Jump to content

Talk:Captain America: Civil War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

RFC: Does Ant-Man gain additional strength or retain his normal strength while shrinking?

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.
There is no consensus on wording other than to use what is found in WP:RS. Sadly this RFC has diverted into the realms of WP:OR basing comments on what editors think, assume, or have seen in the movie themselves. This comment is policy correct and may point a way forward in choosing what language to use.[[1]] AlbinoFerret 15:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This dispute is about the following description of Ant-Man in the article: "A former petty criminal, who acquired a suit that allows him to shrink in scale but increase in strength." (emphasis added) Does Ant-Man's suit increase his strength or merely preserve his existing strength? The movie says that while shrunk, "you have the force of a 200 pound man".[2] Is this referring to Paul Rudd? Additionally, other sources, such as this [3] and this [4] specifically say that he only has the strength of a normal person while shrunk, though the latter source appears to be referring to the comic book character. Are the sources that say his strength increases confused/forgetting to qualify with "in proportion", or does the suit actually give Ant Man superhuman strength? PraetorianFury (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy close given the user has not exhausted all discussion options or opportunities in their previous discussion above. Given the very insignificant matter this wording has on this film, you very well could (and can) settle this in the discussion above. I invite other users to do so there and not here (as I will be). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah uh, this isn't an AFD. There aren't any policies for closing an RFC. And I've seen nothing but bad faith so far, so yes, I have indeed exhausted all discussion options. Edit summaries saying "Restoring article" is borderline meat puppetry, and deleting dispute templates is clear combative behavior. I would love to discuss this with you if you had a leg to stand on, but all I can see is blatant ownership of the article preventing changes made. And you 3 need to learn that this encyclopedia does not belong to you. PraetorianFury (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Nobody involved in the disputed said anything about the suit giving Ant-Man "superhuman strength". As for the sources, the ScreenRant article written in January 2015, six months before the release of the film, was speculating about the future film as shown with the use of word "presumably". As you stated this webpage is a profile of comic book character and cannot be used to describe the film version as things frequently change between adaptations. However these two sources ([5], [6]) released by the studio about the film, explicitly use the phrase "increase in strength". Also the complete quote in the dialogue is "When you’re small, energy’s compressed. So you have the force of a 200-lbs. man behind a fist a hundredth of an inch wide. You’re like a bullet. You punch too hard, you kill someone. Too soft, it’s a love tap. In other words, you have to know how to punch.” This obviously in reference to Ant-Man when he is in a shrunken state and makes no reference to the character's strength in his normal state. Any interpretation otherwise is WP:OR as it is never given. However, I would willing to comprise and change the wording to "A former petty criminal, who acquired a suit that allows him to shrink in scale but attain the force of a 200-lbs. man."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? You want to include, "attain the force of a 200 pound man" in his list of abilities? According to this[7], Paul Rudd weighs about 170 pounds. So are we saying that he gains 30 pounds more strength, as if he went to the gym a few more days a week? This is your compromise? I'm not playing this game. We have sources[8] verifying that he retains the strength of a normal person and anyone watching the movie with a basic understanding of English will understand that it is specifically stated that no additional strength is given. That is never described as one of the suits powers. It shrinks. That's all. Here are more sources verifying that his strength remains the same:
[9] : "he becomes proportionately much stronger"
[10] : "it also enables them to maintain their usual strength when ant-sized"
[11] : "Lang shrinks, but retains his human strength"
[12] : "Ant-Man's powers include the proportional increase in his strength based on his size."
[13] : "Possessing the ability to shrink to the size of an ant without altering his normal human strength"
[14] : "our titular hero has the ability to shrink down while retailing his full-sized strength"
[15] : "Ant-Man is known for retaining his strength in miniaturised form"
[16] : "keeps peak human strength despite shrinking down to microscopic sizes"
[17] : "...allows him to shrink literally to the size of an ant, but retain his strength."
[18] : "all while maintaining the same strength and speed of a full-size human"
[19] : "Despite his tiny stature, he can punch and throw around full-sized foes with human strength"
No I don't want to include that verbage. I prefer the wording that we have but it is a reasonable comprise based on the dialogue spoken in the film. Any increase is an increase and I'm pretty sure that you are already aware height-weight-age.com is not a reliable source and can not be used to support your argument. Besides, we are talking about the fictional movie character Scott Lang, not the real-life actor Paul Rudd. Also I already spoke to the unreliability of the ScreenRant article. As for the rest of the sources, let me counter with my own list of sources that use the phrase "increase in strength" or "increase his strength".
--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Marvel.com does the math for you. That is the website about the film you are so fond of quoting. It shows that at insect size he can lift 160, the exact same amount as at his normal size. Are we done? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, it says in order for the character to lift the same amount of weight at normal size, he must increase his strength by 1440%. He is not retaining strength (as you put it) but getting stronger, a lot stronger.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Ok, I guess it's time for a lesson in math. Let's start with the word "strength", which Wikipedia defines as "the ability of an animal or human to exert force on physical objects using muscles". "Force" in this case is defined as "any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object." The definition of force is independent of the source of that force. If a man can lift 160 pounds and an ant can lift 160 pounds, I say "the man and the ant have the same strength". It would also be correct to say that the ant is proportionally stronger based on his size and weight. It's clear that you can find lots of examples of people misunderstanding this concept and using poor wording, but that doesn't change the fact that the suit does not grant any additional strength. Rudd cannot exert any additional force while shrunk. The expectation people have is that strength is proportional with weight and size, such that if a man can barely lift his own weight, an ant should also barely be able to lift his own weight. So they say, incorrectly, that "ants are stronger," but this is imprecise. Proportionally, yes, they are stronger. But they aren't winning any lifting competitions against humans. That's what makes the Ant Man suit so remarkable. That Rudd retains the strength of a normal sized human, making it appear that he is super strong. Do you understand? PraetorianFury (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources are clear that he is increasing in strength as he is decreasing in size, and they say exactly that. Force equals mass times acceleration and is measured the same no matter the proportions of the object exerting the force. In order for an ant to exert the same amount of force as human, it would have to increase its mass or acceleration thus increase its strength. Your fallacy is that you incorrectly view strength as an end when it is actually a means to an end. So he is not retaining his strength but increasing his strength to achieve the same end.