Talk:Captain America: The Winter Soldier/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Do we need this page NOW?

On the Captain America talk page, barely a discussion was going on, on whether CA2 should have its own page. The short conclusion was that it shouldn't have a page, as there isn't enough information about it.
And what seems to be on this page, was moved over from the Captain America page, so there isn't anything new here, except an excuse to have a new page for the film. So do we need this film REALLY now? Charlr6 (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree, I restored the redirect. If this continues, I'll send it to WP:AFD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Incubator for Captain America: The Winter Soldier

This is just a notice that an article for Captain America: The Winter Soldier is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Captain America: The Winter Soldier until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Captain America: The Winter Soldier is now at Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The old Captain America: The Winter Soldier is now at Captain America: The Winter Soldier/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

LatinoReview

Should we be including the Georges St-Pierre info from this site? I wasn't really sure so I left it be for now. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the source to Sportnet, which has separately confirmed the news and appears to be a much more reliable source. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work, still its curious that the trades haven't picked this up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Atwell's Involvement

Has any source other than Stanley Tucci's statement confirmed that Hayley Atwell will reprise her role as Peggy Carter for a flashback? Tucci's statement is still listed in the section of the page for the film's pre-production, but there's nothing about it under the casting section. Nor can I find anything else that talks about it. Even then, could Tucci's statement be considered proof of anything (personally, I say no but I'm open to other opinions), and if not does it even belong on the page?
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

She's not listed as being in the cast because we have conflicting sources. The information is still valid elsewhere because per WP:V, when there are conflicting sources, we present both sides.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If she isn't listed, then both sides are represented.

LoveWaffle (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

IPs?

Is it just me, or as the movie progresses are we seeing a lot more non-constructive anon-IP edits? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is limited to this at all, Iron Man 3 has been a mess for months, every single day since Batman: Arkham Origins was announced, at least one IP has changed sequel to prequel at Batman: Arkham City. I still don't see why registration isn't required at a minimum to use the site, it isn't hard or restrictive. Or you get Ip's like the a-hole at Iron Man 3 who posted spoilers before it opens, and they probably that from the a-holes at What Culture who were for some reason allowed to see it early without restriction on them posting every plot point on the web. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Iron Man 3 is a real chore to keep clean. I think it might be reasonable to request semi-protection for the Iron Man 3, Thor 2 and Cap 2 pages. And Arkham Origins, if it's a constant mess like these movie pages tend to be. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I took IM3 off my watchlist, but it's pretty routine to semi-protect high-profile films around the time of release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. I just took IM3 off my watch list as well as I figured spoilers would be flooding in. I would be in favor if we wanted to get IM3 at least, semi protected. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment from the screenwriter

A comment from the screenwriter about how he approached writing a character seems like a perfectly valid inclusion, why was this removed? The screenplay and the writer's vision inform the character quite a bit. I think Feige's quote about Captain America is appropriate too, but it is a bit further removed from the actual development of the character. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so, but there tends to be no shortage of material to add to these sections and it being a "cast" section, emphasis should be kept on the cast members. However I'm not highly opposed to keeping this material until it can be replaced by better material. Although the Fiege quote needs some editing to put it in context.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, I readded it for the time being. I think I put it into slightly better context. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominic Cooper's Involvement

Is there a better source that confirms Howard Stark's involvement? The source provided is a short quote from a print magazine dated for July, and no link to an online location of the article. I doubt it's fake, but nothing about the quote indicates it's from Dominic Cooper.
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Its an offline source, I can post a scan of the article later if you wish.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather see an article from a trusted online source that talks about it.

LoveWaffle (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Again the original source is offline only, which is perfectly acceptable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering how every other source is online, it would be more appropriate otherwise. If the offline source is the only source that speaks of Cooper's involvement, I would bring its reliability into question, especially when the quote provided from the source makes no reference to the film itself.

LoveWaffle (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, using both online and offline sources together is fine. The medium is of no concern, only the reliability of the publisher. Also Cooper was responding to a direct question about his involvement in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.--16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But we don't know that if we can't read the article. And if there isn't a single other reliable source talks about it, the reliability of the source should be called into question.
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We can read the article, the magazine is out. The cover date for Total Film is always two months after the actual street date. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can read it, I have.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't read it if it's not online. Perhaps the quote could be updated to provide better context? There's no mention of Cooper, the film, or Howard Stark in the citation.

LoveWaffle (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The magazine is available through multiple outlets; newstands, bookstores, mail order, etc. I'll add the preceding question to the quote if that helps.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It works for me, but would anyone object to using an online source if one can be found?

LoveWaffle (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Still shooting

The filming section says principal photography ended on June 27, but on July 2nd Chris was seen shooting some scenes in L.A. Link here: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=82575— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.247.16 (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Teaser poster

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/captain-america-the-winter-soldier-teaser-poster/ Rusted AutoParts 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Emily VanCamp

I've noticed a number of recent edits concerning Emily VanCamp auditioning for the "female lead", and changing that wording since her role in the film appears at this point to be significantly smaller. The source concerning her audition said she was trying out for the "female lead", so that's all that matters regardless of how significant a role she plays in the final product. On top of that, saying that she is not portraying a female lead is borderline OR.
LoveWaffle (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because the source lists her as a lead doesn't mean she is. If Marvel don't list her amongst the main cast as per the press release, then she obviously isn't a main character. Rusted AutoParts 20:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Using Marvel's press release, here is how they perceive the cast^[1]:

Main:
Chris Evans
Scarlett Johansson
Samuel L. Jackson
Robert Redford
Sebastian Stan
Anthony Mackie
Cobie Smulders
Frank Grillo
Georges St-Pierre.

Supporting:
Hayley Atwell
Toby Jones
Emily VanCamp
Maximiliano Hernandez.

With this, it mentions the way they see the importmance of each role, with the latter 4 not as intrical as Evans or Johansson for example. So with that said, saying VanCamp is a lead is wrong. Rusted AutoParts 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The source said that she auditioned for a female lead, that's all that matters. Whether or not her role has changed since then or has been diminished in any way is irrelevant.

Also, I should warn you that you have, yet again, violated 3RR.

LoveWaffle (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Switched source to Marvel press release. Let's be done with this. Rusted AutoParts 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Marvel's press release is an improper source for the statement since it doesn't mention her auditioning for the role. The source that reported on her reporting says it was for a female lead, that's all that matters.

LoveWaffle (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the press release is sufficient. It appears the thing that matters is that you're correct. She's not main cast, hence she's not a female lead. End of. Rusted AutoParts 20:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what matters is what's in the source. And the source talking about her audition says she auditioned for a lead role, and the Marvel press release doesn't talk about her auditioning.

Please refrain from exercising ownership of the page.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I nearly fell on the floor laughing. Look, were going by the Marvel statement. Just because VanCamp regards it as a lead role doesn't mean Marvel will. It could be a post credits scene, or a 10 minute scene at the end. Either way, she's been regarded as supporting, so it's inappropriate to say its a lead. The source has changed, so that's that. Rusted AutoParts 21:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It could be, but saying any of that is original research the source that talks about her audition said the role was for a female lead. Whether or not the role has changed since then is irrelevant.

