Jump to content

Talk:Captain America: Civil War/Archive 4

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

"ensemble cast"?

@Favre1fan93: Regarding this, could you explain what you mean? Six editors other than myself have commented, with none defending the use of the phrase in this article. Two or three very explicitly said that using it in this context was probably a no-no, one said nothing regardless, and one new user claims to be opposed to my edit to this article, but has not actually gotten around to explaining why. This film does not have an ensemble cast -- it has an "all-star cast", and one or two sources use the phrase "ensemble cast" as a euphemism for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

None of the other editors in this discussion have "explicitly said that using it in this context was probably a no-no" because no other editors besides myself have commented on this article. I'm opposed to your edit for at least two reasons I can think of right now. One is that you removed a claim that was referenced with more than one source and two, I think that the term "ensemble cast" does match the definition in the link. The sources say it has an ensemble cast and the definition says it has an ensemble cast if you pay attention to the word "principal". You are the only one who claims otherwise, and if we're to choose between your word and that of the sources/dictionary then whom should we believe? Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Huggums, seriously? Are you nitpicking about users saying that using the phrase as a euphemism for "all-star cast" is a no-no are not technically saying that using it here is a no-no? Find me one source that says this film has an ensemble cast and isn't clearly using it as a euphemism for "all-star cast" (and basing it on pre-release marketing from Marvel)? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure there were no misunderstandings. Call it nitpicking, or whatever you want to. Your bold edit has been reverted and the discussion here (and here) shows the reversion is supported (by lil' ol' "new user" me). In addition, you have no direct support for these specific edits from any of the other editors who have participated in the other discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
We have reliable sources calling the cast "ensemble". We can't infer that those sources are "actually" a euphemism to what you claim is an all-star cast. We use what the sources tell us, not our own analysis. So including per the sources is acceptable. If we didn't have the source to back it up, then I'd support the removal of the term. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Please explain how a source written when the writer could not possibly have seen the film could be considered "reliable" for the principle players having roughly equal screen time and importance to the plot. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way -- I note that (once again) I am being accused, by means of an Easter egg link, of violating WP:NOR by trying to remove information from the article based on my interpretation of the source as not supporting it. Let me be clear: anyone who thinks that NOR disbars us from removing information from an article based on an interpretation, even an "original" or "creative" interpretation, of the source has a disastrously poor understanding of NOR, which is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. And mine isn't even a "creative interpretation" of the source -- it is easily the more intuitive of the two possible readings. User:Favre1fan93, you should strike that portion of your comment: it is unbecoming of someone who has been here since 2012 to go around making claims about "OR" in the way you did here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Favre1fan93 is entitled to his opinion, and I would ignore any demands for a comment strike just because someone else has a pet peeve against a differing opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
His "opinion" is wrong. NOR applies to the article space, not to the talk page, and removal of material from the article can never be an NOR-violation. Someone whose first edit was less than two months ago should not be lecturing someone whose been here more than ten years on the fine points of policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, This source establishes the film is an ensemble cast from an interview with the directors. NinjaRobotPirate indicated in our other discussion that "consensus might be that an interview is good enough in this circumstance". However, if that isn't good enough for you, all of these sources; ( [[1]] , [[2]] , [[3]] , [[4]] ) describe the film as having an ensemble cast in articles that were written after the film was released. Huggums537 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that if we took this to WP:RSN, the folks there would agree with me. Sources from a year before a film was released are inherently unreliable for the content of the film, especially after the film has been released and other sources started contradicting them. There is no shortage of sources describing this film as a Captain America film with a single clear protagonist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, according to the source in the article, this film was nominated for an award in the "Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture" category. This demonstrates that "ensemble" is an appropriate industry standard term used in conjunction with this specific film. Huggums537 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If you think the film being nominated for a "stunt ensemble" awardis the same as the film having an ensemble cast, then I have to question your competence to continue editing this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it is the same thing. I'm showing that the film does in fact belong in the ensemble category according to industry standards that go well beyond the casting. Huggums537 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Please take your inscrutable nitpicking elsewhere. This talk page section is clearly titled "ensemble cast"?, not "stunt ensemble"?. I have no earthly idea what you are talking about at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've debated this topic long enough both here and here. If you wish to take the issue to WP:RSN, then please feel free to do so. Huggums537 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You have debated nothing. You wrote a string of nonsense remarks on WT:FILM that indicated that either (a) you hadn't read the rest of the discussion or (b) you hadn't understood it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This makes several times now that you have remarked on my ability to understand things or my competence. Please stop making personal comments about me and stick to the relevant issues. I am not the topic of discussion. If you can't make your point without being derogatory, then it's probably a useless point anyway. I have been civil with you, so please do the same for me. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You have been anything but civil, as you have repeatedly attempted (as below) to make this discussion about me and how I feel, rather than what the article should say. You saw my edit to this article, checked my contribs, and decided to follow me to the WT:FILM discussion that had already essentially concluded. I, on the other hand, have been going out of my way to stay focused on content, as seen for example in my having removed the text The evasiveness of certain users on the talk page regarding how they interpret the source's use of "ensemble cast", simply insisting that that's what the source says, has not helped matters from my initial draft of this comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Now you are clearly making false accusations against me, as the record proves things could not have happened the way you say they did. The way it actually went down is first, I engaged in the discussion at WT:FILM, where YOU pointed everyone to this article, and consequently, it's edits, then we ended up here. Please get your facts in order before you go around making false allegations against people based on what you think probably happened. I suggest you go back and compare the time stamps and you will see that I made my first edit at WT:FILM several hours before your edits here. There is no possible way I could have seen your edits here then followed you there if I edited there first. Huggums537 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right. I apologize for the mistake. I see now that you had made a bunch of comments on unrelated WT:FILM threads before I opened the recent discussion of "ensemble casts", so it does make more sense that you would have noticed that discussion first. Once again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I read your comments and made a conclusion based on them, rather than analyzing your edit history to figure out how you had first come across the problem. Your comments at WT:FILM were more interested in this article than in what the rest of the discussion over there had been about (your first comment is a good example), and you did indicate a general ignorance of the discussion that had taken place before you got there (again, your first comment said "I agree" but you were agreeing with something no one had said; OID had basically the same assessment here). Either (a) you hadn't read the discussion there, (b) you hadn't understood the discussion there, or (c) you had both read and understood the entire discussion, but were choosing to pretend it had a different outcome to make a point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Or, (d) I read the discussion, and understood it perfectly well, because my comprehension is more than capable of recognizing these speculative "multiple choices" as a meager attempt to discredit someone. Huggums537 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. However, I'm more interested in resolving this dispute so this argument can be at an end. Therefore, I've accepted your proposal below to just unlink the phrase as a compromise edit we can all live with. Huggums537 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I will ask you once again to please stop making personal references about me that attempt to establish a false sense of "general ignorance" and lack of understanding on my part. Huggums537 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


