Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 7

Table of films should be adjusted in Phase 4 section
Hello! To make it cleaner and consistent, I think the table of films should be adjusted. Rather than starting off the table with the bolded and large text 'The Infinity Saga', I think this could be taken out since it is redundant and can make the table confusing. I think the text on top is sufficent reading: "The films from Phase One through Phase Three are collectively known as "The Infinity Saga".[25][26]." Additionally, I'm also proposing that you similarly make the "Phase Four" title the same as the rest of the table (with centered alignment as part of the chart). This will make everything look cleaner and the table won't break apart as Phase Four. It's more important the films are listed together, rather than breaking it apart as "The Infinity Saga" and "Phase Four." Finally, for the note below the Phase Four title, I think you can add in text at the top, next to the note about the Infinity Saga. Therefore, the table will present as in the same style with Phase One, Phase Two, Phase Three, Phase Four all in the middle of the table with their corresponding films below and above the table you have this note for readers:

"The films from Phase One through Phase Three are collectively known as "The Infinity Saga".[25][26] Phase Four also includes multiple series and two specials streaming on Disney+.[3][4]"

Please let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.83.206.188 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Infinity Saga is a quite clear delineation/grouping point for the films and the formatting reflects such. The entirety of the films shouldn't be in one large table as proposed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The current formatting makes it feel like Phase Four is something different -- and not part of the original set of films. I'm not requesting that we do not note The Infinity Saga at all, it just feels uneven. In the current format, Phase Four gets the same formatting as the Infinity Saga, which makes it appear like it has equal footing or titling. Until Phase Four gets grouped, I don't think that's the case. Phase Four is equal to Phase One/Two/Three, not the Infinity Saga as a whole, so it should be highlighted the same way as the other phases. 137.83.206.188 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree with your assessment. The Infinity Saga was not introduced right off as such, and it took time to establish heroes, villains, and the big threat that would require all of the superheroes from phase 1-phase 3 to converge to fight against it. The MCU's announced projects make it clear that it will take time to build up to the next big group conflict, so it would be disingenuous to imply that phase 4 is part of the Infinity Saga. We need more information on the "big conflict" in phases 4-6, or however long this next saga lasts, before we can even begin to attempt to categorically claim that phase 4 should be connected to the Infinity Saga. Either way, phase 4 does not belong with the Infinity Saga. Phase 4 deals with the fallout and aftermath of the events depicted in the Infinity Saga, including the introduction of the new heroes on whose shoulders the obligation to band together and defeat that threat will land. With that in mind, I suggest closing this discussion for the next few years, until the next overall arc, "big bad", focus of and characters for this phase and is revealed. I'd have to go back to say this for certain, but the details, nature, and duration of the Infinity Saga may not have been announced as such when the MCU was just starting. And while Spider-Man: Far From Home was thought originally to be part of phase 4, the aftermath of Tony Stark's death had relevance to the Infinity Saga. With that in mind, I suggest closing this discussion for the next 2 years at least, until the next overall arc and focus for this phase and its' characters is more firmly established. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that at all. I never wrote that Phase Four should be listed under The Infinity Saga. I'm saying that the table would be more concise if each phase was listed and styled equally. Your response deals with film plots and feels more at home on a subreddit thread than here. What your saying has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. 137.83.206.188 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The table wouldn't be more concise. We would simply be merging the two tables and making a super long table. We should make use of the rather helpful way the creatives at Marvel Studios have come up with to separate and group films. I think it's pretty easy to understand that Phase Four isn't to the rest in the way you seem to mean, as it's very clear from it being called "Phase Four" that it comes after Phases One, Two, and Three, and being filled with sequels to films in the earlier phases. It is, though, something different in the sense that it is not part of the Infinity Saga, and it's likely a part of a yet-to-be-named new saga, though of course we can't know for sure. This way to separate Phases has become quite notable too, being used both by the studios that make these films (Marvel Studios and Disney) and by secondary reliable sources, so using it is in line with how both official and secondary sources deal with it. —El Millo (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Eternals should be linked
The Eternals in the opening should be linked to its wiki page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternals_(film). Master Bob (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's linked at the first occurrence per MOS:DUPLINK and in some later sections but not twice in the lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Russo Brothers have duplicate links
Anthony and Joe Russo are linked in both Winter solider and Civil War which violates wikipedia's MOS:DUPLINK policy CaptainBlackSaber (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is because the table is transcluded from the Phase One, Two, and Three articles. We could add  tags if we wanted to, but WP:DUPLINK also states that  (bolding my own). InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Pointless redirects nominated for deletion
I have just nominated a slew of pointless MCU redirects at RfD, please see the discussions here, here, and here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great catch. All created by the same editor... I've added another nomination about Spider-Man # redirects which only the last in the list was created by them (how I noticed this pattern). Gonnym (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned on WT:MCU, there are several new discussions at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26 involving Spider-Man and Fantastic Four redirects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4 in the future films
Wasn’t it confirmed a sequel to Spider-Man: No Way Home is in development? So shouldn’t it be added to future films? As an untitled film? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