Also, I would remind you to act with civility.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The source means squat as it was printed before the Marvel press release. If they don't list her amongst the main cast, it's not a lead role, it's a supporting. I also propose we stop using so many indents. Rusted AutoParts 21:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's rule of verifiability, the source is not "squat" as it is reliable. It does not matter if the role wound up being a part of the main cast as the source said the role was a female lead.

Also, we're actually supposed to be indenting another line in every time we comment someone outdents after 4 or 5 indents. But that's another matter entirely.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Marvel trumps the source as the source got their info from, surprise, surprise, Marvel. Due to this, Marvel has become the more reliable source. So since they list VanCamp as supporting, then she is not a "female lead". Let's wait for more input before furthur dispute. No more reverting. Rusted AutoParts 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, it does not matter if she's portraying a female lead. What does matter is that the source confirming her involvement said she auditioned for a female lead. Whether or not her role is a female lead or not is irrelevant.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The source said that, not Marvel. Rusted AutoParts 21:26 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The source said she auditioned for a female lead; therefore, she auditioned for a female lead. Whether or not the role winds up being that significant in the final product is irrelevant.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. If Marvel says something, anything a source says is rendered moot. So this source could say it's a female lead, but Marvel says she isn't. Rusted AutoParts 21:36 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia's rule of verifiability works. The other source said she auditioned for a female lead; whether or not the role VanCamp portrays in the final product is a female lead is irrelevant.

LoveWaffle (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just read the source. There's no statement from any Marvel representative or VanCamp. The statement of her being in a lead role was OR on Deadline's part. Rusted AutoParts 21:48 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't know where Deadline got their information from, but they're a reliable source so what they say is reliable as well unless they later redact or correct the statement. Furthermore, the rule of original research doesn't extend beyond Wikipedia editors. All research has to begin somewhere, just not with us.

LoveWaffle (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading the Deadline source, it is perfectly acceptable to include that VanCamp has been cast as the female lead. That is how it was presented before the deal was signed and Marvel released its press release. Knowing how Marvel has classified VanCamp's role, including her under the "Rounding out the talented cast" part, it may be worth noting after the sentence with the Deadline source, that "VanCamp was eventually cast as Agent 13...*something about it being possibly a minor role from the press release*". I'm not sure. But the Deadline information is fine to stay. I would also suggest to both of you, to take a step back, lest you go through this again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay where is this idea that we can't add characters who we have info of to the cast list coming from just because the PR release doesn't include them in at the top??? We have more info on her character so she should go in the cast list. We've never based putting characters in the cast list based on where they are in a press release before, ESPECIALLY for a character we have specific information on and KNOW is an important character to the story. Suzuku (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I could do the same with Hernandez or Shandling, won't change anything anything a out their role in the film. Main and supporting. Since VanCamp is regarded as supporting, she will not be included in the main cast part until a poster or trailer says otherwise. End of. Also, if she were important, there'd be more info on her, and it's sparse at best. Rusted AutoParts 05:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

She should totally be included among the main cast. The fact that she's was on the SDCC Winter Soldier panel - with the rest of the main cast - solidifies that. She's not just a background or supporting cast member. Various media outlets have cited her being cast as a ("the") female lead; the fact that we know little about the character in the film does not change the character's importance. We'll know more as the release date gets closer. Watching an interview with her, her role seems like that of importance.|| Tako (bother me) || 05:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. There is silch. Nothing about whether she's Kate, or Agent 13 or Sharon Carter. There is no candid detail on her involvement. You're merely assuming she is intrical to the plot. Atwell is in the cast, no info on her importance, let's put her in the main section too! Rusted AutoParts 05:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We clearly have more info on her than those others you mentioned! She says in the interview she is Cap's neighbor and they hit it off, and goes on to confirm her character is Sharon Carter meaning the name "Kate" is an alias and clearly states her character has developments in the film and that the film itself is just the beginning of her character. How is all of that "silch"?? Just because the casting list has her down there doesn't mean she doesn't get added to the list, it has NEVER been like that especially on a character we have clear info on.

We have no info on Peggy Carter's role in the film, we HAVE info on Sharon Carter's role. You're completely pulling this out of you own butt. There is no rule stating that if a character isn't in a certain place on a press release she doesn't get put in the cast list, especially when we have more than enough info put her in the cast. In addition to all the info in the vid, here's an interview of her flat out confirming she is Sharon Carter and develops throughout the film. So you really do not have a leg to stand on with this. Suzuku (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nor do you. You are assuming her development involves main cast status, which is currently incorrect. Until there's a poster physically depicting her name as part of the main cast, she is supporting. Who's the one pulling crap out of his own butt now? Rusted AutoParts 06:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to decide that her status as part of the main cast is 'incorrect'? Why does a poster need to exist? A press release? I don't know if you know this - but we're not supposed to rely on press releases. Those things are primary sources; we need reliable secondary sources - all of which support VanCamp's role as Sharon Carter / Agent 13 as being important ("lead female"). Here's a few that highlight this:

Yeah. || Tako (bother me) || 06:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

YouTube unreliable, can't be used, same with Newsrama. All you have is two sources released before official Marvel PR. And it's not unheard of to bring supporting cast to panels. Either way, as of now Marvel, the makers of the movie, do not regard her as a main player. Rusted AutoParts 14:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is unreliable about them? Newsarama is totally reliable, plus it's coverage of the SDCC panel. Youtube is totally reliable too, it's an interview. This is primary + secondary sources combined. Again, who are you to say what Marvel thinks of her? Are you Marvel? Have you read the script? Have you seen the film? Do you have sources that say she's not part of the main cast? Do you have any arguments against her being included in the main cast list besides "Marvel says no!"? Everything that includes her in the cast points to her having a lead role in the film. Marvel is just being silent because they don't want spoilers, clearly. (the interview says, "they won't let me talk" or something like that ). Also - 3 of the sources, besides her casting announcement were released after the press release. || Tako (bother me) || 16:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

