Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 3

Edit request on 20 August 2012
We should begin to separate movies in the MCU by phase because when phase 3 will be completed in something like 6 years, we will have at least 18 movies in the same table so it could be interesting to add a sub category in the table. The first one is Phase One : Avengers Assemble

The second one is Phase Two

The third one (we can wait 2 years a least to add this one to the page) is Phase Three

So the table could look like this :

Films
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center" border="1" width=100% ! Film ! Release date ! Director ! Writer(s) ! Producer(s) ! Distributor ! colspan="6" style="background-color:#FF4040;" |

Phase One : Avengers Assemble
! colspan="6" style="background-color:#b8c7d6;" |

Released films
! colspan="6" style="background-color:#FF4040;" |
 * style="text-align:left"|Iron Man
 * style="text-align:left"|May 2, 2008
 * Jon Favreau
 * Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway
 * Avi Arad & Kevin Feige
 * Paramount Pictures
 * style="text-align:left"| The Incredible Hulk
 * style="text-align:left"|June 13, 2008
 * Louis Leterrier
 * Zak Penn
 * Avi Arad, Gale Anne Hurd & Kevin Feige
 * Universal Pictures
 * style="text-align:left"| Iron Man 2
 * style="text-align:left"|May 7, 2010
 * Jon Favreau
 * Justin Theroux
 * rowspan="4" | Kevin Feige
 * rowspan="3" | Paramount Pictures
 * style="text-align:left"|Thor
 * style="text-align:left"|April 21, 2011
 * Kenneth Branagh
 * Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz & Don Payne
 * style="text-align:left"| Captain America: The First Avenger
 * style="text-align:left"|July 22, 2011
 * Joe Johnston
 * Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
 * style="text-align:left"| Marvel's The Avengers
 * style="text-align:left"|May 4, 2012
 * colspan="2" | Joss Whedon
 * Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
 * Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
 * style="text-align:left"| Marvel's The Avengers
 * style="text-align:left"|May 4, 2012
 * colspan="2" | Joss Whedon
 * Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
 * Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Phase Two
! colspan="6" style="background-color:#b8c7d6;" |

In development
! colspan="6" style="background-color:#b8c7d6;" |
 * style="text-align:left"| Iron Man 3
 * style="text-align:left"|May 3, 2013
 * Shane Black
 * Drew Pearce & Shane Black
 * rowspan="3" | Kevin Feige
 * rowspan="3" | Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
 * style="text-align:left"| Thor: The Dark World
 * style="text-align:left"|November 8, 2013
 * Alan Taylor
 * Don Payne & Robert Rodat
 * style="text-align:left"| Captain America: The Winter Soldier
 * style="text-align:left"| April 4, 2014
 * Joe & Anthony Russo
 * Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
 * style="text-align:left"| April 4, 2014
 * Joe & Anthony Russo
 * Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely

Announced

 * style="text-align:left"| Guardians of the Galaxy
 * style="text-align:left"| August 1, 2014
 * James Gunn
 * Nicole Perlman & Chris McCoy
 * rowspan="3" |Kevin Feige
 * rowspan="3" |Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
 * style="text-align:left"|Ant-Man
 * style="background-color:lightgrey;" |
 * Edgar Wright
 * Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish
 * style="text-align:left"|The Avengers 2
 * style="text-align:left"| May 1, 2015
 * colspan="2" | Joss Whedon
 * colspan="7" | List indicator(s)
 * A grey cell indicates information is not available for this film.
 * colspan="2" | Joss Whedon
 * colspan="7" | List indicator(s)
 * A grey cell indicates information is not available for this film.
 * A grey cell indicates information is not available for this film.
 * }

Burgalesque (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

❌ Currently the table is not in need of any further sub-division. We can revisit this issue in the future if it becomes a problem.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

i know many other people disagree with me over this, but i think making the table look like this is a good idea as it clearly seperates the films into phases, something that i feel is important enough to feature in the article Frogkermit (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Sep 16 2012
This is a great page so far. But I did notice one thing missing. In the list of main cast/characters, I don't see Rhodey (James Rhodes, played in IM by Terence Howard, and IM2 and IM3 by Don Cheadle), aka War Machine. Considering this character is major in all three Iron Man films, he should be added to this chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiedream1n (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

