Thor: Love and Thunder: February 28, 2022
• Black Panther 2: May 8, 2022
• Captain Marvel 2: July 8, 2022

What should we do with this? Vox is normally a reliable source but this seems like a wild assumption on their part. El Millo (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. There have been back-and-forth edits on seemingly conflicting information about whther or not Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2 are part of phase 4. I am posting here to note that, per Vox, which has been cited in other MCU articles here on Wikipedia, Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2, originally anticipated to kick off Phase 5, are now officially planned to be part of Phase 4. This artcile specifically confirms that in the section entitled "Here’s Marvel’s Phase 4 scheduled post-coronavirus pandemic release calendar", which clearly shows the two movies as part of phase 4. That is not the author's personal interpretation of the information, but is mentioned as having been verified by MCU execs as part of the revised date announcement for the phase 4 slate. Unless and until one or more sources categorically state that Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2 are still kicking off phase 5, we have to assume that any movies released in 2022 are part of phase 4. If you'll all recall, Spider-Man: Far From Home, the last MCU film to be released, was originally planned to kick off phase 4. But MCU executives later determined that the last movie of 2019 would be a better concluding chapter to the Infnity Saga that consituted phases 1-3. So MCU plans change, and we should be adaptable to those changes. Unless an MCU executive contradicts the information provided by Vox, IMHO, the two movies in question need to be included in this phase. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Facu-el Millo above. At this point it seems likely that whoever wrote that article was just assuming that to be the case, unless there has been any confirmation from Marvel/Disney, or a reliable source specifically states that they have learned that those films have been added to the phase. Marvel's own announcement makes no mention of those films being added to Phase Four. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Adam said what I was going to and I agree with it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a clear assumption on the writer/editor's side. Disney's press release to all the other sources didn't include any Phase classifications. It was just a list of new dates. So, all the Phase 4 stuff were added by the writers. Until Marvel Studios classifies them as Phase 4, we'll stick to what we have. — Starforce¹³ 02:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in again here. As one who is somewhat new to editing articles about the MCU, but one who has had 12 years of experience here on Wikipedia outside of MCU articles, I know that one source may spin things in a way that is not fully accurate. So I have no qualms with any of you who are dismissing the information as official due to that single cited source. However, there are other[s to consider. I present the following additional articles as evidenciary support for this claim: Screen Rant, Digital Spy, What Culture, Cheat Sheet, and MCU Cosmic.

Each of the sources I cited above are websites that have done extensive written or video analysis of various aspects of the MCU. If it was just Vox alone reporting that Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2 were part of the MCU phase 4, and if I saw someone making the same assertions I did, I'm not sure I would have believed it without further research. I attempted to make the changes to the article in good faith based on the one source I cited and others I found for verification. But hopefully citing them here to aid in the further discussion on this matter may help settle the question.

I would just add one or two other thoughts: other sources I found seem to contradict these sources, and note, as has been mentioned by many of you here, that until MCU executives confirm or deny this, it might be hard to know either way. But we know that Phase 3 was originally slated to end with Avengers: Endgame and actually ended with Spider-Man: Far From Home. So MCU plans change. My guess, based on past experiences in matters such as this where, at times, available sources contradicted each other, is that in this case, MCU executives wanted to put the revised dates out there ASAP today to clear up confusion and speculation about what would be done with those movies, and they may make an announcement later on this month or next month to officially confirm that Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2 are now part of phase 4. But unless MCU executives plan to end a phse mid-year (which would be inconsistent with what they've done for past phases), then based on these additional cited sources, I'd assume that phase 4 has been extended into 2022. If that assumption absolutely cannot be presented as fact in this article until it is confirmed by MCU executives, that's not problematic. As I said, although I have more than a dozen years of Wikipedia experience generally, I am a newbie when it comes to protocl on major movie franchises. Just some additional comments and information to consider. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely I think there is a chance that this could change as we have seen happen before, but there is still no evidence to suggest that all of these sources are not making assumptions. WP:NOHURRY applies here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Out of those other sources you cited, I checked the two that are generally considered more reliable, being DigitalSpy and Screen Rant. The first one directly says: "That's it so far for confirmed Phase 4 movies, but we do know that after that exciting crop, we're getting Black Panther 2, Captain Marvel 2 and Ant-Man 3. It's not yet clear if they're part of Phase 4 though or the start of Phase 5"; meanwhile, the second one never says they're part of Phase Four, and treats them as separate from the others: "Marvel Studios has announced a complete Phase 4 reshuffling. Black Widow will now come out on November 6, 2020 - taking the date Eternals previously held. As a result, Eternals has moved to February 12, 2021, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings to May 7, 2021, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness to November 5, 2021, and Thor: Love and Thunder to February 18, 2022. The adjustment also brought about the announcement that Captain Marvel 2 will come out on July 8, 2022." It's possible those movies end up being part of Phase Four, but apparently they aren't yet. El Millo (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

My thanks to you both for weighing in here on these sources. Thanks also for drawing my attention to things I clearly missed in a couple of the sources I cited. This is certainly not the first time I have overlooked something inadvertently while attempting to find sources that verify a viewpoint of which I am in support. I'd also agree there is no hurry. I'd be very much shocked if the two films weren't clarified in the future to be part of seawson 4, but until that happens, it is best to be cautious. Again, I appreciate being able to dialogue on this issue in this thread. I've found in my dozen years or so of editing here on Wikipedia that I still have a lot to learn, and as a first-time editor of a page related to this franchise (though I am fairly well-versed in most MCU matters), I should probably have opened a discussion here before I advanced a source as fully accurate and conclusive proof that what I was claiming was correct. Even a dozen years later, I still have much to learn about Wikipedia. My apologies for any misconduct on my part in this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus delays in article leads