From the sources: it is fine to get the info from the Newsarama live blog as well as the YouTube interview. YouTube is only a problem when say its Joe Smith reporting on his weekly web show that "he's heard through the grapevine" that VanCamp is playing Cap's mom. (Exaggeration of course, just to give the idea). All of the info can be added like has been done with other cast members. As for where she should go, in the bulleted list or below, it's hard to say. GENERALLY, the bulleted list is for people credited in the press release as the staring roles. As such, this press release lists her in the second cast listing that is considered "supporting". However, I do see the other side, that she has been getting media attention, mainly the fact that she was included on the Comic-Con panel, and should be included in the bulleted list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Theres still nothing regarding the importance of the role. Evans, Johansson and Stan are obviously the focal point, main characters. Grillo is a villain, main. Smulders, Jackson, St. Pierre are regarded in the main sense. VanCamp is aloof. Agent 13 or Sharon Carter or Kate or whatever the name is, there diddly squat on her role. Caps neighbour. Wow. Sounds like a real asset in the fight against the Soldier. The role could be three scenes of 20 minute dialogue. And at the end it's revealed she's Sharon or something. We don't know, therefore we can't assume she is part of the main cast. Rusted AutoParts 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And you can't assume she isn't! When it comes down to it we have far more to go on supporting her being a part of the main cast rather than not. We have plenty of info on her character, not just that she is Cap's neighbor. Read everything we've said here, that's at least three things to go on her bulletin. We have more info on her character than we have on Batroc/GSP. When we have that much info on a character and it's clear she plays an integral role in the film because they specifically say they don't want to spoil developments concerning her character then we usually add them to a cast list. Just saying she's not on a certain spot in a press release is not enough reason. The fact we're leaving out so much info about what's been said on her character by leaving it in the "supporting list" is proof enough she should go on the bulletin. Suzuku (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it will make a difference, but VanCamp appears in some publicity photos with the rest of the cast here and here. Richiekim (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The press release from D23 reads "Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Cobie Smulders, Frank Grillo, Emily VanCamp and Hayley Atwell, with Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury". [1] --DocNox (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Charity auction

I wasn't sure if it would be considered spam, so I posted a link talking about the auction. here is a direct link. Rusted AutoParts 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

UK release date

I've been trying to make a source that March 26 was the United Kinddom release date, but everytime I post it, [2], it's messed up

Larry1996 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done. Per WP:FILMRELEASE, we only use the first release date and the release date in the country of origin. There is no indication that the UK release is the first.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Redfords "SHIELD team"

It appears as though that he has not in fact formed a "team", but rather, he's part of the World Security Council along with Chin Han, Bernard White, Alan Dale, and Jenny Agutteras (who was a WSC member in The Avengers) as well as being a senior leader of SHIELD. What gives the source that was provided the merits of being correct? 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source that says Redford is a WSC member. I don't believe he's formed a "team" by any means, but is only a member of the WSC along with those listed above, can we change the source/correct the mistake? Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/08/18/samuel-l-jackson-sunday-conversation/2665355/68.45.110.5 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So nothing on this, officially? Okay.

Not done Per WP:SYNTH, you are making inferences from two separate sources, that say two separate things, and formulating that into what you think is correct, versus what we have through sources. As it stands now is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Favre1fan93, the source does not state that character is only a member of the security council and nothing else. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive either, both sources can be correct in their descriptions. We will know for sure when the movie is released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How is that those actors are part of his "team", I'm not ruling out him being a part of the WSC and a Leader in SHIELD, but the notion that Jenny Agutteras is part of his "team", among the others listed. That's my main concern, that they're listed/stated as being part of a "team" and not World Security Council members. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well we have no control on how the sources state their info. We only add what is reliable as it is given to us. So that's why it is the way it is, and why it can't be changed. Until another reputable source comes out saying other wise (or at this point, once the film is released) then it can be changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ed Brubaker Cameo

Couple sources for this one...

Source 1,Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5 71.188.16.34 (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 71.XXX. You've been around MCU pages a lot. Please note that you have the ability to add this content if the page is not semi-protected (this one currently isn't). Talk pages are not really meant for what you do (unless the page is semi-protected). Please be bold and add the content yourself, instead of waiting for others to do so for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As well, source 2, 4 and 5 are not reliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I realize that, but it appears that every time I do add something to anything on Wikipedia, it gets taken down instantly. I also cite my sources, and they still get taken down. It makes no sense, but it happens to me. I'll use Source 1 and 3 for this reference. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have not come across any edits by you on pages that would need to get taken down. I'm sorry that it does happen to you, but there is nothing wrong in still trying and wanting to improve. It's clear to me that you know what flies and what doesn't on these pages, based on the stuff you add to the talk pages for others to add. This is obviously a case where you could have added the info. If you are unclear about citing sources, you could look here to see what are generally acceptable (and see that 2, 4 and 5 would not work), and if you look at the code of the page, you can see how to properly add those citations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Marketing

Anyone else think the Marketing section is too big? I believe that it's being given undue weight, especially when comparing the Marketing sections of the other MCU films and should be trimmed down. Richiekim (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Its short compared to the Avengers. Also its early, and much of the other sections are still incomplete. As those sections begin filling out, the marketing section will look much more balanced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I at least think the section on the comic book should be trimmed for a start. The editor's quote sounds too promotional and sounds like as advertisement, and describing the plot of the comic is unnecessary for the scope of this article. I also think the LA Times review of the Super Bowl ad should be excised as well, as there was no such commentary in the Iron Man 3 article. Richiekim (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Other MCU pages have a subsection for the tie-in comic, so that info could move there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You might be right about Editor's comments about the comic, however the one sentence plot isn't unnecessary and would be a glaring omission. Also the Super Bowl information in the IM3 article should be removed not the review in this one, as customary marketing methods without analysis like television commercials is frowned upon per WP:FILMMARKETING.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the editor's comment can go, but I don't really see how to trim anything else, without out-right deleting all the info on something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Since we all seem to agree about the editor's comments, I went ahead and removed them. I also removed the information about the charity auction as while it might just have been a marketing ploy, we cannot assume so and just take it is presented: a gesture of good will.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just moved the auction info to the release section with the rest of the premiere info.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

StitchKingdom character bios fun facts

On this page, they have some great production info, especially regarding the costumes for Cap and Falcon. I believe that some of this is good to add to the page but don't really know where it would go in the production section. Filming? Post? By the characters in the Cast section? What are other's thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If its something related to a specific actor or character, I would say the cast section is fine. But more general information about costume design could be placed in Pre, since that is the phase where this usually occurs.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Early screenings

Are these notable to include in the release section? MOS:FILM#Release doesn't necessarily say anything against it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah there is nothing against but these aren't premieres, film festivals, or anything just early screenings. It might going into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I realized after I posted, I forgot to add that they were all chosen based on fan input from the app they released. Maybe marketing? (I'm also trying to go to said early screening in NY.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The app stuff might be relevant to marketing section. Good luck getting in the screening!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if I do. And I'll write something up for the marketing section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Russos' confirm their involvement with Cap 3

Here's the source. Don't know if it's worth noting or not. 71.188.30.224 (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will add it in all the appropriate places. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's already stated.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to make a note that they confirmed that Christopher Makus and Stephen McFeely will be writing the sequel. 71.188.30.224 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned it up, and consolidated the info, to remove the "reported by" statement, as we have been removing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dominic Cooper

Is he not in the movie? I know some of you have seen it. Someone removed him from the cast section, and I wanted to make sure before readding. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

also known as captain america return of the first avenger?