❌ The table here is for characters appearing in multiple franchises.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In Development and Announced
This has been really bugging me. Right now we list all the upcoming films in the table as either "In development" or "Announced" with no real sourcing or even explanation of what the terms mean in this context. From my understanding the stages of a film's production can be broken down to: announcement, development, pre-production, production (or filming), post-production, and completed but not yet released. For whatever reason we only list two of those. And the "Announced" label has actually moved around a lot (first it was above Ant-Man, then it was moved up above GotG, then down to only above Avengers 2, and now it's up above Cap 2), but surely Guardians, Cap 2, and Ant-Man are all in development. They all have scripts written, they showed some concept art for Guardians, and they actually filmed test footage for Ant-Man. Avengers 2 is the only one I could see as only "announced" since it doesn't even have a script yet. And Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 are way past development, with Iron Man 3 fliming and Thor 2 ready to start filming in September. I'm not actually in favor of adding more stages to the table which would just clutter it, but right now only using those two seems misleading. I noticed the reccuring cast table only uses "released films" and "upcoming films" as separators which I thought was much simpler and sourceable, so I tried to make that change to the main table, but it was reverted. To make the page more accurate I really think we need to make a change one way or the other, either add more stages or just remove them. --DocNox (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then change the second header to filming. Films can only pass notability guidelines for an article generally after filming has begun since they are the only ones that have a strong chance of actually existing. The rest are announced/planned/having things done but they are not filming and they are not guaranteed. Anything can happen and that is why they don't get their own articles and why they aren't upcoming films. The second header did used to be Upcoming I believe, it was obviously changed at some point by someone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Filming" is kind of an awkward phrasing for it as well; where do you put Iron Man 3 once it wraps? If a film is cancelled, it wouldn't be difficult to remove it from the table, and note its cancellation elsewhere in the article. A film doesn't need to meet the notability guidelines for an article here, in order for it to be in development in a real world sense. Films that the studio has announced, that have writers/directors attached, are "in development". The studio is actively developing them and working on getting them released. The table seems like it would make more sense split into just the two categories. My two cents. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * F**k, I just had a long descriptive reply that crashed on me. Short answer: I think we should either go by as filming/production as Darkwarriorblake suggested or by pre-production, if we have a WP:RS stating the film as been greenlit or a director has been hired (usually the first step of pre-porduction) and we can call it "in-production" as production is the name for both principal photography and the entire filmmaking process as whole.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better I guess, but it still doesn't solve the problem. What will we do when IM3 stops filming? Create a post-production section and move it there? From what I understand Darkwarriorblake wants the sections to separate the films that have articles from the ones that don't, but that's not what the sections were actually doing for the longest time. Personally I just don't think it's necessary (they'll find out if the film has an article when they click the link) and I can't think of a wording that will do it without having to eventually create more sections. --DocNox (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the section used to be called "Upcoming films" which covers films that actually can exist and will arrive in the near future. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what's the problem with just having one section called that? --DocNox (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have explained it before, or someone else has, but films like Ant Man and Avengers 2, while well intentioned are not upcoming. They might never exist. The entire Avengers cast might die in a press explosion of Michael Bayian explosions. If "Announced" is an issue, change that to "In Development" and everything is covered, "upcoming" covers films that are being filmed and not too far from release in film terms, "In Development" says they are announced, people are writinh things, contracts are being signed but they're still not an actual entity beyond wishful thinking. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never heard "upcoming" defined that strictly before. Category:Upcoming films describes it as "films that are not released as of yet, but are factually planned to be filmed/released in the near future". That can apply to every film in this table. In any case, as Fandraltastic explained, in the off chance one of these films does get cancelled we can easily remove it. It doesn't need to meet the notability guidelines for an article to be listed here or described as "upcoming". --DocNox (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The film is "In Production" even after the end of filming with post production, which can sometimes last right up to film's release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But in that case then it's also "In Production" during pre-production. --DocNox (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is or was the case for the films listed. We just need to come up with a precise criteria for inclusion such as ones I mentioned earlier.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I misunderstood. In that case I don't really have a problem other than it might be hard to find reliable sources saying if the film has been greenlit or not. I would think Cap 2 and GotG both have, while Ant-Man and Avengers 2 are still in development, but I can't say for sure. Just going by whether there is a director attached or not I don't think would be good. --DocNox (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph it says that Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy have entered pre-production, given this shouldn't they be moved into the "In Production" area. - Dracuns (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pre-production is still the step before production in the filmmaking process. Once the cameras begin rolling, they should be moved into the "in production" section of the table and given their own articles. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Release dates
Is there any reason Thor is the only movie with its international release date listed? Iron Man 2 and The Avengers were released overseas first, too. Just wondering. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Small changes to the films table
I think (and Im sure we discussed this before but I cannot be sure) that the distributor field should go from the table. If it were studio I could maybe understand, but distributors are distributors, not particularly important. Additionally the distributor just seems to be a massive source of contention (not necessarily here but in Marvel articles) particularly recently with User:Cuktdu,thfdc who appears to be the Paramount super fan. Also again i think we discussed this, but I think the writer field should be limited to the screenwriters only, the people who represent what got onto the screen since the article gives an overview of those films and their respective articles can and does go into greater detail about that stuff. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree.--20:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, shall I take care of it? Don't want to do it and cause you an Edit Conflict because you are doing it or vice versa. Darkwarriorblake (50.45.176.58 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)ake|talk]]) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand how it's a source of contention, since it's all clearly sourced and verifiable. However, it seems to be, and I agree that it's relatively minor, especially now that Disney will seemingly distribute them all. So it should likely be removed. Agree that the writer field should be limited to screenwriters only. One thing I'd like to see that hasn't been discussed is a column for the composers. How about the columns Film, Release Date, Director, Writer(s), Composer, and Plroducer(s)? -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "writer" field should be "Screenplay" to avoid confusion. Not sure we need a composer field but I really don't care, it's harmless.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a problem with a composer field is when someone then asks why they can't add a cinematographer field. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's true. How about just making it a "Music" field then, since the scores/soundtracks for each film has its own article on wikipedia? -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why composers and not cinematographers?174.253.200.73 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOurns. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to see distributor removed. Now just remove composer and do not add cinematographer; its contentious as to which adds more to the creative direction of the film.. they are both add to the film but are so different that its not worth adding etiher. Unanimously, the three most important credits to a film are screenplay writers, directors and producers so just keep them. Forget the rest. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * what does bourns have to do with it? The bournne series dosnt even have a crew table.  Also, pirates of the carribean does have a crew table and it  does include a cinematographer column50.45.176.58 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have feel as old as when someone doesn't know what "boooooooooooooourns" means. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What does the Bournes have to do with it72.35.193.130 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Performance
The totals row in the Box Office Performance table should be shifted to the right one column. Zik (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Incubator for Captain America: The Winter Soldier
This is just a notice that an article for Captain America: The Winter Soldier is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Captain America: The Winter Soldier until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Reoccuring character table
War Machine needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himynameiscolt (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