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so F=M*A, yes? M is the mass of a single object, yes? It is the mass of the object that is being acted upon, correct? So F = 160 * A. Where in this equation is Rudd's mass or size? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If you're trying to use physics to resolve this issue, you're crossing over into original research. Please stick to what reliable sources have to say about this work of fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for skipping to the bottom of the discussion without reading the rest of it. Had you actually shown due diligence, you would see that we have reliable sources specifically saying that Ant Man can lift 160 pounds before and after his miniaturization. So the discussion is over. He retains the same strength. Now it is a matter of getting Triiiple to understand what the sources say so he'll stop edit warring. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The source you are referring to specially states that he is "1440% stronger at insect size". Those are not my words, but Marvel's. You are the one claiming to know more about Marvel's fictional setting than Marvel itself. Also you are the one edit warring with no less than three different editors, exceeding WP:3RR and attempting to WP:OWN the article by pushing your WP:POV against consensus. Not to mention the bad faith attempt to partially quote a source from "The Daily Telegraph" to support your argument when the entire quote actually goes on to disprove it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It shows he has the same strength as a normal sized human. If I can bench 160 pounds now, and I go on a diet, and after losing 10 pounds I can still bench 160 pounds, have I gotten stronger? What if I gain weight. Have I gotten weaker? If I am benching 160 pounds at the gym, and another guy comes and benches 200 pounds, would it be correct to say that that guy is stronger, or would you need to ask him how much he weighs first? If I say someone is as strong as a horse, do I mean that they are exceptionally strong for a human, or of unremarkable strength because a horse's strength is normal for a horse? So if I were to say an ant is as strong as a man, that would be a pretty impressive feat for an ant, would it not? What if I said a man was weaker than an ant? That doesn't seem right, does it? It doesn't seem possible for a man to be weaker than an ant. The same is true for saying an ant is stronger than a man. No, clearly a man is stronger. There are implicit assumptions we need to make in order for the latter phrase to make sense. That the strength we're talking about is proportional, not literal. Let's examine what you want to say: "allows him to shrink in scale but increase in strength." What if Ant Man's suit DID make him superhuman when he miniaturized, such that he could now lift cars as an ant. You would use exactly the same phrase to describe that power, wouldn't you? How do you contrast that with the fact that he does not increase in strength but retains his normal human strength? "allows him to shrink in scale but increase in strength more than a normal person would increase in strength at the same size"? You think because you have a bunch of sources with imprecise language that we are required to use the same language? Pretty much every sources agrees that he has the strength of a human while shrunk. Some call this "getting stronger", yes. Some do not. Those that don't explain in detail that his strength is greater in proportion to his size. Sources saying he is simply "stronger" are missing that qualifier, probably because they are copy and pasting from Marvel's poorly written website. Regardless, the information is clear. Ant Man has the strength of a human while shrunk. You tell me how you want to include that in the article if you are so possessive of the word "increase". PraetorianFury (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:PraetorianFury: If you have sources saying that, then cite them directly rather than trying to apply physics (and crossing over into original research and synthesis). That was the point of the comment, and it was aimed at both sides. In other words, if a source says "Ant Man can lift 160 pounds before and after his miniaturization", then just state that--don't try to interpret it in terms of scientific accuracy. DonQuixote (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Donny, you're out of your element. Read the discussion and then you'll understand what I was talking about. Thanks. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you're getting a little carried away and in-universe-y. Please remember that you're writing about a work of fiction in an encyclopaedia article. Encyclopaedias are primarily written by citing and quoting secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@DonQuixote: This is the source that he is referring to. Notice it says Ant-Man can lift 160 lbs. at both human and insect size but it does not state that 160 lbs. is the limit of strength at either size. So that in itself cannot be used as an absolute measure of strength. It does however emphatically state that Ant-Man is "1440% stronger at insect size".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The argument is changing now. Before it was that "the website says 'stronger'", now it's "the website DOESN'T say he CAN'T lift more". This is getting ridiculous. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It says he is "1440% stronger at insect size", which is what I've been saying since you posted that source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
A quick review of the source...it says "increase in strength", "grow in strength" and "1440% stronger at insect size". It also just says "at human size can lift 160lbs" and "at insect size can lift 160lbs". And those are the only things that we can say. DonQuixote (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, at least not to my understanding The way I understood it is that despite being smaller he is still able to pack the same punch as if he were full size. All the formula does is scrunch the particles of the suit and the person in it closer together since the vast majority of any object's volume is empty space. But the person is still able to wield the same force as if he or she were full size. That should raise other issues like whether the person should still be felt to weigh as much as he or she previously did (and thus when he's climbing on people it should be like he's stomping on them as a full-size person - instead, they barely register he's there), but that's another ball of wax only tangentially related to this one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I believe this issue is mostly settled but please cite a reliable source when responding.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, the movie. That's what I remember hearing in the movie. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (summoned by bot), I can't believe you guys are arguing about this, we are in the realms of extreme comic-book type fantasy. Cannot some form of words be agreed such as 'has the strength of a fully-grown man' be found that avoids any mention of whether his strength has marginally increased or stayed the same. You know it's quite possible that the creators have never bothered to ask themselves that question, and the answer would defy all rules of science anyway. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spidey and Civil War

