Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Potentially debatable claims should not be in the lead if not in the body

This section was originally opened without a title because I'm a dunce. Dinoslider applied the title "Most appearances". This apparently led to the discussion veering somewhat off-topic, with a number of editors (including, ironically, the one who had initially removed the "not in body" tag) stating their agreement that Coulson should be stated as having the most appearances while ignoring my main point that such claims should not be in the lead if they are not also made in the article body. I have renamed the section accordingly, to avoid any more misunderstandings. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: What consensus? This talk page has nine archives, so alluding to some unspecified prior consensus when reverting a valid edit without linking it is disruptive. I'm inclined to think this info is just outdated (i.e., it originates in a time when Coulson had appeared in more films than any of the other actors and the only MCU TV series) and so any prior consensus could be easily invalidated by a new discussion. Anyway, if each episode of a TV series counts as an "appearance in the MCU", then every member of the Agents regular cast has made more appearances than Atwell, Downey, Evans, Hemsworth, Jackson, or Johansson, even though they are, with the (former) exception of Gregg, limited to one TV series.

Even if it were true that each episode counted as an independent appearance, including that kind of data in the article is not interesting to the reader, when Atwell appeared in two TV series, multiple movies (not even just the Captain America movies), and continued to cross over between the two rather than "transitioning" to TV like Coulson (who, as I said above, is still "dead" in the movies).

On top of that, this type of claim must not be included in the lead unless also verified in the article body, regardless of whether it is accurate or not. Even though no one directly removed the maintenance template (if I was as conspiracy-minded as some users I've interacted with recently, I'd speculate that that was planned), removal of valid maintenance tags without addressing the issue is generally considered disruptive.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this statement: On top of that, this type of claim must not be included in the lead unless also verified in the article body, regardless of whether it is accurate or not. The last time this came up, there was an edit war on how to calculate who had the most appearances. I tried to help by removing the line with this edit, but it was reverted as well. The resulting discussion wasn't really productive, so the status quo remained. My opinion is that since there was an argument on how to calculate it, then the answer is not clearly stated in the body and thus should not be stated in the lead. Even if it was, it seems like a pretty trivial fact in my opinion. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That discussion is a mess, but there are only five people involved. Even if four of the five all agreed from start to finish (and a compromise that's no one's ideal is not the same as everyone being in full agreement) 4-1 would not be much of a "consensus"; and then there's the fact that they four users didn't agree. They didn't even come to a compromise: at the time the discussion petered out, User:Magegg and User:Rmaynardjr both essentially agreed with me and Dinoslider (insofar as they both seemed to believe the article would be better off without the current sentence, regardless of what they thought should be in its place), while User:Bold Clone and User:adamstom97 agreed with Favre (although the latter appeared to be doing so in more of a generic sense that supported some hypothetical wording about how Gregg has appeared the most across the various MCU media, not the current wording about how Gregg has the highest numerical count of appearances if we count each episode of Agents; adam also appears to have backpedaled that position, as he was the one who blanked the sentence after I tagged it).

And if adam and Favre do agree on this, then one feigning agreement with me by blanking a sentence I had tagged, and the other then re-adding the sentence without the tag, is really sneaky. Removing maintenance tags without addressing the issues is a very serious issue (don't make me explain how), and using workarounds to avoid anyone having to actually do that by themselves is ... not good.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My reasoning was simple enough: Each episode counts as a separate entry in the MCU, just like each movie in a trilogy counts as a separate entry. So Coulson would have the most appearances overall in the MCU, even if he hasn't appeared the most in the movies or crossed-over the most. Beyond that, I didn't really think it through. --Bold Clone (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thing is, though, Coulson's death is about the one area where we can be certain the creative powers behind the films are ignoring the TV series and pretending they exist in a different universe. We know as a near-certainty that he will never appear in another movie, since the guy who killed him off in the film and brought him back in the first episode of Agents has said he regrets the latter, and that isn't even getting into the behind-the-scenes drahms that heated up in 2015.

Anyway, regardless of whether the films take place in the same universe as the TV shows (I don't think they do, but I'm fine waiting for that to become "official" before adding it to the article), the fact is that the lead currently contains a somewhat controversial claim, not supported by a sourcs, and not backed up by anything in the body of the article.

I fully agree that an argument could be made that Phil Coulson, as an MCU original character who appeared in most of the Phase I movies and One-Shots, and headlined the first MCU television series, is more worthy of mention in the lead of this article than Atwell's Carter of Jackson's Fury, but it also has to be backed up directly in the body of the article. (I think case could be made for either of those as well, or even for Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, since honestly he was the first to cross over into another film franchise and the number of MCU films not to feature him, name-drop him, or shoe-horn one of his relatives in for marquee value and to tie specifically back to him could still be counted on one hand, while Coulson was a character in Iron Mans secondary cast until 2011.) It's not enough to say that since the body of the article mentions that Agents is going into its fifth season and Gregg has been a main cast member since the beginning, the article body already covers this, since it's not intuitive to take each episode of a TV show as an independent work -- again, by that logic most of Agents main cast have outstripped Atwell and Jackson combined.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That just seems stupid to me. (Not you personally, Mr. Hijiri88, only your argument.) The films might be ignoring Agents, but Agents surely isn't neglecting the larger MCU. Are you saying that because Doctor Strange didn't feature or mention Quake, that Agents isn't part of the MCU? Even though the show made sure to include the exact same type of mystic arts as the movie (i.e. portals)? Because Coulson didn't save the day in Winter Soldier, The Winter Soldier's impact on Agents is meaningless? That doesn't make any sense to me. The MCU is not obligated to have every character cross-over to every other property, just like every Marvel comic is not obligated to have every character cross-over all the time. If the Daredevil comics never cross-over to the Doctor Strange comics, do you know what that means? It certainly doesn't mean that the Daredevil and Doctor Strange comics are in separate universes. It simply means that both comics take place in the larger Marvel Comics Universe, but they don't cross-over. The same thing accounts for the shows and movies of the MCU. They all take place in the same larger Cinematic Universe, but they do not directly cross-over. Otherwise you're saying, "Well, the movies are impacting the shows, so that clearly proves the movies aren't in the same universe as the shows." The movies are doing their own thing, and the shows are doing their own thing, and they are not mandated to force-feed us cross-overs. I'm curious, though: do you also feel that the Marvel/Netflix shows are part of a separate universe, apart from both the movies and Agents?

again, by that logic most of Agents' main cast have outstripped Atwell and Jackson combined. Yep. Spot-on. However, none of the Agents main cast have done any crossovers, so while they may have more appearances, they do not have any cross-over appearances.