❌ The table in this article is reserved for characters appearing in multiple franchises.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article
Hey, it occurs to me that if we can improve this topic and get it up to WP:GA status, we could go ahead and nominate the Marvel Cinematic Universe film series for Good topic status. (Of course, Iron Man 2 is still awaiting a GA review, and The Avengers (2012 film) still needs to be finalized, but I figure those things'll happen.) So my question, as I'm not really used to editing/formatting articles for film series, is whether anyone sees anything glaring that needs to be added? Clearly the sources need to be fine-tuned throughout, and there's questionable content present. But is there anything major missing, or that needs to be addressed? Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is an idea for a new section that I've thought of: a section on crossovers. It could contain things like Captain America's sheild in Iron Man and Iron Man 2, and Tony Starks appearance in the Incredible Hulk. - Dracuns (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is already detailed in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The main thing we need to for this article, is making sure everything is referenced, check for dead links, archiving to prevent link rot, and upgrading semi-reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's about what I figured. I also think the development section needs a general overview of each film's production- when each was announced, when each filmed, when each was released. Just a few sentences for each, to anchor the development of the film series beyond easter eggs. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was originally conceived as a fictional universe more so than a film series so emphasis was placed on the inter-connectivity (the stuff that makes the universe) and the development of series as a whole over the individual films. But a few development sentences leading each paragraph shouldn't hurt.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could break the crossovers into their own section, and further develop the rest of the development section. - Dracuns (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is unique in the fact that were dealing with both a fictional universe and a film series so the intercontinuity is apart of its delevopment.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Intercontinuity is still a huge part of the development of the fictional universe, but I agree that the development section needs a little reworking or organising. It seems a bit random with the information that is provided. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Title
The article title is showing up in italics even though it's not italicized in the article or elsewhere and even though there are "noitalic" tags. Can anybody figure out to un-italicize it? Removing the tags didn't help. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Incubator for Guardians of the Galaxy (film)
Just letting everyone know that an incubator for the Guardians of the Galaxy (film) page has been created, until it's time for the page to be moved to the mainspace. Please contribute there as appropriate. Thanks. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Strange Movie
I see users are arguing over whether or not Feige confirmed a film in the MTV interview. The way I read it, it is specifically implied that the character will have a movie, not just be a character involved in phase 3. He refers to it as such, and in a talk with IGN, he states that an announcement will be made about it sooner rather than later. They have never done an announcement for a character without a movie. Thoughts on whether this is enough to put it on the table? Suzuku (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They could be doing a TV series with him, is S.H.I.E.L.D. not part of the phases? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More than likely Fiege was talking about a movie but the article doesn't explicitly verify it. Any assumption or interpretation to the otherwise is orginal research. The article even says Ant-Man is the only officially announced Phase 3 film. It is best to wait for an official announcement before including it in the table, there is no rush. Wikipedia is not the news, we don't have to be the first to include this information. We can afford to wait for a stronger source. If there is a film, it's not like we missed our opportunity to include it in the table.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Nick Fury" movie?
I was browsing IMDb and I found this page about an apparent upcoming prequel starring Nick Fury. Does anybody know anything about this film, or is it only a rumor? I can't find a source. --Arkatox (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely a rumour. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not necessarily a rumor. There have been talk from Marvel about this film happening and at one point it had a writer(back before SLJ was cast) but right now its basically like an Iron Fist, Inhumans or Night Hawk film, in minor development140.211.60.59 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Phases
It seems we should specifically mention the phases somewhere, although I'm not exactly sure where. This is an official thing, not a fan thing. The first Blu-ray box set is referred to as Phase One and features Iron Man 1 and 2, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America and The Avengers. Phase two, mentioned by Kevin Feige here, will include Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy and The Avengers 2 (reference). And that same reference mentions phase three in the future, including the Ant-Man film and Doctor Strange. -Joltman (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried something but to be honest all it does is add unneeded in-universe perspective. There is no real world context for this grouping. I know the MCU template and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members use it but strictly for organizational purposes. Its not needed here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the phases do look a little odd in the table as you tried, I disagree with you, TriiipleThreat. It is in no way providing in-universe perspective. It is a real world grouping, and has no perspective from characters in the universe, and does not treat the universe as real. It doesn't disregard the work as a creative endeavour, it doesn't make this a historical account, etc. The only context is in the real world, as Feige and Marvel are clearly using the terms to define separate parts of the overall story. And what's more, is that it is how the films as a group are being marketed. I believe we should specifically mention the phases, but perhaps the table of films isn't the best place, although with some tweaking to this design, maybe the using it in the table could work. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As you said, it is being used to name different in-universe story-arcs. It has no bearing any real-world aspects of the universe. It doesn't affect any aspect of the films' production, marketing campaigns, release or how they are received by critics or the general public. The average viewer probably isn't even aware of the phases, just the fan boy audience. The only possible real world aspect is that it is being used as a convenient means to break up the box set.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, the problem with your argument,TiiipleThreat, is that in-universe perspective is described as "the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe"...the phases do not fall under this. It is a real world distinction used to break up the films into a specific real-world timeline by Marvel Studios. Yes, they're being used for box sets but to claim their only use is for that is just not true. You argue that the general audience is not aware of the phases, which is true, but is it not the objective of Wikipedia to help inform people? Suzuku (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I like this edit. The formatting is better, while still conveying the same info. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics" scores
The MOS for film articles was recently changed. You can read the whole section here: MOS:FILM, but in short the section says 'There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.' Since the page is protected, I would appreciate it if another editor could remove the "Top Critics" score column from the table on the page. Thanks. 99.192.76.230 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. - Fantr (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Future section division
I feel that the Future section on the page should be divided to better categorize the information. I had made an edit that had the first two paragraphs be about current franchises and new ones that have films announced and are in some development stage. The second section, was the last two paragraphs that would consist of the smaller properties Marvel is looking to make films about, and the attempt to make a cohesive universe, shared by Marvel, 20th Century Fox, and Sony/Columbia. I had suggested "Smaller Properties and Shared Universe". It's not the best name, but it was all I could think of. What are some other thoughts, because I think this would make the section "read" better. Would three sections be better: "Future", "Smaller Properties" and "Shared Universe"? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I originally agreed with the split but just thought it needed a more neutral name. However after going through and trimming the section, I don't think its necessary. The second paragraph was essentially filmmakers sharing their thoughts or interest in topics, there was no indication that they or the studios are taking steps to see these come to fruition. This should be our dividing line for this section. There is big difference between Marvel hiring or attempting to hire writers for a project than Kevin Fiege essentially saying "Planet Hulk? Why not?". The one bit of actual planning "the OsCorp building" is already in the development section since both of those films have already been released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A few questions about the recurring cast section
I have a few questions about the table in this section:

1. Should Bucky/Winter Soldier be added to this as well as James Rhodes/War Machine? As Captain America 2's subtitle is directly referencing this character, I feel that warrants Bucky's inclusion. And Rhodes will be/has been in all of the Iron Man movies. I know that this table is supposed to be an overview of the cast in the MCU, but I guess my real question is what warrants say Jasper Stilwell and JARVIS in the table and these two not?

2. Do actor's names still need references for films that have been released? As some names still have them and some do not, there is not a unity to the table. I feel that only characters that will be appearing in any unreleased film should be cited.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. We have chosen to limit the characters in this article to those appearing in multiple franchises within the MCU, a WP:NPOV method of limiting the table. A full list can be found at the list article.


 * 2. References are always good and third party sources are better than primary sources. So it's better to fill in the missing refs than removing the present ones.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask why all of a sudden some of the actors are not spanned across the table when they appear in consecutive films. It looked much better when they were spanned. Frogkermit (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which characters do you mean? I had made an edit previously to better distinguishing some of the roles from actually starring versus only an uncredited cameo appearance. Is this the change that you mean? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe is Earth-199999
Marvel officially classified it's Cinematic Universe as the reality of Earth-199999 as you can see in this wiki. I don't have references but I'm sure they should not be too hard to find. I noticed The Super Hero Squad Show's page mentions it's Universe reality number so I thought MCU should too. The entire multiverse model can be seen here.
 * Doing a quick search, I can only find the wiki pages that mention this, and wiki pages are not reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the source used by the Marvel Wikia page is the Official Marvel Handbook (although I don't think it's sourced on the pages linked to). However, I don't believe that it is necessarily relevant, as this page is being treated more like a film series page, rather than a page describing a reality in the Marvel Multiverse. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Soundtracks
I didn't really know where to ask this, since they each have their own article, so I figured this would be a good place to ask. Most of the soundtracks don't really need their own articles, as there aren't much more than track listings, a few reviews and some sales figures. (There are maybe some exceptions, like the Iron Man 2 AC/DC album.) There's not really much opportunity or need to expand them, either. So I was wondering whether y'all thought it made more sense to merge them back into their parent film articles, or to maybe merge them together and make a "Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe"-type article? Not quite sure what to do with them, but most of them don't make sense as stand-alone articles. -Fandraltastic (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * After briefly looking through most of them, I think a case for notability can be made. However the articles themselves are in need of improvement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability in what sense, though? Most of them seem to only be notable in relation to their respective films, and there's not much to offer beyond a track list and a few reviews. I'm not sure how they would or could be improved enough to merit standalone articles. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG. The sources are there and they are reviewed independently of the film. Perhaps these can be expanded apon instead of mere ratings.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been looking around and I now agree that there may be enough material and coverage to build up quality articles. Should the two Iron Man 2 soundtrack articles be merged together, though? In the same way the two Avengers albums are covered on the same page. There doesn't seem to be much reason to have them separate. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Other Media - Comic Books
There's been a number of Marvel Cinematic Universe Tie-Ins, which have yet to be noted. I was thinking of something like this