Will this be useful? Feige appears to confirm Spidey's involvement (for the first time!) in this film. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been solidly confirmed for awhile now. Rusted AutoParts 14:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Overall I can't see anything new in there. We know he is 15 years old in the film, we know Tom Holland will play him, we know that they always had two plans. So it could be used to perhaps backup another source, but overall it seems to just be the same information we already have.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Earlier, Jonathan Goldstein (only one of the solo Spidey movie's writers) stated that Spidey would appear in CW, but Feige did not say anything back then. Now I think he has said, so it should be the limit. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Should be the limit? He is marked down as being in CW on the LoA page and the CW page, and I'm not really sure you can say Feige is more reliable than the SM writer in terms of officialness and knowledge on the character, but if James Gunn (GotG) suddenly stated that Spiderman would be in Doctor Strange then we would have a slight problem of whether that is within what he should know. But other than that, I don't think it matters who we have sourced saying it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Baron Zemo assumption

In the Cast section, neither citation states specifically which Baron Zemo that Daniel Bruhl is portraying. There are multiple characters to assume the identity in the comics. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and assume that it's Helmut Zemo. Darkknight2149 (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Independent one did. The current URL is dead, but the archive works. I've adjusted so the info can be seen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see it now. Thanks for clearing that up. Darkknight2149 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. That's why we always archive all content as it gets added to MCU articles, for situations just like this. Check on the archive, it's live, so we're still good! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Bunch of new content

While I'm kind of busy preparing for my exams, I think someone can add info from these articles if needed. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat, anything useful from them? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
First I had looked through and nothing there is really related to this film. Anything noteworthy from that separation was added to the main MCU page and Marvel Studios page. Second one, all that info will be covered with the plot. We already have info / quotes stating that the comic story was inspiration, but won't be followed to the T. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
But THR states that Civil War's budget overshot, causing some concern. I think that is useful adding here. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
First the film didn't overshoot its budget, but the budget itself grew. Secondly, I'm not terribly fond of the anonymous sourcing in the article. It's usually a sign of hearsay.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention trailer

I reversed the edit regarding the 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention trailer because the CNN source only states that additional footage will be shown in September 2015 at the Asia Pop Comic Convention i.e. the source is merely an annoucement for a trailer without describing the content of said trailer. But the Blastr source reports the content of the 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention trailer based on two different sources and thus is a better source than the CNN source. Accordingly I replaced the CNN source with the Blastr source. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CNN Is by far more reliable and the cited content is the same, so it doesn't matter which source has more information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
CNN maybe far more reliable, but the cited content is not the same. CNN and Blastr report both that additional footage can be seen in September 2015 at the Asia Pop Comic Convention. They present it from from different time point of views. (CNN: "A trailer of Captain America: Civil War will be exclusively shown at the AsiaPop Comicon Manila on Saturday (September 19) at 1 p.m."; Blastr: "An updated trailer for Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War was screened at the Asia Pop Comic-Con over the weekend [...]."). But the point you miss (and why I added the Blastr source) is that CNN doesn't describe the content of 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention trailer, while Blastr does so in a very detailed fashion. To resolve this situation I propose the inclusion of both sources: CNN for the reason that Marvel's marketing decision to show additional Civil War footage at the 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention was Marvel's knowledge of Filipinos beings huge fans of the Marvel universe and the Blastr source for the detailed description of said additional Civil War footage which is missing as content in the CNN source. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
We are not verifying the content of the footage only that the footage was screened. The additional information in the Blastr article is irreverent to the information that were are citing on the page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you please explain why the additional information in the Blastr article is irreverent? Can the this information "this new cut of the trailer was also well-received, so well-received in fact, that it was played twice for the audience." from this source be included? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think TriiipleThreat meant "irrelevant". I also think he seeks to avoid WP:CITEKILL. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Thank you, that is what I meant and it was what I'm trying to avoid. @P3Y229: We could add that information if it came from a more reliable source. Comicbookmovie.com is unusable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
christiantoday.com and the news website LatinoPost report that the 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention trailer was so well-received that it was played twice for the audience. Is any of these sources reliable? Screenrant.com mentions that the D23 Expo and 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention trailer were received overwhelmingly positive by the fans. Is this source reliable and can this information therefore be included? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Only Screenrant is reliable, and can be used. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my questions. The information was added and the 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention trailer situation is resolved for me, because the source describes the trailer content and links to another source for a more detailed description. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't our job to describe the trailer's contents or provide a link (in the source or otherwise) to the trailer. Our job is just to describe official trailer releases with critical commentary, or in this case, that footage was shown at a convention etc., with additional info on reactions or reception if such can be found. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Holland accident

Although this source was removed from "Cast", I think it can be readded, but this time to "Filming". It mentions Holland having an accident on set, as a result of which he is scarred in the video interview. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2015

The reason i asked about response to be removed is because it is the job of this site to post facts, not opinions on majorities. The person in Screenrant cannot speak for those who had the privilege to see the trailer. Since the reporter himself did not attended, the claim cannot be made in fact and quoted as such. From what i've found, public response was mixed, not positive, but that is based on my own research. Lt.Simmons12 (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Marking this answered as a duplicate of the editor's previous edit request. Will respond to the original request separately. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2015

Remove section that is in bolded 

Additional footage was shown in September 2015 at the Asia Pop Comic Convention.[1] The footage shown at the D23 Expo and 2015 Asia Pop Comic Convention received overwhelmingly positive responses by the audiences. [2]

this is not a neutral claim, and no evidence to support this claim. This is a opinionated claim and falsified.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference AsiaPop was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference SRSept2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Lt.Simmons12 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Screenrant appears to be a reliable source, and supports this claim. Opposing sources will need to be presented that contradict or show a mixed reaction to the footage shown at the conventions. Note that Screenrant only speaks to the reaction from the convention audience, not the general public, and the article reflects this. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Billing block reexamined based on teaser

So the teaser that was actually shown on Jimmy Kimmel had the billing block at the end. (As of my posting it can be seen on Zap2it so hopefully others will be able to as well to discuss.) For those who can't or if it is removed, the billing block is exactly what we have minus Holland. Now I know Marvel is keeping his inclusion a secret, but could this be a case as with Age of Ultron and Ant-Man, where actors are added to the billing in final release, just not marketing material? (I'm talking about Cardellini and Mackie respectively.) If so, what should we go by? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should go on the billing block here, which has Hurt and Bruhl around the other way to what we have as well as not having Holland. I am happy to just move Holland's material to the bottom paragraph, and move him back up if this is another case like those you mentioned. I know we don't usually have a lot of other material in that bottom paragraph, but because of the significance of the character and the fact that he is likely to get his own bullet after the film comes out I think it will be fine to just move down his info as is. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is another attempt by Marvel to hide Spidey's involvement in Civil War (if he even has any at all); or, they shot scenes on him which may not make the theatrical cut (like Loki in Age of Ultron), believing the audience will give him too much emphasis. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a screenshot for quick reference.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the future reference, should we need it, here is the previous source we were using with Holland in the billing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Spidey EW sources

This page appears empty and I believe it has been merged with this page. So someone kindly combine the refs. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest removing premise from lead

The last sentence in the lead goes over the premise of the movie, and is almost the exact same information that is listed in the "Premise" section. This seems redundant. I suggest deleting it altogether. Thoughts?Pistongrinder (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD, the lead should contain a general premise but not to worry once the film is released the premise section will expand into a plot section thus removing any redundancy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Spidey Zap2it

Zap2it's interview with Feige reads, "Even though the details of Peter's function in "Civil War" remain vague, Feige says this version of Peter's story will still touch on the idea of him being torn between superhero ideologies. "Does he want to be like these other characters? Does he want nothing to do with these other characters? How does that impact his experience, being this grounded but super powerful hero? Those are all the things that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko played with in the first 10 years of his comics, and that now we can play with for the first time in a movie," he explains." But this was before Feige confirmed that Spidey would appear in Civil War, as implied in this LA Times interview. I guess he was referring to Spidey's role in his upcoming solo film. How will that mesh with this article now? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat, what do you think? Should it stay or be shifted? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It still fits here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:2016 films