i norway where i live the subtitle of captain america 2 is return of the first avenger and it seems to be a general subtitle in europe. just check these search results. [3] 84.208.108.59 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

this article needs a plot section

i wanted to read about the plot but due to the section missing i couldnt.84.208.108.59 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Senator Stern

When someone "reworded sections to make it sound better" they cut out the part about Senator Stern being arrested for his involvement with Hydra, if that does happen in the film shouldn't it be put back up there? 24.65.100.96 (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-credits scene

Here is an article from Entertainment Weekly confirming some info about the post-credits scene. I believe this is enough to add the info to the article, yes? And I suppose it's also time for those looking to avoid spoilers to unwatch the page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few days without reply, I'm going to go ahead and add it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And as I've learned, one of the people in the mid-credits scene does address the bald man as "von Strucker." I'll listen for it again at the March 31 screening (yes, the movie is so good I want to see it again!), but I trust younger ears than mine! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Forbes "film critics"

I've removed Mark Hughes, the purported Forbes film critic, since he's merely one of 1,200 unpaid, amateur bloggers who post in the magazine's user-generated section. Other Forbes user-generated reviews include this CA:TWS review by a different writer. The "Critical reception" section is only for professional film critics, and additionally, we can't cite user-generated content unless such self-published material is that of a published, recognized authority in a field.

Disappointing. And now I hear Entertainment Weekly is going to exploit would-be writers with an unpaid user-generated section. You know, you can't pay the rent with "exposure." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Release

Surely seeing as that the film has been widely released the infobox release date should be brought forward to its earliest public general release as well as the country of origin? -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-production...

Here's the quote...

Joss Whedon, the director of The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron, directed the mid-credits scene,[90] featuring the first appearance of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch.[42]

Here's what it should say...

Joss Whedon, the director of The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron, directed the mid-credits scene,[90] featuring the first appearance of Baron Von Strucker, Quicksilver, and the Scarlet Witch.[42]

71.188.16.90 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

3D

Can't figure out from the article if the movie was shot in 3D or if 3D was added in post production.180.183.186.25 (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Strucker

Also: I've seen the film twice now, and I was specifically listening the second time I saw the mid-credits scene to see if anyone said the name "Strucker." Neither I nor my guest heard the name. Did anyone here definitively hear "Strucker" or not? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the scientists called him "Herr Strucker".--Max Tomos (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Official credits

Don't know why it took so long to get these, but to help us confirm what it says onscreen, here are the contractual credits

Steve Rogers / Captain America . CHRIS EVANS
Nick Fury . SAMUEL L. JACKSON
Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow. SCARLETT JOHANSSON
Alexander Pierce. ROBERT REDFORD
Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier. SEBASTIAN STAN
Sam Wilson / Falcon. ANTHONY MACKIE
Maria Hill. COBIE SMULDERS
Brock Rumlow. FRANK GRILLO
Jasper Sitwell. MAXIMILIANO HERNANDEZ
Kate / Agent 13. EMILY VANCAMP
Peggy Carter. HAYLEY ATWELL
Dr. Arnim Zola . TOBY JONES
Smithsonian Guard . STAN LEE
Jack Rollins. CALLAN MULVEY
Councilwoman Hawley. JENNY AGUTTER (Note: I like the name shout-out to Pamela Hawley from Sgt. Fury!)
Councilman Singh . BERNARD WHITE
Councilman Rockwell. ALAN DALE
Councilman Yen. CHIN HAN
Senator Stern. GARRY SHANDLING
Georges Batroc . GEORGES ST-PIERRE
French Pirate #1. SALVATOR XUEREB
French Pirate #2. BRIAN DUFFY
Engine Pirate . ZACK DUHAME
French Radio Pirate . ADETOKUMBOH M’CORMACK
Skinny Steve. CHRISTOPHER GEORGE SARRIS
Launch Tech #1. AARON HIMELSTEIN
Launch Tech #2. ALLAN CHANES
Dr. Fine. GOZIE AGBO
SHIELD Interrogator #1. CHRISTOPHER MARKUS
SHIELD Interrogator #2. STEPHEN MCFEELY
Scientist #1. PAT HEALY
Scientist #2. ED BRUBAKER
Apple Employee. D C PIERSON
Com Tech #1. DANNY PUDI
Com Tech #2. BERNIE ZILINSKAS
Renata. BRANKA KATIC
Garcia . ANGELA RUSSO-OTSTOT
Charlie XO. JON SKLAROFF
Charlie Weapons Tech. CHAD TODHUNTER
SHIELD Tech. ABIGAIL MARLOWE
Lead SHIELD Pilot. JEREMY MAXWELL
Senior SHIELD Agent. EMERSON BROOKS
SHIELD Agent. EVAN PARKE
Strike SGT. #1. RICARDO CHACON
Strike SGT. #2. GRIFFIN M. ALLEN
Strike Agents . ANN RUSSO, JOE ROSALINA, MICHAEL DEBELJAK, EDDIE J. FERNANDEZ (Note: "Strike" is lowercase here, but uppercase on the team's uniforms — I believe with periods)
25th Floor Strike Agent. JODY HART
Scudder. STEVEN CULP
Human Resources Executive. DEREK HUGHES
Doctor. WENDY HOOPES
Lead EMT. ETHAN RAINS
CIA Instructor. DOMINIC RAINS
Capitol Hill Police. CHARLES WITTMAN, ANDY MARTINEZ JR.
FBI Agents. MICHAEL DE GEUS, TERENCE O’ROURKE
Committee Member . ANNE GRIMENSTEIN
Little Boy In The Smithsonian. DANTE ROSALINA
Fury Car Voice. ROBERT CLOTWORTHY
SHIELD Computer. JUNE CHRISTOPHER
The Smithsonian Narrator. GARY SINISE

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also:

MARVEL STUDIOS presents [movie logo]
Directed by. ANTHONY and JOE RUSSO
Screenplay by. CHRISTOPHER MARKUS & STEPHEN MCFEELY
Produced by. KEVIN FEIGE, p.g.a.
Executive Producer. LOUIS D’ESPOSITO, ALAN FINE, VICTORIA ALONSO, MICHAEL GRILLO, STAN LEE
Co-Producer. NATE MOORE
Director of Photography . TRENT OPALOCH
Production Designer. PETER WENHAM
Editors. JEFFREY FORD, A.C.E.; MATTHEW SCHMIDT
Costume Designer. JUDIANNA MAKOVSKY
Visual Effects and Animation by . INDUSTRIAL LIGHT & MAGIC
Visual Effects Supervisor . DAN DELEEUW
Music Supervisor. DAVE JORDAN
Music by. HENRY JACKMAN
Casting by. SARAH HALLEY FINN, C.S.A.