Starting a centralized discussion here. Using Shang-Chi as an example, Adamstom.97 in doing some c/e, included in the leads of the Phase Four articles Its release was delayed from an original X date due to the coronavirus pandemic. I removed that and felt similarly for films that are not Black Widow, because as I said in my edit description, I don't think we should mention coronavirus for the release delay because the originals were never postponed in the first place. So in these instances, it's almost like a "normal" release date adjust, say like Captain Marvel moving multiple times because of films being added to Phase 3. We definitely should mention the delay reason in prose, I just don't think it should be in the lead (outside of Black Widow). Pinging @Facu-el Millo: too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93, as I've already stated. It feels like a bit too much for the lead. In the case of Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, where it actually impacted the production scheduled, the pandemic is already mentioned. In every other case, it seems like it was just to accommodate the films that had been directly impacted. It is certainly worth mentioning, just not in the lead section. El Millo (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it is nice to have as noteworthy information, but considering now that it may get too much of an annoyance for inclusion in the lead, especially if we're thinking long term here with the rest of the information that would be put there (box office earnings, critical reception, etc.) it may be best to keep it in the Production and Release sections unless the films were directly affected by the virus, i.e Black Widow and Shang-Chi and the Legends of the Ten Rings. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had a think about this and I am happy to remove this from the lead of most articles. I think we should mention it for Black Widow being delayed and then re-scheduled, and I think we should continue to mention it in the production summary for Shang-Chi. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 By continue to mention it in the production summary for Shang-Chi do you mean in the body/release section only, and not the lead? Just want to clarify if that's what you meant with your statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it should still be mentioned in the lead as it currently is, where we explain that filming has been put on hold, but am fine for it to be left out of the release summary in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Right. I was referencing the release info sentence. I fully agree the delay of production line should be kept. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Third Spider-Man film

In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a third Spider-Man film for Sony following Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), set for release during this phase. This sentence in the development section is unclear, and makes it sound like Homecoming and Far From Home are set for release during Phase Four. It's not a big deal, but I have offered two alternate versions of the sentence that remove this issue and both times have been reverted:

• In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a third Spider-Man film for Sony following Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), with the third film set for release during this phase. -- reverted by UnderIrae
• In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a new Spider-Man film for Sony as part of this phase, the third such film following Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019). -- reverted by Facu-el_Millo

Can we come to a compromise that fixes my issue and satisfies you guys? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

While I was editing the page myself, I was considering an alterior wording for this that would be more clear as: In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) for Sony, with the third film set for release during this phase. I figured over-using "Spider-Man film" wasn't that necessary as his name is in the titles of the two films, and it is a sequel to the two, so that could be a better placement for there, and then it refers to it as "the third film" for the release. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That could work. Some other alternatives:

• ... a third Spider-Man film for Sony set for release during this phase, following Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019). Maybe?
• Perhaps if we just add a comma, making it an appositive, it could work. ... a third Spider-Man film for Sony, following Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), set for release during this phase.

El Millo (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that last option too, just adding a comma. But El Millo's other option works too, as far as I'm concerned. Although in theory you could also find that confusing and read it as Homecoming and Far From Home also being a part of phase four. I think Trailblazer101's option is a bit more unwieldly and perhaps even somewhat confusing, which might be lessened by changing 'with the third film' to 'with that third film'. But, I prefer El Millo's second proposal: the added comma. It doesn't get much clearer, and it's the least clunky of all options. UnderIrae (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding the comma would technically change the sentence, but in reality I don't think it is going to make it appear any clearer. How about my second option without the "third such film" wording? In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a new Spider-Man film for Sony as part of this phase, after Marvel previously made Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) for Sony. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That works from my end, although I've made some minor alterations to it as such: In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a third Spider-Man film for Sony as part of this phase, after previously doing so for Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019). I feel "a new" implies that it's a different take, whereas "a third" conveys it to be a follow-up as it is. It's also probably best not to use the phrase "for Sony" twice in the same line. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

How about: In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a third Spider-Man film for Sony as part of this phase, sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019). El Millo (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I feelt that there is a consistent struggle in mentioning both the new agreement and the fact that it's a sequel to prior MCU films, and have noticed that for the other films, we don't mention what the sequels are sequels to except for the Spider-Man one. So, maybe we just exclude that part out entirely? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm for it. El Millo (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I find Trailblazer101's first option (first reply) to be the most clear and unambiguous. I would go with that but remove "for Sony." I think it's redundant and unneeded especially since under the new deal Disney will now have 25% distribution rights, which makes it even less "for Sony" compared to the first two.

Alternatively, we can also break it into 2 sentences. Not everything needs to be crammed into one long sentence. — Starforce¹³ 03:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for excluding the part that mentions what it's a sequel to. UnderIrae (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

So, based on the discussion, I've concluded this could be the wording: In September, Disney and Sony Pictures announced that Marvel Studios and Feige would produce a third Spider-Man film set for release during this phase. It's short, simple, and right to the point. Plus, once the title is inevitably announced, we can easily replace "a third Spider-Man film" with whatever the title may be to remain consistent with the other films that were announced. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and implemented the change. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam Raimi "confirmation"