How about just unlinking it?

Hey, a thought just occurred to me while penning my response to User:Only in death on RSN: how about we just remove the link from "ensemble cast"? Our ensemble cast article defines the term in a technical/traditional way, but a lot of sources use it in a completely different sense, and seems pretty clear that the sources describing this film as having an "ensemble cast" are employing the latter definition.

My main problem with the current wording is that it looks to me very much like we are describing the film as having an ensemble cast as defined in our article on the subject, but this problem could be essentially eliminated if we just removed the links to our article on the subject. See, we can't justify saying the film has an ensemble cast by citing an external source, if we are using the term in a different sense than the external source is, but if we didn't write in a fashion that implied we were using the term in a different sense then we wouldn't have this problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to unlink it. You are still trying to define what "ensemble cast" means in this article according to your own interpretation of what you saw in the film, which by your own admission, is a foggy recollection. Huggums537 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for once again missing something, but ... when did I say I had a foggy recollection of the film? I've seen it five times, once within the last three months. What I said on RSN (I think?) was that I don't remember whether Downey, Jr.'s screen time in minutes was roughly equivalent to that of Evans, or significantly less. But even if the former was the case, I think calling a film with two main protagonists with intertwining storylines an "ensemble piece" is stretching it. My memory of the overall structure of the film is just fine, and I think if I asked you or Favre to tell me off the top of your head how many minutes of screen time the "two leads" had each you would not be able to tell me, even if you had just seen the film half an hour ago. It wouldn't mean your recollection was "foggy". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to define what it means in this article according to my own interpretation of the film: I am defining what it means in this article according to the definition given in the lead of the linked article. If you think that the film has an ensemble cast as defined in our article on the topic, then you need a different source, because the current one was written by someone who hadn't seen the film and couldn't form a judgement of whether the film included a lot of cast members of roughly equal importance and no single protagonist; he clearly meant that the film had a cast that included a lot of famous actors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's the deal. When the typical definition of a term differs from the way it is used by a particular source (or group of sources), then proper in-text attribution to those sources is usually needed. We shouldn't pretend there is a new definition of the term. If the characters are all elements within the same story, it is not an ensemble cast by definition. Ensemble casts exist when there is a collection of stories involving different characters which may or may not unify around a common theme. Each story holds roughly the same significance as any other being told. Love Actually is a perfect example of a film that features an ensemble cast. If we feel the need to use ensemble cast in this article, then the best place to do so is in the body, where the necessary in-text attribution is easier to state. It looks awkward to do so in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: Huh. That's an interesting take on the issue, but by that definition wouldn't Avengers: Age of Ultron also not have an ensemble cast? I haven't actually read all that much on the subject, and was going by what the Wikipedia article said. (AOU definitely needs the cast list in its lead to be drastically trimmed, as it includes at least two one-minute cameos, but that's really a separate issue.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
When you look at the MCU as a whole and take the characters' individual films into account, then from that perspective the Avengers installments tend to represent ensemble films. They are just the piece that tie all of the individual stories together. Without the individual films, however, that wouldn't be the case. And even with them, it's still a questionable designation, considering characters in ensemble films tend to cross paths without being consciously aware of how they are interconnected. The Captain America films also tie some of the smaller pieces together, but to a lesser extent. The central focus is still on Captain America as the lead protagonist, which breaks another rule that ensemble films strive to avoid.
It's not always clear where to draw the line, but applying the label to CA films is one of the more blatant misuses of the term. Still, there are sources that use it, so the compromise should be to attribute any mention to the corresponding source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I want to be reasonable, but more than that, I want to be done with this dispute with Hijiri 88. He has offered a compromise to unlink the phrase, and I stubbornly refused. I admit my mistake here. This is a reasonable compromise. If Favre1fan93 is agreeable to this, then I say we have a consensus, and we can be done with this silly argument. Huggums537 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC) I have removed the link as requested. This is not an admission that anyone is right or wrong, only that it's an acceptable and reasonable compromise. Huggums537 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely a gesture of goodwill that you're willing to concede some ground, but I'm not sure that's the best compromise that's been put forth. It doesn't take into account the most recent proposal, which is to remove completely from the lead and allow its presence in the body with in-text attribution only. The problem remains that we are using an alternate definition of the term as defined by one or two sources, as opposed to the term's general meaning. The compromise from my point of view is this: if editors want to continue doing that make sure the source is clearly credited in prose. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for overlooking your compromise. My focus has been on this intensity with hijiri, and his "compromise" was much more prominent since he posted the offer up in the big bold letters of a subsection. Anyway, I relied on what he said to represent himself, which was, and I quote, "this problem could be essentially eliminated if we just removed the links to our article on the subject". So, taking him at his word, I thought this was a very reasonable way to "eliminate the problem". But, that was a misrepresentation because now all of a sudden that doesn't seem good enough to solve the problem as we were led to believe. Huggums537 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
First, no need to apologize. I realize this discussion has become heated to some extent, and I was attempting to be an objective voice in the conversation. I do think you've effectively outlined a contradiction of sorts, but aside from that, it does appear the proposal has evolved. I'm not sure if it's one Hijiri 88 supports. If it is, then it would be a reasonable explanation of why the original proposal has not been readily accepted by that editor. In any case, part of this discussion seems to have branched off to WP:RSN#Source for claiming Captain America: Civil War has an "ensemble cast"?, so I'll likely abstain from making further comments here until that discussion is considered closed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it should be clarified on this page outside the below collapsed section that, from my point of view, the compromise I proposed at 10:37, 10 July 2017 was not the one Huggums accepted at 17:36, 11 July 2017, as he/she unlinked the phrase in the lead, but challenged me (below) when I did the same in the body. Anyway, I'm done here. If anyone wants to support GoneIn60's proposal, know that I also have expressed my support for it. But I'd really rather never post on this page again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic, back and forth discussion between Huggums537 and Hijiri 88 focusing on edit behavior
(continued from 13:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC) post): This is evidenced by the fact that he took the opportunity to sneak in the removal of a reference when he discovered that I missed the removal of one of the links here. And then here again only minutes later he removed another reference that had nothing to do with the links with the added comment in the edit summary that states, "well, the argument over what exactly it means would continue." This was done after I posted that I wanted the argument to be over and was willing to accept his solution. Obviously he wants to continue to argue and is suffering from some kind of "buyers remorse" that he could have "got more out of the deal" because if he was sincere about his "compromise" and genuinely meant what he said, then he would be happy with the results, not dissatisfied. You can't reconcile the difference between what he said and how he is now behaving. Furthermore, when I realized he would accuse me falsely (which he admitted to. See further up the section.) and that he is willing to misrepresent himself, that's when it was time to reassess any involvement with him and come to the determination that distancing is the best solution. Regards. Huggums537 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Huggums537: Okay, I need to address this, but I'm not sure if I'll bother with the rest: "he took the opportunity to sneak in the removal of a reference" and "here again only minutes later" is a pretty unfair characterization of my two-part edit. This article's unusual citation style makes it damn-near impossible on my iPad's Safari app to remove an entry in the middle of the massive list of references in the same edit as removing the inline citation in question. Only removing the inline citation causes a script error as the source is invoked and named but never cited, so I was obligated to remove it. Yes, I could have left it for someone else to do, but that would risk them simply reverting my edit as an incomplete edit that introduced a script error. If I Ctrl+F the edit source page, it just tells me thay the script appears somewhere on the page either above or below the currently displayed portion -- this actually made my "sneaky" edit only "minutes later" extremely difficult and frustrating, and if anything I should have been thanked for taking the trouble to do it (twice!) rather than wait for someone else to do it for me.
And the only reason I removed the citation was that it was technically unnecessary. We don't include inline citations for peripheral pieces of BLUE information, as it confuses the more intellectually curious of our readers who check the sources and wonder why we have one source that verifies the content and one that verifies something that has nothing to do with the content. If one interprets "ensemble" as meaning the cast includes a lot of famous people (which it obviously does), that does not need a citation. This was the same reason I removed this citation from an unrelated article a month ago. There was nothing "sneaky" or untoward about this action -- it was purely a technical fix.
The compromise I proposed that you said you accepted was to remove all links to the article on "ensemble cast": your not having done this, and then attacked me as you did above for my doing it for you is not appropriate, and you should probably strike that portion of your comment.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I think Gonein60's proposal is better than my earlier one. I just don't want to personally waste time fighting to implement it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, please. Spare me with the, "I had technical difficulties, you should give me an award" routine. Every ploy that you utilize is being exposed. I went through the trouble to find out that you have solicited GoneIn60 on his talk page to collaborate with you about the little problem you're having over here regarding how you sure wish you hadn't said, "this problem could be essentially eliminated if we just removed the links to our article on the subject". So, don't even pretend like you "just don't want to personally waste time fighting to implement it", when the truth is you expect to sit back and let GoneIn60 do your dirty work for you. If I were GoneIn60, I would consider a re-evaluation of the whole situation with you. Huggums537 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
reveal the fact that [I] solicited another user (from your edit summary)? Really? User:GoneIn60 Had already commented here before I messaged them, and it seems pretty clear from the above string of events that you only "accepted" my proposal in order to preemptively shoot down any proposal they might make. You were firmly against my proposal at first, and the only thing that changed was that another user spontaneously decided to comment here, and took an "even more extreme" line than I did. You then unilaterally implemented roughly half of my proposal, and then when I finished the job for you, you attacked me (see above). And your every action since then makes it look very much like, whatever your actual motivation for unilateral disarmament, it wasn't so we c[ould] be done with this silly argument you have gone way out of your way in this and two other fora to continue the silly argument.
Spare me with the, "I had technical difficulties, you should give me an award" routine. No, this is a fact. I contribute primarily using Safari for iPad. The same is true for a lot of users, and they will all agree with me that removing an inline citation from an article whose refs are organized like this one's in the same edit as removing the ref itself from the list would be extremely difficult, as one would have to manually scroll down through the entire article. With Windows on a desktop, all one has to do is Ctrl+F and the edit box automatically zooms to the text searched for, but with my system it only tells me whether the text I am searching for is above or below the currently displayed portion. Under these circumstances (indeed, under almost any circumstances), making a single edit in two parts is perfectly acceptable and in-line with policy -- nothing "sneaky" about it.
Every ploy that you utilize is being exposed. What ploys? What are you talking about? Seriously, I thought you had decided to drop this?
you have solicited GoneIn60 on his talk page to collaborate with you about the little problem you're having over here Again, GoneIn60 had already commented here -- I specifically contacted them because you had apparently decided that shutting down this discussion and continuing to fight me elsewhere was better than acknowledging their proposal.
