Talk:Captain Marvel (film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiriat Monterroso, Cecybueso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Using better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or a supporting source
Should we use better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or supporting source? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * following this revert. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, The New York Times is HIGHLY reliable. There's no need to replace or supplement the sourced content as all of our text is covered by that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm pretty sure it's their report/originator of the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure why we need to discuss "better sources than The New York Times" when that's about as good as it gets. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Emir, “personally preferring” doesn’t equal to the source being unreliable or disallowed. Don’t remove based off of a “personal preference”. Rusted AutoParts 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I said that we could add them as additional sources if we decide to keep The New York Times one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned with what could conceivably be taken as New York Times-bashing, as right-wing people often do when the Times reports something they don't like. I'm not suggesting this particular case has a political background — Emir of Wikipedia has always been a good and responsible editor, in my experience — so I'd just like to ask what Emir's particular concerns are about The New York Times, which has as good or better a reputation for accuracy and original reporting as any publication on the planet. I mean, when the Times wants some studio executive to verify what some director says, that studio executive calls back. That's true of very few publications.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * LOL, “better sources than The New York Times”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC below has said another source can be used. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence
There's a discussion involving this and many other MCU film articles at Talk:Loki (TV series) that may be of interest of watchers of this page. —El Millo (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Most recent changes on thi page
Hello again, everyone. In the current revision of this page, IronManCap justified restoring the word "Sequel" instead of the word "Future" that had replaced it with the prior edit to that part of the page. While I agree with the change itself (the section should rightfully remain titled "Sequel", I wanted to note here for the record that the rationale given for the change appears to be faulty. According to the reason given in the edit summary: "we don't know for sure it is a team-oriented film, and it has been billed as a direct sequel to Captain rvel." Because that rationale didn't sit right with me, before I commmented on the matter here, I decided to do some research on my end. Those initial search efforts yielded the following results: This article from Variety includes the following verbatim statement in the seventh paragraph from the top (unless I miscounted somehow0): "Taking place after the events of “WandaVision,” the feature film [the Marvels] is on track to be the first all-female superhero film for the MCU." And that's just the first reference I looked at on this matter. I can bring other sources in for further verification, but in this one source, the film is clearly described as "the first all-female superhero film", with the surrounding paragraphs setting up the supporting information that Monica Rambeau will join forces with her mom's friend Captain Marvel and with Ms. Marvel to handle whatever the problematic situation in that film might be. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily picky about the word choice on the edit summary here, but using a faulty argument as an assertion to justify a revert may not be the most effective strategy. Having said that, my issue again is with the edit summary, not the substance or detail of the edit itself in question. Just wanted to go on record about that here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , my point was that the film has been billed as a direct sequel to Captain Marvel so far in WP:RS so "sequel" seems most appropriate so far. If we get RS confirmation that this is not a direct sequel, we can adjust accordingly. I appreciate my reasoning was a bit brief and could have been better though, so thanks for bringing this up. IronManCap (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Marvels was first announced as Captain Marvel 2 (with the castings of Vellani and Parris known then), so this is probably best equated to Captain America: Civil War: a sequel film for a specific franchise (Captain Marvel's) that will also be a larger team-up film. Sequel is the proper term. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IronManCap: thnak you. Again, I have no problem with the change (sequel is definitely the more appropriate term by comparison to future), so it was only the edit summary explanation with which I took issue. And to you and to Favre1fan93, by way of additional clarification, I know that direct MCU sequels can involve subsequent heroes (Iron Man flew solo in his first movie, worked along with War Macine and Black Widow in Iron Man 2, and received help from Harley and from Pepper Potts in Iron Man 3. Captain America's first film was a solo outing, he worked alongside Black Widow and the Falcon in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and he and Tony, alongside whom different heroes had supported or opposed the Accords, phsyically came to blows in Captain Amrica: Cvil War. So the idea of other superhoes being featured in films being billed as direct sequels to oriinal solo outings is not a new one. I also know enough about the MCU by now to understand that intial inforrmation released as a project is first announced can change or be clarified during the production and filming process. The powers-that-be in the MCU are very good at providing such updates themselves, or by allowing their film stars to provide further information as the productions are further along or nearing completion. So I have no problem at all in recognizing as well that the film was first announced as a direct sequel to Captain Marvel, and referring to it as such in this article is likewise very appropriate. That being said, I am glad that the MCu has specified now that this film will feature the first all-female superhero lineup. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources consistently stop referring to The Marvels as a sequel to Captain Marvel, then we'd definitely follow suit and stop referring to it as such, but for now and until that comes we'll keep it. —El Millo (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The film was originally announced as Captain Marvel 2 for quite some before the title reveal so I agree that labelling this film as the sequel to Captain Marvel is totally appropriate. - Richiekim (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add that this seems to be a similar situation to Ant-Man and the Wasp where the sequel added another hero to the title (in this case potentially more than one). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)