Do we take this as official confirmation that he's directing? It definitely confirms his involvement in the project, but not explicitly that he's directing. Is this confirmation enough? Starforce13, Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, Adamstom.97 El Millo (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOR: "to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriiipleThreat (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, we gotta do something, because it's already been added more than three times here, at Doctor Strange (2016 film) and Draft:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Could we semi-protect them? El Millo (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree since there's no explicit confirmation in the source that he's directing it, that would be WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR. Once a highly reputable source like THR, Deadline or Variety picks up on the story and calls him the director, I will be fine with using that, since it's already obvious. In the meantime, we could mention that he confirmed he's involved in the film description. — Starforce¹³ 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I felt I wish we had the foresight to know that I was going to be involved in the project was pretty good confirmation (part in bold specifically). I didn't think using the source based on that would be OR on our parts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't say how he is involved and implying that he is the director based on that statement is OR. We'll get a confirmation at some point, there's no need to rush it now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiple sources, including Collider, IGN and Screen Rant are confirming Raimi as director. - Richiekim (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm mixed on this. It wasn't been directly stated by Raimi that he was in fact directing, which would be OR if we said that given the context of the source, but as Richiekim has pointed out, several sources are reporting that he is directing, which was the only reported role that he was in talks for, so it only makes since for that to be such. I'm willing to wait until sites such as Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter report on it for inclusion, but if the consensus changes, I'll likely agree to it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

/Film is independently reporting these statements from the roundtable discussion Raimi had with reporters confirms he is directing the film. Everyone's thoughts? @Facu-el Millo, TriiipleThreat, Starforce13, Richiekim, and Trailblazer101: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

After reading it, it refers to the same comment as all of them. But I don't know, every reliable source except the most reliable ones have already reported it as a confirmation. El Millo (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Although the SlashFilm article doesn't credit ComingSoon.net, by reading the context, it's pretty clear they're referring to the same quote from the comingsoon interview. But since they're not a professional site, they refuse to credit the original source.

That being said, there is no reason to doubt he's directing. The main reason we couldn't use the comingsoon.net article is that it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. So, while I would find the SlashFilm article questionable, I'm fine with using it for now and replace it with a truly independent reliable source once one is available. — Starforce¹³ 17:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Starforce on this. We could use the /Film source to state that Raimi is directing as the article explicitly makes that clear. He's been reported "in talks" to direct since February, and after several reports since than stating he's attached, this one stating it, albeit obviously from comingsoon.net, seems valid enough to me for including it as official. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the /Film source, which is a reputable site, it says this was a roundtable call with reporters. A lack of citing ComingSoon.net to mean indicates /Film was one of these reporters and thus is independently reporting, whereas we've seen other websites reference the ComingSoon article. That's why I've presented it for consideration. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it obvious that /Film is referring to same comments that ComingSoon reported. However, you have to look at sources in a vaccum. If we didnt already know about the ComingSoon article, then it would be a no brainer. Besides, if we go with /Film article, then the ComingSoon article will be forgotten about. Remember, we write for the long term historical view. In the end, the comingsoon article wont matter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The /Film source is more reputable than ComingSoon.net, and /Film is reporting that he said he was directing the film then I am happy to use that as confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand, we know it's referring to something that isn't an explicit confirmation. On the other hand, we know that although it isn't explicit it's still true and that article doesn't show the quote that would put the confirmation in doubt. I think adding it would be best for Wikipedia. El Millo (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead then and add in the confirmation with the /Film source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wording for WandaVision and Loki TV series sections

Are these sentences clear to most people?

"With the September 2018 report of the limited series, one was expected to follow Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch."

"With the September 2018 report of the limited series, one was expected to see Tom Hiddleston star as Loki."

I think the "With the September 2018 report of the limited series, one was expected to..." phrasing is a bit unnatural for readers. I changed these sentences to these below (and added more information from the ref), but my changes were reverted and I was asked to discuss here.

"In September 2018, Variety reported that several limited TV series featuring MCU characters were in early development, with Elizabeth Olsen expected to reprise her role as Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch."

"In September 2018, Variety reported that several limited TV series featuring MCU characters were in early development, with Tom Hiddleston expected to reprise his role as Loki."

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging (Favre1fan93—Trailblazer101—Jgstokes—Adamstom.97)

The current sentences seem very unnatural to me, the "one" alone what makes it weird. While the proposed change seems more natural, it doesn't clarify that both characters were expected to be the protagonists of their respective shows, instead of just reprising their roles. Maybe simply replacing "reprise his/her role" for "star" will do: "... with Tom Hiddleston expected to star as Loki." El Millo (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So the current wording was done because when these sections were at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, we had a general sentence about the Sep 2018 report. Since they are no longer there and that general sentence isn't featured here, yes I agree the wording should be updated, probably more as it is on the TV series list:

By September 2018, Marvel Studios was developing several limited series centered on "second tier" characters from the MCU films, including one centered on

Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch.

Tom Hiddleston's Loki.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for Favre's approach. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Change centered on [actor]'s [character] by starring [actor] as [character], in order to avoid repeating centered. El Millo (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That'd be fine. I can make this change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, these changes sound good to me. Natg 19 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for any of the initial confusion. With the articles related to the MCU continue to grow, and things split/merge from other places, you can forget what did or didn't make it over, as was the case here, hence the initial sentence being extremely unclear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with El Millo. That would take care of all concerns on my end. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WandaVision first

The THR source for the Ms Marvel directors explicitly says that WandaVision will now be first since F&WS has been delayed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done El Millo (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Series first

As WandaVision is the first installment in the phase to be released, then the television series by every right should be listed before the films in the list. At present, the phase seems to be set to end with a film as well in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, so it would make more sense in that way. 2001:BB6:5241:C900:CD07:4D37:93C3:B2E9 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a WP:WEIGHT issue, and the films are still the "main" presentation of the MCU, so they should remain the first section, even if WandaVision is the first content of the phase. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield joining Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel.