you sure wish you hadn't said, "this problem could be essentially eliminated if we just removed the links to our article on the subject" Kindly stop telling other editors what they "wish" and desire. You attacked my proposal immediately, and by the time GoneIn60 showed up it was dead in the water. By the time you "accepted" it it was no longer a compromise proposal -- it was a unilateral move on your part that ran completely counter to the spirit of my original proposal (which was basically "make the minimal change possible in order to minimalize drahma").
don't even pretend like you "just don't want to personally waste time fighting to implement it" Honestly, I have no idea how you think you can get away with making any of these remarks -- have you ever read WP:CIVIL? Or WP:NPA?
the truth is you expect to sit back and let GoneIn60 do your dirty work for you See above. I don't need anyone doing "my dirty work" for me. I'm just sick and tired of having to deal with people who have absolutely no respect for our policies regarding conduct toward other editors. You chose to reignite this discussion with your nonstop attacks on me here, at WT:FILM, and at WP:RSN, even after you had "accepted my compromise", and I am not about to accept a "compromise" that I originally proposed to minimize drahma when the result is increased drahma. But that isn't even how it happened -- you (deliberately?) only implemented half of my proposal, and then attacked my "sneaky" implementation of the other half.
If I were GoneIn60, I would consider a re-evaluation of the whole situation with you. @GoneIn60: So ... what do you think we should do here? Huggums clearly isn't willing to focus on content, at least while I am still in the picture -- if I voluntarily pull out, would you mind picking up the reins? Maybe open an RFC? I think Favre and the other long-term contributors might be willing to agree to your proposal, but the only way to be sure they would reply would be to contact them directly ("soliciting"...), and beyond them showing up and convincing Huggums, it doesn't look like the latter is willing to budge.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's not tap dance around what really happened here. It's immaterial that he commented here first because the timestamps show that you went to his his page after I accepted your proposal and said I was done in order to have him reopen the dialog back up with me and get the argument going again. GoneIn60 and I are the ones who fell for it here, not you. Now, I see you have followed us over to the Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) page so you can harass me and do some more arguing over there as well. Huggums537 (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No, the timestamps don't show that. The timestamps show that I went to his his talk page after you pretended to accept my proposal but continue to make little jabs at me anyway here, on WT:FILM, and WP:RSN. And it's weird how the two of you could take an issue I first brought up, expand it to another, closely related, article (on one of my favourite films, for what it's worth), and then you could accuse me of "following you". Yes, I am sick of having to put up with your unending snide remarks and assumptions of bad faith, and I would probably sleep better if I just ignored you from now on, but that's my choice to make. And I should warn you that the last time someone claimed I was "following them" to a bunch of articles I had edited years before they even created an account it ... didn't end well for them. (Yes, it seems I hadn't directly edited the GOTG1 article or talk page before today, but this is pretty revealing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや)
Haha! Thanks for "revealing" that. It only proves that you never edited that talk page until you followed me there, and as for the rest of them, well of course it would make sense that you edited them first since you've been on here years compared to my months of editing. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. Huggums537 (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
You randomly showed up here after I briefly alluded to this page in a WT:FILM thread that was more about Murder on the Orient Express, at roughly the same time as you posted a reply to a logged-out comment I made on Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron four months before you registered your account. You also hijacked said WT:FILM discussion to make it all about how you didn't like my edit to this article. You should not be accusing me of hounding you, especially to pages to which you forum-shopped your dispute with me without notifying me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not required to notify you about discussions that aren't about you, and trying to turn the tables by saying I'm the one following you because I posted to the same page as an IP user is weak at best. Huggums537 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The IP user was me, as was clear from its contribs.[5][6][7][8] I posted something about the illegible cast list on the talk page six months ago, and then last week mentioned the use of the phrase "ensemble cast" in the article on WT:FILM; you saw that mention and went to the article mentioned. That is following me, apparently with the intention of checking if I had directly edited the article (as you did here), regardless of whether you knew that the logged-out comment underneath which you made a direct reference to me was actually made by me. Similarly, the fact that I had directly edited that talk page and the article while logged-in is irrelevant, as is the fact that I hadn't done so on the GOTG1 article or talk page while logged-in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Captain America: Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok why is Tony Stark/ Iron Man the only character in the whole film and article that is linked to Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of him in the MCU and not redirected to Iron Man from the comics like every other character. This is extremely misleading as it may lead people to believe that Iron Man is not based on any comic book character. IS there any reasoning behind this. Extremely confusing. - Stuv3 (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's because he is the only with an MCU-specific article. If others had them, we would use those as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Why? This is extremely misleading, they should be redirected to the character they are based on, not who performs the character. Stuv3 (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
How is this confusing? If other MCU-specific characters had articles, they would direct there too. Since Tony Stark has one, it is best to link to that article. Otherwise, we'd be misleading readers by not linking to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not redirected to RDJ but the specific version of Tony Stark. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes Obviously, this is still misleading however, and should not be the case. Stuv3 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, now is it misleading to direct readers to an article about the version of the character they are reading about? That article can then further direct them to the original comics version should they be inclined to read more on that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

German archvillain

"Brühl, who was cast due to his German accent". How do we know? Any sources? Why was a german accent desirable - because Germans are Nazis by nature .. in the Avengers universe at least? All Nazis were german, okay, well, almost.
Then again, there seems to be some shady business with german industry going on. Boring half-abandoned german airports as location for the shootout. Iron-mans Audi sports car is displayed prominently, again, as in dozens high-budget hollywood movies. US automotive companies have no interest to showcase their products? Except for Transformers? --Edoe (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That is because these arrogant, infantile hollywood schmucks don't know the difference between croatia and germany, hence horrible "german" spoken by actors and german police in romania, which is utterly nonsensical.

Adding in Cell Phone

At the end of the movie, Captain America sends Tony Stark a cell phone and note telling him that he is sorry that they could not agree on the Sokovia Accords and that if Tony ever needs him, to call him and he will be there.

This should be added in since it is a pivotal part in the future movie, Infinity War.

This article is about this film, not a future one. And it is not a pivotal part of this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Captain America: The Serpent Society" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Captain America: The Serpent Society. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Clash of the Avengers" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clash of the Avengers. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

chang the pic of the drector for me pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismeman (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I recently made and edit to the plot section of this article, linking a reference to Black Widow's "exile" to the article on the recent movie that portrays Black Widow's life in that time period.

Favre1fan93 reverted that edit based on WP:EGG and I tried to discuss this reversion on her/his talk page. I was, however, in the wrong, as discussions about an article's content belong on that article's talk page. I'm correcting my mistake by bringing the discussion here.
My following comments are a reply to Adamstom.97's comment there (I'm also pinging Facu-el_Millo, as she/he also replied there and, thus, should be notified of this continuation.).
Adamstom.97 wrote: "If [the link between the 2 movies] needs to be explained then a note can be added with additional information from outside of the plot summary, generally with reliable sources to support that content. You can see such a note earlier in the same plot summary about the events of Age of Ultron. But in this case no such note is necessary because there is nothing to be explained here, the link you were adding was simply a 'see more' link that should not be added to a plot summary.".