PostTrak
Tried to add PostTrak to Phase Four and it apparently broke this article but couldn't see anything different, please see Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe:_Phase_Four Indagate (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please amend table in List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#Critical and public response so it doesn't break with amend I did https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_Cinematic_Universe%3A_Phase_Four&type=revision&diff=1080917470&oldid=1080892973
 * Guess it needs col to increase from 4 to 5 but I can't preview as can't edit Indagate (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ there is no current consensus to included such information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See below section PostTrak for consensus, please amend to add PostTrak column, can copy from Draft:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/sandbox  Indagate (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Looks like the RFC still has a few weeks left. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish Thought week enough as no oppose Indagate (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RFCs generally run for 30 days. Bot notifications go out, so you need to give time for uninvolved editors to respond. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, will leave it 30 days then Indagate (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022
2403:6200:8890:1B9B:58FC:13D3:3326:B4F9 (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I want to edit the future mcu movie projects
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022 (2)
2403:6200:8890:1B9B:58FC:13D3:3326:B4F9 (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I want to edit the future MCU Films
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: PostTrak
Should PostTrak be added to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films? If 2 or 3 then the articles for phases will need amending too as tables transcluded from them Indagate (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Status quo (just CinemaScore)
 * 2) Add PostTrak to the right of CinemaScore
 * 3) Remove audience reaction part (currently CinemaScore)