Guys, can we trust this source?[] Sanhok (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

FandomWire has proven to end up accurate with some of their reports in the past, but it isn't best to use them for confirming reports. It is best not to use it and hold off to see what more reliable sources like The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, or Variety say. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

FandomWire does not seem to be a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Updates from DiscussingFilm

We have a bunch of updates from a DiscussingFilm article, and I always forget if we've already discussed this. Is DiscussingFilm a reliable source? El Millo (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it can be, depending on what's being discussed in the article. They do have an EiC and a team of writers and editors which would support WP:NEWSBLOG. They also conduct interviews with people in the industry. For this specific source, I think it's good to include, and as always, if other reputable sites report on it, we can also include or replace. If this info hasn't been added, I will go ahead and do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Disney+ series and seasons

I just added to the Loki article that there's apparently going to be a season 2 that starts filming in January 2022. Up until now, we've assumed each of these were all limited series, one and dones. But now if these are getting multiple seasons, here's a question about the overview table and sections: since we are breaking it down by phase, if Loki season 2 exists, but isn't considered part of Phase Four, do we include it here? My feeling would be no, so we'd have just a section for Loki season 1 here, and then if season 2 is in Phase Five, that would have a season 2 section. It's not ideally how we should be handling series, but I feel it would be the best solution to keep breaking everything down by Phase. There would also be the issue of the table transcluding to the list of TV series article and main MCU article. Maybe in those instances, we hardcode a table at the TV list that adds a column for Phases (so they wouldn't be headings), and then that is what transcludes back to the main MCU article. I guess to this applies to S2 of What If, which we've included so far in this table, but maybe we shouldn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

We should probably think of these seasons as installments in a series, equating Loki seasons 1 and 2 to something like Thor and Thor: The Dark World. Both second installments are direct sequels to the first ones, but within the context of different Phases (Phases Four and Five and Phases One and Two, respectively). So far though, the two series that have a second season in the works are What If...?, which is animated and is about alternate realities, and Loki which takes place in an alternate reality as well, so it doesn't seem this will be the case for every other series, thankfully. Down the road, we could choose how we present these seasons based on how much interconnectivity they have with the main timeline. El Millo (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

We should only have the content that is part of each phase at these articles, so if that means we need to have a different table at the TV list I think that makes the most sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with adam on this. Now, this begs the question: Do we know if What If season two is actually part of Phase Four or not? From what I've seen, there's no indication season 2 is part of the phase, and I think it may be best moving it out and hardcoding it to the TV list article, which we should do with Loki season 2 once that is ordered. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We should probably remove it, and maybe change the name of its section from What If...? to What If...? season 1. Also, considering each season as one installment, we should include the year in each section header, as we do with the films. El Millo (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure. We can make that What If change, but I think it's beneficial to put in the prose that it got renewed. And if we add "season X" to any headings, I don't think that would change us adding years once episodes release per WP:TVUPCOMING. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

An IP already started this, so I guess I'll expand. I'm going to add "season 1" to What If...? because that's been confirmed. I'm going to now hardcode a table at the TV series article that has a new column between Head Writer and Status for Phase, and then transclude that table back to the main MCU article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright that's done. Let me know if anyone comes across any errors or issue. The outline article was also adjusted, forgot to mention that in my last post as needing to be fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It all looks good to me! That's honestly the best way I feel this can be handled at the present moment, and we could probably stick with it and do the transclusions once we get the future phase's series confirmed or do something different, but I'm not so sure given we don't want to duplicate any series. I guess we'll figure that part out when the time comes, so for now, I like this way. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well transclusion will now be handled by the TV series table, not tables at the Phase articles, so that shouldn't be an issue given the changes I made. It made more sense to continue grouping by series as we normally would, and then putting the column to state the Phase it was part of. And then taking What If season 2 as an example, assuming it would be in Phase Five, it's entry in the table at the Phase Five article would have "2" under the season column, instead of 1. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

So that we don't have two separately hardcoded tables, what's our thoughts on converting the template at the television series article to just raw wikicode, and then using section tags to transclude to the Phase 4, MCU and Outline articles? We can't use section tags inside the series overview template (i.e. to include/exclude WI? S2), and while the template is the standard, I think it'd be easiest to maintain if we use wikicode, so that we only need to update the table in one location. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I had given that some thought of just using wikicode, but I felt given what I've resulted on that is currently at the series list, putting a bunch of transclude section and include-style tags around what would be needed to get only certain info here (ie not the new Phase column, and not any rows outside the Phase, yet still trying to maintain rowspans where possible), that seemed like more work than what I came up with. I'm just concerned with ease a bit, knowing when things get added or changed, what trasnclusion coding would have to be included as well. Also, should mass changes happen to the series overview template, this would then be excluded from that (it's only one article, but still). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I was testing out on my sandbox how we could potentially use the noinclude and includeonly to keep the What If season 2 info in the table on the Phase 4 page but hidden and then implement it to be transcluded over to the TV list, along with the Phase portion of it, as to avoid duplicating tables. Feel free to make any suggestions or changes as seen fit. I'm curious to see if this could be a beneficial way to handle these series for the time being, as I do feel if more and more get more seasons, we may need to break this up differently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: So the issue I see in using only one table, is the "read"/coded one should be at the TV list, having every thing listed and displayed as such. That, as is, would need to transclude to the main MCU article and outline. The problem then comes in when trying to get to the Phase articles, because they will need only the series for such phase, the network/release info to rowspan correctly, and not bringing over the Phase column. We can't use "includeonly" etc. tags because that would break the main MCU and outline transclusions, and I don't think section tags will help us either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the difficulties with that and am fine keeping it how it is currently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone has other thoughts or are thinking differently than I am, I'm definitely open to figuring out one table to edit info on. I might ponder on it a bit myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Head Writer Images?