The category Category:2016 films should be used on this article. For all upcoming films with verifiable release dates, the category is included. This has been standard for upcoming films. BOVINEBOY2008 16:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur that it should be used. Verifiability is the key policy here. If things change, Wikipedia can change with it. Otherwise, what's the point of Category:2016 films at all? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is an archived discussion about this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say there is no point to it for the next couple of weeks. I remember a time when we used to hide release year categories until the film was released but if standing consensus is to include it then I wont challenge it. I don't have time for a lengthy discussion. However, it should be noted that Category:2016 3D films, which is a child of Category:2016 films, is already included so we don't need it anyway per WP:OVERCAT.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, the infobox handles how the cats get added to articles (ie right now it is "Upcoming films" and will be changed to "2016 films" when the date roles around). So if a film article coming out in 2016 is using our infobox template, we don't need users going around adding 2016 film; it will be done for us when appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe that categories for release years in film are non-diffusing categories, meaning that you would not eliminate it like that. Same thing with nationality and language categories. As for 2016 vs. Upcoming, the latter is a very temporal category. 2016 slowly grows permanent. Maybe some films shift to 2017 or whatever, but I find it likely that a film set for 2016 tends to come out then. I think it is unrealistic to think of it as not a 2016 film, up to the day before, until it actually comes out. We don't need to try to rationalize when to apply such categories when reliable sources verify the application for us. If sources tell their readership that it is expected in a given year, Wikipedia follows suit. It shouldn't be wishy-washy about it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
^^^What Erik said. And WP:COMMONSENSE applies. The sources says it's due for release in 2016, and this meets WP:V. Do we apply the same rationale to items at the foot of this table and not add the year category? And take the example of The Revenant. Not due to be released until Christmas day, but in the category for 2015 films AND the disambig is (2015 film), not "upcoming film". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Despite the obvious consensus, Triple threat likes to revert. Next step, WP:3RR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts, Erik, Bovineboy2008, and Favre1fan93:Please respond to the WP:OVERCAT concern, this is far from closed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What concern? Read WP:FILMCAT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Read my original response.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Read it. Still don't see what the issue is. I do see that you removed the category based on WP:CRYSTAL and when that failed, you've now gone to plan b to continue your disruption. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow, your lack of WP:AGF is disturbing. I raised the concern in the same response so it was no plan b. But please respond to the issue, explain why we need both a parent and child cat in the same article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite good at articulating how categories work, but there are certain categories that are high-level to warrant {{all included}} being applied. Year, country, and language are these categories and have been for a long time. Category:2016 3D films should be more seen as a sub-category of Category:3D films, which fully diffuses articles into more specific groupings. The aforementioned high-level categories do not diffuse like this. Compare it to something like Category:Presidents of the United States. While there are sub-categories that show these Presidents by political party, the main category still lists all the Presidents. If a reader explored a category of films by release year, they may have a hard time finding a specific film if it is sub-categorized (especially in the case of 3D films, which technically have both 2D and 3D releases). We can discuss this in a broader page if you think these high-level categories should not include all such articles, but I think in this case, we should consider this film a 2016 film per both precedent and per the 2D/3D duality. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should follow WP:FILMCAT, which does say to include the main year category. This is how we do it in almost every other article, including the ones with year subcats. However, I will note that one editor flatly rejected this when I brought the page to his attention, as he said there was no consensus for it until it becomes a guideline. So, maybe that's something to think about it. If FILMCAT were a guideline, it might resolve problems like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Erik and NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for responding and the clarifying the issue. Making WP:FILMCAT a guideline would help some. We had a similar issue at WP:COMICS regarding WP:CONLEVEL, where project level consensus conflicted with a Wikipedia level guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

May Parker confirmed by Russo bros?

The link itself, no. But the YouTube video and quotes should be sufficient enough for inclusion: "It was very important to us that we go younger with the character because what we love about Spider-Man is that he’s still a high school student. That’s a part of his vulnerability and it’s what makes him special in the Marvel Universe; he’s very unique. We wanted to play to that aspect of the character. We also wanted to think about ‘Who is Spider-Man today?’ A lot of times when you get interpretations of Spider-Man, they’re very nostalgic to the origins of the character. Sometimes there’s an old-fashioned patina to the tone of who Spider-Man is. We wanted to think about who is Spider-Man today if he’s living in Queens, what’s the texture of his life like, what’s the texture of his relationship with his aunt who lives with him. How can we make the relationship and character very contemporary? That’s our goal with the character." Npamusic (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Youtube link would be fine for use but it doesn't confirm if we'll see May Parker on screen in this film. For all we know, she could just be referenced if at all. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why Thor wasn't included

EW states, "Ruffalo will be turning up as the Hulk in 2017’s Thor: Ragnarok, however, but the god of thunder won’t be in the movie version of Civil War either", with McFeely adding, "You put those guys in a fight, it’s over quickly. It’s like, ‘Well, we have the Hulk on our side.’ Oh, fine, then". Since he is talking in plural sense, should we assume that even Thor was left out of Civil War for the same reason as Hulk? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that according to source in the article the Hulk was originally supposed to appear in the film, but there's no indication that Thor was ever intended to appear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Scott Lang is...

Giant-Man in the film? Can we use this Funko Pop! announcement some how? To my knowledge, Funko does not create Pop figures for things that do not happen in the film (unlike Lego, if I recall). Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, all that verifies is the existence of Giant Man related merchandise. Going beyond that is WP:SPECULATION / WP:SYN / WP:OR.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Figured. Just thought I'd bring it up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Civil War chronology

According to this article, the Russos state that about a year has passed from Age of Ultron to Civil War. This may come in useful when creating a plot synopsis after the film is released. Richiekim (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done added the YouTube link which is more reliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheadle quote

@Rusted AutoParts: in response to your edit summary, the quote does not state anything substantive. The first half is pretty much useless and the words "intense" and "pivotal" are empty descriptions without any further explanation as to what makes it intense or pivotal. Furthermore, we do not add quotes or other information just for the sake of having it and to take up space. Also pinging @Adamstom.97 and Kailash29792:, who also edited the content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the most part I agree, the quote isn't all that useful. But I think adding something along the lines of 'Cheadle found the part more "pivotal" to the film's events than previous films' or something would be fine, to get his intentions across without all the unnecessary fluff. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested sources

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

I'd like the protectors of this page to add in new MCU Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland in the billing credits for the "Captain America: Civil War" cast, because, according to the billing credits from the Civil War poster from the Super Bowl magazine of ESPN, Tom Holland is now part of the cast between Frank Grillo and William Hurt's names in the poster's billing credits, which you can see at this link right here: https://twitter.com/warmustbeend123/status/700794769946124288. So, please add in Tom Holland's name in the billing cast for Civil War on it's movie page between Grillo and Hurt. Thanks.