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sam Wilson / Falcon Backstory

My only source on this is the movie, but Falcon is specifically referred to as a Parajumper, not a paratrooper. (He's part of the Air Force, not an Army airborne unit. Sorry if that's too pedantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Land Asunder (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the movie a second time. You're right: Parajumper is the term used. Also, the movie never gives Sharon's last name — she's referred to as "Agent 13" and as "Sharon." I know Feige called her "Sharon Carter" at a press event once, but in terms of what the movie says, "Carter" is not given. Also, Bucky wears a cap in the end-credits scene; he isn't hooded. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the end credits, VanCamp is credited as "Kate/Agent 13". Richiekim (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, Richiekim. She's "Sharon" in dialog, though, so I don't know what that's about. Maybe "Kate" is her cover name as the neighbor? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "Kate" is Sharon's name while undercover. Richiekim (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot Question

SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T WATCHED IT In the plot summary it says that Alexander Pierce revealed his true motives. I watched the movie, that's not true, it was Captain America that revealed who was HYDRA agents, and then that's when everything went crazy with agents all killing each other. That's when Pierce was revealed as HYDRA. 24.242.44.78 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternate title

It may be worth mentioning that the film was released as Captain America: Return of the First Avenger in a number of European countries.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt#akas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

IMDb can not be used as a source. If a reliable source states it, then it may be worth inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Classifications for Powers

At the end of the plot, where the credit scenes were mentioned, the original user has made a terrible mistake under:

"...the other with telekinetic powers. In a post..."

Firstly, Wanda, the Scarlet Witch, DOES NOT have telekinetic powers. Her powers include probability manipulation, which are the result of her hexes by using simple gestures or movements. She can use hexes not only to cause "bad luck" to opponents, but deflect objects and powers, move things, stop momentum...etc. It can be mistaken for telekinesis but the main difference is telekinesis works only on physical objects. Her hexes can work through even forcefields and magic.

In the mid-credit scenes, she was seen to make a few blocks levitate before her and at the end, with a smack of her hand, some blocks disappeared. This is NOT telekinesis.

As such, please change the content to "probability manipulation" or hexes. So as to not mislead others who do not know the Marvel Universe well, as well as to not get people confused with the word "telekinesis" especially if they have already watched Gambit in Wolverine.

Thanks

Hiroshijpop (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Telekinesis" was Whedon's own description of her power, cited on the page for Avengers: Age of Ultron. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. I knew he mentioned that but he did state it was a small part. He mostly mentioned magic and spells. So I believe it would be more accurate to use those words than telekinesis, as once again, magic and spell-weaving are the crux of Wanda's powers and Joss did use those terms more explicitly than telekinesis. So please do consider :) Hiroshijpop (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Fates of Agent 13 and Rumlow

Regarding this edit by MisterShiney (talk · contribs), lots of things made the theatrical cut of the film but that does not mean they should be included in the plot summary. Agent 13 hasn't even been previously in the current version of the summary. Likewise Rumlow only has a passing mention. If the rest of their arcs aren't worth mentioning then neither is their fate. Maria Hill at Stark Industries isn't even mentioned.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Triskelion

The Plot section currently mentions Triskelion three times, but it is not defined what Triskelion is. I haven't seen the movie so can't comment, but it's not contextually clear. Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The first usage defines it as the SHIELD headquarters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure how I missed that. The last version didn't even have it linked. Must have pulled up an old copy by mistake. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Roger's apartment

Singular possessive is denoted by an apostrophe before the s; conversely plural possessive would indeed be spelled Rogers' if Steve Rogers is using a bunch of Fury's LMDs (life model decoys). Are there indeed several different Steve Rogers running around that I don't know about? Well somebody will get a serious no-prize from Stan Lee if that is the case!

Re-editing back to "Roger's apartment". Thank you. Empyrius (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The proper formatting is Rogers'. When a word ends in 's' and possession needs to be shown, the apostrophe is placed after the 's'. He is not Steve Roger; he is Steve Rogers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Favre1fan93. The character's name is Rogers. The possessive is Rogers' — NOT Roger's. That would be something that belonged to Roger, not to Rogers. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. Humblest of apologies. Empyrius (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Possession is always a tricky subject. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sharon / Agent 13

Given her introduction into the canon and the actress' placement in the main credits, shouldn't we have at least a single sentence about her in the plot? The fact she's covertly living next to Rogers seems a pertinent point addressing the theme of government surveillance. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point but her placement on the billing might just be a contractual sticking point, and VanCamp even acknowledges in the cast section that they are "just sort of introducing her". What exactly did you have in mind?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If a bit is added for when Fury goes into Cap's apartment, I think that would be enough inclusion. I see Triiiple's point thought, that her inclusion on the billing could just be contractual, not based on importance in the plot. I kept saying as I watched it "When is Agent 13 going to do something?", and she never really did. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess. We describe the character in the credits section, so that probably covers it for anyone wanting to know Agent 13's appearance in the film. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Scepter

Here's a puzzler: In the mid-credits scene, we confirmably Strucker possesses a scepter. The dialog does not call it Loki's scepter. But a previous movie whose events (The Battle of New York) this movie references establishes what it is. So what's the best way to handle this? I'm putting the fact of the scepter in the plot, but how should any identifier, if any at all, be handled? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your wording but I wouldn't be opposed to "Loki's scepter" either.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I fine with either, but since it is not mentioned in the scene that it is Loki's, we should probably avoid saying that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think per our discussion on the talk page of the Avengers, we should refrain from mentioning Loki, but should be allowed to add a footnote which can link to an external source telling the reader what it is. I found this Vanity Fair article that does that http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/captain-america-end-of-credits-scenes. Do you guys agree? If so, let me know and I'll add the footnote and do the same treatment everywhere. Btw, I appreciate the feedback I'm just getting my feet wet with Wikipedia editing! --Amitku53 16:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the footnote is the way to go. Now it would just be getting the proper source to confirm it (preferably a confirmation from Feige). Could we use said Vanity Fair or other source if they are making the observation? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am specifically thinking of this interview from Feige, where they discuss if the Scepter is an Infinity Stone. The way he answers the question confirms that it is Loki's scepter, in my eyes, even though the question is about something else completely. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Return of the First Avenger"

I know it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, but should we mention that the film was released under this title in a number of countries somewhere in the article? Maybe the "release" section? I'm not 100% certain on the policies regarding this. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes release section would be where it would go. I think it would be fine to include. It could be crafted as: "Captain America: The Winter Soldier was released in various international markets on March 26, 2014[126], with some using the title Captain America: The Return of the First Avenger,(source) and in North America on April 4, 2014, in 2D, 3D and IMAX 3D." Or look to the Cap:TFA release section as an alternative to state the content. That title had a very similar situation regarding the title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

This edit request to Captain America: The Winter Soldier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

111.88.51.147 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". DonQuixote (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

New special effects article

There's a new article which goes into more detail on the special effects of Cap 2. I have already added the FX for the elderly Peggy Carter in the Post-production section. If anyone else wants to use the article to add more info, please feel free. Richiekim (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks as always Richie. Always find these FXGuide articles so interesting. I'll take a read through it and see if there is anything else I can add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Captain America: The Winter Soldier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prashant! (talk · contribs) 06:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Split this line as it's very long: "The film is directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, with a screenplay by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and stars Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Cobie Smulders, Frank Grillo, Emily VanCamp, Hayley Atwell, Robert Redford, and Samuel L. Jackson."

