Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 8

RfC: Inclusion of Spider-Man films in the MCU

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
 * After thoroughly examining the below discussion, it is clear that there is currently no consensus to place Spider-Man in the MCU - due to a lack of sources at this time. This is an encyclopedia; we do not do original research, we create a verifiable database of information. And, in this discussion, there has been a failure to show how the film has been verified (via reliable sources) as being a part of the MCU. Therefore, I'm closing this RFC with the result that it is WP:TOOSOON to know, and likewise report (or more accurately, at this point: speculate) on the article, whether or not Spider-Man will be a part of the MCU. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an intense dispute going on about the placement of Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some users claim that the announcement about a deal between Sony and Marvel specifies that the Spider-Man film(s) in development will be a part of the MCU, while others claim that this is not the case. There are no less than three discussions (1, 2, 3) that have been made over the last three weeks, so let's try to sort this out with an RfC. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 09:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)



For reference, above are the sources in question. To summarize the arguments being made in previous discussions: Opposers of the film's inclusion state that none of the sources explicitly that the 2017 Spider-Man film is a part of the MCU. Supporters of the film's inclusion state that the totality of the information provided in the sources (Spider-Man appearing in a MCU film, the possibility of MCU characters appearing in Spider-Man films, Marvel Studios President Kevin Fiege co-producing the Spider-Man film for Sony, Marvel moving the release dates of their films to accommodate the Spider-Man film, etc.) means that the film is a part of the MCU without explicitly saying so. The opposers counter that such a conclusion amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:Original Research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * before this blows up into another debate. Most of the opposers agree that it is likely that the film will be a part of the MCU, it's just Wikipedia's policies that disallow it.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 13:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to piggy back: "...Wikipedia's policies that disallow it" based on the current sources. Verification based on new information can change that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As of two days ago Cinemablend.com, via Latino-Review, is reporting that not only will the new Spider-Man movie be in the MCU but that Iron Man himself will be included in the film. Source . However I would join the 'Opposers' for now in that there is simply not enough information available to justify the modification at this junction. The information will come and its really just a matter of patience. Modifying the page now would be just a preemptive change that is under sourced and assumptive. I support the 'Opposers' and suggest a bit of patience. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Latino Review has been brought up in many other cases, like Spiderman being in the MCU over a month before it was announced, and it has been desciced that it is not a reliable source.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 17:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should take reports from Latino Review with a grain of salt. While they have proven themselves over the years to be very reliable scoopers, many of the things that they have reported haven't come to fruition. Interestingly, it has been reported around the net that Drew Goddard was handpicked by both Sony and Marvel to direct the new film due to him having worked for both studios at one point -- on Daredevil at Marvel and The Sinister Six at Sony.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point wasn't that the source was good and I agree its mediocre at best. Referencing them was only to show the general assumption across the media seems to be that Spider-man is going to be part of the MCU but that at this junction I wouldn't think it important or prudent to modify the page. I just feel the information is assumptive at best and I for one would rather modify the page to include him after it is clearly and undeniably stated he would be included rather than have to edit the page to exclude him on the off chance he is in fact still outside the MCU proper. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still oppose, because there still is not explicit evidence confirming that the 2017 film will be an MCU film. I support the summary info that Triiiple provide, as it accurately conveys the previous discussions. And as Ditto stated, I do believe somewhat that the film will be considered an MCU film, but per Wikipedia policy, we don't have enough evidence to state such at this time. We are in no rush so let's just wait until we have a clear confirmation one way or the other to add the info. It won't take very long to rework this info on the pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I think common sense tells us there'll be an official announcement/list posted by Marvel slating Spider-Man's title into the Phase 3 timeline because the release date for Thor 3 was pushed back along with other films. This wouldn't make sense if it wasn't a MCU film. Science Fiction.com is saying it is a Phase 3 film, The Huffington Post is suggesting it is by saying "it is causing a domino effect", the Inquisitr has said it is here, etc. Although I still think Marvel will make it obvious (like confirm it, etc) as part of the MCU within the near future. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think there will be an official announcement or something with more explicit verification. Why not wait until then? Remember, we are not the news and in no real rush. Also as stated before, Marvel moving release dates is a likely indicator that film will be in the MCU, but it does not necessarily mean that is. For all we know, there could be some sort of non-compete clause in the licensing deal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not the new film will be part of the MCU, the reason for the dates moving is almost certainly scheduling related. Despite the fact that it is makes such big hits, Marvel is actually a small company that only produces one film at a time.  Actual production, that is, not pre or post.  I believe the only time they had an overlap in principal photography was when RJD got hurt and filming for Iron Man 3 had to be delayed.  When they agreed to co-produce the new Spider-Man, things needed to be rearranged, so this probably isn't evidence one way or the other.  DinoSlider (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "common sense tells us" that something will definitively happen sometime in the future is both POV original research and WP:CRYSTAL. This is an encyclopedia, so let's wait until this possibility is absolutely concrete. Concrete, unassailable facts (as much as humanly possible) is what people go to an encyclopedia for.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain: My opinion is that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the forthcoming 2017 Spider-Man film is in the MCU. Furthermore, if the Spider-Man character appears in an MCU film, and that same Spider-Man character (i.e., not the Tobey Maguire nor Andrew Garfield version) appears in the standalone film, then that film is de facto an MCU film, even if not explicitly identified as such. Finally, Wikipedia is not a book that gets published for the ages. The penalty for guessing wrong is not a big deal: just one little edit fixes it. Nonetheless, I'm not prepared to "vote" on this. Bflaminio (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until it is officially confirmed. I think there's a good reason they haven't explicitly stated it: they probably don't know yet. It's too early for Marvel Studios to say for sure and it's definitively too early for us. Reach Out to the Truth 03:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support They don't have to explicitly say "Spider-Man 2017 is an MCU film" for us to know it is. Under the context of what the MCU is, the evidence shows Spider-Man 2017 is an MCU film.  The MCU being a shared universe.  Also, if they did decide to create to different film Spider-Mans around the same time they'd explicitly tell us that they'd both be from different continuities (like they did with Quicksilver).  Also, I'm only supporting the inclusion of the 2017 Spider-Man film in the MCU.TheBobOfBobs (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until a reliable source states it is a part of the MCU. However, I'm a little disappointed as to the lack of open-minded discussion when new sources were provided. The BOM example above, although not very strong, I thought had potential for at least a bit of discussion. Since that is a commonly-cited source for wikipedia, that has grouped the 2017 Spider-Man film in the MCU. But it was for the most part ignored. Anyone have any thoughts on that? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While not discussed in detail, it was stated that they are a reliable source for box office numbers because that is what they do, however they aren't necessarily a reliable source for placing it in the MCU, especially since they likely just assumed like we all have that it will be in the MCU. The reason it can't be added (and why it doesn't work as a source) is because all other sources that are experts in the field haven't actually stated it clearly. For example, would you take a source where Robert Downey Jr. states how much money Avengers 2 makes over a source that is credited in the field?-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 11:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but I think your example is more to do with opposing information. To elaborate, where Robert Downey Jr says Avengers 2 makes "x" amount of money, and box office sources say it made "y" amount, of course we would take the box office sources and say the film made "y" amount. But if reliable box office sources (for whatever crazy hypothetical reason) didn't say anything about how much Avengers 2 made, then wouldn't we say something like "According to Robert Downey Jr, Avengers 2 made "x" amount"?
 * In this case, there's no opposing information. There's very little information at all. The official announcements haven't stated that the 2017 Spider-Man film will be a part of the MCU, and they haven't stated that it won't. But BOM, a reliable source, has stated that it will. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that BOM has a very similar process for adding information as Wikipedia. A few months ago, when the announcement for the DC Cinematic Universe was made, they did not add the release dates to their schedule. They are still listed as "DC Untitled" despite the fact that WB/DC announced the titles of the films last year. I emailed BOM asking them if they would update their schedule and they replied back that DC did not announce which titles were attached to which release date, just that the films would come out in a particular year and everyone else drew conclusions to which film was attached to which release date (specific release dates were announced ahead of time as "DC Untitled 1", "DC Untitled 2, etc.). However, the Wikipedia pages 2016 in film, 2017 in film, etc. have the DC titles assigned to the assumed release dates. I find this funny because we are using one standard for Spider-Man's inclusion in the MCU, but we are using another standard for reporting the release dates for individual DC Cinematic Universe films. In truth, the only solid release dates we have are for Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, but that hasn't stopped us from reporting that Wonder Woman will come out on June 23, 2017 even though all that's been officially reported from DC is that it will come out in 2017 and there is a DC film scheduled for June 23. However, using our common sense, it's obvious that Wonder Woman is going to come out on June 17 since the other DC movie that was announced for 2017 is Justice League Part One (which we have listed as coming out on November 17, 2017), and they're not going to release Wonder Woman after Justice League. Why can we use our common sense on one article and not use it in another article?TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are lots of mistakes on Wikipedia, its a part of being a free open-to-edit encyclopedia. Despite our standards, things inevitably slide through the cracks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While we're talking about BOM I'd also like to point out other similar websites list Spider-Man 2017 as an MCU film. The MCU wiki (I find this wiki to be very accurate) lists it as an MCU film.  I've looked at the talk and they had a similar (but shorter) discussion about it, they even mentioned this page.  They just came to a different conclusion with the same sources. The Marvel movie wiki also lists Spider-Man 2017 as an MCU film, but only on the Spider-Man page for some reason (it's not a very good/accurate wiki).  Even the marvel studios reddit page lists it.TheBobOfBobs (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * External Wikis can not be used as sources or looked to for content per WP:USERG. So it may be all well and good that all those sites list that, but that doesn't help our judgement here whatsoever. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Implying I was implying we should us another wiki as a source. If you think that's what I was suggesting, then you've missed the point TheLastAmego and I was trying to make.  I was just saying it doesn't hurt to look at your neighbors paper and compare answers.TheBobOfBobs (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