 * Support 2 > 1 > 3 Per Manual of Style/Film which mentions CinemaScore and PostTrak explicitly, and "include both if available". Currently including the information from one source so should include the second reliable source for same reasons we include both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. When something is subjective, shouldn't rely on one source however reliable it is. It's fine to use one source for something like Box Office data because expectation of objectivity. These sources are reliable because they don't includes reviews from all members of the public who choose like imdb etc but try and get representative sample. Indagate (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 3, seems to end positive for PostTrak, few people seem support its inclusion but not added. Oppose from Brojam about 10/22 films not have the data but changed to 10/27 in the time since so less of an issue and people seems to disagree it's an issue at the time. Indagate (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support its inclusion. If we include two review aggregators, I don't see why we can't include two audience polling scores., is there a reason not to use PostTrak? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, as per above comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please note there is an ongoing discussion here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Indagate. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment draft of proposal at User:Indagate/sandbox, added PostTrak overall positive score where could find. This run for 30 days per above. Also, deleted CinemaScore refs and cited them to a news article, mostly same as PostTrak Indagate (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What to do if article grows too big again?
This page is once again rather large, are there any plans on what to do if it becomes unwieldy once more? Last time we split it into phase pages, which seems to have been a good choice considering the MCU has now added TV series as well to their phases. Maybe we will should split it similar to how James Bond does?★Trekker (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is mainly tables and references. That doesn't seem too big. Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not anywhere big enough for us to need to split anything else off (and I don't think there is anything to split off that doesn't belong here without changing what this page is for). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As you and Gonnym have pointed out this is probably very premature. My thought was that if it needed to be split some day this list page could be a far simpler list without much prose, while there would be maybe an article named Films of Marvel Cinematic Universe (or similar) which could cover development, themes and overall reception/impact, or maybe like with the James Bond films articles by decade like Filming of James Bond in the 2000s etc. Maybe it was a silly idea, but it was something I started to think about.★Trekker (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell without knowing how long the MCU will go on for, but one thing to note is that we do have a lot of other pages that could eventually be used more efficiently if need be (such as the phase articles and the main MCU page). - adamstom97 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm overestimating the size of the actual data due to it being mostly tables and such, my bad in that case.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022
Can a number column be added to the 'Infinity Saga' and 'Phase Four' tables similar to those seen on List of Pixar films so that one can see at a glance that, for example, "Thor: Love and Thunder" is the 29th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Thank you! User9454 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel like we previously discussed this and said no, but I'm not totally against it since there are so many films and people do often talk about what number a film is in the MCU (we also include this in the leads of each film, which could be an argument for doing it here as well or an argument for not duplicating it here). - adamstom97 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed at all and in fact I support such a thing. If we do it in the leads for each film I don’t see why not here as well. Plus it might serve better then looking at release date or trying to count manually. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a request in Archive 6 that seems not to have any discussion associated therewith. As a 'List of' article, I think it makes sense to duplicate the information contained in the individual film articles as one can more easily derive information from the numbers by seeing them in this context (e.g. 'Guardians' movies were 10th, 15th, and 32nd) User9454 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How would this look, and where in the table would we put it? —El Millo (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would expect that it would be the first column, similar to an episode list in a TV article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would we be okay if only the films table does this and not the Phase Four TV table? I know for certain that template is not coded, nor really formatted, to support such numbering. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to having the numbers listed just in this article and not at the TV table. I don't think we need it on the film tables in the Phase articles, but would also not be opposed to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That would just entail using transclusion tags. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you change the top of the table to:
 * You get automatic numbering. Gonnym (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind. It won't work because it counts the (incorrectly used) mid-row-columns as rows. Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * why is it used incorrectly? Can it be fixed? —El Millo (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial has the explanation and as of September of 2021, Graham87 commented over there on the talk page that it's still problematic with JAWS. No real fix other than removing the columns mid-table. Regarding the Static row numbers usage, I've been informed a fix can be to use  above each mid-table column row. Gonnym (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, numbering should start at 23 for the separate 'Phase Four' table. User9454 (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 24 User9454 (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Was referencing the first two tables in the "Films" section on this page. Not any TV table. User9454 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is more useful to have it in the film table than the TV table anyway, the number of TV show to be released seems less relevant and also gets messy with multiple seasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I asked about the TV because if this happens, someone is bound to attempt or ask for the TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I asked about the TV because if this happens, someone is bound to attempt or ask for the TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary in addition to release date column and default order, doesn't add any extra useful information. The fact Thor: Love and thunder is the 29th film in the franchise isn't really of any use to the average reader, they can see the list of films. Indagate (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * An average reader (me) is saying this information is of use to them. The films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are basically serialized storytelling at this point, and as discussed above, this information is often referred to when talking about the franchise. User9454 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Serialized but they can be fairly self-contained and don't need to be watched in release-order. Can say a film in the Nth film in franchise without explicitly stating that number here, it's available via the default row sort and release date column that's present in film table and box office table. Stating the number on a film's article seems good for putting it in the context of its franchise but not necessary when all films listed, seems to only be mentioned in the lead of MCU articles which shouldn't be the only place of any information so should be added to main body also. Indagate (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, would this page copy List of Pixar films and have scope="row" be the film number and not film like it is now? Or have scope="row" be the second column? Indagate (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: Marking template as answered per instructions regarding ongoing discussions. Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022
Isn't Untitled Spider-Man No Way Home sequel should be added to the future films list. Kevin and Amy confirmed their return as producers. Sony likely expecting John Watts as the director with all main actors to reprise their roles, including Holland and Zendaya.