I was scrolling through this page in lew of the mass news that we've all received in the past hours seeing if there was anything we were missing or what needed to be tidied up and it occurred to me that it may not hurt to include images of head writers on this article that have other credits within the MCU, such as Jac Schaeffer's image at the WandaVision section noting she's a writer on Captain Marvel and Black Widow and the head writer of WV, and Michael Waldron (if image is applicable and added to Wikipedia with a proper license; this isn't my area of expertise, so if some agree this could be done, if another could handle that image process, that would be much appreciated) noting he's a writer on Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and the head writer of Loki. This is common for the Phase articles of directors recurring through properties and is not just bound by phases, as evident by Jon Favreau's image at Iron Man 2 on the Phase One article and has been done for the Marvel TV series such as Melissa Rosenberg and the SHIELD crew. I'm open to discussing this further if anyone has questions and thoughts on implementing this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm for it. Head writers are arguably as important for TV series as directors are for films. El Millo (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s a good idea however it needs to be limited. There are too many shows to include them all. For example, we only include pictures of returning directors for films. Perhaps we could wait a bit and only include images of head writers that return for multiple seasons.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this, but do note at the moment, only Schaeffer and Slater have images on Commons that we could use. So I would be in support of only doing Schaeffer for the time being because of her working on past film projects, and then if things get to multiple seasons, we shift our criteria to that as Triiiple suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and add in Schaeffer's image. My thought process behind this is because they as head writers have also been writers on prior MCU films which are to be connected or compared to their Disney+ series, it's worthy of inclusion as they are like directors, as El Millo pointed out. I'm fine holding off on Waldron's until a Commons file is available. If any of the head writers do return for future seasons, we can always look back on this and make adjusts if needed, but those might just be for a future phase and could be done on those pages. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Schaeffer's image addition is  Done. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Tatiana Maslany as She-Hulk

According to an interview that Maslany had with The Sudbury Star, the casting of her as She-Hulk is "just a rumor". What do we do in light of this information, taking into account that we have our most reliable sources reporting that she was indeed cast in the role? El Millo (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

She could be doubling down on denying until Marvel makes it official? Or perhaps she was only ever in talks, and the deal never went through? Deadline's article states: "Sources tell Deadline that Orphan Black star Tatiana Maslany is the choice to play the title character in Marvel’s She-Hulk series for Disney+." Note Deadline's wording is the choice, which can open up a whole lot of variables. I say, do what's been done on the draft article, and remove Maslany in our mainspace articles that mention her until this gets cleared up. Seems like a Hailee Steinfeld/Kate Bishop situation... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I believe Paul Rudd straight up denied he was cast as Ant-Man despite the trades reporting on it. This could be a similar situation, though I agree that it's better to err on the side of caution until we get official confirmation of the casting of She Hulk. - Richiekim (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and just remove the info. If it turns out to be true, we can add it back in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

My guess Maslany is just being coy. Mark Ruffalo, showrunner Jessica Gao and director Kat Coiro (seems Coiro deleted her post, here's a perma link via DailyMail) all congratulated her on social media.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Gao and Coiro's posts are definitely telling in my eyes that she is in the role. They wouldn't have done that if she wasn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. They aren't in charge of casting. They read the reports and then congratulated her. Maslany would certainly have a better idea if she was cast in the role then they would. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As the head writer and director, respectively, Gao and Coiro would have been informed by their employed studios on any hiring conducted for the series. Actors usually deny being cast in superhero roles before the production studio confirms it, so it is best to wait on judging this and rest on the talk for including this info below, rather than leading two discussions at once. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The show runner not being involved much less unaware of the casting of the series lead would be pretty remarkable.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Tatiana Maslany's Denial

Starting this so anyone who feels her denial is irrelevant can voice it. My stance is it's one of the most relevant sources on this until the role is confirmed and should be included and is being removed without legitimacy. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You were already reverted once on this before, so I followed suit again because you are making this change without consulting or gaining approval from editors prior to doing so. I am open to discussing its inclusion in this article, but do not support the current formatting that you are pushing. Both of these reasons are why it is being reverted, unless a consensus is reached here for how to implement it. I would suggest that stating "In September 2020, Tatiana Maslany was cast in the title role, but has said to debunk this." Please refrain from re-adding this information until a consensus is reached here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The first editor reverted because I had changed the language to say it was a rumor. When I put the reference and her denial back I reverted back to the original language because of the editor's point. What is relevant is her denial and does not need consensus to be added. However, it should need consensus to be removed. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As we aren't adding credible denials until we discuss it we should not add anything until this discussion is fleshed out. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be has said to. She said it. It should state outright that she has denied it. My opinion. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

