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

Television: Marvel Cinematic Universe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force (assessed as Top-importance). Comics: Marvel Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://gamerant.com/marvel-studios-special-presentations-over/ https://movieweb.com/mcu-should-special-presentations-be-the-future/

Is there a better way we can word the first sentence? Marvel Studios Special Presentation are a series of... just doesn't sound grammatically correct, nor does "is". Maybe we could change it to plural, i.e. Marvel Studios Special Presentations are a series of...? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 05:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I was thinking we could follow the One-Shots article with the plural statement. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 20:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Did "Special Presentations are a series..." — SirDot ( talk) 20:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Should the draft/article title be at the plural as well? Also the rest of the lead could use some expansion. I wasn't sure what else should be in there, and if it should follow the film/TV series list, or the One-Shots one. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I think the title should be plural to be in-line with the One-Shots article. As for the lede, I think we should follow the format of the One-Shots as to make it reflective of the banner and the specials rather than following the list format, which is more of an overview that can be handled elsewhere. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 16:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Cool. I've made the move, and if we can get the lead shaped up/expanded a bit, I think this meant WP:GNG and can be moved. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Since more people will probably see this here, should Category:Television specials by Marvel Studios be speedy renamed to Category:Marvel Studios Special Presentations much like how we have Category:Marvel One-Shots? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I would support a speedy rename to that title. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 15:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, this falls under WP:C2D. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Requested. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 14:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Should we including this as "actually" a Special Presentation (in its article placement and within the infobox)? Yes, Marvel.com gave the full title (and poster), but I took it more that it was branded as such since it applied to WWBN which is a Special Presentation, not that Director by Night was also one. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 23:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm debating on this myself, as it could very well just be a brand thing. Some outlets headlined it as the second Special Presentation, although, given it is a documentary focused on Michael Giacchino and his childhood works, and the BTS of WWBN, it does not fit within the MCU narratively speaking, which I think this article should primarily reflect. Per my edits on this, I think we should not include it as one of the Special Presentations and just as a tie-in to them, very much akin to Assembled, while noting it is part of that brand. We could launch a documentary table and sub-section for it, though I'd feel safer leaving such hidden until we get one for the GotG HS. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 23:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I concur. Given its documentary nature, I would not consider it a proper Special Presentation. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Trailblazer101: FWIW, I felt your initial inclusion of the material was appropriate. But perhaps just (eventually) move what you did from "Development" to a new subsection pending what happens with the Holiday Special. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh yeah, I agree with that. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 22:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Shouldn’t Nova be listed in the future Specials spot? Wasn’t it confirmed as a special? 0Detail-Attention215 ( talk) 20:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Nothing reliably confirmed it as a special. It was confirmed to be Disney+ based however, so it is currently listed at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Future. If that changes, it will be moved here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 23:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply

THR recently stated it was a series, which is what the articles currently reflect. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 00:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I had no idea about it so that’s why I asked here. 0Detail-Attention215 ( talk) 19:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

How confident are we that this is more than just a rumour? The source we are using says "It sounds like they may be doing his very own special." - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I am admittedly not so confident in it necessarily being a thing that we can definitely say is 100% happening. I'm more skeptical with this one given no production listings have noted it, and it's just from what one source told Sneider in what seems to be more of a potential thing. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 22:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I just think if we aren't super confident with it we should probably stick to a mention on this page and draftify the separate article until we have more to go on. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I'd support that. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 22:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I think it's probably best to keep it as a draft for now. -- ZooBlazer ^talk 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I thought once it was first reported on, we might have gotten a trade following up on it, but I guess no one else was confident in their sources or rumors they were hearing to do so. I'm 50/50 on it going back to the draft space, but I won't stand in the way if that's what consensus wants. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done Redraftified. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 20:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks Trailblazer - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply