Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 1

Header dates
Do we really need to put the year in both the level-2 and level-3 headers. It seems the year in the level-3 headers would be sufficient. Also though its widely known, The phases are currently unreferenced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that I think the dates in the level 2 headers is a bit much. If we need to source the phases, I think the lead of the cast page has the sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Cap 2 RT score
Can someone fix it? I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Suzuku (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been in contact on the template page. Still trying to get it resolved. In the mean time, the info can be added as a field, to bypass the error message until the bot comes to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A crew table
Why this page don't have a crew table like other like Star Wars or X-Men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:B46:2FED:48A5:46A8:DA42:1EB3 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not need one, as we have this info readily available on each of the individual film pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential trademark filings
So I came across this article here that said Marvel had filed some trademarks which relate to films that have come out or will be. Yet, I went to the US trademark filings and found a few (here, here and here), and they all say the filing is for "Downloadable electronic publications in the nature of comic books, comic magazines and stories in illustrated form." Compare that to Thor: The Dark World's filing, which says "Audio and visual recordings featuring live-action entertainment; musical recordings; video game software; cases for cellular telephones." Just want to make sure I am reading this correct that these are in fact NOT for films, but possibly upcoming comic titles/series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Phase One/Two
What does it mean? Is it a fan insider? --Red-Blue-White (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The phases are a group of films that Marvel has tied together. Phases (so far) have been capped off by Avengers films. So all of the Phase One films, while individual in nature, all lead up to The Avengers. All of the Phase Two films will lead up to Avengers: Age of Ultron and presumably, all of the Phase Three films will lead to Avengers 3. Sources for the phases are provided in the article lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin Feige explained it recently as being a simplification for discussing movies. He referred to all the movies leading up to and including The Avengers as "the first phase" at a convention once and it caught on, so Marvel made it an official system for clumping movies together. There is no real regularity or patterns in these things, it is just a way of breaking up the movies into more manageable groups (which also means other things connected to the MCU like TV shows are not included in the phase system). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Stan Lee Confirming Black Panther
just wondering if the page should be updated to mention Stan Lee confirming Black Panther being in the MCU, its already updated on the Black Panther Page itself. maybe there should be part of the list or something where it has confirmed MCU films, but the ones that don't have official dates yet (like Thor 3 and Black Panther, both confirmed but don't have release dates yet, Thor has its director and stuff set though...)173.51.207.69 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All he said is that they are working on it, which we already know.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that, what I was saying though is mention that its been confirmed by him that it will be in the MCU, I wasn't arguing about whether he said they were working on it or not. In other words have a line in there or something that says something to the effect of "in Late August/Early September 2014 (I don't remember the exact date) Stan Lee confirmed that a Black Panther Movie is in development and confirmed that it will be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Lineup", would something like that be ok to add onto the page, since it is factual information confirmed by a reliable source?173.51.207.69 (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all Lee actually said, "They are already working on Ant-Man, Dr. Strange and the Black Panther and there are others I am not allowed to talk about." Nothing in that sentence contains new information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline added
I have created a timeline for the release schedule to this article. I'm writing this now to explain why it's there. For starters, having a graphical representation is a helpful way of assisting visual learners an easy view of the releases, and it also summarises well how the phases have been defined. This doesn't belong in a regular article, I agree, but in a list article, such as this, it's perfectly suited. -- rm 'w a vu  03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't necessary, as releases are perfectly listed vertically down the page. Releas for individual franchises do not need to be listed separately as well. If anyone wants that info, there are other pages that can provide it, like the sequel sections at the bottom of individual film pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Furthermore all the graph displays is the release year and erroneously displays it as continuous event throughout a given year rather than a single date. It's redundant, vague and more importantly flawed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of precedents for this, and there is nowhere in this article where it is "perfectly" laid out. As to it being released over a year, sure, there ar otherways in which this representation can be adjusted. I am going to place the list back in place, as the last reversion is a breach of WP:3RR, and my reversion is of a remedial purpose. Until a clear consensus of can be reached (and 2 people against doesn't diminish the value of my initial argument) for or against, the section should remain. -- rm 'w a vu  05:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple people reverting your reverts is only a breach of WP:3RR on your part. The issue here is one person attempting to add something that no one else has supported, but several have opposed. Currently, the consensus, as in the general feeling of the discussion, is for this not to happen, or at least not to happen like this. If it is decided that this is a good addition to the page here, then it can be re-added, otherwise it should not. No further action concerning this should be taken in the article until this discussion has concluded. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide a clear reason not to include it, and I'll understand. Your only definitions so far and preference based. And the initial reversion is the one which counts for WP:3RR. I've lodged this for review. I will once again, re-revert the article, as is policy, to the included version until consensus is reached. I should add that when you say "multiple people" are against it, I can only see two. -- rm 'w a vu  05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two is more than one, i.e. "multiple". You added something that more than one editor disagrees with, and no other editor has shown support for. Because there are opposing views on the matter, the contentious material should be removed from the page, and its re-inclusion should be discussed at the talk page. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information was rightfully included, then it should be re-added. If not, then it should stay removed from the page. Constantly re-adding it, without actually discussing, is not the way. I say not actually discussing, because you are simply making a statement on the talk page, then re-adding the contentious material. That is, unfortunately, not a discussion. If you don't want to discuss this, then please stop causing trouble for everyone else. It is disruptive and frustrating. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the status quo of this article is to not have the timeline. That's how it should stay until consensus changes. You've made your bold edit, so now it's time to step back and argue your point.
 * I'm against the table for reasons stated by others above, but mostly because it adds no new information, and provides no particularly new insight into the chronology - which is listed in phases here, and in full at Marvel Cinematic Universe. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cast in the draft for Avengers: Infinity War Part 1
Shouldn't Downey be added to the cast since he's technically contracted for The Avengers 3, which would be this? 2601:C:780:234:511D:BD81:BCA8:F8D3 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, shouldn't Josh Brolin be on there as Thanos since he was seen as the teaser for Infinity War? Also, he's referenced here as having a part in Avengers: Infinity War, Part 1 and Part 2. 2601:C:780:234:511D:BD81:BCA8:F8D3 (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Film table
The comics, One-Shots, and TV pages all have a or several tables which are transcluded to the main MCU page. Should we look at doing that here or is there no point? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with summarizing the list with a table, especially as the list of films keeps growing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should do a table per phase. So all phase 1 films would have one table (similarly to on the main page) under the section, before the Iron Man subsection, and then the phase 2 section would just have its films, etc. I think that would be the best imo versus one large table, given how we have the page formatted now. See my quick mock up here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty good, and what I would expect to see. If anyone wants to see all of the films in one table, then they can see that at the main MCU page. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a different style of page where it would not really fit or look good to have the table all together, like the One-shots or comics ones. And it would be very hard to split and transclude all three to how it is the main page, as I will be doing with the TV series' two tables, so I think this is the best option if we were to do it. Any thoughts on my mock up ? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I attempted to clean up the Film Table, which was not only split into separate Phase One and Phase Two tables, but also featured the rest of Phase Two and all of Phase Three further down the page in the "Future" section. I managed to cleanly consolidate all film entries into one table with the correct Phase identified. However in doing so I seem to have created an issue with the citations and references. Any help or advice on correcting this would be greatly appreciated. I had no intention of deleting any content, just wanted to help reorganize it to make it more clean for the reader with a consistent format and minimal excess scrolling. Mlcorcoran (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The cast table
The cast table, which should be more of an overview, is starting to get a little long, with characters (such as the Collector's aide or Senator Stern) who aren't really recurring or important. Should we maybe add another stipulation? Say, the character must have appeared in the main cast of at least two films? We could use the same criteria we use for the film page infoboxes. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about just add "...and must be in the billing block of at least one of the films in which they appear"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer two films, as that helps us limit it to characters who are actually major recurring presences, rather than characters who have one major appearance and then a bunch of cameos. But I suppose I'd be okay with one, too. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If we did two, that would eliminate (beyond the two you mentioned above) Coulson, Jarvis, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Sitwell, Howard Stark, and The Collector. While Coulson and Sitwell were more recurring than starring, I think both deserve a spot here, partially due to their appearance in the One Shots and SHIELD (even though I know this tables does not cover that). So I guess that brings up another question, should the table currently here be mimicked at all on Marvel Cinematic Universe to cover recurring characters across the three mediums: films, One-Shots and TV? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this page is focused on the films, so their appearances in the other media shouldn't have an effect on the table here. And I'm not sure about another table on the main page, it seems that that information is handled in the prose there, for the most part. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, so back to the task at hand: one or two billings. I think one is fine and two might cut too much imo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then let's try one for now and we can reassess later as needed. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Coulson is often referred to as "the glue" in the MCU, so if he is cut from the table, the table seems almost pointless. One works well. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy and usefulness
I started this conversation over at the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors page, but it really should be discussed here. Basically, I feel that this table is not serving the use it was intended to as well as could be. Yes, it is a nifty way to see which characters have shown up in different franchises, but it is made redundant by the actual list, where the recurring nature both through individual films and across phases is emphasised. I believe that prose can much more accurately represent the recurring nature of cast and characters throughout the films, just as is done at Marvel Cinematic Universe, where a table like this could be easily set up to show which characters have appeared in which mediums, but ultimately it is unnecessary, and it would prevent the section from including such important information as the multiple actors who portray Howard Stark, etc. This is a similar situation, and if we had prose instead of this table, we would be able to identify not just recurring characters and cast members, but significant characters and cast members who perhaps do not fit into the current parametres of the table. It should also be noted that as more films are released, the parametres of the table must tighten, and even more characters will be cut out, increasing the redundancy of the table. I think this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with, so please carry on this discussion if you have any thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I have in mind. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Compared to the current table, that is worse. That prose is not really recurring information, rather commentary on the leads of each franchise, a select few characters that have reappeared, and recasting info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit that the table was a nifty idea, as it is cool to see which characters have recurred throughout the films, but it has gotten to the point where important characters do not fit within the parametres, and more will have to be omitted in the near future as more films are released. I do understand the desire to have this, but as you said when I tried to turn the cast section of the MCU page into a table of cast and characters who have recurred across mediums, not everything needs to be in a table, and not having that table has turned out really well, as we have been able to fit important information there that we otherwise couldn't have. If somebody is reading about the MCU films, yes its cool to see that The Collector has appeared in both the Thor and Guardians franchises in table form, but we already know that from further up the page - that sort of info easily fits, as it already does, in the continuity/MCU connections sections for each film. With this prose, we are explaining why there is no normal cast table on the page - there is no main cast, as there are multiple lead actors. We do give the recurring characters info anyway, and other important casting issues (recastings). And if anyone wants to see this information, and more, in table form, then they simply have to click on the link to the actual page. Having a really good cast table, and then another much less useful one on this page is pretty much the definition of redundant. If you think the prose needs to be rewritten somewhat to be more about the recurring side, then that can be done, but I don't think you should push this away so offhandedly. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This version focuses more on the recurring side, but is still not constricted like the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Has this new version changed your mind? I believe I have addressed your complaints. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The section is 'Recurring cast and characters'. As of yet, Pratt, Douglas and Rudd are neither of these. Hence, the table, with the rules from the FAQ is still a better alternative to state this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That statement has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If you can't be bothered or don't really care, than just let the change be made. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Had a cache issue regarding the updated look. I don't know. I don't really see the usefulness of replacing the table with text saying the same thing. See if someone else can offer an opinion before attempting anything. If no ones responds, will examine this again I guess. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the table is a bit cumbersome, I think it's much more useful than chunks of prose that just list appearances. I think if you were to list appearances, you would want to go about it in a very easy-to-read manner, with headers dividing things, etc. But that's probably not something that belongs here. Maybe it's an alternative to the gigantic tables at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think the table needs to be changed to prose, but I can accept that this might not be the right time. At such a point as the prose becomes more manageable/easier to read then the table, the change should be made (I think this might happen after a few more characters are added to the table). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisit
What do you guys think about the table now that it has become so big? I think we at least need to tighten our criteria for inclusion in the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think the table is the best way to go about this, but I do see the size becoming the issue. I was just thinking, of say, only actors that appear mainly in Avenger films and other, but that only removes like 3 rows. Possible idea that might work: remove the table and just leave the "main" template. Use a prose that say, "In the films multiple characters have recurred. They include: A as Y; B and C as D;" etc. But the key is NOT to use refs or all the film appearances. I don't know if that would be okay to do, essentially saying "find all refs at the main page. here's just a sampling." I feel as though there is a policy/guideline saying that if the info is sourced somewhere on a related topic page, it is okay not to be sourced. I could just be crazy though about that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That could be good, as basically a bit of a summary to help with this page, with more info there. I think anyway of getting the table to pretty much fit on one screen would be good though, as, I don't know about you, but I have to scroll down to the bottom of the table, then across, and then back up, to see which characters in the top few rows are in some of the later films. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any insight into my idea? Would that work / have you ever seen this policy/guideline I seem to be thinking of? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically, we are not supposed to reference other Wikipedia articles, which is essentially what you are proposing. If the table gets to size that hinders more than it helps, then we should remove the table and leave the link to main list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess one idea for tightening the criteria would be to increase it from two franchises to three. But that cuts out a lot. It brings the number of rows from 20 down to 8 (featuring the Banner, Carter, Coulson, Fury, Rogers, Romanoff and both Starks). That's pretty drastic, but since it'll get bigger over time, that might not be an issue. Or maybe this is something for later down the track. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think at this point it might be beneficial to convert it to prose, if it's still a sticking point. It does break up the flow of the page with the unwieldy table and having to scroll so far for the information is probably not all the helpful for readers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Future section
Regarding today's announcement: we do not need a bazillion single sentence sub-sections. Many of these can still be folded into the "Other potential projects" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although, that should then be changed to "Other projects". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some have some more info. Sorry. Did a big edit before seeing this. I'd agree to this though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When I cleaned up the Film tables I removed the redundant entries regarding Phases Two and Three. The 'Future' section should only include those film projects that were not part of the official Phase Three announcement made by Marvel and do not yet have a clear position in the franchise. Mlcorcoran (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There was nothing redundant before your edits. Also the future section is for films that are scheduled to be released in the future, hence the name.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Future section is growing too long and appears inconsistent with the Phase Tables. The page as a whole feels disjointed. The structure of: Phase One table; Phase One synopses; Phase Two Table (only what's been released so far); Phase Two synopses; etc. requires excessive scrolling and does not feel concise from a readers' point of view.
 * I propose that the Future section focus on proposed films that are not included in the scope of any of the three Phases per Marvel's most recent announcement. Furthermore, I suggest one table for all Phases, with each Phase appropriately identified, followed by the plot synopses for each entry of the franchise in chronological order. I am developing a mock-up of this proposal (based in large part on my original bold edit) on my Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mlcorcoran). Any suggestions, feedback, and input is greatly appreciated. Mlcorcoran (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you want to remove all of the actual prose content that lays out the development of the franchise film-by-film in favor of the exact table that already exists on the main Marvel Cinematic Universe page? I could maybe see an argument for moving the Phase 3 items above the box office/recurring cast information but I have no idea why you would want to remove all of the content on the page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This page is a List page. Some prose outlining the development of the franchise as a whole may be helpful, but the prose as it currently stands is excessive; it goes into detail about the plot synopsis and production history of each film, which is information best suited for the Wiki page of each film itself (each of which is linked in the list). By contrast, the table that exists on the main MCU page could be removed in favor of the link that points to this detailed List page. If consensus is that the prose as-is should not be removed, I would still recommend consolidating the Phase tables so that the Phase 3 information is not so far removed from the rest of the franchise information. Mlcorcoran (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The prose contextualizes the film series with an overview of the development of each film, and information about crossovers. The only thing that makes this page a "detailed List" is the prose, the table is nice for a quick glance but as I said it fits quite nicely on the main page and a reader would likely want more, without having to read the even more in-depth information on each individual film page. Hence, this page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdraw any objection to removing the prose :) My greater concern is the structure and organization of the content. My suggestions, as illustrated on my Talk page, are as follows:


 * 1) Consolidate the Phase film list into one table. This keeps consistency with the Cast and  Box Office tables further down the page.
 * 2) Arrange all prose outlines for the film entries in chronological order, including Phase Three films that have not yet started production, and remove Phase Three entries from the "Future" section. Limit the "Future" section to the "other project" films that have been proposed but are not yet an official part of a franchise Phase.

Please let me know if you find these suggestions agreeable and helpful to the page. Thank you for your feedback and guidance. Mlcorcoran (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment as a good layout for this page is a breakdown by phase, the table as is should not be changed or combined. That's point 1. Point 2, all films not released are still future films, regardless of if they are in Phase 2, Phase 3, or not announced yet. Placing a future film with films already released would signify that they have been released, not that they have yet to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I honestly don't see any issues with the page myself, and to clarify, I moved the entire future section to the bottom of the page a while ago because, in every film article I have seen, the future section always comes after everything else, so that's why it appears to be "so far removed" from the rest of the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Request Withdrawn Duly noted. I withdraw any further requests to modify the page. Thank you for your feedback :) Mlcorcoran (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent change
I have just made a bold edit that goes against my statement above, as I have been thinking about this page, and I realized that the Phase 3 films aren't future films in the sense that futur films listed at the bottom of a film article are for separate articles, whereas these films belong collectively on this page. Also, we are including casting info for the Phase 3 films in the table, so they really should be listed before it. If you revert this edit, I would appreciate it being discussed here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of which Phase the upcoming films are in, they are still "Future" films and have not released yet. The current distinction before your edit, clearly indicated which films had already released in the universe, and which had not. Your edit made it seem as though all of these films had released, even despite the use of release year in the headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But not only are there years in the headers, the tables state which films are released and which aren't, also, the prose in each section clearly identifies when films are being released, and the lead also explains which films have been released an which haven't. I think that's all we can do to try and get these facts across, because, as I said above, these films aren't "future" films in the sense that we would usually put them in a future section, and they are included in the cast table, which is a bit confusing/incorrect structurally. P.S. Thanks for discussing :) - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the heading doesn't have to be "Future", rather, "Unreleased films". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Public response
I'm planning to add CinemaScore for the titles, as instructed here in the reception section. Shall I do that?? I don't wanna go for WP:WAR.  DtwipzB Talk 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * CinemaScores are more useful to add to individual film articles, opposed to here. It would not fit in either table currently on the page, and a third one should not be created for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted it to add it into the critical section, which will make the section look like what's here and here. How about that ??  DtwipzB Talk 08:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see how this info should be seen as a comparison to critics' opinions. I'm pinging some other users to get their opinions too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was sure that we were trying to avoid this sort of thing. The box office gives a pretty good indication of audience response anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man films
This is a neutral notice that there is a discussion about whether or not future Spider-Man films are a part of the MCU at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe. All are welcome to input. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 February 2015
I would like to request to put Spider-Man (2017) in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It has been confirmed by many sources including Varity, Sony and even Marvel. I don't get why there had to be an unnecessary discussion about Spider-Man being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe which was started by TriiipleThreat. TriiipleTreat stated there are no sources confirming it while Marvel has confirmed that Spider-Man is in the MCU, but I don't think TriiipleTreat actually read the deal between Sony and Marvel. Anyway I would like to request to put Spider-Man (2017) and Columbia Pictures in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. - Zzaxx1 (talk) 11, February 2015 (UTC)

Zzaxx1 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌: Please provide verification from a reliable source that the film is apart of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There is a on-going discussion at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe, please raise your concerns there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Could some of the admins fix List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films? It still has the original relase date even though it's changed to 2019. CAJH (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind. It is fixed now. CAJH (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man