We can include her denial, but the reliable sources should be given more weight, especially since she was also reported to have been cast in the role even after having denied it. El Millo (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So since you both agree it can be added, can you add she denied it? I really don't know how you'll say she's less credible then other sources unless you editorialize or come up with references to impeach her credibility. Does she have a documented history of lying? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can say Maslany has denied this but many on Wikipedia believe she is lying and add a link to the talk page. Is that possible? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia articles go. We present the factual information that is available from reliable sources. Since no one else from Marvel's team or the crew of the She-Hulk series have denied Maslany's casting and her casting has been repeatedly confirmed by reliable sources from before and after he denial, those are given more weight than her singular statement of denial. We can't classify it as a "rumor" given it was officially confirmed, and no one on here is saying Maslany is "lying", just that she disputed it. To be truthful, we don't know Maslany's reason for denying her casting. It could be she's still in talks with her deal or the press got to the news before Marvel wanted it announced. We don't know. But we can't cite Wikipedia, especially a discussion on here, in the main article space. It would be best to include that Maslany disputed the claims of her casting, but since no major reliable publication has addressed them, I'm not sure if it would suffice for the topic as much as it does on the series' draft article at Draft:She-Hulk (TV series) does. I'm totally fine adding in the information myself, so long no one has any issues with it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and revised the current wording to be as objective and following the sources as much as possible. If anyone has any thoughts on the current wording, feel free to discuss them here instead of edit warring. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I added a brief sentence about her denial with a reference. And then one that states that her casting has still been reported afterwards based on this conversation. I believe this satisfies both your concerns but if not reword it. Just please don't editorialize. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And I know that's not how they work. My point was Wikipedia editors not believing someone doesn't justify removing their comments when properly sourced. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe grammatically it should say, although she has denied it. And it doesn't address the other editors concerns as I clearly read them. Which was to state that it has been reported both before and after her denial. This really isn't how Wikipedia is designed to work by the way. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing subjective about proper grammar, so I'm going to fix it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted the sentence's grammar and structure to note the timeline of her casting reports, denial, and it being reaffirmed. We are not saying we don't believe Maslany, just pointing out that the reliable sources and crew heads have outweighed her own one-off statement, especially since it has been reaffirmed. I don't see an issue with the current wording I have implemented at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. You beat me to it. Reaffirmed by itself is subjective. It should state who reaffirmed it I believe. Thank you for the adjustment. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Also that's not a legitimate reason to delete a proper edit or just because another editor wrongly reverted it. The following sentence could have been added without this discussion. As could rewording and editing the sentence about her denial. And even if after that a conversation was necessary, it didn't need to be deleted because of disagreement over wording. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the initial reversion? El Millo (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Nothing was stopping you from adding a sentence aftetwards to clarify that it had still been reported she was cast after her denial. Or rewording appropriately to give proper weight where you felt needed. She should certainly be considered a credible source even if it's believed she's lying for whatever reason. It is relevant and had a proper source. Both you and the other editor agreed it can be added and has some weight. It could have been discussed and edited without removing it altogether. As exhibited by the conclusion we reached here. Either way, I hope we all agree with how it's been added now. I hope your concerns were addressed. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was not considered constructive by me, because it qualified the news of her casting as debunked rumors, so I reverted it. When something is being discussed on an article's talk page, the WP:STATUSQUO stays on the article. That's how things are done and that's how things should be done. There was a previous consensus that we would include her as cast in the part even though she had denied it. Your edit was against that consensus, so it was reverted. Further reverts were made to your edits on WP:BRD grounds, since you reinstated them before a new consensus was formed. This is standard practice, and having your edits reverted is part of the process in constructing the encyclopedia. Now, after a bold edit, a revert, and a discussion, we have arrived at a new consensus, which is to include the casting, its denial, and its reaffirmation. El Millo (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Including information that she was cast in the role and consensus on that does not automatically mean there was consensus not to include her denial. That's an assumption. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk)

I've removed this info. It isn't necessary to state here because reliable sources have consistently stated she's in the role, which at that point it becomes WP:VNT. We're covering the denial in the draft, where it's most helpful to have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the point I was trying to make clear, but wasn't being taken. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