I disagree. I didn't simply figure it'd be an enjoyable addition: as often happens when I make edits to Wikipedia, I added that because I was looking for that very information while reading the article. After watching the Black Widow movie and the recent Disney+ series, I was looking for a refresher on MCU continuity and trying to place the movie within the timeline.
The article for the movie states, in its introduction: "Set immediately after the events of Captain America: Civil War (2016), the film sees Romanoff on the run and forced to confront a conspiracy tied to her past.". Civil War's article, however, did not reference back the Black Widow movie.
The link I added merely intended to expedite future readers' attempts to do the same piecing together of movies within the shared continuity.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with the directive against "Easter Egg"/"Submarine" links, I understand it is widely accepted styling consensus and won't fight that policy – at least not now and certainly not in this talk section.
What I do challenge is the notion that this link between the 2 movies has no place in Civil War's article. Shared continuity is a significant part of a viewer's understanding of movie plots within a movie series, all the more so in a highly self-referential franchise as the MCU.
The absence of a reference to the Black Widow movie in the Civil War article's plot section may mean nothing, but being actively against the addition of such reference implies the former movie is somehow irrelevant to the context, even though it is a direct sequel, from the PoV of the Black Widow character.
— Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 10:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to discuss this film, and Black Widow doesn't really have a bearing on this film because it didn't exist when Civil War was made/released. This film does have an effect on Black Widow though since Black Widow was specifically made to fit around Civil War's continuity. Unless a later film has some sort of noteworthy impact on an earlier one, we shouldn't be going back to change them each time a new film is released. If you are interested in how the films of the MCU fit together, the most appropriate place is the timeline section at Marvel Cinematic Universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The link I added merely intended to expedite future readers' attempts to do the same piecing together of movies within the shared continuity.
Tertiary sources like Wikipedia work by citing and summarising reliable sources. If you can cite and summarise a source that does the above (or anything else that you've mentioned), feel free to add that to the article. However I don't think you'll find such a statement in this film, so it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to add anything like that to the plot section since it's only citing the film itself. DonQuixote (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
We try to limit these references only for details which are relevant to understanding the plot of the film in question, not just to trace connections with other films. We also add footnotes for some kinda cryptic post-credits scenes or teases, often using outside sources, such as the identity of the twins in the Winter Soldier post-credits scene or Thanos' ship in the Ragnarok post-credits scene. This however doesn't help explain this film at all, and we don't clarify every connection a film has with future films. The connection with Black Widow can be mentioned somewhere else in the article, but not on the plot summary because it is not relevant to the understanding of this film's plot, especially considering that Black Widow came out five years after it. —El Millo (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
All of your answers boil down to strict obedience to community rules and/or guidelines. But seems to me you are ignoring the purpose of an encyclopedia.
I would understand this opposition to the inclusion of a link between the movies if I was attempting to reference an obscure derivative work with no bearing on the overall context of the movie series. E.g., if I was attempting to add a footnote pointing out so-and-so wrote a very famous piece of fanfic about some of the plot points. That's absolutely not the case. Both movies exist within a franchise that is explicitly self-referential and mindful of continuity, not only retroactively, but anticipatorily. They were both commissioned, produced and overseen by the same company and purposefully made to fit a broad narrative. This narrative may be ongoing and, thus, open-ended, but it is (or is meant to be) a singular narrative, nevertheless, and each work that is "canonically" added to it is a part of it by definition.
The source you're asking for exists. It's the encyclopedia itself. If article about A cites reliable sources to say A is linked to B, then article about B should automatically be allowed to do the same: cite the same sources and mention the same link. Granted, it doesn't strictly need to do so, but saying it shouldn't do so for the reasons you presented sounds to me like information loss in exchange for stringent abidance to stylistic apprehension.
An encyclopedia collates and summarizes data. It's not meant to be stylistically tidy above all else. It's meant to inform. Ultimately, any encyclopedia (As do any dictionary, almanac, catalog, thesaurus, digest, database, compendium etc.) is an effort to disseminate information. You're appealing to a narrow PoV approach to the understanding of the movie ("What would someone know about that movie at the time it came out?") to withhold information from potential readers, simply because "it's how we do it here".
— Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 23:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Our answers do not boil down to strict obedience to community rules and/or guidelines, you should have another read of them. To clarify what we are talking about, here are some examples to compare this to. Avengers: Endgame begins with In 2018, twenty-three days after Thanos killed half of all life in the universe, a statement that obviously relies on understanding Avengers: Infinity War so we include a link to that article. Here we have the statement Romanoff goes into exile which requires no extra explanation so obviously not the same situation there. Minor roles in The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 were retroactively changed by Spider-Man: Homecoming, so we went back and added notes about those changes to those articles, but in this case Black Widow has not retroactively changed anything about Civil War for us to note. In general for a spin-off, like Black Widow basically is for Civil War, we would usually have a small section at the latter that discusses the former, but there is consensus for the MCU to limit these sections to direct sequels only and leave any other such discussions to Marvel Cinematic Universe, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four. So that just leaves us with the idea that we should include a note simply to point out the continuity connection, and unless there is reliable, noteworthy commentary on that connection (which I have not seen, most commentary seems to be about the continuity connections between Black Widow and Endgame) we should not be pointing out the continuity just because. That would be trivial WP:FANCRUFT. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Before I answer any of the points you made above, I'll ask this: are you willing to logically, neutrally argue your position and be open to my arguments to defend mine?
I ask this because your answers – even back at Favre1fan93's talk page – don't sound like that. They sound like you're having to school me, a "beginner"/"outsider", on how "things are done around here".
(Please note I'm talking about tone, not the content of what you wrote.)
I understand you – like Favre1fan93 and likely others participating in this – are a senior editor, highly praised and laureated on Wikipedia and your stances obviously carry increased weight (due to experience and familiarity, I'd assume). Nevertheless, I'd still expect the contributions of any regular user to be taken as valid and worthy of consideration, at least potentially. That is the spirit of a wiki project, as I understand it.
I'm not trying to degrade this discussion into personal bickering. Quite the contrary.
I can't (and, frankly, wouldn't want to) "trump" the authority of your seniority and have things my way. What is left for me is to discuss the issue that was raised about my edit and walk away either having been convinced it was mistaken or having convinced you and the others that it was valid. That is good and precisely what I want. Is it possible?
Because, if you have already made your mind up and is only explaining to me why I'm decidedly wrong, it's simply unproductive for all of us to go on with this.
— Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 03:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
If you actually read my comment, you will see that I have literally just logically, neutrally argue[d my] position, so please stick to the topic and stop trying to turn this into some sort of personal issue. Going on about how I am "senior" and you are a "beginner"/"outsider" is silly and irrelevant. You made a bold change that I and several others disagreed with, I have clearly laid out my position with examples and now it is your turn to respond. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mention seniority in an attempt to turn this into some sort of personal issue, but because you and other users involved in this discussion have actual editorial privileges within Wikipedia.
This means, deep down, this is not a debate, but an entreaty, in which I'm trying to convince you and the others to allow me to make and edit.
This is not a ploy to make me look like a victim. It's a statement of fact: if I fail to convince you and the others my point is valid, I simply won't be allowed to make and edit (and, should I insist, my edits would probably be labeled as vandalism).
Unless you're willing to deny this – to maintain there is some way, whatever it be, that I could do some edit on this article with which you and the other editors disagree – this can't possibly be a debate. It'll always be a plea, ultimately.
And the reason I pointed this out is: when one exercises a privilege in this manner, one should be extra generous, cautious not to trample the other side's stance and opinions. I obviously have no way of proving you (or any other editor) didn't extend me such consideration. But I did feel the way I described: schooled, as an outsider that doesn't understand the ways of Wikipedia. Having my question branded as silly and irrelevant only reinforced that perception.
If you were the only one answering, I would have considered my question answered negatively and given up. Since there are others willing to continue the debate, I'll try my best to argue my points, below. Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 05:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