Lead is fine.—Prashant 17:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done :). --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment I've reverted this change, as this is the standard language decided by those who work on MCU films. I would discuss with Favre1fan93 or TriiipleThreat about what their opinions are, because we practically use a template to keep all of them of equal quality. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the sentance is almost identical to other GAs in the same film series so I not sure it has to be changed. However, this is a very minor issue and can easily be done if need be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything else about the lead, @Prashant!:? igordebraga ≠ 04:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I said lead is very fine and I'll be completing it today.—Prashant 04:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Plot, Cast section are adequate.—Prashant 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Production

Development, Pre-production, filming and post-production sections are fine.

But, could you describe me the meaning of the word "coreography", in the filming section: "The fight scenes were staged for months, with a coreography that aimed to highlight Captain America's superhuman qualities, and "move away from impressionistic action into specificity"—Prashant 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is supposed to be "choreography" (have made the change) - "the sequence of steps and movements in dance or figure skating, especially in a ballet or other staged dance." In this case it refers to choreographing the movements of the actors and stunt men during the film's fight scenes.

That is Choreography! But, your word was "Coreography". I deliberately asked this as it's a simple word but, word mistake is what irritates me. Should have checked before nominating. Well, now you have corrected then fine.—Prashant 05:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That information where the spelling error was, was added by a non-frequent user of the page, after it was already nominated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The spelling mistake was due to being a non-native English user, sorry. And I might not be frequent, but am helping what I can in the edits, and contributed in other Marvel articles (including Iron Man 3). Anyway, just see what the article needs. igordebraga ≠ 13:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the main problem of the article is it's lower sections, which are heartbreakingly small. Please add some more stuff in the Box-ofice and Critical reception section. Add more information regarding box-office collections. You should add more reviews as I think it's easy to find reviews for these kind of "Universally acclaimed" films.—Prashant 05:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll see about the box office, what could be added that is notable info. I'll also add a few more reviews. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanded\rewrote the box office a bit, see if more is needed. igordebraga ≠ 13:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Last but not the least, check and correct the references as I found some of them are just urls. Please fill them appropriately.—Prashant 05:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you identify which ones these were? I did a quick scan through, and found them to be all complete. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any bare URLs. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely no bare URLs, all have titles and dates at the very least.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prashant!: Additional reviews have been added. Can you also please comment on what you meant above about checking the references for bare urls? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think someone corrected, as there was definitely a few. Now, all my queries were adressed. I'm satisfied with the quality of the article.—Prashant 12:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I didn't found any other problems with the article.—Prashant 10:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Pretty good effort overall, thanks for addressing the points and sorry for the delay.—Prashant 12:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Prashant!. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

STRIKE team

I've moved the conversation below from my talk page to centralize it here:

Was Rumlow actually a member of HYDRA? I seem to be remember that he said he was or somebody saying he was but I'm not certain.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, I think "double agent" would be more fitting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also wasn't Steve the leader of the STRIKE team? He was the one giving the orders on the ship.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think he was just leading the mission that needed him, Black Widow, and the STRIKE unit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I was just reading more into it because if Steve was the team's leader, it would have made Rumlow's betrayal that much more biting. Also it would have drawn a parallel between Steve's WWII commandos with similar generational sensibilities to his modern STRIKE team with questionable ethics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally didn't get that from the film. But I have to go see it again anyways, so I'll try to keep this in mind if it isn't squared up before I go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I like Triip's backstory texture, personally, though I don't see anything in the film indicating Cap was a SHIELD employee heading a that division, which involves at the doing management work. He clearly was in charge of the mission, but that wouldn't automatically mean he was in charge of STRIKE. We see Rumlow, in fact, in the hospital corridor ordering Cap to come with him — or at the very least, speaking in a stern tone one would never use with his boss. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Rumlow is a double-agent in the standard sense. A double-agent is an under-cover agent who is turned against his own country. Rumlow was never "undercover" in SHIELD. Rather, he's a mole or a traitor, but not a double-agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasukaren (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some Clever Bastard has inserted various acts of sexual deviancy into the 'Plot' section of the article which I'm pretty sure don't appear in the actual movie. 86.150.209.119 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it has been caught. Thankfully the anti-vandalism process is automated when, uh, unconventional words are inserted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Downey Jr. returns as Tony Stark for 'Captain America 3'

Here's the source. 2601:C:780:234:C176:B080:E120:A9C2 (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not confirmed. Just stating in final negotiations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting in the Sequel section that he is in final negotiations to join the film. Couldn't do any harm. 2601:C:780:234:C176:B080:E120:A9C2 (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For this page, we should just stick with actual castings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

someone included it into the article. it does merit an inclusion. it is casting, and if he's said to be in final negotiations then i don't see it's inclusion hindering anything. 2601:C:780:234:BD60:F398:E95B:27A4 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Making a Captain America 3 Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Captain_America_3 above is a draft for the Page. there is enough information and such for the film to be able to have its own page. should this page become official? or should we just leave the Captain America 3 stuff on here still for now? and if so why? 173.51.207.69 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those situations that shows the myopic nature of many Wikipedia editors and mods who blindly insist on following guidelines like boot-licking Martinets. At this point, the nature of the production alone warrants an article. Not to mention the millions of visitors who come looking for it and who must then backtrack to the previous film's article for information. The whole part about how production an all films is not guaranteed also defies logic and common sense - barring the death of Chris Evans, Robert Downey, Jr or the population of the U.S. this movie will be made. Not to mention, even if production were to be suddenly shelved, the nature of Downey's casting and the exceptional deal allowing another studios intellectual property to be used (for free, no less!) would demand an article exist on the failed production.

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia has suffered a huge exodus of editors and loss of donations when I even have to argue for such an article to exist? Unsigned, by a former prolific editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.227.39 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There is not really a point in making a "Production of X" article for this or any future MCU article, when most have two locations on the encyclopedia where enough relevant info can be housed. In the case of sequel films, it is in "Sequel" sections of the previous films, and for new films it is in "In other media" sections on the character pages. In addition. all films have info placed on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films article. And how is there any backtracking? The article Captain America: Civil War correctly redirects a user to Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Sequel. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

SIGH....You do realize that almost all traffic to Wikipedia originates from Google searches, right? So go to Google and begin typing "captain am.." and you will see you get an auto suggest for "captain america civl war" which is what most people are going to click on. Guess what - that does NOT link to this section. Which is secondary to my main argument: that this is a film whose production at this point has created enough noteworthy development to warrant an exception to the general rule about film articles. Never has a film studio loaned out a major character they control to another studio for use in major film projects that they will have no compensation for. Conversely, no studio has ever co-produced a major film for another studio while also not being compensated.