MarvelDisney20 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC) MarvelDisney20

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. See above discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is my only other verification I can get to you, TriipleThreat, which is from the guy who found the same ESPN issue with the Captain Amerixa: Civil War poster that included the billing credits in it: https://twitter.com/rprez2012/status/700525446228742144. If u STILL don't think that's enough, download the issue on the ESPN magazine app that's titled 2-08-16 and you'll find the poster in that issue with the billing credits that includes Tom Holland'a name in it. How else can I get the proof for u? I've already tried to buy and find the issue but, I CAN'T because it's not on shelves anymore. How else more can I get you the proof? It's right there in the tweets and on the ESPN magazine app if u download it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A tweet from an unverified Twitter account is not a reliable source. Also please keep in mind that the WP:BURDEN is on you since you are the one making the request. But don't worry if true, it will eventually be made available through another source. Remember there is WP:NORUSH.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mark Ruffalo to appear in Civil War??

According to this BBC radio interview with Anthony Mackie, Mark Ruffalo will appear in Civil War. - Richiekim (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Though he was seen on set a few times, i'd say hold off until it's 100% confirmed. Could just be a post credits scene, or a misdirect. Rusted AutoParts 23:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I feel like he was just trying to come up with some actors names at Marvel more than anything else, I don't know if we can use this as actual confirmation of anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ruffalo again

Richiekim added that Ruffalo would appear, based on Mackie saying he would appear (from this source 17:30 mark for start of conversation, 18:00 mark for the name drop). Kailash29792 undid the addition saying it was "a tongue-in-cheek comment, like what Downey made before." I wanted to bring this to the talk because I don't know if I believe Kailash's reasoning, as it doesn't seem like Mackie is just name-dropping MCU actors, but people in this film. So I'd like to see what others think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Even still though, we really shouldn't go by an off the cuff remark. He could very well likely be in it, but there's no verifiable proof this is correct. Might just be a post credits scene. Rusted AutoParts 19:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
As I said in the discussion just above, it seems as if Mackie was just trying to name some good MCU actors more than anything, as he was really talking about the quality of actors that he works with. I just don't think this is strong enough for us to use as a confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow. I totally didn't process the discussion above was the same thing. Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I've moved my discussion up to the original. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

New MCU Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland now part of the billing credits for "Captain America: Civil War" according to the billing on the poster released from the Super Bowl Issue of ESPN

I think we can put Tom Holland in the official cast billing credits for Captain America: Civil War on the movie's wiki page because as you can see on the billing credits for the movie on the poster for Civil War, that was released in the Super Bowl issue for ESPN magazine earlier this month, where Tom Holland is between Frank Grillo and William Hurt: https://twitter.com/warmustbeend123/status/700794769946124288 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.64.216 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something other than this tweet for verification?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is my only other verification I can get to you, TriipleThreat, which is from the guy who found the same ESPN issue with the Captain Amerixa: Civil War poster that included the billing credits in it: https://twitter.com/rprez2012/status/700525446228742144. If u STILL don't think that's enough, download the issue on the ESPN magazine app that's titled 2-08-16 and you'll find the poster in that issue with the billing credits that includes Tom Holland's name in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Responded below.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: I have downloaded the magazine and can 100% confirm Holland is in the billing. After Grillo and before Hurt. I believe this is a situation that the Russos were talking about that the points of the Sony deal were slowly being resolved, this being one of them. I can help make the poster viewable to all if that is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Here you go. This is pulled right from my digital file of the magazine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow

According to MovieWeb, Gwyneth Paltrow reprised her role as Pepper Potts during reshoots for this movie. MovieWeb says it got the info from an Empire Magazine write-up, but the link provided (this) features nothing about her. If anyone subscribes to Empire or is able to get a copy of this month's magazine, it'd definitely be worth looking in to. The issue releases on February 25, so we'll know for sure then. Sock (tock talk) 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the information maybe in the offline source, in which case we should wait until the magazine hits newsstands and check ourselves.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source confirming Pott's return in Civil War: http://www.thewrap.com/gwyneth-paltrow-will-return-as-pepper-potts-in-captain-america-civil-war/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.64.216 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Even TheWrap references Empire, but I still found no proof from the magazine itself. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Empire is notorious (well at least to me) for never releasing their article content online (unlike EW-yay for EW!). It always ends up being transcribed by Comic Book Movie, and then every reliable source, sources CBM, so we can't use it per WP:FRUIT. That's why I got a copy of the Feb2016 issue that had all the little bits of info so we could actually use it. So if someone can get a copy to double check this (and add anything else that in there), that'd be great. I'll try too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the cast list in the lead paragraph too long?

I don't know who you'd cut, but I'm seeing significantly more blue than black in the lead, which looks like WP:OVERLINK, and this is almost entirely the fault of the massive cast list -- sixteen names!? This beats out the actual ensemble cast in Rat Race (2001 film) with fifteen, and I'd be willing to bet this is the longest cast list of any Wikipedia article lead on a film, excepting the equally-cluttered (and demonstrably inaccurate with regard to "ensemble") Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Let alone that this isn't technically an "ensemble cast" -- we don't know yet how relatively prominent each cast member's role will be, but the poster and all the promotion distinctly imply that it will not be an ensemble cast. Evans and Downey are the only ones pictured in the poster, and while we can speculate about whether Johansson's name is given prominence because she's the supporting player with the most name recognition, it would also be fair to assume she plays a prominent role. After that, it's all speculation at this point.