From Screenrant: http://screenrant.com/spider-man-casting-marvel-cinematic-universe/ : "If it seems crazy that Sony is rebooting the Spider-Man franchise again, it is, and the only way they’re able to do it so quickly without completely exhausting moviegoers is because they’re partnering with Marvel this time to fold the character’s story and world in with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This Spider-Man is going to join up with The Avengers and in the coming years, Marvel Studios characters will appear in Spidey movies and Spidey supporting characters and villains may appear in Marvel movies. In fact, the first time we meet the new web-slinger will be in an MCU film." Note that Screenrant is referenced twice on the current page as a source. Bflaminio (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The author is making an editorial. He references his own article, which traces back to the Marvel announcement, neither of which verify that the film is a part of the MCU. This just seems to be his opinion (like ours) that film is a part of the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support . It's so obvious that the Spider-Man movie is a part of the MCU. Nobody, not even Marvel, (expect some Wikipedia people) even thought of Spider-Man not being a part of the MCU that's why they don't mention it. It's obvious. 85.4.215.151 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Wait and see. We are in WP:NORUSH. No matter how obvious it might seem we cannot forego Wikipedia policies; WP:V and WP:NOR. If it is true we will have a WP:RS sooner or later.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

what the time MR. wolf
cane we have a timeline for the flms, tv series, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is one linked at Marvel Cinematic Universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

SpideyMCU
No disrespect to anyone in this chat, but why are we even discussing if the new Spider-Man reboot is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? It's not necessary at all, it has been confirmed by very reliable sources including Marvel.com, Variety and the Wall Street Journal. Its been confirmed that the Spider-Man character will also in fact first appear in a MCU film (possibly Civil War which there was an article by the Wall Street Journal confirming this), before the character appears in his own solo film. Yes Kevin Feige said that he won't produce any solo-Spider-Man spin off films like the Sinister Six or Venom, but that still doesn't mean it won't be in the MCU. Heck, they moved their whole film schedule down just to fit in the Spider-Man film taking Thor 3's original release date. So please someone tell me why is everyone still discussing if Spider-Man is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. - AngusTheRock (talk) 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No disrespect to you, but can we please stop talking about it? The RfC went on, it's been discussed to death, and it was established that there's no consensus, so it's not going in right now. I'm not saying this about you specifically, but this subject needs a breather from its beating. Once there's a source saying it's in the MCU, it'll go in. Til then, please just let sleeping dogs lie. Sock   ( tock talk)  15:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This should end the Spider-Man movie "debate" once and for all
http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/845723

Feige himself confirming that the Spider-Man solo movie is a part of phase 3. Even more definitive than the Collider article. Now lets end this silly stalemate. Suzuku (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I already posted it. See above. Richiekim (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

At long last, we may have something for the Spidey situation
http://collider.com/spider-man-kevin-feige-confirms-peter-parker-in-high-school/

Kevin Feige is asked about the new Spider-Man film and in the process of answering the question mentions that being a teenager in the Spider-Man film.

"That also makes him very, very different from any of our other characters in the MCU, which is something else we want to explore: how unique he is when now put against all these other characters."