Sources, [|1], [|2] and [|3] XT RedZone (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Current consensus is that it is not concrete enough as actually happening to include. Info can be found at Spider-Man: No Way Home for the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2022
In the section about the Blade film, please remove the duplicate of "at Trilith Studios in Atlanta, Georgia," because I can see it appears twice. 70.26.30.80 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic Four status
Since it's been removed from this article I guess it should be assumed it's canceled? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2022
Request to add and cultivate to the new comic con event, new movies, and multiverse saga. Drewsoph227 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional films in Phases 5 & 6
There are three other films scheduled for release in 2024/25, whose titles haven't been revealed yet. https://deadline.com/2022/07/marvel-cinematic-universe-films-list-phase-five-six-1235076274/ - Forty.4 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . See . InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Avengers 5 date.
Avengers: The Kang Dynasty is set for May 2, 2025, not May 7.

https://twitter.com/MarvelStudios/status/1551009643698106368 Madyoshi01 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✔️. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The Multiverse Saga
Currently, "The Multiverse Saga" redirects to here. However, "The Multiverse Saga" will consist of both films and TV series. Is there a good way to represent that? or should "The Multiverse Saga" become its own page eventually?

This worked with "The Infinity Saga" as it was just films, but the newer "phases" include both movies and TV series. Natg 19 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need yet another page, all of the information about "The Multiverse Saga" will be handled here, at the MCU article, and in the Phase articles. I think it is fine to let it redirect here since the top of the article already links to the relevant TV series. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the redirect should go to Marvel_Cinematic_Universe, though I guess there is not much difference. Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for page improvement
I have a proposal, but I’d like to gauge your opinion before going through what may be a laborious task.

My basic idea is this: Convert the tables to include inflation-adjusted figures as well as a ratio column to show how many dollars were grossed for every dollar spent creating the movie. I have a demonstration page on the Wiki page for James Bond movies.

Electricmaster (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * We already have the box office and budget info covered at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. The films tables themselves already have enough information, so these are separate. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While inflation-adjusted figures may be more accurate, they are not the standard for measuring box office and need to be updated regularly to keep up with the changes in inflation so I don't think it is ideal to add them in. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:Inflation automatically updates inflation figures with the given original value and references so that wouldn't be an issue. Don't think necessary for a list like this, can be misleading. Indagate (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Films are often inflation adjusted by ticket prizes (to compare ticket sales) and not general consumer prices, and adjusting Worldwide box office is a mess with few and poor sources. The MCU started in 2008 and uses US$ which has low inflation. I don't think we should try to mess with inflation adjustment. It would easily get into original research territory. It's also a problem that some films have box office spread out over more than one year. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a good counterpoint, to be fair. Electricmaster (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2022
In the list of characters/actors, some none-spoiler nicknames are missing. For example, Stephen Strange should have a small "Dr Strange". There are several others like it. 24.4.177.254 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dr./Doctor Strange" is not an alias, simply an academic title. We don't include titles in the table. This was decided on Talk:Doctor Strange (2016 film)'s archives. — SirDot (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022 (2)
Adding on phase 4 table in recurring cast and characters  Peggy Carter and Hayley Atwell because of the presence in Doctor Strange in the multiverse of Madness Lukemegner (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * These two are different characters, or rather different versions, so it's not considered a recurrence of the same character. —El Millo (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It should still be added, with a note saying it's a multiversal version. It's the same character played by the same actress. Also Anthony Mackie needs to be added as appearing in Phase 4 as Sam Wilson in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier series along with Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes and Tom Hiddleston appearing as Loki in the Loki series. For some reason the table seems to only refer to the theatrical films, but that's not all Phase 4 is. 82.5.202.174 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s because this article is about Marvel Cinematic Universe films, not Marvel Cinematic Universe TV shows. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the article for the MCU also has a table of recurring characters and I lost track of which one I was on. I imagine there's a whole lot of redundancy between the two articles, they would best being merged but that would be a complicated job. 82.5.202.174 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that mean Gamora should be a different version for Phase Five as well? Going by your idea of recurrence, Phase Five Gamora is not the Phase Three Gamora who was sacrificed for the soulstone. I feel like a distinction should be made between time-variants as Phase Five opens up with Quantumania. Ixvael (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gamora in Phase Five was introduced in Endgame, which is part of Phase Three. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