To further add perhaps in another way that might be clearer: when looking at the info here, which is just supposed to be a quick summary/overview, not indepth details, as proposed it was stating "cast, not cast, cast" which we can just simplify then to being cast and cut out the middle info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey remember when Benedict Cumberbatch said he totally wasn’t playing Khan.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Or last week when Mads Mikkelsen denied his casting as Grindelwald to replace Johnny Depp. El Millo (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. People lie all the time for various reasons. Actors are not immune to this because they are also people. However pointing out that some people have lied on similar issues does not fly in any legitimate debate or court when talking about someone else. With Wikipedia being what it is it should hold itself up to the same standard. Which is us. For all intents and purposes we are Wikipedia. The question should be, "Has Maslany ever lied about a roll?" If Cumberbatch has lied is of no value to this conversation. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Cumberbatch reference was clearly anecdotal.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: I suggest you search up the answer to your question and come back here to this discussion if you find anything that is of relevance to this. We don't have all the information about these productions on deck for Wikipedia, we gather our information from reliable sources. Those reliable sources have re-affirmed her casting despite her being the only person to deny it, which is accustom in the industry and, as my fellow editors are pointing out, has been done numerous times through the years before the castings were confirmed. These casting refutes are minuscule in regards to the wider scope of this article's topic of the Phase Four films and television series of the MCU, so such a minor detail about an actor initially denying a casting before it was re-confirmed doesn't suit well to this article's intent or overall subject of the content on here, which is why myself and others have suggested this is something best left for the series' draft article where it is discussed with more accuracy than what is worthwhile for here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Casting information probably shouldn't be noted at all until officially confirmed because of this. However, if the majority of editors here wish to hold this page to a lower standard then that so be it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the legitimacy of editorial new publications. Sites like Deadline Hollywood and The Hollywood Reporter, which we are using in this instance our of numerous ones that have reported on Maslany's casting when it was first announced and now when it was re-affirmed, are confirming her involvement through production insight from the studios. Rather than the studios outright confirming the casting, they send the information out to the press, as is how much of the entertainment industry works nowadays. These news sites are confirming her casting, even after she denied it, which is what some actors do because the studio doesn't want to confirm it themselves and let it reside on the press to confirm it for them. Unless you find a reliably-qualified and updated source that confirms she has not been cast, there is nothing de-confirming the facts that we have all been presented with. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I'm accepting the decision because to me there is clear consensus and I am definitely outnumbered. However, I still disagree. Publications get things wrong and often have to print retractions. I understand your argument but clearly those involved are sending out contradictory information as there are credible sources that have published her denial as well. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that they wanted Alison Brie but couldn't get her because of her contractual obligations with GLOW. So they went after Maslany. However, now that GLOW was cancelled due to Covid they may want Brie after all which is why there is confusion and no official announcement. But maybe you know something I don't. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Alison Brie She-Hulk reports are pure WP:RUMOR, which holds no weight here on Wikipedia, especially since no other candidates have been reliable reported on for the role. If you could link to the "credible sources" that reported on here casting being false, that would be much appreciated. But I'd like to point you to another discussion about this here as to why it was decided to include Maslany's re-affirmed casting. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The initial casting call was for an Alison Brie type. Again, she wouldn't have been able to do it at the time. That's how the rumors got started. In October GLOW was unexpectedly cancelled. Maslany was announced in September. She denied it after GLOW was cancelled. It wasn't a coincidence. I'm not advocating for saying Brie was cast. My whole point is that nothing is official and there's a reason for that. You don't have to believe me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That is all WP:SYN / WP:OR. However, reliable sources do verify Maslany. Per WP:V our threshold is reliable, not official. Besides as pointed out in the previous thread, the show runner and director have both acknowledged the casting. It doesn’t get much more official than that.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note that when Maslany said what she did, we did remove the info, because what we had conflicted. However, it was decided to readded once THR published a big article on many of the various MCU projects in production, and they reaffirmed her cast. That was notable because it was a fully confirmation, not saying "report"/"in talk" etc, so it was decided that was enough to source her inclusion. So you will see both the original Deadline report on the casting from September, plus this THR November source. And stating once again, this is supposed to be a summary. The full casting info and what happened is at Draft:She-Hulk (TV series), which will become a mainspace article once it starts filming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As it Has now been added by another long time editor and reverted for the reason of "see talk page," I no longer believe we have consensus. And so, I believe all casting information should be removed until an official confirmation. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. Her denial was added by another editor which means at least one other editor has now added that information. That's not consensus. Unless you mean that other editor and I have consensus but because there are other editors who clearly disagree with us that is not consensus. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is formed by discussing, unless there's implicit consensus for something added and not reverted for a long time. If that editors wants to come and continue the discussion they're invited to do so, but the WP:STATUSQUO would still be what's currently included there. As WP:CONSENSUS states: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. An editor that removes the information without any explanation doesn't add to or remove from the consensus. El Millo (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that which is why I conceded earlier that there was consensus in spite of me disagreeing. However, now that I'm clearly not alone my point is that I no longer believe there is a consensus. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding that the reported actor cast in the lead has denied she's been cast is self explanatory. It's clear why it was added. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the same if you're not alone. It doesn't make your argument more convincing in any way. As I said before, that user can come in and come up with a different, possibly better argument, or they can have some valuable input that might take the consensus in a different direction, or make your argument more convincing. Still, the consensus was already formed, so in order to have it the other way around, not only does there need to not be a consensus, there needs to be a consensus for the contrary. El Millo (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet it is not being added to Maslany's Wikipedia page for the exact reasons I have brought up on here. Which means as of now two different pages on Wikipedia are requiring two different levels of credibility in reporting the exact same thing which takes away from the credibility of Wikipedia. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that's just not true. There's been no discussion of any kind at Talk:Tatiana Maslany about this. Checking the history of the article, the last time this was added was by a user called Sean Stephens on October 1 (diff), and it was reverted by 55eo55 that same day, with an edit summary that states: Not til it starts production (diff). So no, the exact reasons I have brought up on here have nothing to do with the reason why it hasn't been added there. El Millo (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You're referring to her filmography. I'm referring to the paragraph announcing her casting. Look again. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ([2]) (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to point that out myself and have added her updated casting info to her career section but not to the filmography table per the production notice.. Wikipedia should remain consistent across all articles. One page not being updated with the most current information does not mean the consensus of said new information does not hold up. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't hold up on that page though where other editors have made edits. You shouldn't have re added it on that page without consensus there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS was right to remove it at the time, but now it should be added again. El Millo (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How though? The showrunner and director seemed to already say it was her. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the same thing we did. Many outlets had confirmed it, but when she denied it, we removed it. Then, when the big THR update came ([3]), reaffirming her casting after she denied it, we decided to add it again, given how widely it had been covered the first time, plus this last reaffirmation. So the removal by JDDJS was at least in line with what we did here and at every other MCU-related article that included the info. On what you said at Maslany's article, I think we could put exactly what we currently have on the subject at Draft:She-Hulk (TV series), which is: In September 2020, Deadline Hollywood reported that Tatiana Maslany was cast in the lead role of Walters; however, Maslany denied being cast in the role the following month, stating that it was "a press release that's gotten out of hand" and "not actually a thing". The Hollywood Reporter reaffirmed Maslany's casting in November 2020. That's specific and it accurately covers all the information we've got. El Millo (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

I completely agree with the above as far as Maslany's page. As far as this page I appreciate everyone's time, energy, and patience. I have nothing else to say for now. We'll see if anyone chimes in who agrees with me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why can't we put anything in the she-hulk tv show that was confirmed by Disney+ like Tim Roth returning as the abomination?

Why can't we put anything in the she-hulk tv show that was confirmed by Disney+ like Tim Roth returning as the abomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B01B:F100:3DC9:4224:46DD:8F5B (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's there now. There was a lot of information to get through and editors were sifting through it all, but you could have added it as there's not editing protection on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Other TV series mention in lead

Moved from Talk:Ms. Marvel (TV series) § Other TV series

 – Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I explained why I added the "other television series of the franchise", and despite explaining it was reverted once again, so someone is reading? I will say here. The TV series shares continuity not only with the films but also the other shows, at least the Marvel Studios-produced ones (that's why I added the Marvel Studios series link), because of the shared universe. So, is it wrong what I am saying? AxGRvS (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a previously established consensus to only link to the MCU films in regards to these Disney+ series as that is what they connect to. Sure, they are MCU television series, but saying that they connect to the other television series of the franchise is misleading as they connect with the films. Adding the Marvel Studios clarification Iunderstand, but it is simply an unnecessary detail as later on in the article, we explain each series is in a phase, which includes the other future films, and because of that and how they have no connections to the other MCU series from Marvel Television, it's not worth while to try and explain that in the lead of each series article, as those should be quick explanations of their canon status in regards to the main MCU, which revolves around the films. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If a series is directly related to another series (such as Ironheart and Armor Wars rumored to be connected), then I would say we should make mention of it sharing continuity with the films and other series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. At this time, such additions feel pre-mature. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Are all the Disney Investor Day reveals Phase Four?