Just want to make everyone aware of this, and to allow everyone the opportunity to tear it apart in a controlled manner. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is another interview with Feige: “It will not be an origin story,“ Feige continued. “But, with great power comes great responsibility. It is inherent to who his character is. But we want to reveal it in different ways and spend much more time focusing on this young high school kid in the MCU dealing with his powers.” “There is a young kid [already] running around New York City in a homemade version of the Spider-Man costume in the MCU, you just don’t know it yet,“ he said, laughing. Richiekim (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this may be the confirmation we were hoping for. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No question Feige is the horse's mouth. I would only suggest that since nothing is in stone until a script is written and shot, that references to Spider-Man in the MCU be framed as, "Feige said [such-and-such]." A lot can change between now and whenever Spider-Man appears in the MCU. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is an MTV interview where Kevin Feige answers the question of whether other films could be added into phase three by saying, "Well, we've slotted in a Spider-Man film since we made that announcement." DinoSlider (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Case closed. Someone do the edit. -- Suzuku (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Done

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015
The section on recurring cast should acknowledge that Stan Lee makes his customary cameo appearances in most (if not all) of the MCU films released to date, plus appearances on SHIELD and Agent Carter (he appears in a photo in Daredevil, but that probably doesn't count). Aside from recognizing the tradition, it is worth mentioning due to the fact that Lee created or co-created most of the lead characters featured in the MCU films. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ The table is for those who were billed as starring in one film or more, he has merely made cameos in the films. (Plus because of the way the table works, it would be very hard to fit him in) -- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The IP was talking about the prose section here, not the table on LoFilms page. Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Running time of all MCU live action properties
The overall running time of all the live-action MCU content is just over 65 hours (approximately 3919 minutes), including all films, One-Shots, and televised and streaming series released so far. Recommend including this somewhere near the top of the article, and updating it periodically with new releases (and maybe completion of series seasons). This would be insightful information about the significant scope and size of the cinematic universe. This is verifiable from wikipedia articles on all the content. Raelshark (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that it is entirely necessary to point out the overall runtime, especially if it needs updating everyweek.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 06:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

After the "unconfirmed Spider-Man movie status" debacle
I was surprised to see the Feige article (http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/845723) finally end the ridiculous prohibition on including a Marvel-produced Spider-Man film on the list of MCU films. By detractors' logic, there is still no OMGOMGCREDIBLEOMGOMG source to confirm that the 2017 Spider-Man movie will be part of the MCU. All Feige said is that Spider-Man as a CHARACTER is part of the MCU. He did not explicitly state that the 2017 FILM will be part of the MCU. We've known that Spider-Man as a character is going to be part of the MCU all along - ever since it was confirmed that he will make his debut appearance in Civil War. So, of all the time to wake up and smell the coffee - why now? What did Feige say that wasn't known since day one of Sony-Marvel deal? If we proceed at the ludicrous assumption that a character can be part of a cinematic universe without his solo film being a part of this exact same universe (yes, there are seriously people who tried to make this point above), then the new article still ONLY refers to Spider-Man's character's inclusion, and not the Spider-Man film. So... remove "Untitled Spider-Man film" from the article? Lol, at least be consistently ludicrous. Alternatively, demote/ban whichever morons were obstructing the addition of relevant and factual information to the article for months, until randomly deciding to give up, based on nothing more than the word-by-word reiteration of the information we've had all along. This isn't just me starting a flame war - incompetent editors who hide their idiocy behind bureaucratic drivel and irrational over-pedantic misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy pose a serious threat to the quality of the resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyphwright (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One, it was a discussion that resulted in it not being included (including editors from outside the MCU articles.) Two, you can't ban people for arguing against the inclusion of unclear infomation. Three, Demote who? Most of us are just editors. The only way to demote us would be to wipe the policies we follow from our brains, which can't happen because the technology didn't exist.
 * Now, onto the Craveonline article: They had two plans, one in October without Spidy since the deal wasn't set, and then the second one they announced with Spidy since the deal was set. (last paragraph).
 * And to your last sentence: How can people who have been on the site for much longer than you have, and are much more experience than you, be incompetent and misinterpriting the policies that loads of editors abide by. People who have not edited these aticles before (at least not much) but are active in other areas of Wikipedia have also supported this.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 12:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

“It will not be an origin story,“ Feige continued. “But, with great power comes great responsibility. It is inherent to who his character is. But we want to reveal it in different ways and spend much more time focusing on this young high school kid in the MCU dealing with his powers.”

If this on its own isn't clear enough for you, allow me to explain: The currently untitled Spider-Man film, set for release in 2017, will not be an origin story, but instead will feature Peter Parker as a "young high school kid in the MCU dealing with his powers". If he is "in the MCU" during his solo film, then that film is also "in the MCU", so we are being "consistently ludicrous", as you so ignorantly put it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that Spider-Man 2017 wasn't going to be an origin story is nothing new either. Nor does it being or not being an origin story has anything to do with whether or not the film is confirmed as part of the MCU. Which it still hasn't, according to the oh-so-relevant "standards" put forth by the eminently-experienced and preternaturally-wise Wikipedia Policy Schutzstaffel. And the quote refers to Peter Parker's CHARACTER being in the MCU. Nobody ever said that the FILM is in the MCU. If this seems completely inane and retarded - welcome to the other side of the debate, this is what normal people had to endure for months, before the detractors randomly gave up. For the record - the Wiki-SS insisted that, despite Peter Parker's debut in Civil War, it was still possible for the exact same character's solo movie be SEPARATE from the MCU. In case it's not clear enough for you this is no more and no less inane than insisting that the main character can be in the MCU without his movie being in the MCU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyphwright (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * you didn't actually read Adam's reply did you. He quoted the source and explains that Feige said. The Spiderman film will feature a teenage Spiderman in new York, in school-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look mate, this isn't that difficult. Feige described the character, during the solo film, as a "young high school kid in the MCU dealing with his powers." That means that the solo film is set in the MCU. End of story. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You're forcing me to repeat myself. "the quote refers to Peter Parker's CHARACTER being in the MCU. Nobody ever said that the FILM is in the MCU". Check the wording - Feige says that during the solo film, Peter Parker will be a kid in the MCU. He didn't say that the solo film itself is in the MCU. This is according to the exact same approach used by detractors above, who claimed that Spider-Man in Civil War does not mean Spider-Man film is in the MCU. This is the last time I'm going to repeat my point for those with reading comprehension issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyphwright (talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Spider-Man in Civil War =/= Solo film in MCU, but Spider-Man in solo film in MCU = solo film in MCU. Fact. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditto and Adam are correct, the "it" Feige is referring to is the film, not the character. Also in the MTV article, Fiege says "Well, we've slotted in a Spider-Man film since we made that announcement" in reference to the October 2014 Phase 3 press event. These are single sources that verify its existence in the MCU without WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Also as stated numerous times in the previous discussions, we are in WP:NORUSH. We are not interested in being first or breaking the news. Instead of this being a "debacle", this was exemplar of how the verification process works. If only Rolling Stone took such care.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015
Change Captain Marvel's writers from 'TBA' to Nicole Perlman and Meg LeFauve.