films not announced
The Mutant film and the Eternals sequel have not been officially announced and should not be listed in the chart until there is an official announcement or sourcing on them. Oswalt is not an official source and seemed to be just repeating some rumors he had heard. Spanneraol (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By the same argument, you're not an official source for what has or has not been announced, or for that matter, what is or is not in the works, so unless you are a clairvoyant who has somehow seen into the minds of MCU executives and Oswalt to the degree that you can assert what they are thinking or planning, your assertions, by your own argument, are no more reputable than what Oswalt said. I would trust a member of the cast to know what's what, and if his statement is reported in reliable sources, that is more than sufficient ground to include it here. Our job is to cite reputable sources known for including reliable information that, more often than not, happens to be officially confirmed sooner or later. No disrespect intended here, but unless you have a source that specifically states Oswalt is in error, we go by the currently-cited sources, not by what individual editors interpret the nature of the report to be. And Oswalt's statement has been sufficiently cited in several sources, so it merits inclusion here. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An official source is something announced by the production or the studio not some random bit player who may or may not know anything. The source cited by the way says "Possibly Revealed"... which is far from a definitive statement. I'm not claiming i know anything about what is in production. No disrespect intended here but we need better sourcing not something that says "possibly" or some guy talking on some podcast somewhere. We need to be more professional and not cite rumors as if they are fact. Spanneraol (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You completely glossed over my point. Better sourcing alone is not the best answer here. Reliable sourcing is. That has always been a key pillar of Wikipedia. Ideally, the very best option would be a source that is both better and more reliable. Right now, we have a report from someone in the cast of the OG movie that plans are underway for a second movie. So unless we can find a specific denial from the powers-that-be at the MCU indicating that is not the case, and also indicating Oswalt spoke for himself and not as an MCU representative authorized to share such information, we have to go with the information in the currently-cited source, which meets the reliability criteria. The ideal source, would of course, meet both criteria. But unless and until a more reliable source that is better is found, we go with Oswalt's statement, which happens to be sufficiently reliable (as it has been shared in a number of sources that meet the appropriate criteria for inclusion here). That's the way Wikipedia works. Again, I also intend no disrespect or offense, and I hope none is taken regarding this matter. Jgstokes (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know how wikipedia works.. I've been here longer than you have... and it's hard not to take offense when you speak in such a dismissive manner. His quote claims "They have announced..." who is they? No one has announced anything... and the sources that repeat his remarks don't take it as a confirmation as they all use language that that shades it in more circumspect wording. There aren't any reliable sources that claim the film is happening. Spanneraol (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Change request
"In June 2007, Marvel Studios raised secured funding from a seven-year, $525 million revolving credit facility with Merrill Lynch" -> "In June 2007, Marvel Studios raised secured funding of $525 million revolving credit facility with Merrill Lynch."

Rationale: I checked the source, and nowhere does it mention seven-year. Plus, that doesn't make sense anyways. 71.90.118.101 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Spanneraol Can you please take a look at my request? It should be quick and easy edit, but I can't do it myself. The source can be accessed for free in the archived version. Thanks! 68.117.125.78 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A seven year doesn't make sense. First, it's not in the source. Second, seven years of what? The funding will be spent over 7 years or it took 7 years to get the funding? 68.117.125.78 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @68.117.125.78 I have removed the 7 years line. — SirDot (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! 68.117.125.78 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2022
Matt Shakman was confirmed as the director of Fantastic 4 MagicL55 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2022
All instances of people's names in lists should be linked.

The instances I've found are: Kevin Feige, Avi Arad, Jon Favreau, Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, Shane Black, James Gunn, Scott Derrickson, Jon Watts, Ryan Coogler, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Andrew Barrer, Gabriel Ferrari, Anna Boden, Ryan Fleck, Destin Daniel Cretton, Chloé Zhao, Patrick Burleigh, Taika Waititi, Mark Ruffalo, Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Renner, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Zoe Saldaña, Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Don Cheadle, William Hurt, Stellan Skarsgård, Jaimie Alexander, Evangeline Lilly, Anthony Mackie Max3489556786534 (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please specify exactly where you would like a change to be made. Additionally, it is very likely WP:DUPLINK applies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2022
Chloé Zhao is listed as a screenwriter twice for the Eternals. 136.52.110.247 (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the attached ref note explaining this. She is officially credited once as a solo writer, and then again as part of a writing team with Burleigh. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Movie missing
Avengers endgame is not there 114.129.185.177 (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Avengers: Endgame is included in the lead of the article with the film listings and in the films table presently. Where do you think it is missing from? Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References for Armor Wars
The Armor Wars section was moved to this article from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, but some references are missing. Here are they:

2804:1690:906:CCE0:E1EB:F9AD:CE87:B5D7 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The refs were moved over shortly after you posted this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Untitled mutant-centered film
It just occurred to me that us listing an "untitled mutant-centered film" may not be entirely accurate, possibly WP:OR. All Feige said at SDCC 2019 was that they were going to introduce mutants to the MCU at some point (exact quote: ), he never said there was going to be an X-Men-style team-up movie about mutants. What if he was just alluding to Deadpool 3? Or perhaps Ms. Marvel? No mention of a mutant-centered film in this 2021 interview either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through the articles we use on the film draft, Feige never has explicitly said a mutants film was being made, and has indeed only talked about when/how mutants would be introduced. Deadline wrote in their articles that a film was happening, though used the unofficial title "The Mutants". Justin Kroll did tweet about an X-Men/mutants film earlier this month, however, and said it was a long ways down the road. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's our only concrete evidence that such a film exists, we should remove/hide it similar to what we're doing with the No Way Home sequel. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've said that a number of times, it should be removed until there is actual announcement of it. Also, when was Deadpool confirmed as being part of phase 6? The sources don't say that. Spanneraol (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll need a consensus if we were to remove/hide the mutants film. As for DP3, please see Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There was never any actual consensus to include it in the first place and as the others state, there was never any official announcement of a film. Spanneraol (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A film about mutants and including it here has become WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS since SDCC 2019, so yes, new consensus would need to be formed to remove. That is irregardless of what is being discussed here and as presented, is likely showing that it should probably be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need an official announcement, we just need a reliable source that says so. But as I stated above, we only have one source which actually says such a film is happening, so I doubt that's concrete enough for us. I'm also electing to ignore Deadline SDCC 2019 article, given their questionable interpretation of Feige's quote. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if we do remove on the grounds no film was explicitly announced, I'd suggest Draft:Untitled Marvel mutant-centered film be moved to Draft:Marvel Studios' mutant project or something like that to remove "film" from the draft title, but to still keep the draft for us to work on as info is revealed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I always found Deadline use of "The Mutants" to be off given Feige never said that was a title, and given the other evidence that has been presented on this here and in the past, I would support removing any mention of a mutants film outside of the draftspace for us to work on it. As for the title, I would suggest Draft:Untitled Marvel Studios mutant project or Draft:Untitled Marvel mutant project. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing if there are no objections. I'll defer to others on what to do with the draft. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2022
I believe The Deadpool film on Nov 8, 2024 needs to be moved into Phase 5

Fantastic 4 is the first film in Phase 6

Thank-You 131.148.177.178 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Being discussed at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2022
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is not linked with the list of Phase 4 films below the leading info-box. Best cartoonist ever (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Best cartoonist ever (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:DUPLINK, it's already linked in the second paragraph. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Eternals 2 Status
Recently, Kumail Nanjiani, an actor in Eternals, disputed Patton Oswalt's claim that Eternals 2 is happening, as linked here. I also happened to look at the archives at this thread that discussed the similar topic. Now that there is a source of equal merit (a fellow actor) with conflicting information, we should wait until we receive official confirmation from the trades or Marvel themselves before including Eternals 2 as in development. Otherwise, we are taking one actor's word over another. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have disputed this note previously but it is clear from this latest article that the actors do not have knowledge of any new film so Patton was clearly mistaken. Spanneraol (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nanjiani said he has no idea on a sequel and thinks Oswalt was mistaken. It's still nothing concrete from either side. We do need other editors to weigh in before making any decisions on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, because we have nothing concrete is exactly why we should not be listing it as being in development. Spanneraol (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you ping some of the editors who would be interested in weighing in on this discussion? Thanks, Hummerrocket (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging for additional comments. To note, I have added relevant information to Draft:Untitled Eternals sequel. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nanjiani didn't dispute Patton Oswalt's comments, i.e. he didn't say Eternals 2 is not happening, just that he doesn't know if it's happening. So I think for now, it's fine to keep it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He specifically responded to Oswalt's statement by saying "I don’t think Patton was right. I think that there was a hoax website – one of those where it’s like one letter off from the real one. They tweeted it, and it spread around and I think that’s what Patton saw." I think there is enough uncertainty to remove Eternals 2 from the list for now, perhaps as a comment. If the trades or Marvel officially confirm its development, we can easily add it back. Hummerrocket (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nate Moore's also commented about the future of the characters on the Wakanda Forever press tour, and he's more of the mind that the characters will return probably sooner than a proper sequel. I'd be ok removing the sequel info from here until something else comes out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case what would be the next step - e.g comment out that part? Hummerrocket (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Outright removal from here until more concrete info is revealed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It has all been removed from the article. The contents can remain at the Phase 7 draft until such time it is more concrete for inclusion here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