FoxUni (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with the inclusion of the table. Two things though. First, I feel the descriptions should be more than just the press release/solicit info that was given for each. And second, the possible inclusion of the title Avengers Assemble which was launched in March 2012 with the same team as the films and featured the Avengers teaming up with the Guardians of the Galaxy to face Thanos. That was only for the first 8 issues, as now they have changed team members and possibly vered away from the slight movie connection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. I'm thinking either change "description" to "solicit" or keep it "description" and drop some words in each entry like "Pick up this book." Avengers Assemble isn't a MCU Tie-in though, the same way the current Iron Man comic isn't an MCU tie-in. FoxUni (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's needed, the focus should be kept on the films. The table adds undue weight on comics, a less notable aspect of the MCU. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The prose section should cover this information sufficiently without the undue weight, or the risk of fancruft.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any difference between the Marvel One-Shots and the comic tie-ins, as they operate in the same fictional universe, and the "notability" is equally felt on continuity. The official timeline of the MCU builds of off the comic tie-ins (http://marvel.com/news/story/18766/view_the_full_marvel_cinematic_universe_timeline) and the latest tie-in references the well-known Schwarma scene and the question of War Machine's existence during the Battle for New York. While that last fact may approach fancruft more than notability, it is still encyclopedic that Marvel has published movie comics, and that is not implicated in the prose, or stated anywhere on wikipedia. I can see where you feel a main article about the comics akin to One-Shots would be more appropriate. FoxUni (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should remain focused on the development of the film series, but there also may be some merit to this table. Perhaps a separate article would be warranted if you can find some reliable sources, with the table and some prose on the development and reception of the comics. My fear is that people would just try to fill up such a page with really crufty plot summaries, though. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems like a separate article would keep some clutter off of this page and allow for more prose on the comics themselves. Reviews and ratings are found at comicvine and comiXology. The solicit information is at comiXology, Marvel's official website and comiclist.com. The 3 Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited exclusives affect the policy described in that article. There's also the Audi sponsored MCU tie-in and the Colantotte MCU motion comic. Marvel and ComiXology in partnership rotate several MCU #1s for free. Given all that, I see potential for its own article FoxUni (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability is determined by the number of third-partly sources. There is more coverage of the One-Shots than the comic tie-ins, and there is no table for the One-Shots here. The information is valid, it just should be kept to minimal prose covering the tie-ins real world aspects.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually this information is more relevant to the individual films than to the MCU as a whole as most of these titles are marketing tactics used to promote the film. They are already presented as such in those films' articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this information is more relevant to the individual films than the MCU as a whole. However, series that don't tie into any film in particular, like "Fury's Big Week" (which I thought, probably had a greater pool of third-party sources than any of the others), I believe should have a mention.


 * I also believe that the paragraph on Tie-in Comics could state in simpler terms that there are tie-in comics for individual movies, as well as including the Kevin Fiege quote.