78.144.233.64 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Can you provide a source for the inclusion of this?-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 18:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * http://marvel.com/news/movies/24469/nicole_perlman_meg_lefauve_to_write_marvels_captain_marvel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the source.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 21:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Tie-In Comics
I updated the comics table on the comics page so that it now includes all 37 Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Tie-In Comics, and only those comics. This includes the adaptations, the infinite comics, the preludes, etc. —FBISD (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Music sections
So I have been thinking about this, and I would again like to propose that the music sections in the film articles be a part of the Production sections. Not only does the MOS suggest that the Music section be a "subsection of the article's "Production" section", but really, it is part of the production. Now, I know this was shot down before because the music doesn't necessarily come under any of the headings we already use (Pre-Production, Filming, etc.), so it is kept separate from them to indicate this, but I am not suggesting that we merge them in anyway - the music section will (and should) stay separate from the headings we already use, to indicate that it doesn't fit into any of them, but it will also be grouped under the production heading where it belongs. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's best to to keep it separate. The production section is broken down by the stages of filmmaking as they occur chronologically and the music is recorded outside of these stages. As such, it can begin and end at any point in the process so it wouldn't accurately fit into the structure of the section. Furthermore the majority of the section usually deal with soundtrack albums which are separate entities all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Valiant Cinematic Universe
Just recently, it has been announced that Valiant Comics is planning its own shared universe with DMG entertainment funding. I think it should be mentioned somewhere on Impact on other studio section. DdragoonMaster (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But is it actually a shared universe? That source does not make it clear. It just states that DMG is going to produce films based on Valiant Comics characters. If it is indeed intended to be a shared universe, then yes it can be included here. But just by that source, it would not suit the purpose of that section, which is looking at shared universe concepts at other studios. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then what about Fox's X-men and FF? They've made it quite clear in few interviews that they have no intention to merge both universe yet. As Kinberg said that they live in different universes. DdragoonMaster (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Initially they were, it was just changed further down the line + they are Marvel properties.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 16:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I think this would be something to include, because it seems to very much be a mirror to the MCU. However, we just need the reliable source that says they all interconnected. From what I've seen, it just says that DMG is putting down the money to create films and television series, but it doesn't clarify if they will all be in the same universe. DMG could be fronting the money, but each film/tv series could be independent of the others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They use the exact words "cinematic universe" in the article. "'Today marks one of Valiant’s biggest milestones yet with a huge step towards bringing the Valiant characters to the big screen and forging the foundation of the first truly international cinematic universe,' said Valiant CEO & Chief Creative Officer Dinesh Shamdasani in a statement." Pretty much every article on the subject has described it as being a shared universe. If the Variety article doesn't cut it, then this source should work.[/http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/417491-valiant-and-dmg-entertainment-team-up-to-bring-valiants-universe-to-the-big-screen] Straight from the press release, "In total, the new agreement is the first deal of its kind brokered between an internationally based entertainment company and a leading independent publisher of comic books and graphic novels. Utilizing DMG’s expertise in international film development, production, and distribution, Valiant will begin to establish its cinematic universe in the United States, China and beyond." Further down in the press release, it says, "'Audiences in China and the rest of the world are hungry for heroic stories that they can more easily relate to…and with the international box office accounting for the biggest piece of the total gross, the time is right for a truly international superhero franchise. DMG will bring its unique global perspective to the task of transforming the Valiant Universe into the first international comic-movie universe, said DMG President Wu Bing."TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It IS a cinematic universe, and they just announced the movies will begin with two different properties (Bloodshot and Harbinger), then their sequels and a crossover movie (Harbinger Wars): http://valiantuniverse.com/2015/04/21/sony-pictures-and-valiant-announce-five-picture-deal-to-bring-bloodshot-harbinger-and-harbinger-wars-to-big-screen/ just like Marvel Studios. Magegg (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Valiant Cinematic Universe
I added to the "Impact in other studios" a Valiant Comics section. They're launching their own cinematic universe, just like WB, Fox and Sony tried to do, of course there's a correlation with what Marvel comics is doing and they're planning their release slate just like Marvel, starting with two different properties, then sequels and finally a crossover movie. Also they're planning spin-off merchandise, like animated series and theme parks. Of course they're modelled after the MCU philosophy. So, stop deleting that! Magegg (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's nice and the similarities are obvious but we cannot take it upon ourselves to make a correlation to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, only a reliable source can do that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course there is a correlation, they use the exact words "cinematic universe", and they're planning movies based on different comic book superhero properties with a final crossover movie, just like WB/DC does. What else do you need to confirm? I'm serious, what else do you need to confirm there is a correlation? Magegg (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The WB/DC section mentions the "Marvel approach" to their cinematic universe (actually the opposite in their case). Please provide something similar that makes a direct correlation between the Valiant Cinematic Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It shouldn't be that hard if you look.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's just clear as water, there's no need to mention Marvel in name (they use the term they invented "cinematic universe") to see how their model impacts that company's new series: http://valiantuniverse.com/2015/04/21/sony-pictures-and-valiant-announce-five-picture-deal-to-bring-bloodshot-harbinger-and-harbinger-wars-to-big-screen/ Magegg (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be considered WP:SYN: A. Marvel invented the term "cinematic universe" B. Valient uses the term therefore C. Marvel impacted Valiant. However after a quick google search there several results that mentions both Valiant and the MCU in the same source. One of these probably has what you need. Once you find it, the correlation should be mentioned in the section. Hope this helps.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015
Change Captain America: Civil War's status from 'Pre-production' to 'Filming'.

89.243.53.206 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please provided a reliable source that filming has started.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * http://marvel.com/news/movies/24586/marvel_studios_begins_production_on_marvels_captain_america_civil_war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"It's all connected"
Is there any good spot to include this in the article here or elsewhere? Beyond just being the mantra of the universe, I think there are sources out there making note of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not really aware of this but after googling it, it looks to be social media hashtag being used to promote Agents of SHIELD specifically so I would say it belongs in the marketing section of that series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not just for Agents of SHIELD. It's pretty much the mantra of Loeb and Feige in terms of how the universe operates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, most of the sources I'm looking at are AoS related.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For some reason I felt, while SHIELD centric, there were more sources out there that was just on the universe as a whole talking about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD season 3, Agent Carter season 2
As both Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter have been renewed for additional seasons, should there be additional lines in the television series table for them? Just like the Daredevil season 2 line?