Anyway, the cast list in the lead almost certainly needs to be trimmed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I initially posted the above with a rant about billing blocks, Hayley Atwell, and why we were selectively cutting people out of our cast list who were in the billing block, but it was an embarrassing mistake on my part. I was duped by a fake billing block (no matter how much I zoom I can't read the image on this page, and I couldn't find an alternative) that included the actor who had been rumoured to play Peter Parker. I don't know either Butterfield or Holland's previous work, and I had forgotten which was which. I apologize for the mistake. But this article's use of the slang-y definition of "ensemble cast" is technically problematic, as we are not supposed to use informal forms of speech when writing articles, and saying that the cast is "ensemble" in the traditional sense is (likely false) speculation at this point, and contradicts the other speculation that can be found in reliable sources that this will be primarily Captain America's story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought we should bill everyone who appears in the billing block of the poster. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I sympathize, but WP:MOSFILM#Cast tells us to use our judgement and not be indiscriminate. The billing block is huge, and I suspect this may be a marketing trick by Marvel, who have a profit motive to sell this film as though it were Avengers 2.5. Unlike the actual Avengers films, we have no way of knowing whether this is a legit ensemble cast. We have slightly conflicting statements from Marvel, and second-party RSs being split. We have a poster with one character named in the title, that character is pictured with one other, and then those two are named along with one other. Below that is a small print section where an enormous number of people are named. On AOU, we know that this list included 15-second cameos alongside the main cast. We won't know exactly how indiscriminate this billing block is until the film is released. But we do know that we should not be mirroring the billing block's indiscriminate-ness. I say keep it minimal in the lead (The film stars Chris Evans in his fifth appearance as Captain America, alongside Robert Downey, Jr. and Scarlett Johansson.) until the film is released and third-party RSs tell us who the real stars of the film are. I also think we should cut ''ensemble cast'' stuff, which is unverifiable speculation at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, we can't use our judgement when we haven't seen the movie, and using the billing block has always been ideal for the MCU due to generally being pretty accurate in who the main cast is while being an independent listing (from the different opinions of editors). Once the film has been released, we can reassess as we usually do (which led to the addition of Falcon to the Ant-Man listing though he wasn't in the billing), remember we are in WP:NORUSH. Also worth noting: per this encyclopaedia, "ensemble cast" is a regularly used term in the industry that does not necessarily mean what it once did; it is not up to us to speculate or make assumptions as to why certain actors get certain billing on the poster, let alone in the billing block, especially since it is usually about contracts rather than the film itself; and finally, "this may be a marketing trick by Marvel, who have a profit motive to sell this film as though it were Avengers 2.5" is a ridiculous statement, firstly because the billing block has nothing to do with marketing—it is the fine print, focused on only be people like us, not the masses—and secondly because, as this article points out, though many people assumed as you did when the cast was announced that this would just be Avengers 2.5, Marvel is in fact marketing this as a Captain America film first and foremost, with the other Avengers simply icing on that cake. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
using the billing block has always been ideal for the MCU due to generally being pretty accurate in who the main cast is Umm... citation needed? Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba were "main cast" in Age of Ultron, then? In The Avengers, Smulders had about as much screen time and about as many lines as Paltrow, and Hiddleston and Gregg were both clearly more "main" than Renner. I am not saying we should judge why certain actors get certain billing. I am saying we should not clutter our article lead with a massive, indiscriminate list of names, when a more succinct list has been given to us right there on the poster. It is not an ensemble film. Captain America is the main character and the title character, and Evans is the star of the film. It doesn't matter if you think the term ensemble film doesn't mean what it used to; if we use it in the sense "there are a lot name actors in the film", then we are still not supposed to name them all in the lead. MOSFILM clearly uses the term in its traditional sense of "there is a large cast who all have roles of similar importance in the film and there is no one or two main characters". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Why do you want me to cite my own statements? I am simply stating my opinion / the truth, that the billing block gives us a "generally...pretty accurate" idea of who is going to be the main cast. If you disagree, then say so, at the appropriate place. Stop bringing up these other issues here, remember WP:OSE. The fact is, Marvel has released an official cast list which separates starring cast and other cast members, and then a billing block which includes all of those starring actors, and has only updated the billing block to include one more actor who couldn't previously have been included due to ongoing behind-the-scenes negotiations. That is all we can go off of here, and until we see the film we can't make any decisions ourselves as to which, if any, of the actors don't deserve to be listed as starring. As for just shortening the list in the lead, only listing a couple of actors in the lead instead of the whole starring cast, purely based off of marketing materials, is obviously not very encyclopaedic. And remember that though we have the best interest of each individual article in mind, we also have to keep the big picture in perspective; the MCU film articles are a good topic and so should be reasonably consistent. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but why can't we use the miniature billing block further up? Because its actually being legible in our image of the poster makes us giving the same facts in the article redundant? If we want what is a pretty accurate, objective guide to the main cast, this is almost certainly the better option. Furthermore, I don't think you should be pointing fingers at me for "only listing a couple of actors ... purely based off of marketing materials" -- do you even know what a billing block is? The fact is that we are both limited to using marketing materials at this point, since those are the only materials available. Also, it's a pet peeve of mine, but if I see you add "based off of" to an article I will revert you. I don't mind it on talk pages (or, rather, I am required to tolerate it on talk pages). Furthermore, in my quite extensive experience the GA and GT vetting process is a mummer's farce: you can't use it to support the status quo when no one ever discussed the status quo one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I do know what a billing block is, and as the section you linked to explains, it is the block on the poster where the film's significant cast and crew members are billed for contractual reasons, not the top actors names added to draw in audience members. And our article does not agree that only Evans, Downey, and Johansson are the main stars; note the significant coverage of how this film is really about Cap and Bucky's relationship, even more so than the fight between Cap and Tony.
