Talk:Captain America: The First Avenger/Archive 2

Teaser
Why should teaser of the next film be described as a post-credits scene? As seen in The Avengers teaser, the scene isn't part of the Captain America Gevorg89 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At what point did you take the link to the last discussion and the link to WP: BRD as an invitation to edit yet again over the same thing without discussing it or apparently reading the other discussion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should that scene be mentioned as part of this film while it's a teaser? In Iron Man 2, Agent Coulson ending scene was both end-credits scene of Iron Man 2 and part of Thor while here we're dealing with the teaser (or teaser-trailer) clip of the next film. Gevorg89 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence, beyond I mean your own OR, POV and personal belief that it is exclusively a teaser? No? Then you can feel free to knock it off at any time. It was the last film out before the Avengers so they threw an Avengers advert onto it, how you can deny that the scene feeds directly from the film is mind boggling, but regardless it has been discussed and your continued disruption over it without any kind of sourcing or consensus in your favour will not be tolerated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Did not see this discussion or previous one in the archive, but read it over and agree with what has been said (my previous edit was out of my own thinking that it was actually a teaser). I remember now that it was Cap-specific, thus making it a post credit scene, which happened to be followed by The Avengers tease (not necessarily a teaser trailer in the conventional sense). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you watched linked videos, you'd see that it wasn't post-credits scene but The Avengers teaser, because in some theaters, teaser was shown and only after that Cap waking up in present day, thus proving there's no post-credits scene. That scene isn't even fully shown - just see it in The Avengers. Teaser and real post-credits scene. Your misunderstanding comes from Iron Man 2 post-credits scene, which was also part of Thor and making you believe Avengers teaser's first scene being post-credits scene. So either write there's future film's teaser-trailer after the end credits, or write full recap of it instead of only first scene.Gevorg89 (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In some theaters, like ALL the theaters not in America, the Shwarma scene from the Avengers wasn't there. Should that be excluded from that article's plot? I'm sorry but your 'theory' on the outlier of cinema chains showing a scene post credits determining it's inclusion in the plot is not a valid one. Your misunderstanding comes from you still not understanding that you saying things does not make them true, and post-credit scenes appearing in other films does not, not make them post-credit scenes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't say that if a post-credits scene is also in other movie, it doesn't belong to that movie. I don't say Iron Man 2 scene should be excluded from plot recap because it reappears in Thor. Shawarma scene isn't a teaser/trailer/teaser-trailer from another movie, it's a final scene. And your misunderstanding comes from the fact that you don't understand that if you say smth., it doesn't make them true either. I say your "scene" was followed by other scenes also, which altogether created Avengers teaser, so why don't you recap everything from there? They were also shown after the end credits. I repeat - there's not only Fury ad Cap scene after the end credits. You just need to see that it was just part of the teaser, its beginning. If that was a real ending scene, distributors wouldn't allow cinemas show it earlier. It was Avengers teaser shown in the end, which was later proved my releasing that teaser to the web Gevorg89 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What about such consensus: "After the end credits teaser for The Avengers (next Marvel Cinematic Universe film) is shown, in the first scene of which Fury approaches Rogers with a mission to save the world" (worldwide ramification doesn't exactly show what Fury said and meant). As a result, the scene both is mentioned as part of the teaser, and its plot is written. I think it's an acceptable solution. Gevorg89 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First thank you for inviting me here, instead of edit-warring. However, I feel the sentence was poorly worded. A good plot summary does not provide narration, it simply summarizes the narrative. But to the main point, being a teaser or a coda is not mutually exclusive. It can be both.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gevorg, move on, no one responding to the end of the conversation was not them conceding, it was them growing tired of the discussion. It's been had twice, you've lost both times, let it go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake, talk pages are for talking and finding decision that is good for both parts and not ignoring just because of having different opinion. Talk, offer your solutions that will both recap the beginning of the teaser and mention it as a teaser. E. g. just changing the first part to "In the beginning of "The Avengers" teaser", keeping the rest. And once again - "mission with worldwide ramification" and "mission to save the world" (what Fury said and meant) are very different things. Gevorg89 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We had the talk, we decided against your proposal. The talk page is not for you to keep talking and enacting changes when people stop responding to your repeated talking points regarding the same subject over and over. The scene immediately follows the credits, relates directly to the character of Captain America and follows on directly from the pre-credits ending. That other stuff is attached to promote another film does not change that fact and I'm exhausted with how obsessed you are over this or why it is such a problem for you. The wording as is, is fine, it is not misrepresenting the situation, and worldwide ramifications and a necessity to save the world mean the same thing. Discussion. End. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with DWB, there is a difference between discussion and WP:FILIBUSTER.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and thought of a possible solution. Would it be acceptable to mention in the "Release" section, that attached to the film, was a teaser for The Avengers? And then leave everything in the plot as is? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that, its already mentioned in the Marketing section of The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can agree that a teaser can be considered as a post-credits scene, so what if leave the sentence as it is, just add: "In the post-credits scene (part of The Avengers teaser), ..."? Also - "worldwide ramifications" doesn't say what kind of ramifications it is, doesn't tell the meaning of the original sentence. It means that something will have effect on the whole world, not exactly meaning saving it. Gevorg89 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mention of the teaser should not be in the plot. If anything, as noted, it should be in the "Release" section, which actually is a good place for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can add the teaser scene's recap in the Release section, or mention about the last sentence being from teaser in that section. That could be an acceptable solution. Gevorg89 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Hopefully that settles things and we can move on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - this is good solution as no one wanted to mention about it in the "Plot" section. Gevorg89 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Billing Block
The list goes like 8 deep and includes Derek Luke, a not that famous actor who is hardly in the film at all. Yet you managed to omit the female lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding with that list of "Starring"?