Cite: http://marvel.com/news/tv/24594/abc_renews_marvels_agents_of_shield_marvels_agent_carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There will be... in a few days. As we only know that they have been renewed, and don't know when they are airing (good assumption will be September 2015 for SHIELD and January 2016 for Carter) it would be silly to have a table with only one data field. ABC is holding their upfront presentation this week, and we'll have a better idea of when both are airing then to add them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Item 47-oneshot
I have created a page for it, can someone please edit the link to redirect here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_47_(film)

User:AgeofUltrontalk•cont 06:16, 18 May 2015

U. of Baltimore course
As much as I respect my colleague User:Adamstom.97, I would have to agree with the editor who trimmed the reference to this course from a long blurb with quotes to something more succinctly factual. The longer version did read promotionally to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just felt that such a large removal of previously accepted content should be discussed first. I understand that it may be coming across as promotional, but perhaps some of the explanation should be restored? We can paraphrase if need be. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you propose? Could you try it out here? I, myself, find that what's there states the pertinent information factually and succinctly, but if you think there's something more that's critically necessary to understanding the statement, why not try it out here? I'm all for compromise solutions when we can find one. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm signing off for the night since it's late where I am, but we'll catch up tomorrow. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I presumed I would be opening this discussion myself, as I usually have to when Adamstom.97 reverts one of my edits to an MCU article. Seriously, pretty much every single edit I have made in this area has been blank-reverted, always by the same editor, sometimes with very dubious rationales and on one occasion in a manner that misrepresented a source in what amounted to a violation of V and NOR. I'm sure it's just a series of good faith mistakes, but I feel a bit like I'm being treated like a random IP vandal or a new account that shows up suddenly and makes disruptive edits, rather than an experienced editor who's been here since 2005 and makes policy-based edits.
 * Anyway, my point is that I drafted a thread opener outlining my rationale for cutting down the UBalt discussion, and it doesn't directly reply to the comments above by either Tenebrae's or Adamstom.97, only to Adamstom.97's initial edit summary. From here on out is that.
 * The UBalt course sounds interesting, and it may be notable enough to be discussed in this article in some detail, but a non-primary source should be located, otherwise devoting an entire section of the article to it is problematic. Alao, the title "cultural influences" is inaccurate; "scholarly analysis" would be better, and the above discussion of rival studios' "universes" is more along the lines of traditional "cultural influence". Also, the announcement of the course from last September is out of date, since the course has presumably started already. Did the course get cancelled? Possible. Did the professor change the contents of the course from the preliminary sketch presented last summer, very soon after the release, and long before the DVD/Blu-Ray, of GotG, which is apparently central to the course? Probable. Did the course get discussed in more up-to-date detail in reliable third-party sources? I hope so, because if not discussion of how the course will take place doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
 * Also, BRD is an essay, not a policy; I gave a BURDEN-based rationale, and BURDEN is one of our core policies; the default position is that poorly-sourced or dubiously-sourced material, especially if it has never been explicitly supported by consensus, should stay out, and even if it had been supported by consensus before the spring semester began, CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is very much in effect with out-of-date content like that sourced to an early announcement that itself is out-of-date.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, what? I don't know where any of this came from or what exactly is going on really, but I will do my best to respond.
 * So...what happened to be polite and no personal attacks? I don't feel like any of that tone or treatment was either warranted or necessary, and is hardly appropriate for a user who has been around for so long and clearly prides themselves with their knowledge of Wikipedia and how it works. It does appear that you are confused/frustrated, so I am going to assume good faith and say no more about, but I do expect a lot better. By the way, if you wish to discuss the issue we had over at Mockingbird (Marvel Comics), then why not approach me in an appropriate place? Making sligh, disgruntled remarks isn't the way.
 * If you feel that the titles of certain sections on the page misrepresent the contents of said sections, then why not start a discussion? "I feel that ... titles ... etc." is all it would take, with you presenting your reasoning for wanting to change, and other editors either agreeing or presenting reasons for why they shouldn't be changed. Consensus would eventually (hopefully) be reached, and we could move forward from there.
 * On to the topic at hand, since when was using someone's explanation for why they are doing something problematic? In fact, how would you suggest we do it otherwise? Find a source saying "This is why ... wants to ..."? How is that in any way more reliable? This is similar to when film studios send out a press release announcing the cast and premise of their film - they are the most trustworthy source we can get for what the film will be about, until such a time as we can see it, and so we use the aforementioned premise(s) in our articles. This isn't "problematic" in anyway, infact it seems to be the desired option in terms of giving our readers an idea of what the film will be about, so as to give context to the rest of the article (which is what plot summaries are for). Now, I may have gone a wee bit off-topic, but the point is, looking for a secondary source does not always make sense / is not always the best option, and so isn't really strong grounds upon which to completely remove the information.
 * Speaking of that, when you took it upon yourself to delete a large chunk of content from the article, the summary you gave was "Giving an entire section with extensive quotation to this point, which if it is notable should be sourced to more recent sources (not the announcement from last year), seems to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT among others." Many things can "seem" to be something to us, but that doesn't give us the right to delete them. We all have personal opinions about things, and they aren't always the same, which is why we have discussions and look for consensus. You were having doubts about this particluar section of the article, obviously doubts that weren't unfounded given that another user has expressed support for your position. You felt that this section may be in violation of WP:WEIGHT, among other things, and that perhaps it may need updated sources so as to confirm it's notablility. Clearly this information has been accepted by the users that commonly edit these pages, but instead of bringing up the issue on the talk page, you took it upon yourself to make a bold edit and just flat out remove the content. I reverted this bold edit, and, per WP:BRD, asked you to discuss the matter on the talk page before making such a rash move. My edit was then reverted by another editor who gave the edit summary "Undue weight. Reads like an advertisement". Again, personal opinion, and a matter that should be discussed. I for one do not read the section as it was as being an advertisement or even giving undue weight, but since there are clearly those who do, I am happy to discuss the issue. Coming to the talk page, I saw that the third user, Tenebrae, had clarified their position (see above), and so I attempted to get the discussion going by proposing that we perhaps paraphrase the quotes so as to retain some of the explanation they contained, which would give the section back some much needed context.
 * Now, you are asserting that BRD does not matter since you provided a policy as reasoning for the content's removal, though as I pointed out earlier you in fact did not do this, only suggested in your own personal opinion that the section may be in violation of a policy. The reason I had brought up BRD is because we do deal with a lot random IPs, new accounts, and established users who feel like they can come in here and change whatever they want without grounds or discussion, and often are offended when reverted and go on to edit war with sometimes multiple different consistent editors here. I was attempting to avoid a situation like that by suggesting that a discussion be begun, which I feel is just good manners/ettiquete anyway, even if it is "only" an essay.
 * As for your suggestion that since we haven't added anything since the original announcement that the information must not be notable / does not belong in an encyclopaedia article, I find it incredulous and ridiculous, and would ask that you explain both how you came to that conclusion, and whether there is any basis for it in guidelines or policy.
 * Apologies for any spelling errors by the way, my spell checker seems to nolonger be working. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So...what happened to be polite and no personal attacks? I thought I was polite. If I sounded aggressive on reading my comment, I apologize; it didn't sound aggressive/impolite to me as I was writing it. As for "personal attacks" -- it's not a personal attack to simply state that every edit I have made to articles in this area has been reverted by you, since that's just stating a fact. I also specifically stated that I'm sure it's just a series of good faith mistakes.
 * By the way, if you wish to discuss the issue we had over at Mockingbird (Marvel Comics), then why not approach me in an appropriate place? WP:BURDEN was on my side there, as it is here. You were unable to find a source that defended the "upgraded to series regular" wording, and so the wording wound up being cut. I don't want to keep discussing it with you, unless you have found a source that justifies you reinserting it.
 * If you feel that the titles of certain sections on the page misrepresent the contents of said sections, then why not start a discussion? You misread me. I meant that an extended discussion of the UBalt course is not a "cultural impact" so much as "academic discussion" or some such. I shortened the discussion of the UBalt course primarily because the information was out of date, but I also think the section should be extended to include discussion of other cultural impacts, and perhaps merged with the discussion of other movie studios copying the format.
 * On to the topic at hand, since when was using someone's explanation for why they are doing something problematic? In fact, how would you suggest we do it otherwise? Find a source saying "This is why ... wants to ..."? How is that in any way more reliable? This is similar to when film studios send out a press release announcing the cast and premise of their film - they are the most trustworthy source we can get for what the film will be about, until such a time as we can see it, and so we use the aforementioned premise(s) in our articles. This isn't "problematic" in anyway, infact it seems to be the desired option in terms of giving our readers an idea of what the film will be about, so as to give context to the rest of the article (which is what plot summaries are for). Now, I may have gone a wee bit off-topic, but the point is, looking for a secondary source does not always make sense / is not always the best option, and so isn't really strong grounds upon which to completely remove the information. Umm ... what are you talking about? I only used the word "problematic" to refer to the misnomer in the section title, but isn't this discussion supposed to be about the outdated/potentially-inaccurate content, not the title? Can we discuss the content?
 * Now, I may have gone a wee bit off-topic, but the point is, looking for a secondary source does not always make sense / is not always the best option, and so isn't really strong grounds upon which to completely remove the information. In this case, we need either a secondary source or a more up-to-date primary source. The previous source would only have been adequate if what we were saying was "In September 2014 at the time the course was first announced it was anticipated that the course would examine how Marvel's series of interconnected films...", which is ridiculous; using the September 2014 announcement as the source and simply updating the language to use the past or present tense is a violation of WP:V, since the source doesn't actually say that.
 * Many things can "seem" to be something to us, but that doesn't give us the right to delete them. Nope. That's turning WP:BURDEN on its head. We are not allowed add things because they "seem" that way to us ("it seems to us that this course probably took place exactly as described in the announcement a full semester earlier, so we should describe it on-wiki exactly that way"). We don't have to include anything in our encyclopedia; there are some things we are not allowed (or at least probably not allowed) include, based on our policies and guidelines, but saying that you need a reliable source to remove material that is dubiously sourced is a complete misunderstanding of WP:BURDEN. (As an aside: I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to "delete" material.)
 * The reason I had brought up BRD is because we do deal with a lot random IPs, new accounts, and established users who feel like they can come in here and change whatever they want without grounds or discussion, and often are offended when reverted and go on to edit war with sometimes multiple different consistent editors here. But how many of your edits to this and the other related articles have been unilaterally reverted based on BRD? It's all very well and good to say that you are reverting me because BRD technically says you should, but if I provide a good rationale for my edit (which was a debatably "bold" removal, not an addition) you are required to actually address my rationale in your revert. You have reverted my edits on at least three occasions now, and on every occasion my edit has wound up being restored, so it might be a good idea for you to actually think about whether my edit should be reverted.
 * I was attempting to avoid a situation like that by suggesting that a discussion be begun, which I feel is just good manners/ettiquete anyway, even if it is "only" an essay. Yes, it is only an essay. It is a good essay, and is meant to promote constructive talk page discussion and avoid edit wars. I wish more editors would read it and abide by it. If you actually had anything to discuss -- any legitimate source- or policy-based reason for opposing my edit -- then you would be right in citing BRD to revert me and start a discussion on the talk page: but simply saying "I reverted because the edit was sudden and unilateral -- I don't actually disagree with it at all" is not a good idea.
 * As for your suggestion that since we haven't added anything since the original announcement that the information must not be notable / does not belong in an encyclopaedia article, I find it incredulous and ridiculous, and would ask that you explain both how you came to that conclusion, and whether there is any basis for it in guidelines or policy. If it hasn't been discussed in secondary sources, the amount of coverage given it previously was way out of line. If it hasn't been discussed in any more recent sources, the previous material was also out of date; it's a violation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL to assume that everything in that announcement was still accurate as of May 21, 2015, since for all we know the class could have been cancelled for any number of reasons, and the chances of it having been changed in the details are actually rather high.
 * Anyway, as with the Mockingbird and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. edits before, my proposed edit has apparently passed on discussion, so are we done here? Adamstom's understanding of BRD as promoting blank-reverts of edits no one actually disagrees with is likely to cause him trouble going forward, but since I don't often edit articles in this area that isn't really my concern, and it certainly has nothing to do with improvements to this article.
 * Cheers!
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, as a disinterested third party I have to say that Hijiri 88's attempt to bludgeon Adamstom.97 with a WP:WIKILAWYERING wall of text is needlessly aggressive and, yes, impolite. I made the same edit Hijiri 88 made, and explained my rationale in a few sentences &mdash; and then tried to collaborate with Adamstom.97 to find some mutually acceptable middle ground that addresses both our concerns.