If you have an issue with any of our articles being a good article, or them collectively being a good topic, then you obviously know that there is a system to address that. But I can assure you that this isn't a simple case of a single editor making poor articles and another editor promoting them to GA without reviewing them properly. In fact, despite there being multiple regular editors for the MCU film articles, we have had to make many alterations to the articles for every GA nomination to improve them to the appropriate standard. And getting to good topic was not a simple process either, so don't dismiss the system just because it has failed you before—if everyone did that, then few would follow Wikipedia's regulations and nothing would improve.
Also, I don't care whether you have to "tolerate" the way I speak. I put up with you being a condescending prick, so I'm sure you can survive some bad speech / grammar habits. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
So what you are saying is the billing block (and therefore your preferred formatting) has nothing to do with who the main cast are? That would explain why Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba are listed in the lead of our AOU article, but it doesn't justify it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
And if you call me a "condescending prick" again, I will report you on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Top billing (ie names above film titles) are for marketing. Billing block names (small print, bottom of the poster) is a result of highly thought out negotiated contracts between the studio and actors. Actors aren't just thrown on there willy nilly. They negotiate their inclusion, among other parameters, regardless of their resulting size of the role in the film. As such, using the billing block is the most unbiased, neutral form of listing the actors in the lead, infobox and cast section (as allowed by the first point of WP:FILMCAST), and that is the criteria editors of MCU articles have chosen to use, in order to keep a consistency across these articles (a Good Topic mind you) and, again, to be as unbiased and neutral as possible. Without using the billing as a basis, it introduces a whole slew of problems, including editors then trying to format the list to their liking, and creating arguments such as "A should be higher than B, because A is the main villain!!!" etc. Additionally, billing blocks use the terms "with" and "and" for higher profile actors (such as Spader as Ultron in AoU) and those are added to the end, thus they appear at the bottom of our lists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that top billing is something Wikipedia readers might care about, but billing block names ("highly thought out negotiated contracts between the studio and actors") is something our readers couldn't possibly care about? Again, you are completely ignoring my main points in favour of a strawman argument (even putting a fake "quotation" by me in quotation marks!). I don't know the details of Atwell's and Elba's contracts, but they clearly were not part of the "main cast" as you are claiming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That is the complete opposite of what I'm saying. All we can work with is the billing block, and that's what we do: it's unbiased and neutral and the best way for us to present that info, which is also supported by WP:FILMCAST. Don't know what you mean by "even putting a fake "quotation" by me in quotation marks!". I just gave a very popular example that has happened on these articles in the past. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
All we can work with is the billing block Once again: Citation needed! I have cited the only relevqnt guideline (WP:MOSFILM), and says nothing of the sort. It says to use your brain on the matter. We haven't seen this film yet, so we don't know if it is an ensemble cast where all 16 cast members listed on the billing block are worth mentioning. We do know for a fact that the billing block for AOU last year included brief cameos who probably should not be in the lead. With this film, we know that Chris Evans is the lead. Why not just say The film stars Chris Evans in his fifth appearance as Captain America, and features a large cast of supporting actors, many of whom have previously appeared in other Marvel Cinematic Universe films.? This is not inaccurate, it is not speculation, and it is not based on marketing materials. Your way might very well be inaccurate, it is speculation, and it is based on obscure contract details. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, the cast list in the lead should be a summary of the cast list in the article, per WP:LEAD. it should not be independently sourced to the Billing block. Our "Cast" section in the body gives prominent coverage of sixteen actors, but if it is a different list to the one in the lead. This is unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, what citation? It is a fact that all we have is the billing on the posters, for as you point out, we haven't seen the film yet. It was the same case with Age of Ultron last year; we hadn't seen the film yet, so we went with the neutral, impartial, and official billing block. Of course, once the film came out we could reassess, as we usually do, to see if something should be changed, but I don't think anybody ever raised any objections over there, including the GA reviewer. If you do really have a problem with it, then you should start a discussion over there instead of repeatedly bringing it up here.
I am sorry, but I don't see why we should change our (so far successful) process based on your assumptions about an unreleased film. Wait till it comes out, and we can talk about it then, but for now this is a futile exercise. Also, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Our "Cast" section in the body gives prominent coverage of sixteen actors, but if it is a different list to the one in the lead. This is unacceptable." - adamstom97 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I give up. You win. You've drained the last of my energy. But please stop reverting all my edits to these articles. I have as much right to edit as you do, and my edits are not any more 'bold' than either of yours. Seeya. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
And we have as much right to revert those edits if they aren't useful edits. You can't swoop in here and expect everyone to drop common practice because you follow a different route and are too impatient to simply wait. Rusted AutoParts 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War/Archive_2&oldid=1136591421"