 * On a related note, if it is the place of the individual film articles to talk about the tie-in comics, I feel that they need improvement. The Avengers film page should be used as a guide for how to treat tie-in comics on the individual film pages --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree The Avengers (2012 film), is a model example of how these should be treated and that the section here can state in simple terms that tie-in comics for individual films have been released. However the source in The Avengers' article doesn't mention it by name, it does refer to Fury's Big Week, which was solicited as Marvel's The Avengers Prelude: Fury's Big Week.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Refocus
I believe this article need somewhat of a change of focus. At this point we're saying the article is about the "fictional universe", which is fine, but it leaves the development section sort of haphazard, with a lot of focus on small crossovers in the films and not much on the actual meat of the film series' development. I think we could build a much stronger article if we place the actual focus on the film-to-film development of the series, with the crossovers and easter eggs noted in that context rather than as the main focus. Basically I think we should look to rewrite the development section of the article to more closely resemble articles like James Bond in film or Superman in film. The rest of this article already seems to be structured with a main focus on the actual films in mind. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is unique in the fact that it is both, a fiction universe and a film series.. How the universe crosses over is a part of its delevopment but that is not to say more production information could not be woven into the section. Also as the section grows, it could be sub-divided like the articles you mentioned. I'll take a stab at it in the next few days and show you what I mean, which I think will prove to strengthen the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, sounds good. -Fandraltastic (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work, it looks a lot better now. I think a bit of the older material, particularly some of that big paragraph about all of the Thor characters who appear in Avengers, needs to be pruned, but this is a much better base to work off. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though the age of information is of no consequence, as it still expands the shared continuity.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the age of the material mattered, I just meant to refer to some of the material that's been on the page for a while. A few of the Branagh quotes should probably be trimmed a bit to tighten the focus. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, I suppose.--09:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So this ref which is cited for Branagh's quote about Renner doesn't actually appear to contain that quote? And for some reason half of the ref is about an LA Times article, which is probably where the quote actually comes from. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I try to hunt down the original.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay good, I briefly ran a google search for it and couldn't find the original article. That's the most useful of the three Branagh quotes, since it gives context for the Hawkeye cameo. The other two are him just kinda speculating about Whedon's creative process, and are probably a bit too broad for this article. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to find it. The only thing I can think of is that it might have come from this interview (same publication, author, and time period), but the video is now gone. Which brings up another concern, all the refs need to be cleaned-up archived and possibly re-organized.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright yeah, I was thinking about getting to work on archiving all of the refs and moving them to the references section, I'll get that started. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't find anything in print yet to that effect, though I believe I've found a trove of video interviews which, I'm afraid, I just don't have the time resources to go through. But if anyone or a group of editors wants to look through these: http://vidaru.com/ara.php?a=EXCLUSIVE%253A+Kenneth+Branagh+talks+THOR --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really have the time for it either. On a different note, can anyone tell if this archiving was successful? It doesn't show the usual bar at the top of the screen. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears so, it is not redirecting me to the original site. I'll start combing through those videos.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

FOUND IT! Hallelujah! Now how can we archive it?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency or multiple copies?
Since 'Thor' and 'Marvels: The Avengers' storyline is set in the present (modern) and 'Captain America: The First Avenger's' is during WW2, this posed a question about the tesseract which is involve with all 3 movies.


 * 1) The tesseract in 'Thor' has been in Asgard since Odin took it from Jotunheim and kept it there till modern time. At the end, Nick Fury is shown to posses the tesseract.
 * 2) In 'Captain America', Red Skull found a tesseract during WW2. Howard Stark manage to locate the tesseract in the ocean.
 * 3) In 'The Avengers', SHIELD already has 1 which came either from 'Thor' or 'Captain America'.

So does that mean that there are more than 1 tesseract in MCU? Sorry for the confusion caused. --175.156.126.76 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for general discussion about the films, but to let your mind rest, Odin took the Casket of Infinite Winters, not the Tesseract, the Tesseract was lost on Earth during their time as more active viking gods, and Skull collected it in the early 1900s.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Cable was airing 'Thor' and "Captain America' and both artifacts looks almost the same (blue glowy thingy with just some slight differences which can be argued that each possessor changed the containment unit). --175.156.126.76 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing recurring characters in the cast table.
Is there any reason that we seem to have been selective as to which cast members have been included in the table? Howard Stark is included, but not James Rhodes, Jasper Sitwell but not Jane Foster, etc, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The table shows charcters that have appeared in other movie series in the franshise. Howard Stark is in two of the Iron Man movies and he also appears in Captain America. James Rhodes only appears in the Iron Man movies, and hasn't even cameoed in any of the other series. As the franshise progresses this might (and probably will) change and more charcters will be added to the table. - Dracuns (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, got it. Thought there would be an explanation!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Cast table
There have been a recent edit, which has been coming up multiple times and I have been reverting. This editor is removing the column distinctions for Mark Ruffalo, Samuel L. Jackson, and Robert Downey, Jr., to make their column span full. This is not a good distinction, as he takes any notes and references from the previous separation, and has them in the one cell. It does not help to identify when the actor had a credited role versus uncredited, and which source goes for which role. What are other's thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Cast table
Hey, so I threw this together and was wondering if anyone else thought it worked better for the page than the table we have now? It seems much more sustainable, as it allows for more columns without having to squeeze long names into a single row 5+ times. It also seems a lot cleaner to me; since most of the characters here are played by the same actor over and over, there's a bunch of repetition in the current format. What do y'all think? -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things. Could we possibly use a different color box to indicate an uncredited cameo role? I feel that is important to distinguish. And second, for the Hulk and Howard Stark, could we use their names in the table instead of the hidden names? Other that these things, I like the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with this method, is that is not sustainable. It's just kicking the can down the road and we'll eventually come to the same problem. We need an permanent solution. Scrolling is the key. Plus like above I don't like listing the multiple roles in one column. It kinda defeats the purpose of a table format, we might as well just us a list format.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right that that's even more sustainable, but the issue with scrolling sections/tables is accessibility. The content will simply be cut off for certain users. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think accessibility is major concern as all the same information is still available and in greater detail at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's true, good point. I'm in favor of the scrolling table with that in mind. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I went ahead and implemented these changes in the article, though I only increased the width to 150% percent. When more films are added, we can increase it again accordingly.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The scrolling section for the table causes some serious accessibility problems on certain browsers, so have removed the scrolling. Best to let the browser handle it naturally.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Which browser? It seems to work on most major browsers and some mobile browsers. Anyway like I said, the full list doesn't scroll.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