Why aren't the latest Spider-Man films included? Isn't Spider-Man a Marvel character? 137.205.170.1 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. The rights are at separate film companies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all down to the film rights, the Amazing Spider-Man films and its upcoming spin-offs are in a separate universe, the X-Men and Deadpool franchises make up another universe, and the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot will be in yet another universe (additionally a lot of older films are in their own universe). Everything else that will be released in future is in the MCU (plus the films listed in the article that have already been released). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But I don't get it why isn't Spider-Man on this page? Both Marvel and Sony have both confirmed that Spider-Man is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  That Marvel will produce the film's but Sony will distribute them like what Marvel and Universal did with Hulk.  Why can't we add Spider-Man too this page? Zzaxx1 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Zzaxx1, please go here, there is currently a debate going on discussing this. You'll probably take the other side but they haven't actually confirmed it yet unfourtunatly.--18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Click this link
Let's put this whole Spider-Man not being or being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at rest. Please for the love of God watch this video this guy in the video knows what he is taking about. Favre1fan93 and TriiipleTreat. -- Zzaxx1 (talk) 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha. Yeah that's pretty much the definition of a non-reliable source per WP:RS and WP:YOUTUBE. Consensus still stands. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously what the hell is your problem? "Ha." how mature, you know what all you jerks are all the same, you guys dont want to be proven that you are wrong and even though there is solid reliable sources confirming this. You delete it why is it too make your ego feel better?  Seriously what the hell is you problem?  And you know that you guys are wrong and the other editors are right.  You guys are just freakin unbelievable. -- Zzaxx1 (talk) 13 February 2015  — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide this reliable source that states, in clear terms, the 2017 Spider-Man film is a film in the MCU. Because right now, that doesn't exist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't use Name calling. For the record, I do think you're right - I think that all of these reports lead us to easily infer that the 2017 Spider-Man film will be a part of the MCU. But that's not how things work at Wikipedia. Things need to be reliably sourced, and unfortunately, since we don't have that right now, we'll just have to wait until we do. Luckily, there's no rush. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Number spelling vs ordinals in film article leads
This isn't really about this article, more the individual film articles. Per WP:NUMERAL, do we want to begin using ordinals over spelling out the numbers for each film's place in the MCU? IE 11th over eleventh? NUMERAL says that 1-9 should be spelled out, which I'm fine with, but I also don't really have a problem spelling out the "teen" films. Maybe start ordinals with twentieth? So Infinity War Part 2 would be "20th installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)". Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2017)
I couldn't help entering this disagreement over the addition of Spider-Man into the MCU. It's completely pointless. Several people that have argued for the inclusion have provided sources that state the character is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Also, Spider-Man's film is to be produced by Kevin Feige, the head of Marvel Studios. To make room for this change, Marvel moved back the release dates of four of their films (including Captain Marvel, Inhumans, Black Panther, and Thor: Ragnarok). Why would they do that if the film wasn't in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Sony should move back THEIR films, if that's the case. Also, judging by the article's content, I doubt that Sony would up and reboot the Spider-Man franchise, only to have him still a part of his own separate continuity. At this point, it should be added. Everyone understands Wikipedia strives to be accurate, but this is exercising futility in a nauseating way. If you are insistent on his remaining out of the article, then provide solid proof that he may not be a part of the shared Marvel universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungImpressionist129 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the points that you are raising have been discussed at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe. Please see the comments there for answers to your questions. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The answers have additionally been addressed in the FAQ at the top of this talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This new interview with Kevin Feige seems to pretty defintively state the 2017 Spider-Man film will be part of the MCU- he talks about the new Spider-Man as being part of the MCU, he talks about the film as a reboot of the series, and says the 2017 release was planned when Marvel was working out Phase 3. Anyone disagree that this makes it pretty definitive?

58.7.62.178 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ant-Man status
The film Ant-Man is still in future section of the article, while the film is only few months from being released. I thought about bringing it under the phase 2, but maintaining WP:GOODFAITH, I thought it would be better to talk about it first.
 * Two months away is still the future. Age of Ultron wasn't moved until it premiered. I think it should remain where it is until it premieres in the summer-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All films until they are released are "Future" films. When the film's premiere happens, all relevant edits and section moves occur. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Characters
Agent Peggy Carter and Howard Stark are not listed on the list. Given that Peggy has appeared in 3 films and will appear in Ant-Man, Howard appeared in 2 films and will also appear in Ant-Man, and both are in the Agent Carter TV Show and One-Shot, they should be featured. Both will "be on the billing block more than twice", in 3 sub-franchises, Howard: (Iron Man 2, Captain America, Ant-Man) Peggy: (Captain America 1 & 2, Avengers 2, Ant-Man) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.41.692.54 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please look again. Peggy Carter is, and Howard Stark, correctly, is not. Billing block is defined as the text at the bottom of the film's poster. Dominic Cooper is the only Howard Stark actor to be billed, in Cap 1. Slattery is not a billed actor in IM2 or Ant-Man, thus making him ineligible for the list given the current parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mars
Hiya, Trip. Quick question: Not sure why we're using this French website if the Arad response is in the Bloomberg Businessweek article that the Daily Mars is citing. Could you clarify? Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Arad's response isn't in the Bloomberg article (last I checked) because he was responding to the Bloomberg article in an open letter. He wasn't very happy with it, to say the least. Most cites for some reason point to Daily Mars, perhaps they were the first to publish it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't know about this source. It's an obscure French website, and I find it it ... remarkable, let's say, that it's the only place with original reporting on this. Avi Arad supposedly wrote this non-notable website an open letter to the Bloomberg Businessweek article's author ... and neither Variety nor The Hollywood Reporter reported on this. The translation comes from Latino-Review.com (that's who CBR cites, and says L-R got it from the Daily Mars), which I'm not sure is an RS itself.