 * Per Template:Infobox film, we go by the credits listed in the billing block of the poster. So you might want to talk to the Marvel Studios marketing department.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We can however add Atwell if others agree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia needs to try and be consistent. In an attempt to keep things consistent and not have huge cast lists in the Infobox WP:MOSFILM decided to use the billing block on the Theatrical release poster. It wasn't a one off either 12 (if you squint and make out the small print.
 * All I can say is Derek Luke must have some special contract to get that billing considering other Howling Commandos are not listed. I agree it is odd that Hayley Atwell is not listed. The billing block on the Captain America DVD artwork does include other cast members. Presumably that explains why others have tried to change the billing block but discussion is needed first (if the changes are to stick). You'll notice Derek Luke is listed again too. I have no idea why Natalie Dormer was among the 5 actors listed on another version of the DVD cover.
 * Having said that anything goes once you have consensus. If people discuss here first and come to a firm decision then we can add a different warning and other editors will likely abide by the consensus. -- 109.78.203.40 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The page used the billing block from the poster, but upon release of the film on home media, Atwell and Stan were added to the billing block, so I see no issue in their inclusion. All other MCU pages with films in home media represent the billing block used on the home media (which conversely may be similar to the posters). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Change of format from Plain list to Unbulleted list makes diff unclear, but it seems you didn't add any cast members. Which version of the DVD or other home media billing list do you suggest? Can you provide a link to that artwork please (you are not required to but it would help). Presumably you only want to add Atwell and Sebastian Stan per your earlier edit? I'm okay with Atwell. Not sure about others. I'm okay with just making it a redirect/relative link to the cast section, if people prefer that.
 * Pleasedonotstriptheindentationandreplaceaclearplainlistwithunbulletedliststhataremoredifficulttoread. -- 109.78.203.40 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not readd the characters, because you have brought up the discussion about it. Just a formatting edit. Atwell and Stan should be included, per the DVD/Blu-ray billing (taken from Amazon). Obviously if they were added at this point it should be changed in the infobox, because the poster would have thus become out dated. And while we do have the guideline from the Infobox film template, I'd say in 99.9% of all cases that applies, because the final billing usually does not change. This just happens to be a case where it does, and it should be reflected. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest we use the billing block on the Blu-ray if we can get WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to do so. While generally the poster is sufficient, in this case its not and is preventing us from improving Wikipedia.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Triiiple. I do agree with using poster blocks as the guideline, but as I stated, in this case, the Blu-ray one got updated, thus making it the one we should use (as you pointed out). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll
Please place a support below, for adding Atwell and Stan to the infobox and lead (and ordered as such in the cast section), per the Blu-ray's billing block and the reasons given above, or oppose, for not doing such, and keeping the page as is, without Atwell and Stan in the lead or infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as reasoned in above response.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support. (I was in the above discussion.) This isn't going to cause a big policy debate, I think local consensus safely covers it. Go for it. Please add explanatory warning comments when you add the characters, e.g. Per DVD billing block, see Talk page. -- 93.107.206.78 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This will be done for sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as previously mentioned before. ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 22:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Millions
Guidelines recommend avoiding abbreviations. The numbers guidelines say you can use abbreviations but I think editors are misreading the guideline and incorrectly taking it to mean that they should deliberately use those abbreviations after the first instance. I have already brought this issue up for discussion at the Film Guidelines page. Please discuss there, this issue is not specific to the Captain America film article. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film -- 109.78.30.215 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline says that we can, so we have. Otherwise the word "million" would be repeated numerous times in the box office section of every film article. "M" is a very commonly accepted and used abbreviation in this case. If you have an issue with the guideline, take it up there (I can see you already have). But continuing to revert when this is the currently accepted standard isn't helping anyone. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I not do accept your assertion that this is a commonly accepted standard. Please add that comment at WP:MOSFILM, clearly you favor always using the abbreviations. -- 109.78.30.215 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"In the cockpit of a huge abandoned aircraft"
We need to discuss this edit. First, this aircraft wasn't "abandoned"; it crashed. No one walked away and "abandoned" it. Second, do the scientists digging out Captain America see the "cockpit of a huge aircraft", or is that just the editor saying it from having seen the rest of the film? The edit that another editor just reverted back to suggests that the scientists themselves saw a huge aircraft. I don't believe the film shows that, and to suggest otherwise misrepresents the scene and gives readers an incorrect impression. The filmmakers had a reason for just showing us the bare shield.

Second, "huge" is POV. Is that WWII craft bigger than a modern commercial jet? Doubtful. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, and am not sure if it was found in the cockpit or the fuselage. Either way it's pretty trivial and not essential to the understanding of the plot.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * the whole point of the tessaract is that hydra is able to produce weapons way ahead of their time. so your "thesis" about the plane is probably wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3642:12B0:D16F:5BF6:688D:2C2E (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Audition
Someone auditioned for the title role:. Hula Hup (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)