MCU Tie-in Comics
The section "Other media\comic books" is very short and it doesn't include any particular info or a "Main article" (I don't have permission to edit the article)

I have created a "Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Official Tie-In comic books" article, that is "ready" to be included. It certainly needs some more work and maybe a little restructuring, to seem like a part of the MCU article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCU_Tie-in_Comics — Preceding unsigned comment added by BJdavidLS (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Incubator for Avengers: Age of Ultron
This is just a notice that an article for Avengers: Age of Ultron is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Avengers: Age of Ultron until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jarvis
There is an ongoing discussion at the Edwin Jarvis talk page regarding the way we refer to Tony Stark's computer system. Could I please ask for your views on the matter? Thanks. drewmunn talk 10:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

X-Men
Maybe I'm being dense here, but why isn't the X-Men movie franchise considered part of the MCU? It's being produced contemporaneously (and a general cynicism about movie studios would lead you to believe that a crossover is inevitable with the Avengers). It seems like X-Men would have to be considered part of the MCU by any logical standard.

I guess the related question is: What's the justification for this term as an article title? Is it based solely on a box set release? Or its use by the head of Marvel Studios? Woodshed (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Self-reply: OK, I apologize before somebody yells at me. Clearly I'm not the first idiot to ask this question and it's been covered at some length in the talk archives.


 * My suggestion is this: Move the first paragraph of "development" out from under "Iron Man (2008)" at the top. Expand to explain that previous Marvel films (X-Men, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Blade, etc.) were co-produced with other studios. Hopefully, we could find a cite to summarize what the talk archives say (that it's a rights issue). I would also remove the Kevin Feige stuff because it's unnecessary — it makes more sense to say something like the phrase is a marketing/branding term used by Marvel Studios: a generally true, uncontroversial statement that doesn't need a specific source (it's all over their website, product releases, etc.). If you feel the Feige stuff is important, could note that he's the first person to use the term.