 * Hijiri 88 doesn't seem to want to collaborate toward consensus, consensus being the overall way Wikipedia works. Rather than more wikilawyering walls of text, why not go back to my suggestion that Adamstom.97 give a trimmer rewrite on this page that addresses his concerns, and then other editors can discuss it. My goodness. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm... technically I was the one bludgeoned with a wikilawyering wall of text -- 1000 words that basically boiled down to "I interpret BRD as meaning that all bold edits should be reverted even if I don't disagree with them". That's the opposite of what BRD is supposed to be, since it's supposed to prevent edit wars, not start them needlessly. All I did was respond to this: would it have been better if I completely ignored everything Adamstom said and posted a short comment simply saying "you're wrong" than write a point-by-point response? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So um... yeah. I saw this on my watch after seeing the actual article. So I just added back the info on the course title and what it was intending to cover to give everything context. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Favre's edit, it could use some paraphrasing to remove the promotional tone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm fine with it being copy edited, but I just think that bit should stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I gave it a copy-edit.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still kind of confused where the above discussion is concerned, but feel that the recent c/es are the right move to ensure any promotionsl tone that readers may be inferring is removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the current revision assumes that the course "examines xyz" based on what the announcement last September said it would examine. Can someone find a more recent source confirming that the course wasn't cancelled or changed in those details that it's being quoted as covering in the intervening eight months? If not, the wording should be tweaked to acknowledge that we are quoting an early and possibly-out-of-date announcement of the course on the university's website. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agent Carter Season 2 will have 10 episodes
Agent Carter Season 2 will have 10 episodes, according to Hayley Atwell: http://mcuexchange.com/agent-carter-season-2-will-have-10-episodes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. However, MCU Exchange (and the YouTube video from their channel) are unreliable sources. However, editors of these pages will keep their eye out for this info on a reliable source to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
 * ...and one has been added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Jones drops the "AKA"?
Still looking for official confirmation, but the Netflix page for JJ has dropped the AKA in the title: http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/80002311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comicbook.com contacted Netflix and confirmed the title change: http://comicbook.com/2015/06/09/confirmed-marvel-drops-aka-from-jessica-jones-title/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 04:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters table
Now that there are quite a few cast members / characters that have crossed over multiple media, could something like this be considered? It would replace all of the info in the section now, except for the Bettany and Lee info, which would remain in prose in a paragraph below the table. I proposed this previously, but there wasn't really enough crossover to warrant a whole table. However, looking at the table now, I believe there is enough to make the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it, kudos! Though I still don't think we should include photographs.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I love the table, but I don't think it should include characters who only appear in more than one media through archived footage appearances, like Cap and Thor, etc. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, along with my comment about photographs.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree that the archived ones should be removed, which would be consistent with how we have treated them at the list of film actors page. If you want to discuss the removal of Sanders' photo appearance, that would be more appropriate at the list of film actors talk page, we will just keep this page consistent with that one (though I don't understand why he shouldn't be included). As for Favre's readding of the Bettany and Lee info, I decided to remove it because for one, we are being a bit objective already with the "first significant recasting" thing, not to mention the two characters are inherently linked in a way that doesn't really make the recasting all that significant, not to mention the Lee info which is pretty trivial and completely unsourced. I think that whole paragraph should be removed again. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bettany
Now that we have seen Age of Ultron, do we still think it is notable enough to mention Bettany here, given the relationship between the two characters? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, what about Laura Haddock, who played an unnamed groupie in Captain America: The First Avenger and Meredith Quill in GotG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docfilth77 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bettany has two different, notable roles. As has been previously discussed, Haddock's appearance in CapTFA is not a notable one, and her "first" role in the MCU is really as Meredith Quill. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man star and director announced.
http://marvel.com/news/movies/24758/sony_pictures_and_marvel_studios_find_their_spider-man_star_and_director — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