MCU is known for its shared universe, and so, if we had to link every single plot detail that's remotely referenced in another film, it would be an easter eggs mess. So, only films that are relevant to understanding the plot should be linked or explained through a note. And it has nothing to do with "seniority". New ideas are welcome but obviously we have to ensure consensus and consistency across WP:MCU for quality content. — Starforce13 04:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems other editors have covered this discussion well on why the link or note would be inappropriate, but the one thing I would add is, generally adding a link or note to a future released movie is not done in the plot, since as other stated, that film/property obviously had not released at the time Civil War had so there is no reason to expand upon what is shown in this film. Any future-looking connections should be at the bottom of the article with a "Future/Sequel" section, and again as stated, since the MCU is so interconnected, only direct sequel info should be included here. And since Black Widow is not, we have not included the info in either place. Though I will say, while Natasha is not the main storyline thread in this film, perhaps linking to Black Widow in a "See also" section might be appropriate in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Good suggestion Favre, I also think that could be an appropriate compromise. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Really? As others have pointed out, owing to the MCU's connected nature, there will always be connections between plot threads of films. The plot of Civil War also directly links to other films like Homecoming (from post-credits), Ant-Man and the Wasp (Scott's house arrest) and Infinity War (Avengers split up). Why should Black Widow be singled out in this case for a see also link, especially since connections to other films are part and parcel of all MCU films? It could equally be argued that it should be included in the see also section at The Avengers (2012 film), due to the mention of "Dreykov's daughter". But we wouldn't do that per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so I don't believe a see also linking is necessary here. IronManCap (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
We also don't always need a compromise. Sometimes the right answer isn't in the middle between two sides, but on one side of the discussion. I also thought it might be worth a mention, but as IronManCap pointed out, there's tons of connections to later films especially in Civil War, where many main MCU characters are featured. We don't seem to have a justification to only include Black Widow and not the others, while including all of them would be excessive and not in line with every other MCU article, which to me makes it clearer why probably a mention isn't merited here. —El Millo (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe I failed to convey the essence of my argument, because I clung too much to the relation between the 2 movies. That relation is secondary to the point I'm trying to make, which's to do with the way an encyclopedia should be composed and used – especially an online encyclopedia.
I wrote a paragraph above in which I tried to explain why I believe rules about "things Wikipedia should avoid" should rank much lower than the dissemination of information within the encyclopedia's priorities. But, perhaps, I didn't stress that point enough.
Linking between related subjects is an age-old practice of scholastic and/or referential works, through the use of footnotes, marginalia, tags, annotations and so on, long before computers were even envisioned. It baffles me that a community-sourced online encyclopedia would strive to curb that "connectedness", precisely now that electronic means enable us to enrich it so much more.
I'm not detached from stylistic concerns. I understand they have merit beyond mere æsthetics and that the functionality of the encyclopedia could be harmed or even nullified by excessive details, irrelevant additions and such. However, this appraisal of what is and isn't relevant is dicey, at best. Even the language of the aforelinked WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy indicates the only hard criteria for inclusion of information in an article is the existence of independent sources.
If I understood sources, in this context, as an outright bureaucratic impediment, I could relatively easily have dug up a handful of news articles discussing how Black Widow would reveal what happened to Natasha Romanoff between Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War: it was publicized and discussed exhaustively, ever since Disney revealed the plot outline of the movie. But I don't (and never did) think that is the point.
The point, to me, from the beginning, was to expedite and facilitate a reader's understanding of the connections between the movies. As I said above, this concern arose from my own reading of the articles, in search of information.
This is what I'm actually arguing. This is the reason I'm against Wikipedia's rules/consensus against "Easter egg links": I see it as an almost unexplainable denial of the nature and capabilities of an online, crowdsourced website.
That's why I still can't understand how a reference – formatting specificities aside – to a continuity link very much intended by the creators and owners of the franchise could detract from the article, instead of improving it.
When Starforce13 says if we had to link every single plot detail that's remotely referenced in another film, it would be an easter eggs mess I disagree in 2 ways:
  • A major movie within the franchise bridging the gap in a character's storyline between 2 of its other movies is not a "remote reference to a plot detail".
  • Adding a note indicating that part (A part, it's worth noting, that was left inferred or even omitted for 3-5 years, until Disney actively decided it warranted coverage and made the movie depicting it.) of the story's continuity is covered elsewhere within the franchise wouldn't even remotely approach turning the article into an easter eggs mess.