But, at least I can thank you for providing an exact example of the mule-headed "it's a rules! it's a rule!!" mind-set prevalent here and a reminder of why I went from spending 2-3 hours per day editing/researching/writing articles to just a quick "ghost edit" maybe once a month. Also why this attitude is the reason I continue to not donate money, but send it to more user-friendly charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.227.39 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's actually precedent for this. Believe it or not, there was a time when people said the same thing about Superman Lives. It seems laughable now, but at the time it was a very big anticipated film. There is also precedent for creating articles before filming commences. However those cases are extremely rare and must overwhelmingly surpass the requirements of WP:GNG. I would guess that we are nearing that point but not there quite just yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur with TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93, on their arguments' merits regarding WikiProject Film guidelines — which are there for long-established reasons; no one's "myopically" following rules for the sake of following rules. The rules make sense, partly because they help us avoid protracted, time-wasting discussions. Until production commences, there's very little that's journalistically reported about a film other than about casting. Mostly, it's rumors. In the meantime, the small amount of legitimate, verifiable, journalistic content can fit in a sequel section of a previous article. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither one of you know when to quit when you're behind, do you? And each keeps making my point for me, this time with Tenebrae mindlessly going on about how they don't myopically follow rules... while myopically repeating them. ″ ...There's very little that's journalistically reported about a film...″ Congratulations, you just parroted them while entirely ignoring the fact that "Captain America: Civil War" has made history by the unprecedented deal that was worked out between Sony & Disney, not to mention the fact that the first attempt at said deal was made known because of the hack of Sony. You know, the one that got the effing US government involved, including the President. "Superman Lives" was never in actual pre-production, if you understand what that means in the first place. It did not have a cast, it did not have a budget, sets were not actively being built. Outside of scripts, no money was spent. "Civil War" is a month away from production and if for some reason like an apocalypse it were to be cancelled, it would cost Marvel/Disney tens of millions of dollars already spent on props, costumes and set construction. Like I said, this has been both amusing and gratifying. Wikipedia wonders why they keep losing editors and can't raise meet fundraising goals, yet inane BS like this is still the norm. My local public radio station thanks you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.227.39 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And you can't wait a month? What's the rush? Reach Out to the Truth 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out, this is purely press speculation at the moment. Neither Marvel nor Sony have confirmed Captain America: Civil War is the film which the Spider-Man deal is based around. We know it was intended to be the first film, but they have yet to confirm it as anything other than a film before July 2017, which doesn't do you any favours beyond narrow it down to five films, of which this film is one of them. Yet you want this to be the reason we add it, because there is an unprecedented deal that might not even involve this film? Ruffice98 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye civil war

THR has "confirmed" that Jeremy Renner is appearing in Civil War, but this has not been confirmed by Marvel as yet. Why can't we mention this fact? And I don't think it is encyclopaedic to write something like "it was announced that this would happen" without mentioning who announced it. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"However" and "Despite this"

Adamstom.97, whom I know is a good editor, and I are having a minor issue over wording. IKailash29792, with whom I haven't worked, added the part in green.

Following the November 2014 hacking of Sony Pictures' computers, emails between Sony Pictures Entertainment co-chairman Amy Pascal and president Doug Belgrad were released, stating that Marvel wanted to include Spider-Man (whose film rights are owned by Sony) in the film. However, discussions between the studios broke down, with Sony planning to continue with its already planned slate of Spider-Man films. Despite this, after Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios reached a licensing deal for the use of Spider-Man in an MCU film in February 2015, reports indicated that the character would indeed appear in Civil War.

I edited that green part as follows:

Discussions between the studios broke down, with Sony planning to continue its planned slate of Spider-Man films. Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios afterward reached a licensing deal for the use of Spider-Man in an MCU film in February 2015, reports indicated that the character would indeed appear in Civil War.

Using "However" and "Despite this" makes an argument for a particular interpretation. Equally valid is that negotiations took a break and then resumed. I believe the latter version gives just the plain facts without making interpretive suggestions about the studios waffling. That's POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean when you say this is POV, but I can see a potential issue in that we may be suggesting something that is not necessarily in the facts that we know, which would be original research. Though I see this as more of a way of presenting the info in a better/more readable way, if consensus is that we are "interpreting" the facts rather than presenting them, and that we shouldn't be doing this, then I would be fine with rewording the section. I would like to point out that the new paragraph doesn't actually make sense though, specifically the final line (as seen in the second indented paragraph above). - adamstom97 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so you all know, once the Civil War article is created, a majority of all this content is being removed, and replaced with this. So most likely, the use of wording would apply more to the content as it appears on Draft:Captain America: Civil War than here. Might I suggest any further discussion on the wording take place at that talk? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And may I thank my colleagues for a thoughtful and calm discussion, which is too rare on Wikipedia — although such discussion is more or less the norm in WikiProject Comics, which says a lot about our excellent group here.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Superhero names

I find this revert by Adamstom.97 to be ridiculous. The edit summary was, "since they are usually referred to by their real names, and we consistently use both real and code names, it doesn't make sense to simplify these like this." What on Earth is "since they are usually referred to by their real names" supposed to mean, Adamston.97? Did you look up every comic book and every film in which these characters appear and verify that, and if so, would you be prepared to share your research? Personally, I don't know and I don't care how often the Scarlet Witch character is called Scarlet Witch and how often she is called Wanda Maximoff. The article is at Scarlet Witch for a reason, and she should be referred to here as Scarlet Witch for the same reason. So I humbly suggest you self-revert, Adamston.97. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at every MCU page (including this one) and watch the films, you will find that the characters are referred to by their real names or their real names followed by their code names most often. I would have thought this was pretty obvious. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you're saying that that is the way we do things on Wikipedia, so it must be right? That's the lamest response possible, Adamstom.97. It may be your convention, but your convention is wrong. Let me give you a nice example of why. Before my edits to it, the Jennifer Connelly article stated, "Her later credits include the 2003 Marvel superhero film Hulk where she played Hulk/Bruce Banner's true love Betty Ross". Now, isn't it perfectly obvious what's wrong with that? Betty Ross loves Bruce Banner. She doesn't love the Hulk. The convention thus produces a ridiculous result in practice. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment about the films is irrelevant, but I'm familiar with them, and for the record, I've never once heard any character referred to as, "Hulk/Bruce Banner" or the equivalent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a completely irrelevant and uncomparable example. You really helped move this discussion slong with that answer.