what other studios? (be more specific)
The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is an American media franchise and... ...and has inspired other film studios with comic book character film rights to attempt to create similar shared universes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeto45 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is just a summary of the rest of the article. If you want more specific, scroll down the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for uses
Here's a really in-depth profile of Kevin Feige and the MCU. Also here is Avi Arad's response, in which he counters some of the claims made by the author. (Scroll down for English language transcript) Both of these would be great for the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the Bloomberg article is used over at the LoF page, to source the map going until 2028. I have a feeling that at the time that was added, we may have looked through that article, but I'll give it another once over to see about other stuff. Where were you thinking of adding info here and with the Arad response? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it gives some detail into the creation of the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I read through it again, and saw that info on the third and fourth pages, but personally didn't find any info to add that would enhance what we already have in the article. If you felt something stood out to you, I'm not opposed to something being added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Blade?
Via reports out of the 2015 San Diego Comic-Con, Wesley Snipes has revealed that his has had discussions with Marvel Studios about reprising his role as Blade in possible future MCU films or TV series (no indication which). Yes, I am aware that this is very early and nothing is official as of yet, so this news will not effect anything on this page anytime soon, but if Snipes does indeed reprise the role of Blade in a future MCU film or TV show, how do we treat the previous 3 Blade films when it comes to the MCU? Do we treat them as separate even if Snipes does reprise his role, or do they retroactively become part of the MCU? TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless reliable sources say otherwise, things would remain the way they are.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Marvel have the rights to Blade the character, they do not have the rights to the trilogy. If Wesley Snipes came back to the role, unless something changes in the situation with the rights holders (now Warner Bros) of the original trilogy it is nothing more than a nice little reference to the older films, much in the same way Lou Ferrigno did some Hulk work on The Incredible Hulk and The Avengers but it doesn't make the old Hulk TV show canon. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MCU Official Guidebook
Best place to put this info? Here or the tie-in comics page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be that much to talk about really, but if you wanted to mention it here in the other section then that would probably work. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the other section would be best.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion gents. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

President Matthew Ellis
President Matthew Ellis appeared on a television screen in Agents of Shield season 3. He was previously in Iron Man 3. Should he be added Recurring Cast & characters or not because he did not physically appear? - AgeofUtron; 14:21, 30 September 2015


 * ✅ --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Films section
It looks like someone has tried to copypaste a big pile of stuff from the "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films" article and messed it all up, I can't edit the article so can someone fix it pls thx Sparklelord (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Phase 3 new films announced
http://marvel.com/news/movies/25244/marvel_studios_phase_3_update?linkId=17794833

July 6, 2018: Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageofultron (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015
I cannot source a specific line in this article to change, as there are too many updates for me to state. What i can reference is the article directly, and a registered user can make the changes. Marvel has released an update to their entire Phase 3 release of movies. In other words, multiple movies must update their release date, as well as other movies being added to the chart and timeline. The link is following: http://marvel.com/news/movies/25244/marvel_studios_phase_3_update