 * I am really not sure that this letter is genuine. Something this big, and not one mainstream source has it? The only place that has it is some obscure French website that seems like just an aggregator and not a place of original reporting? I dunno. My editor wouldn't let me use this as a source for a newspaper article (he'd want me to confirm it with Arad's office), so I'm really leery of using it in an encyclopedia article. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, THR did write about it but they too point to Daily Mars.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I do write for the same company that publishes THR and I know they're really good journalists over there. This still gets my Spidey sense tingling, but if THR feels it can vouch for the letter's authenticity &mdash; though without getting a copy of the letter from Arad's office, which is weird that THR wouldn't do that &mdash; then I guess it's up to WP:V standard


 * Since the original article is in French, how about we add the THR story, which provides a translation, and write it something like:
 * " citing "
 * That way it'll at least be in English on English Wikipedia. What do you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever you think is best. Also I'm open to hear what others think to see if we should even include it at all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Deadline has an article that even has a response from a BusinessWeek spokeswoman, “Devin Leonard did receive this email from Avi Arad, and an email exchange followed between them. We stand by the reporting in our story.” It was not an open letter though, it was an email that was obtained and published by the French site. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As Trip and Dino rightly show, I was probably being too cautious, though discussion is never a bad thing. I agree with Trip that perhaps editors should weigh in on whether it belongs here at all &mdash; it does seems like something more for Avi Arad than for this. But if we are including it, the Deadline citation with official confirmation from one of the parties and the email in English seems like a good cite to use. Kudos to both Trip and Dino for the THR and Deadline finds. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay to add General Ross and T'Challa to the recurring characters table?
There's a really good chance that William Hurt and Chadwick Boseman could be in the billing block on the poster for Captain America: Civil War, so I'm just wondering if it's cool to add Thunderbolt Ross and Black Panther to the table of recurring characters. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of the way they were announced, separated from the main stars of the film, I think they probably wont be in the billing. Either way, we should wait for actual confirmation on that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably on to something Stewie, but we are in no rush so, as Adam pointed out, let's wait for the source confirming them as such to make the edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, just checking. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

When is it okay to add Thanos to the recurring characters table?
I was just wondering since Thanos is the common link to the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy... --StewieBaby05 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When he is on two billing blocks, which he hasn't yet. Actually, not even one if I remember correctly. -- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page )
 * See the FAQ at the top. And we're probably moving away from the table here anyways, so, possibly shortly, never. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Recurring cast table revamp
So I've been feeling lately that this table is sort of very large and is only going to get larger (not to mention I think the "div" code is a WP:ACCESS violation). As such, I came up with a slimed down version in my sandbox to hopefully implement, or at least get the discussion going on how we can change this table format up (since it is only supposed to be the select few actors to guide readers to the main list of actors page for more info). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While discussing the list of arrowverse actors page, someone also brought up WP:SCROLL. So that might also be an issue here. The one in your sandbox looks like it fulfills that anyway.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 07:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, if we are going to change this, the best way will be to do something similar to the new cast table on the main MCU page, just with the phases instead of media, and no mention of specific films within phases, as I think it is a bit much. This way, readers can see who is appearing throughout the phases, and more detailed info on actual individual appearances can be found on the list of film actors page. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I think we should keep the films in each phase, is it gives you a better sense of how many times a person has appeared. For Falcon example, using that method Adam, would not be beneficial, because he only appeared in two Phase 2 films, and that wouldn't really be represented well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that, it's just that the table as is looks like a bit of a mess to me, especially compared to the other tables we have already created. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Standby. I have an idea for a second option. I'll let you all know when that is complete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a second option. I wanted to do a "films up/down" "actors left/right" table, but that was too large for the page. This was a somewhat compromised option imo, but it can work (maybe? As you can see I'm not confident in it, but I'm just trying to see what works and doesn't.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, no matter which option we take, we may have to tighten the criteria once more? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much we can tighten it up anymore. It's already two billing blocks plus two franchises. Maybe make one of those "two" criteria a "three"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on either two of my proposals? Also pinging who may be interested in joining this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
 * Honestly, I don't feel that either of those options are better than what we already have, which itself is clearly becoming problematic. It seems to me that we are getting to the point where summarising the list of actors page in a smaller table here isn't the best way to go. Would anyone consider not using a table here, and leaving the table form to the proper page? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That can be an option. Maybe a bullet list or just straight prose? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I love the first one. It's simple, and has all the information laid out clearly. The second one drags on way too long for what should essentially be a summary - and it splits the information out into different places, which is not useful. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really care for either of these options. Accessibility doesn't seem to be a problem on most of the major browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari) but if you really think it's problematic, then I would just remove the table all together and just link to the main article.--00:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, good point. The scrolling even works fine on my phone. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, I think the content is actually fine per WP:SCROLL looking at it a bit more. I think it would still be "viewable" if a reader was using a browser without JavaScript of CSS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the recent change over at the TV page, I have rethought your second option, and now present a slightly altered version for consideration:. Any thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you updated the criteria for inclusion? Just asking because I see del Toro in your table, as we don't have him in the current one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, one of the alterations I made was individualising the tables, so there is never a character listed that doesn't actually appear. The new criteria is in the top box. This is also why I don't have a Phase 3 table; no one has met the phase criteria yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should further narrow the criteria to phases. I think we follow (generally) the one we have been. So a phase 3 table can definitely be made, because you have the recurring characters from the previous phases appearing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This table's supposed to just be a summary of the cast the reoccur in different franchises, right? I think by the time you split it off into two (or even three) tables, it's not really a summary anymore. It's a more extensive list, taking up more space on the page than it should. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why I suggested maybe not using tables at all, but I don't think that these tables here are too big. In fact, even though there are more characters in my version, I feel like it is more streamlined than Favre's original suggestion. To Favre, I haven't narroed the criteria, I have actually expanded it to include more characters, it is just a bit different, because I felt that if we are going to have separate tables, we shouldn't act as if we only have one. By treating each phase as its own thing, we can have a better idea of who has been recurring (i.e. Coulson is clearly pretty major) without the width getting out of hand. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But you said you were applying the criteria then to each phase (thus narrowing the scope further down). That's what I meant. And in my response, I was attempting to say we shouldn't do that, and have a phase 3 table too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dividing the tables into three separate tables for the phases and having to repeat characters makes the section too large in my opinion. Either we should return to the single scrollable table or just remove it completely and point to the main list article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, as far as I can tell, the scrolling feature is a WP:ACCESS violation, so we should not continue to use the single scrolling one. I was WP:BOLD and made the change, and welcome some more discussion on it, but just from an accessibility stand point, the single scrolling one was not passable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't you also mention above that you thought it was fine by WP:SCROLL? And wouldn't the only WP:ACCESS violation be if the scrolling feature didn't work on some browsers, or without JavaScript or CSS? And we discovered that it works fine without these things, and on all the browsers - even on my phone's browser. And my phone is a reasonably outdated android phone. We've already been over this, so why is it a problem again? I think splitting the information across the three tables is a bigger problem (it's just too big and the information is stretched too thin), and I'd definitely prefer a different solution, such as a small list or no table at all - if it really is necessary to avoid the scrolling function. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with ProfessorKilroy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I forgot I had made that comment, tested that out, and failed to reread it now. We can put the old one back, but I still think it is getting unwieldly. Maybe the best option is just a small prose write up commenting on the actors who have appeared the most and/or in the most franchises, and just linking to the main article? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support moving away from a table in this instance - it is just becoming too complicated and unwieldly. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think prose is necessary, just a link to the main article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If we just had an empty section with the link to the main article, it wouldn't really be the "Recurring cast and characters" anymore. It'd just have to be "Cast and characters". Which I guess I'm not necessarily opposed to, but I think we could do something similar to when the main MCU article had the prose instead of the table now. Or we still have my first option in this sandbox to consider. It's more vertical (which is better) than horizontal as is now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was never a fan of that, it read like stereo instructions. Besides, third paragraph of the film sections deal with the connective tissue, so we're not missing that much. As for the sandbox, I prefer the scrolling function but its not bad.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there not a policy against link only sections? I would day either the table in Favre's sandbox or just list some of the more common cast, like Downey, Evans and Jackson?.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 18:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a policy, but given the quality we strive for and that this is a FL, I feel like we should have at least something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So I created a prose write up to pass along to everyone here. Its essentially some info pulled from the lead of the main cast members page, but with a lot of the "listing" cut down. Let me know what everyone thinks or suggestions, but I think something like this would work. And it covers all the criteria we've established for getting in the table here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone for the prose option? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind us editing the Prose. Anyway, that seems a lot tidier than the table we have right now and get the infomation across without the need for multiple tables or huge tables listing each appearance when the actual List of actors page does that fine. The future leads might need a little rewording though.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 19:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that the prose is superior to the tables at this point. I think we should implement it, and maybe it could be c/e a bit just to be tidied up. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The table didn't violate WP:ACCESS. Also there are some major readability factors with the prose. The second paragraph lists 14 names followed by (I assume) 14 characters in retrospective order. How is anybody supposed to remember what actor corresponds with what character after all that. Listing like that makes sense for a few actors but not a laundry list like the one in the prose. Not to mention it still reads like stereo instructions, a bare link to the list article is preferable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the lead actors, why not just list the recurring actors, we have an entire page deicated to each actor and their role so why not leave them off here with just the actors saying that they are a regular part of the recurring cast.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 19:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The year of release in unreleased films
So many of you probably also edit TV pages and have come across people claiming that WP:CRYSTAL disallows the use of years in season headings if the season has not aired in that year (see Once Upon a Time (TV series), List of The Flash (2014 TV series) episodes and Draft:Arrowverse), in particular the Arrowverse page since that is set to premiere in 2016. So basically what I'm asking is what makes films different? Why can we put 2018 next to Infinity War Part 1 but can't put -16 next to the second season of The Flash or the fifth season of Once?-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 14:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF: Just because something is going on another page doesn't make it right. Also Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, guidelines can be applied differently depending on consensus. That said, I think you have a point because we don't even include the release year in the opening sentence of the individual film pages.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, TV seasons are more likely to air in the years that they are stated to air in than the films are to air in the year that they are slated to air in (see Black Panther and Inhumans, and Ant-Man from a little while back.)-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 15:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Coulson
Can someone add Phil Coulson to the cast list? He's been in four films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.133.212 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But only billed as starring in Avengers, as such he isn't added per the table rules-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Drafts for Captain Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War – Part 2, and In human
Someone please tell me there are drafts to those pages.
 * See Portal:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Drafts for the complete list of MCU drafts. Reach Out to the Truth 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ...or look at the very first section of this page. Which is there for that purpose... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Iron Fist film
The article currently contains the phrase, "Rich Wilkes was hired to write a screenplay for Iron Fist in August 2010," under the "Other potential films" section. Given that Finn Jones has been cast and the Netflix series is on the brink of starting production, can we remove this phrase? Its source is from 2010 and much of the other information in the article is outdated. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a Netflix series, doesn't change the fact that Marvel hired somebody to write a screenplay for a film. Besides the section is called "other potential projects", which doesn't mean its actually going to get made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man film name
It's a big assumption that the new Spider-Man will simply be called Spider-Man. This hasn't been directly addressed anywhere. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See talk:Spider-Man (2017 film). It was referred to as Spider-Man in a recent article on Marvel.com. Though it could of course change, that's what we're using for now. Reach Out to the Truth 00:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sam Jackson not confirmed to be in Thor: Ragnarok; Cate Blanchette and Tessa Thompson in unspecified roles
After reading the article (Marvel Cinematic Universe), I came across the piece about the MCU movie, Thor: Ragnarok...

Firstly: There has been rumors about Sam Jackson featuring in Thor: Ragnarok, but this hasn't been confirmed by either the studio and the makers of the film. It doesn't make to put him in there.