Now there is a certain way that we do things here on Wikipedia, and that is through consensus. If consensus changes, then we as a community alter the encyclopaedia appropriately. Currently, when we are listing a character (such as during cast lists or casting announcements, the latter of which is applicable here) we present the character's name in the format "Real name / Code name". If you take issue with this, then discuss it at an approproate talk page - don't create unnecessary consistency errors, both within this article and within all MCU articles, simply because you think you are correct and above general procedure. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The example is not irrelevant. It is simply an obvious, common sense point that you apparently refuse to understand. I note your lack of any relevant response. Are you really not able to consider the possibility that you might be wrong? The bottom line is that I made a perfectly reasonable edit and you reverted me for no good reason. I see no evidence that there is a consensus that all articles about Marvel-related subjects should present superhero names in your preferred way. Telling me to discuss matters on the appropriate talk page is not helpful if you don't explain which page that is, Adamstom.97. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The example is irrelevant because it is about something else entirely - it is an in-universe reference, which, if you read any of the plot summaries, you will see uses the most appropriate name for the situation (in this case you are correct that only Bruce Banner should be used). I never said that I wasn't wrong, all I said is that consensus is clearly against you, given that this is how we have been doing it for years now. If you can't figure out which talk page is most appropriate for your discussion, then should you really be having it? If you need help, then may I suggest you take it to the main MCU talk page, given that this concerns almost every MCU article, or alternatively you could ping regular MCU editors to ask for their own opinions. This is something that I thought I would't have to spell out really, apparently I was wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who said that superhero names should be consistent across articles ("don't create unnecessary consistency errors"). Your preferred way of giving the names is ugly and poor style, and the Jennifer Connelly article provides an excellent example of why it is undesirable, at that article or any other. I can figure out which talk page is appropriate to discuss such issues, and it's this one, because it is where the disagreement began. There is no reason to shift the discussion somewhere else. Your evidence that consensus favors your position remains zero. Did it not occur to you that claiming "consensus" for your position without providing any evidence of such consensus cannot be convincing? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Superhero names in Article text: common name v "real name / codename" pairing ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Captain America: The Winter Soldier and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The disagreement appears isolated to the names used when describing or discussing the roles played by the film actors (in the general text of the article).
The does not appear to be a disagreement w.r.t the role names as listed in the "Cast" section of the article; these should use the "real name / codename" pairing, per consensus. I consider that it is important that both are included in this section.
There does not appear to be a disagreement w.r.t names used within plots (& other in-universe references); these "should use the most appropriate name for the situation", per consensus. I thank adamstom97 for this suggestion.
A rough (but representative) sampling of other films listed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe template[4][5][6] does not show consistent use of the "real name / codename" pairing; so using only the "codename" does not seem inconsistent across the MCU articles. See also WP:OSE.
A search of related WikiProjects does not show any MoS, guidelines or standards documenting a consensus on this specific question. The closest is at WP:Manual_of_Style/Comics#Characters, which suggests using the WP:COMMONNAME^, whether this is the character "real name" or the "codename". ^for Article titles.

On the basis that this is the closest standard available, and, more importantly, that it is easier for the reader, I recommend using the "common name" for the character only; I also recommend that the question be referred to WP:WikiProject Comics & WP:WikiProject_Film/Comic_book_films_task_force for development of a wider (more editors) and more specific (this exact question) consensus, which should be documented. Hope this helps in some way. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the issue patiently. I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily, and I am willing to consider some compromise on this matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To reply to Ryk72:

Obviously there is no problem with the "real name / codename" pairing in the cast section. I never objected to that; I agree it's proper. It's partly because the names are given that way in the cast section that there's no need to repeat that form in other parts of the article.

Similar remarks apply to the plot section; I don't see any problems there.

Thank you for pointing out that there is no consistent use of "real name / codename" pairing in articles about Marvel films.

Thank you also for pointing out that MoS does not document consensus about this issue.

And to adamstom97: If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia in an appropriate and collaborative way, then you should reply to my and Ryk72's comments. Not responding leaves a distinctly bad impression. I also ask TriiipleThreat and Flyer22 for comments, since you've both recently edited the page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I can't dedicate my entire day to this, so I choose to do only what I think is worth my time. Given that your last two replies to me have both completely ignored my own discussion points and reasoning and inconducive to succesful discussion I don't feel like it is worth my time replying back. But just so you know, if you attempt to create consistency errors both within this article and within this good topic, you will be reverted. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking you to dedicate your day to anything, adamstom97. I am suggesting that you should behave in the collaborative way users are expected to behave on Wikipedia. Your discussion point (there was but one, so far as I could see) consisted in claiming "consensus" for your position. You provided no evidence of any kind that such a consensus exists, and an examination of articles on Marvel-related films suggests that one does not, in fact, exist. Giving a superhero's name in more than one way in an article is obviously not a "consistency error". If you have any better arguments to make, I'm open to hearing them. Responding would be sensible, given that I have not changed my mind and this issue will quite possibly reoccur at other articles. Better to properly address the matter now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary wordcount

Apologies, everyone. I'm getting different wordcounts for the plot summary depending on what tool I use. http://www.wordcounter.net/ gives me 759 and Word gives me 678. I'm copy-pasting the words from the article, not the wikimarkup text, so it's excluding stuff like hidden notes. I don't have time to investigate the cause of differences atm, but it probably means I've been sticking plot length templates erroneously on articles for a while now. Gulp... Popcornduff (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Popcornduff:, the issues seems to be that Wordcounter.net counts each letter of the abbreviations as a word so for example S.H.I.E.L.D. is 6 Words, where as Word seems to have a better understanding of sentence structure and is able to understand they are actually abbreviations therefore only counts it as 1 word.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

For why Popcornduff started this discussion, see here and here. As seen with that second link, I also use wordcounter.net. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: As seen with this edit by Favre1fan93, a different wordcounting tool -- Wordcountool.com -- has read at 758 words. So, also considering TriiipleThreat's wordcounter -- javascriptkit.com -- our wordcounters are all over the place. Which one can we possibly trust? Counting the fashioned way might have to suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mcmatter pretty much covered it. Use the word "S.H.I.E.L.D." as a base test for any online tool.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well the debate should be is S.H.I.E.L.D. 6 words or 1? I already went through the process of removing all the periods from the abbreviations and placing it back into the wordcount websites and they came back with ~680 words.I think the Avengers film would be somewhat of a anomaly when it comes to the use of abbreviations, but is there any consensus on use of abbreviations?- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No sensible person would argue that S.H.I.E.L.D. is more than 1 word. (Of course, if I had my way, we'd get rid of those ungainly periods from abbreviations and just write it SHIELD - or even Shield - in keeping with most modern style guides. But Wiki style is still stuck in the realm of stuffy ultra-formality.) Popcornduff (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always used the word-count function on Word — pop the live-site text into a blank doc, hit Tools > Word Count, and voila — since, yes, I think most editors both on and off Wikipedia consider ab acronym to be one word. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So did we determine then what the actual word count is? I know we all provided different methods of finding it, but did we determine which one would consider S.H.I.E.L.D. as one word and not six? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Putting the text into word considers S.H.I.E.L.D. as one word, as it should, giving the plot summary a word count of 677. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

^ http://marvel.com/news/story/20435/captain_america_the_winter_soldier_begins_filming/

[1] ttp://marvel.com/news/story/20435/captain_america_the_winter_soldier_begins_filming/

[1]