P.S.: I seem to remember, from when my original edit was reverted, all those months ago, browsing the user pages of some of the people on this talk page and finding out they are part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. It seems foolish to even mention this means they have a profound familiarity with the franchise.
Because of that, I urge these people to consider if such a level of knowledge and understanding of the subject may be hampering their relatability to the average reader, for which relations between works, characters and plots of the MCU may be not as obvious or even inexistent. Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 07:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Budget reference

@Favre1fan93: Why do we need three references that say the budget is 250? Looks less user-friendly when they all say same thing in a different way. The only information relevant to them for cited next to budget is 250 which they agree on Indagate (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

BOM/Numbers are generally estimating budget info so in theory that one should be removed, but it's common on many film articles so it isn't worth the reverting of additions to remove it. Deadline's analysis article further confirms this number, as does FilmLA's report, so they are all helpful to reconfirm the number. Looks less user-friendly isn't an issue when we have the sources to further support the material in article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
BOM/NUM seems best source of the three as updated and collects info from elsewhere. We don't need any sources to "reconfirm the number" though, they're redundant and makes it less clear for the reader. Everything needs to be referenced but when there's three references to same number that can create unnecessary confusion. We can reconfirm the number by looking at additional reliable sources without citing them. Indagate (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
BOM and NUM are particularly reliable for box office, not for budget. The other two are more reliable for budgets. —El Millo (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Why the difference in reliability between budget and box office? Why need both of the other two if both reliable? Indagate (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Different sites are best for different things. BOM and NUM are especially good for box office, but not especially good for budget. Using Deadline and the Feature Film Study for the budget is better for the budget, and BOM could be removed there. —El Millo (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Exactly what I was saying. But because BOM/Numbers are so widely used to source budgets on film articles, removing it would be more of a hassle of trying to keep it removed from an editor looking to readd it, that it's not worth removing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Future section

Is there a reason the "Future" section is needed? None of the content there directly relates to this film, besides being "speculation" of Captain America, and I don't think TFATWS Disney+ series is relevant to this film directly. I would be in favor of removing the section, but wanted discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's equivalent to what we have at Iron Man 3, potential sequel and significant spin-off. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is the closest thing there is to a direct Civil War sequel. Pratically all the Captain America-related characters from that film except Rogers have main roles, including Wilson, Barnes, Sharon Carter, and Zemo. —El Millo (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no speculation here, we have some reliably sourced information about the next Captain America film that should obviously be listed, and that information makes it clear that there should be some details for the series as well to make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The “future” section is relevant due to the “Falcon/Winter Soldier” series, Chris Evans’ possible return for a project, as well as the upcoming fourth “Captain America” film. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Cast - Black Panther - powers

Should Black Panther's power source be mentioned if it's not revealed in this film and link to source is an article published after this film's release and is dedicated to BP movie that came later? Gevorg89 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Theme: loss

I'm surprised that more is not made here of the film's theme of loss.

Stark has lost Pepper and his parents. The mother who waits for Stark has lost her son. T'Challa looses his father. Cap loses Peggy and his shield. Rhodie loses his ability to walk. Zemo is avenging his lost family. LeapUK (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We do not analyze films ourselves. That would constitute original research. —El Millo (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War/Archive_4&oldid=1240517388"