Another point of discussion is the role Cate Blanchette is playing. In the article is says that she is playing Hella, but that isn't confirmed either. On top of that, Tessa Thompson is confirmed to be in the movie, also in an unspecified role, but that information is not found in the Thor: Ragnarok part of the MCU article. I wanted to edit these information, but someone is constantly putting it back into its original state. Please, correct these errors as soon as possible. Wikipedia is meant to give information to a specific subject, not to give people hope by gossip and hearsay...Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brongers457 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia, it does not need to be "confirmed by either the studio and the makers of the film" to be included in the article. It only requires reliable sources, which these do. If you have a problem with the sources cited in the article, that is a different story and you are welcome to state your argument here. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Recurring Cast Table
As someone who references this page a lot, it has become increasing difficult to reference the "Recurring cast and characters" table. There is way too much going on there, and the constant need for scrolling up and down is difficult on both mobile devices and computers when all you want is a brief overview of certain characters. It would be much easier if it was split up into the three "phases" or something. Or have the main cast members listed first, rather than all over the place in no particular order. This isn't just me being incompetent, I'm just wondering that, surely, there must be an easier way to display the recurring cast members? 109.151.166.209 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since we already have a full list article and the table here is based on recurring character between franchises, I reduced the table in my sandbox to only display the franchises, not individual films. Thoughts? I think the only other option would be just to link directly to the list article. As discussed before I think prose would be unreadable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your table Triiiple, I changed the size of the columns to making them the same size across all screens (mine were coming out as different sizes towards the end, not sure if yours did the same). At this point with the main list of actors page, having this table list out every film is redudent. Not to mention the fact that Phase 1 had 6, Phase 2 had 6, Phase 3 is going to have at least 11 films, and then there are an additional 3 that will either tag on the end of Phase 3 or begin Phase 4, so the table is just going to keep growing until it just defeats all practicality. The only thing I want to say is could we add Cameos to your table? People like Evans in Thor 2 or Ruffalo in Iron Man 3 were a small cameo within one film within the franchise, unlike Downey, jr being in Cap 3 where his role is credited and a major part of the film.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can leave the cameo information to the list article since multiple films are now being combined into a single cell. For example, Samuel L. Jackson made a cameo in Iron Man but starred in Iron Man 2. If we put a "C" next to his name, the reader wouldn't be able to differentiate which film we are referring.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First, like the table idea Triiiple. Really surprised none of us thought of it before. Next, I think we could do the cameo tags, if we did it like this example: Ruffalo would get the cameo tag for his Iron Man films appearance, but Jackson wouldn't because his Iron Man 1 cameo was superseded by his billed Iron Man 2 appearance. I think if we made the note as such "A 'c' indicates the actor has only appeared in an uncredited cameo role." that will not be confusing. So with my process, the following would get the notes: Ruffalo for IM; Stan for Ant-Man; Renner for Thor; Evans for Thor and Ant-Man; Downey for TIH; and Mackie for Ant-Man. Additionally, should we have a note for Howard and Cheadle in the Iron Man column? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still Renner and Downey span multiple franchises which have both cameo and starring appearances. Besides this just meant to be a simple overview further details can be found in the full list. We do not need this level of detail here. Same goes for an additional note for Howard and Cheadle. We should follow WP:KISS here, but if you all disagree go for it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We should either use the cameo tags, or update the list indicator text. Because right now it is defined as appearing in the billing block of two or more films. So possibly amend it to say "as well as any cameo appearances" or the like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Triiiple, all we should say is that they appear in these franchises and if you want to know more (such as whether those appearances are cameos or not) then go to the full article—the list indicator text does indeed state this already. However, I feel like this table, though it simplifies it in terms of width, is still too big for what should be a brief overview. Here are two different options with tighter criteria that I think will be better for a brief overview here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I truthfully don't really care about the fine points of this (ie the criteria for inclusion in the table). I'm fine with changing to the franchise layout, and will be fine with whatever everyone else want to do in terms of formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there becomes a point when the table becomes so exclusive it ceases to be useful. If the table is truly so long that it is not readable, then we should just link to the full list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, I just feel that if we have to scroll to see the whole overview table then it isn't really that great of an overview. But, not having to scroll sideways at least is much better than before, so I'm happy if we change to your version for now Triiiple. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, great work on this table. I thought I'd chime in by saying that I think the cameo note is helpful and not too complicated. And also, it still appears on my screen that the columns are different sizes. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I have fixed the column widths now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Doctor Strange doesn't have a column but Black Panther and Spiderman do? TheDawnTreader777 (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Columns are created as needed. Since actors who meet the table's criteria appear in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Black Panther, columns for those were created. When someone from Doctor Strange also meets the criteria, a column for that film will be created. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we really know what phase the 2020 films are?
This article states that "Three untitled films, part of Phase Three, are set for release on May 1, July 10, and November 6, 2020." I know these release dates were announced in a Phase Three press update, but does this really mean that they are actually for Phase Three? It doesn't really seem that way in my opinion. For example, after Inhumans was removed from Marvel's release schedule, Feige confirmed that the film would no longer be part of Phase Three in this article, stating that Phase Three got too full since October 2014. As you know, in October 2014, Avengers: Infinity War - Part 2 was announced as the final Phase Three film. Avengers films have always been at the very end of Phases, being the last film of Phase One, and the penultimate Phase Two film. Age of Ultron was actually supposed to conclude Phase Two, but Ant-Man ultimately did this due to a creative decision since Ant-Man reportedly did not feel like a strong start to Phase Three and it connected a lot with Age of Ultron. Inhumans would have concluded Phase Three (due to the additions of Spider-Man: Homecoming and Ant-Man and the Wasp), but ultimately these additions, as explained by Feige, caused Phase Three to be too packed for Inhumans to be included. It seems very unlikely that the 2020 releases would be part of Phase Three if they already thought it was packed enough and even postponed a movie as a result of this. Also, this article, specifically Kevin Feige's quote, seems to indicate that Avengers: Infinity War - Part 2 will mark the conclusion of Phase Three and everything that has come before it. It seems like any movie released after this would be part of the next phase. It is very unlikely that the culmination of pretty much the whole MCU would be followed by three films to close off the phase. Also, the source doesn't specifically state that the 2020 releases are actually part of Phase Three. The article itself was a Phase Three update, but the sentence that mentions the 2020 releases doesn't explicitly state that the 2020 releases are part of Phase Three, so this whole thing just seems like an assumption. Then again, the 2020 releases were not stated as being part of the next phase either. Basically the point is we may not know right now what phases these films are actually in with the information we have currently. I'd say we take off "part of Phase Three" from the sentence and just let it read like this: "Three untitled films are set for release on May 1, July 10, and November 6, 2020." We can then add the phase later once we have solid confirmation about it. JaciFan (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "My opinion", "Avengers films have always been at the very end of Phases", "seems to indicate". That's all WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "we may not know right now what phases these films are actually in with the information we have currently." We do. We have a reliable source saying they are Phase Three. Until a new reliable source is provided contradicting the information we have, those films are currently in Phase Three. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well actually it's not even my opinion. While the article in the source is titled "Marvel Studios Phase 3 Update", the article does not explicitly state that the 2020 films are indeed part of Phase Three. About the 2020 films, the source simply reads: "Finally, three untitled Marvel Studios films will premiere on May 1, 2020, July 10, 2020, and November 6, 2020." Nowhere in this sentence does it state that the films are in Phase Three. The fact that the article of the source is titled "Marvel Studios Phase 3 update" is not enough. We need explicit confirmation that those films are in Phase Three before we claim so. JaciFan (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not need explicit confirmation, if explicit confirmation means literally spelled out for us. If an article is listing phase three updates and one of the updates is these dates, then that is confirmation enough, and so for now all we can say is that these dates are part of phase three. I agree that these films will probably start phase four, but we don't know that yet, so for now the information should stay as it is, though I don't think it is necessary to mention the dates in the lead honestly. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Crew table