Marvel.com seems to indicate so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, and Trailblazer101: A lot was happening yesterday, just wanted to ping you all if you saw my post, plus the Marvel link I added that indicates all of this content might be in Phase Four. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems so, although I wouldn't mind keeping all the stuff without a release date in a separate section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. We have a lot of reasons to believe they aren't, and that page's indications are too subtle and vague to constitute enough evidence that they are part of Phase Four. El Millo (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Its prefaced by saying "Phase 4 of the MCU kicks off with Marvel Studios’ WandaVision.... In addition to that, the superhero adventures are just getting started on the small screen and additional Disney+ series will feature characters like Loki, Ms. Marvel, and Kate Bishop. But that’s still not all!" Then they list everything that was announced yesterday and ends it with "This is just the beginning of the Phase 4 news."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we need at least one or two secondary reliable sources that state these other films and TV shows as part of Phase Four before we move them. El Millo (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thats reasonable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a good indication that these possible are Phase Four, but I think yeah, we need other reliable sources stating such, or Marvel/Feige making further comments. We have the future content for both at the films and TV series articles so its there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This source [4] says: "This is just the beginning of the Phase 4 news." so I thinkk that: BP2, CM2, FF, Armor Wars, Blade and others should be listed as Phase 4. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mike210381 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the main article, if you go to the individual articles about upcoming movies and shows they all have "Want more exciting information about Phase 4?" and "This is just the beginning of the Phase 4 news" as well, for instance Captain Marvel 2 and the Guardians Holiday Special. Seems like a pretty good indication to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is THR source. Mike210381 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Adam on this. All of the recent news, even Secret Invasion, Ironheart, Armor Wars, and I Am Groot list the same thing. It's really leading into them all being Phase Four. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this more myself, and I feel like Marvel Studios would be going out of their way saying they are in a new Phase, not that they aren't in Phase Four. If we think back to post SDCC reveals from last year, D23 gave us She-Hulk, Moon Knight, and Ms. Marvel reveals (which are all in Phase Four), and the announcement of Black Panther II but we weren't fully confirmed then of its inclusion in the Phase. Thinking more to how I am now regarding that, I feel like back then, it would have been a "thing" to say it isn't in Phase Four, where the simple announcement implies it is in the Phase. I would be in support of Black Panther II, Captain Marvel 2, Quantumania, Guardians Vol. 3, Fantastic Four, and all the new Disney+ content being Phase Four. Leave out Blade because we have pretty definitive comments from Feige stating it is not in Phase Four (and it isn't on Marvel's page for the Investor Day announcements), along with keeping What If as season 1 only. Also of note, those comments about Blade also contradicts a bit that any additional films should be considered part of the Phase outside those in the SDCC reveals (and the 3 D23 series we've since confirmed), since he says It is the complete Phase Four the way I announced the complete Phase Three five years ago—things can move, things can change as they did if you go back and look at what we talked about five years ago for Phase Three, but we’ve been working on this for quite a while and it’s pretty set. But there are always changes possible. He says "move" and "change", not "add", which I also feel is a bit telling, and the Phase Three changes added things within the films that bookend it, not adding completely to the end of what was announced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Blade logo is among all logos from Investor Day announcements and to be honest I don't remember if Feige statement about Blade was clear or it was only interpretation. Mike210381 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

His Blade comments were clear. From the video in Collider's article: Steve Weintraub: So is Blade in Phase Four? Feige: No. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

But it was over year ago. Mike210381 (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for having Black Panther II, Captain Marvel 2, Quantumania, Fantastic Four, Guardians Vol. 3, Secret Invasion, Ironheart, Armor Wars, The Guardians Holiday Special, and I Am Groot moved from the Phase 5 draft to the Phase 4 article in their respective spots, along with info on the other release dates that Disney has scheduled (even though it may seem like the Oct. 7, 2022 date could be dropped). Blade, and the Deadpool and mutants films, along with What If season 2 info should remain in the list articles (with Loki's season 2 info still only on that series page for now) as those seem pretty concrete to not be in Phase 4 at this time; Blade and the other films don't have expected release dates and were not indicated to be in Phase 4 then or now. With this, the remaining films would be in the films list as is, while only What If season 2 info would be in the "Future" section on the TV list as the rest would have qualified sections at the Phase 4 article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Blade is listed here among all other announcements. Mike210381 (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

They just touched on it in during the investor day, so I still think Feige's comments from SDCC 2019 still hold. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Here I found an article from News18 that states: Marvel Studios has announced an ambitious slate of movies and TV series for its 2021 and 2022 calendar, all part of Phase 4 for the cinematic universe. While I'm still hesitant, perhaps this could be enough. El Millo (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If we merge all this info (excluding Blade, Deadpool, mutants, and What if s2) what source do we use to confirm they are phase four? Marvel.com? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can use Marvel.com for now. I didn't even realise that all of the new Disney+ series are set for release in 2021 or 2022 which makes it even more likely that they are in the same phase. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we can use the Marvel.com source currently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going boldly move all this info over and sourced by Marvel.com's "container" article covering all the Disney Investor Day reveals as being Phase Four. As discussed, I will exclude Blade until better confirmation than Feige's own words from last year comes out, as well as the mutants info, Deadpool 3 and What If season 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Content has been merged over. Fixed the list of films and tv articles, plus the main MCU article. Fixed redirects and section links. Going to add in Phase Four to the relevant drafts too. I know the cast lists will have to be adjusted as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What about Blade ?

You forgot Blade starring Mahershala Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.167.122 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not part of this phase, per comments from Feige. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)