Tfp105 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All necessary and proper changes have been made to the table and content at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. No other changes based on current information is necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this anything notable to note in the cultural section?
This college band performance. Uses music from across the MCU in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Do other pages do this sort of thing, like the Star Wars music? I'm not saying we should just do what others do, but an indication may be helpful here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Damage Control
Is it confirmed that there will be a Damage Control TV show, or is it something that's just been proposed? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * it was confirmed as a put pilot, which by rule has to air. -- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 06:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just curious but why does Damage Control get listed with the series, but Marvel's Most Wanted does not? What's the deciding factor here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Damage Control reportedly received a put pilot, while Most Wanted a reportedly received standard pilot. The former essentially guarantees that it will be aired, while the latter does not. - DinoSlider (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand, a put pilot has heavy financial penalties for the network if it does not air the pilot. So because of this, the episode is essentially guaranteed to air because the network does not want to get hit with this penalty. So we know we will get at least one episode airing of Damage Control. For Most Wanted, it just has a developmental order, so the network wants it developed and then will make the decision to pick up the pilot or not. And if they don't, they don't face that large a penalty, so it is better for them to choose either way. Hope that helped. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there is no official news from Marvel regarding Damage Control. As of now, it's the same as the rumoured Moonknight show, Kamala Khan show, Ant-Man prequel or the Most Wanted show. It shouldn't be on the list unless Marvel announces it themselves. Deadline and EW run the story, but that's all about it, stating that "ABC order a script and put-pilot, EW has learnt". The page should really wait out on adding it, considering Spider-Man wasn't added for some time, while this is being added even before any official statement. - Masoom.rana94 (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We never have to wait for Marvel to announce something, we just need information from a reliable source. Yes, sometimes that reliable source is Marvel, but not always, and the sites you named are reliable sources that we often use for information here. As for the Spider-Man debacle, you can look through the archived discussions to see just how that played out, but I can assure you that it was the same case: we waited until we had information from a reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In case of Spider-Man, the movie wasn't added even after Marvel officially announced the collaboration. It was debate for a long time here, on this page. Here, the case is completely opposite. No one really knows what Marvel/ABC is doing. It might be a special, one-shot, or not even hit the screen. It's only hurts the article's accuracy. Granted, the sources can be very reliable. But that doesn't actually equate to making it official. That would make Most Wanted eligible to get to the main page too because of this: - Masoom.rana94 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The official announcement about Spider-Man was that Marvel and Sony were combining to produce a film. The debate centered around whether or not it was part of the MCU Phase 2.  For Damage Control, there is a reliable source stating that a put pilot was ordered.  This means that it will either air on the network or ABC will pay a very large penalty.  For Most Wanted, there is a reliable source stating that a standard pilot was ordered.  This means that it will be produced, but it says nothing about if it will ever air. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Loeb commented on Damage Control at NYCC so there's your "Marvel confirmation" even though, as Adam stated, we don't need that. We just need reliable sources per WP:V. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"The Incredible Hulk" is an MCU movie?
Saw this listed in Phase One right after the first Iron man, and maybe it's just my ignorance on the subject, but I didn't think this was regarded as an MCU movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.94.85.2 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, (which is why Downey, Jr, appeared in the end credit scene), they just recast Banner in The Avengers because of either a disagreement over the contract or because people didn't like Norton in the role, or something like that, but yes, it is a part of the MCU.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 16:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be thinking of "Hulk" rather than "The Incredible Hulk". The former is not part of the MCU, the latter is. The continuity still holds for that film, so for example Robert Downey Jr. appears in THe Incredible Hulk and William Hurt will be appearing in Captain America: Civil War when it comes out next year. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Strange Is Now Filming
Change "Doctor Strange" from 'Pre-Production' to 'Filming'.

2.98.125.127 (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doubt this counts as a reliable source, but folk are posting a lot of on-set pics: http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/629753-more-doctor-strange-set-photos-featuring-star-benedict-cumberbatch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comingsoon.net is reliable, but it can't be used because it is reporting info from unverified Twitter accounts (need the blue checks), which are unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agent Carter, Agents of SHIELD dates
Agent Carter S2 premiers January 5, 2016. Agents of SHIELD returns from winter hiatus on March 8, 2016. Cite: https://twitter.com/TheMarvelReport/status/666372131601686528 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agent Carter S2 is now premiering January 19. Agents of SHIELD still returns March 8. Cite: http://abc.go.com/shows/marvels-agent-carter/news/updates/marvels-agent-carter-season-2-premiere-date-announced-151130

WHiH News
Should we add it here?
 * It's a faux news network, aimed as marketing for certain films. It is noted at the articles for such films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be added under a new category, with a heading of "Web Series". It did run for 5 videos, it's canon, definitely meant to be seen between Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man, and is more than just ads or trailers, instead it's completely new material, just like the tie-in comics, which again are promotional material/marketing gig, yet make it to the page - Masoom.rana94 (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, comes with Ant-Man blu ray as feature, just like the one shots. Masoom.rana94 (talk) 23:23, 05 December 2015 (UTC)

Joe Robert Cole writing Black Panther
Sauce http://variety.com/2015/film/news/black-panther-ryan-coogler-directing-creed-1201654620/ Sparklelord (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Most Wanted
Out of curiosity, in the chart for the television series we do we list Damage Control has having a pilot order (1 episode) but not Most Wanted? -- A talk / contribs 21:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I noticed the answer above under Damage Control. -- A talk / contribs 21:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI for a source
Just an FYI, that I went to Louis D'Esposito's Twitter page today and he now has a verified account (the blue check), which can be helpful in sourcing material, as his account previously was not verified. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

LEGO game
The LEGO game is in the "Other media" section. Technically, anything outside the films would be considered other media because it's another form of media outside its original "appearance". -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This page isn't just about the films, it is about the connections between the films, television shows, shorts, and official comics. We are using the other media section as it is used in most comics related articles, with appearances in different media and a separate continuity, which is the case here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point was that it started off as a film series and everything else (television, comics) came after. After all, it is called the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Using the term "Other media" just seems too broad when anything outside of the films could go in that section. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, but that doesn't change the fact that the scope of this article has changed. If we were to put an "Other media" section in the MCU films page, then all the TV shows and the like would fit there, because they are other media from the films, but here other media than the MCU means anything that is not official MCU media. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in this case "Outside media" would be better. The intent as well of this section, regardless of its name, is to cover appearances of the media outside of the cannonical media. So if it was referenced in The Big Bang Theory for instance, that could potentially go in this section. It just so happens that the Lego game is the first (as far as I'm aware) to use the MCU is its medium that is not cannon to the rest of the universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I could get behind "Outside media". - adamstom97 (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with "Outside media" is that after reading this discussion it makes sense, but otherwise any casual reader may look of it like "Outside what? Outside like outside the house? Outside like not in the films?" I don't honestly think anyone will jump to outside of the canon. We could do something like "In other continuity" or another better phrasing of that? Or call it something that uses the idea that the section is what about things that are based on the MCU (can someone come up with a wording for that that doesn't sound like it is a section that is decribing what the MCU is based on?) Unlikely to be chosen because it is a very community driven word (Don't think that is the right way of describing it but whatever), but we could also try "Non-cannonical media"-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about under the existing "Other" section we have an "Adaptations" subsection that has stuff, for now just the Lego game, that are based on the MCU and are not canonical. The wording of the section could help clarify this for readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% okay with that, given the TV specials and amusement park attractions are based on the world, but not cannonical. The only thing is the guidebook, which I would say is closer to "cannon" than all the others. So if we figure out that subsection, I'm in agreement moving the current "In other media" section to a subsection of "Other" titled "Adaptions". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of LGBTQ character
This Collider article says an LGBTQ character will be featured in the universe at some point:. Hula Hup (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure, how this is relevant here but anyway there already has been. See: Jessica Jones (TV series).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And List_of_Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._characters (which was actually before JJ debuted). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article talks about the great social value of the inclusion and that could for sure fit somewhere. Maybe in a "Themes" section/sub-section or something. Hula Hup (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What article are you talking about? This one, or one of the references for Joey or Jeri? Additionally, I don't feel any of that info is relevant here. It is relevant for each character's info, and both have info at their respective locations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the Collider article that I cited above. Hula Hup (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)