Only made this for fun, if you want used or updated with new films, go ahead. --190.236.231.238 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Crew
 * I know that a lot of articles do this, but all the important stuff from here is already in the list, in the film overview tables, so this isn't necessary at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Recurring Casts
I understand that we can't include every recurring cast member on the list. However, I can't understand why supporting characters like Heimdall, Maria Hill, General Ross and Erik Selvig who have only appeared in two franchises for a total of three films each (except Ross who has only appeared in two films) make the list, while Phil Coulson and Howard Stark who have both appeared in three franchises for a total of four films don't make the list. JDDJS (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Becaue we use each film's billing block to determine inclusion. That is the "safest" way to determine inclusion, as it takes all fan opinions out of the matter, since that is a listing provided by the studio (and actors in the billing block are generally the "main" characters, or negotiated cameos). As such, Gregg and the actors who portray Stark have not reached that threshold for inclusion as has been determined by editors here to keep the table manageable. However, you can find both included in the recurring cast table at the main Marvel Cinematic Universe article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Critic Score average
Should there be an average for the critic scores on here, just like there's an average for the critic scores on the DC Extended Universe page?- DCTrinity (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there shouldn't really be one over there either. It is incorrect to say that the average of the individual film scores is the same as an overall score for the franchise, and if it isn't then what is notable about it? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Film development turned television
Do we leave the information about film projects which materialize as television series under "Potential projects"? My inclination would be to say no; the older/vaguer information seems like it'd fit more cleanly under early development info on the pages for the TV series. We can always add back information if at some point in the future a film based on those properties re-enters development. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As the new Runaways order is only for a pilot, I say we should leave the info here on this article until it is actually ordered to series. But I totally agree with you . The info here has already been added to our draft (Draft:Runaways (TV series)), so it can be a clean delete here, should the series proceed and get the series order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also a bit about an old Iron Fist script. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that "Other potential projects" is under "Future". From an encyclopedic point of view, it seems appropriate to continue to list properties that were once potential films, regardless of their current status. However, several (if not most) of the ones currently listed aren't actively potential and thus don't really fit the "Future" part. This is partly due to the fact that sources for potential projects usually don't become available until after they either become green-lit or are no longer probable. - DinoSlider (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether we could move information from this page to more appropriate pages as projects materialize. Once Runaways is ordered to series (or perhaps once it premieres, just to avoid jumping the gun), it's not so much a potential film as it is a TV series which was once envisioned as a film. I see a similar situation with Iron Fist. At this point, it's highly unlikely to become a film. If we retain the information on this page (by tacking it on to Iron Fist (TV series) and later the same with Runaways), we always have the information accessible in case an Iron Fist movie or Runaways movie is ever announced. That clears out the potential films section a bit so that the focus of the section is legitimately potential films, not ten-year-old scripts only discussed once. -RM (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of this. Just to play devil's advocate, one reason I personally did not add the Iron Fist info to the TV series page (if you go to edit the Development section there, you'll see a hidden note about it), was because Iger said all the Netflix characters had the potential of becoming films. Yes, that is only a possibility, but my thought was that the Iron Fist film development would be better to include on that potential film page. But since that is still a possibility, I'd be fine moving the info here and Iron Fist (comics) to the TV series development section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that makes sense, it's not like the TV series popped up out of nowhere. All that film development is natural background info to Marvel deciding to make a series. And should a film reenter development it'd be fairly simple to add the relevant info. The "sure they could become movies later" comment doesn't hold much more weight than the "sure we'd like to make a sequel" fluff that comes up with every release (and is usually left in the sequel section of a film article by an editor). Should probably keep this article to real development info. -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should move this info to TV articles in these cases, and we can add it back if a film comes from those TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So really at this moment, it would be removing the info on the Iron Fist screenwriter. Runaways info will be moved if and when it gets picked up (or aired as RM suggested). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if the show gets picked up and we move our article to the mainspace then we should move the Runaways info from here. Until then, the Iron Fist info should go. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That all sounds good. I am a bit curious as to whether we can/should set a time limit for our sources? The Nick Fury script was last reported on over ten years ago. I understand the argument "it doesn't change the fact that they still hired a writer," but I'm just wondering how "potential" it is if it never got past the script phase (and we don't have any sources stating that a script was ever written, only that a writer was hired. For all we know, he was fired the next day and Marvel cancelled the project). I know, that's a lot of hypothesizing. You get my point though. We haven't heard anything for a decade. Is there any precedence for this or should we leave it?-RM (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get to moving/working on the Iron Fist info right now. And I totally get your point RM. However, I think we need to keep it on the article until we have information to say something else about it. The Nick Fury film was supposed to be one of the original films that Marvel did when they got their funding 10 years ago. Obviously it hasn't come to happen, and it could be possible that what ever work was done for that film morphed into parts of the films Fury has appeared in. But until we get something from Feige, or say the Russos, etc. saying "We still have the script to work from" or "We ended up using parts of it for Fury's arc in Winter Soldier" etc., we as the readers/editors don't know what happened to it. And honestly, the Fury piece is the only questionable one we have in that section. Runaways we now have something for; Inhumans is happening at some point, we just need the new date; Black Widow still has continued traction and comments made on it (and could be a Phase 4 film); and Blade is still "fresh" as it were. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Farve no worries, just wanted to bring it up. -RM (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you did. Good to at least think about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Cinema Score
Should we add Cinema Score for each movie like what they did in DCEU? 120.28.93.39 (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man sequel
Here is an article talking about Spider-Man kicking off Phase Four. It stops short authoritatively saying it will be in Phase Four, but there may be some stuff to use in here all the same. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason I'd continue to hold off is: 1) This is not Marvel stating it is indeed Phase Four and 2) We have three untitled films for 2020 that were announced as being part of Phase Three. I think by now we've all assumed that the second Infinity War film is the end of Phase Three, given the history of ending a phase (generally) with an Avengers film. But I don't believe Feige or anyone has explicitly stated that will be the end of Phase Three, or really when Phase Four starts. They've only said they are looking at the options for what to release after Infinity War II. So, while I think this is completely true, I think we can wait a little bit to be sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)