TableAlignment and overall width
Hey. I have no issue trying to implement this as it seems helpful, but if I look at a page with it (say here on Phase Three), the overall table width looks as though it is at 70% or so, even though the code still has it at 99%. The documentation and the CSS file at Table alignment don't appear to have anything that affects width, but if you or anyone else have more thoughts, I'd like to make sure we can keep the tables at their full width. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, it looks exact same with and without the automation for me, just looked on one device though. Might be " after the col2left so width isn't included in classes? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference I'm on a Mac, using Chrome and the vector Legacy skin. I'm going to further investigate myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are reference images: This one is the Phase Three table with Table alignment, and this is it after my revert/before it was added in. Hopefully folks can view these. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, does this User:Indagate/sandbox2 look okay please? Indagate (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The second and third sections do look ok, " Films: style="width: 99%;" " and " Films 2: width="99%" ". The first one has the same issue I saw on the live pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit here also seems to have resolved the width issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks, yeah first one is what I originally did for comparison and bottom two are two possible fixes, looks like Alex's fix is the middle one. Indagate (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This one changed the original  to  . The issue in that lies in the floating   after the class declaration, because the   tag was removed. Mine resolved this by restoring it, to  . Hope that helps. --  Alex_ 21 TALK 14:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the quick testing and solving all. Cheers, - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2023
An untitled spider-man film was announced in 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/movies/kevin-feige-amy-pascal-spider-man-no-way-home.html UnkreativeFrog (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the editors note in the "Future" section, the potential No Way Home sequel has not been officially announced, and is only in early talks and development stage, as no formal deal between Sony and Marvel to make it has been made yet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2023
Hey, I want to upgrade the rotten tomatoes reviews on Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. Oddballslover (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ —El Millo (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2023
Change "Deadpool 3" to "Deadpool 2" in second paragraph. Lfoyer (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌, that wasn't in the MCU. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Table of MCU films code
When I try and view the film table by release date, a few of the films (shang-chi/eternals) get jumbled. Can this be fixed?Halbared (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Indagate (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that there was a way to sort in the film table lists. Nothing for that shows up on my end. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this was regarding the box office table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2023
I just ask that this page be edited so that the films already released are numbered. Aquacannon (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? Not necessary. Indagate (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It actually used to be numbered. Also with all the phases now, it's getting hard to keep track of how many films there are and I don't want to have to count them all every time. i.e., it'd be easier to number. Aquacannon (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was never numbered. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2023
at referrence 402 change 19999 to 199999 Charlie.cog (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The missing 2025 dates
With all the delays, the EW article does not mention the TBD 2025 dates for MCU movies and thus they were removed from this article. However, the Deadline article about those same delays does mention the July and November 2025 dates. So, should those be added back in? UnderIrae (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2023
I want to edit this page and add that there will be a Doctor Strange in the Nexus of Nightmares film. https://twitter.com/DrStrangeUpdate/status/1642166317481357313?lang=en And https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=605322161624653&id=100064406243428&set=a.468245811998956 KrishJ2001 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ No, that is an unconfirmed rumor and we don't add info that can not be confirmed. Spanneraol (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on August 4, 2023
"Feige said in September 2015 there are "broad strokes" though sometime "super-specific things"." I think that should say "sometimes" not "sometime".

73.222.28.174 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for your suggestion! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)