 * I'll probably make such an edit soon. Feel free to revert or change. P.S. — "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is a grossly misleading term, and I would certainly support a move to a title that actually said something about the Avengers. Woodshed (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "(and a general cynicism about movie studios would lead you to believe that a crossover is inevitable with the Avengers)."
 * Considering that there will be two different versions of Quicksilver in the X-Men and MCU franchises, I find that highly unlikely.Richiekim (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well X-Men isn't a part of the MCU; it refers to the set of movies using the shared universe established by Marvel Studios. X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man are currently not part of the MCU because the rights are owned (and the films are being produced) by other studios. Nk0331 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Two New Phase 3 Films
Marvel Studios has slated two new unknown films for Phase 3 that should be added to the list. Nk0331 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is noted as such in the Potential Projects section. They don't need spots in the table, as there is not info for them. Just dates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fox's Marvel Cinematic Universe
Sources such as IGN and MTV are reporting that Fox and Mark Millar are developing their own Marvel Universe starting with the X-Men and The Fantasic Four franchises (with Bryan Singer expressing interest)... Should this be added to the article, too? Chihciboy (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. That is an entirely separate entity. This page is for all the films that have been independently produced by Marvel Studios. Marvel Studios currently does not have the film rights to the X-Men, Fantastic Four and Spider-Man franchises. If that universe becomes notable, then it may (stress MAY) get it's own page. But for now, that info does not belong on this page, and has been mentioned here, here and here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Guardians in this cast table
As this is a new entry to the universe, I've been thinking about how to include it in the cast table here, because I feel it should be represented. I know that the table is reserved for characters that have appeared in multiple franchises, but I don't think we should exclude this until it is announced or revealed that characters appear in other franchises. So I realized that we could possibly get into a whole discussion about who deserves to be included, who doesn't, etc. etc. but thought of this: would it be fine to simply add Star-Lord (Chris Pratt) to the table? It would be consistent with what we have further down the page under the Guardians heading, where it just lists Pratt as getting the lead role. This is obviously a temporary edit to use until the same standards can be applied to the film that we have used for characters in the other franchises. But the main reason is I don't feel this film should be hidden at the moment, because casting does exist for the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is just a recurring characters table, the full table is at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members. Also like you said the character is still mentioned in the Guardians section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think if this becomes a problem we should remove this table and just link to the full article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you also have to consider, that it will most likely only get larger. How about scrapping the whole thing and just writing prose, similar to how info is stated in the lead of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is just a lead surmising the table. I was actually thinking of including the staring credits in the film table like 2012 in film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It can replace the mostly redundant producer column.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I like that. Do you want to just do one full swoop and combine the Director(s), Screenwriter(s), and Producer(s) columns into one that is Cast and Crew like the 2012 in film page, or do you want to leave those separated and change Producer(s) to Cast? (I'm fine with either). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They could stay separated.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Best bet would be the press releases from Marvel. I just added the Guardians one to the page, and I know that Cap 2's is on its page. I can start working on this with you if you'd like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually speaking conditionally but sure go ahead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay. I'm in no rush. But it was good at least to get an idea possibly and a work around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to give an idea it would look something like this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Great job! Only thing I would add, is a "Ref" column on the end for one (or two) references that has all the info in it: release date, director, screen writers and cast members. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure how to handle the refs, if they should be done individually or one ref for all. The problem is that not all the films have an official prees release like the ones you mentioned, and websites like [Comingsoon.net] used in "xxxx in film" articles do not match whats on the billing block of the posters, which is what we usually go by at WP:FILM.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the best I could get from Marvel's site: Iron Man, Hulk 1, Hulk 2, Iron Man 2, Thor, Cap, Avengers, Iron Man 3 1, Iron Man 3 2, ThorTDW, CapTWS, and GotG. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From Thor on, are the ones that pose the best chance of being used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just use prose, that alternative table looks bloated and everything is squashed because of the cast listing. We don't need a cast table, there is an entire separate article dedicated specifically to that purpose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, listing the credits in prose for each film just feels incredibly repetitive and a bore to read through.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be removing the producer column or the reoccuring cast section. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not saying do it for each film, simply describe the actors. We don't need to say that Robery Downey Jr portrayed Iron Man in Iron Man 1, Robert Downey Jr portrayed Iron Man in Iron Man 2, etc. Just Iron Man is portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. Unless someone else takes the role that is all that needs to be said with a link at the top of the section offering further detail in the Cast List article. If someone took his place when it'd be something like Robert Downey Jr portrayed Iron Man in the first three Iron Man films before being replaced by Christian Slater. Or Robert Downey Jr portrayed Iron Man between 2008 and 2014 when he retired from the role and was replaced by Bill Murray. You could break it into phases if you wish. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's the alternative I'd much prefer keeping the existing table but I foresee a problem with people wishing to force the inclusion of the Guardians.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence what I thought was a simple solution, as noted above. But I'm open to anything to prevent the foreseen problem. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not a problem yet and atleast the article is protected. Also there is a FAQ at the top if this page. Hopefully they will accept the fact this is a recurring cast table and the full list is elsewhere. Or as I said, just remove the table and link to the full article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The FAQ can be altered too to get the correct wording in there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I reworded the FAQ, hopefully this settles things for now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Source archiving
After my large edit (which took so much longer than I thought), I have added archiving parameters to all references that did not have them, if someone who uses WebCite can archive them. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Official timeline image
Has this ever been mentioned or brought up for inclusion in the article, and if it has, was it determined to be it too much in universe perspective? http://marvel.com/news/story/18766/view_the_full_marvel_cinematic_universe_timeline - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's currently being used as an EL.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. See it there now. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2013
iron man 4 is coming out may 6 2016

98.183.53.27 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

❌. Please provide a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Incubator for Ant-Man (film)
This is just a notice that an article for Ant-Man is being incubated at Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The incubator is currently up for deletion, here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Films" and "Recurring cast and characters"
I think these two sections need to be tweaked to include not just the theatrical releases, but also television and additional shot projects as well. I'm of course referring to the SHIELD television series and One Shots. The projects are starting to bleed together more and more seamlessly, and we're already getting a crossover or two between the films and the series. Therefore, I think we need to change "Films" to simply "Projects" or something similar so we can start expanding the recurring cast table. Otherwise, it feels like it's being too selective. Two Avengers cast members have already crossed over into the television series, so that alone is enough to expand the table. And my gut feeling tells me it's far, far from the last. So, just a little proposition. Obviously, it's gonna take a wee bit more planning before any major changes are made. However, if you guys don't respond to this within a week, then I guess I'll have to start on it myself. --24.254.139.24 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The idea is to be selective, the table is not meant to replace the list article. Also the films have always been the focus and most notable part of the article. This isn't a fan page. Weight and notablity are determined by coverage. Yes, the other aspects have been covered by the media but not to the extent as the films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as well, per TriiipleThreat's reasonings. If anything, a discussion regarding the other projects in the cast table should be brought to the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members page, but I have already questioned at that talk page and it was determined, for the time being, to stick to the scope of the films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Side note, why are we including story credits in the screenwriter field? It looks messy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Good article push
So Triiiplethreat and I had a little chat about giving this thing a good article push, and I think it's doable with a little work. The main things that need to be done, as far as I can tell, are: What do you all think? Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Archive the rest of the refs
 * Update the "Home media" and "Other media" sections
 * Cleanup the "Future" section (especially the final paragraph, which is all over the place)


 * The article is in generally good shape, it shouldn't take much work but all are encouraged to help out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be glad to help clean up the "Future" section especially, or any other in article content! -Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the good article push still trying to happen? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good question, lets get it going. I don't think we're far off.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I think something to consider when looking to do this, is considering the role Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. should play on this page, against the obvious first weight of the films. And then obviously general clean up and formatting.- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)