And this is ultimately why I rarely to anything here at Wikipedia. There's too much red tape and bureaucratic ****. Do we need a source to say that Coulson has made such-and-such amount of appearances? Is it really considered Original Research to do kindergarten-level simple math and add all of his appearances together? Or do we need Kevin Feige to clarify everything for us? I agree with Favre1fan93: this is factually correct. an episode is an appearance. It's an obvious and intuitive approach, and if you disagree, I'll just let Favre1fan93 step up to the plate. --Bold Clone 14:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is cited, factually correct, or intuitively obvious, the fact is never mentioned in the article, so why should it be in the lead? - DinoSlider (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents: one of the things I mentioned last time this debate came up was that we could count each season as an appearance as opposed to each episode. The TV series of the MCU don't have a set number of episodes per season (22, 13, 10, etc.) nor a set duration of each episode (Daredevil has reached as high as 65 minutes I think, while AOS has hit 41 or so). What would happen if we eventually had enough episodes of Daredevil that their total duration surpassed that of AOS, but not the total episode number. It's these sorts of questions that keep me up at night. Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to classify a season as a single release. It seems to be a good equalizer: regardless of how many minutes of content we're getting within a season, divided among how many episodes, we're still getting a season of content. It would probably still, at this point, count Clark Gregg as having appeared more than any other character, but at least it would be a number possible to beat in the future, not a ridiculous 90+ appearances. Honestly, the only guy who should appear that much is Stan Lee. -RM (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this, but as another data point iMDB ninewheels0 has compiled a list of MCU characters by on-screen time here: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls033828946/ -- Coulson is way out in front, followed by Daisy Johnson and Matt Murdock. The first strictly movie character is Tony Stark in 12th place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is self-published and unverifiable. It may be "accurate", but it's completely irrelevant (even the name of the MCU emphasizes the films, so ignoring the films -- and saying that one season of Agents is equivalent to ten or twenty movies is essentially ignoring the films -- is out of the question) and unverifiable. But it seems virtually everyone here is still missing the point that this information should not be in the lead unless it mentioned somewhere in the body of the article. I'm re-tagging since no one has provided a good reason that this should be an exception to WP:LEAD -- "The TV shows are part of the universe!" has nothing to do with this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion in the lead is to make mention of the recurring character section, as sections in the article should be noted in the lead. As such, Coulson got the mention because not only is he original to the MCU (as noted), he has appeared the most (also as noted). This is no matter how you look at the simple calculations (allowed by WP:CALC) to get to this: be it an episode counts as 1 appearance, a whole season is one appearance, or a group of episodes to get to "feature film length" (so like 3-4, 40 min episodes). That is why it is included as such in the lead, which doesn't necessarily mean it is pulled verbatim from somewhere in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Stop removing maintenance templates without addressing the issues. I pinged you the first time you reverted me, and you ignored all subsequent discussion until I readded the template, and you reverted again regardless. In other words, you (1) edit-warred to (2) remove a maintenance template. Neither of these is acceptable by itself, and I have seen people get TBANned for less than you have now done. WP:CALC is about whether a simple calculation has to be sourced in the body of an article; it has nothing whatsoever to do with inclusion of material in the lead that is not included elsewhere in the article, and this isn't even a simple calculation (you are counting individual episodes as separate appearances, but at least one other user thinks a season is one appearance, and I'm actually more inclined to take one TV show as one appearance). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there another way to work around this? I does seem a bit like apples and oranges to me. A film appearance doesn't really equal a television episode. Could we say, "X has made the most appearances in MCU films, while Y has made most number of appearances in MCU television series"? But then again can we really compare a network series to a Netflix series, which generally have fewer episodes? Another option would be to say, "X has appeared in most number of MCU titles" and count each title equal regardless of episode or season count. It would also mean that One-Shots and digital series are also counted the same as films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that would solve it. This is a massive article with a relatively tiny lead section. The only way we can justify mentioning Coulson in the lead is by saying that he has made "the most appearances" (something that as of May 2017 is still true even by my conservative estimate) or clarifying in some fashion that he has made the most "cross-over" between MCU media. (My opinion is actually that he doesn't cross-over because his first television appearance post-dates his in-universe death, which the films for which the MCU is named have been sticking to, but that's beside the point.) Just stating that he has made X number of appearances doesn't make sense, as it would beg the questions "So? Is that the most number of appearances? Does that matter?" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have clarified "X" and "Y" don't represent the number of appearances but the actor as in "Downey Jr. (for example) has appeared in the most number of films, while Greg has made the most number of television appearances." That way we aren't trying to compare apples to oranges. But I do like your idea of counting the number crossovers instead (Greg does crossover from a WP:Real-world perspective, we should leave in-universe details out of this).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

TV appearances of any main character will probably go beyond a main film character. But it's who's most relevant. Coulson has appeared more than any other character in several different media, such as films, one-shots, TV series, and web shorts. Beyond that, it's debatable. Or even mentioning appearances at all in the lead is irrelevant because it might seem like favoritism. Probably mentioning Coulson at least would be suitable enough. Not sure about the rest (like RDJ). -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I told Bold Clone above, I fully agree with your sentiment and think that Coulson probably does deserve mention in the lead. But that completely misses the point that this should not be in the lead if it's not in the body, and should not be in the body just because you and I (and however many other Wikipedians) think it should be. It needs to be in the body, and needs a source that explicitly supports it, as otherwise we are just counting up numbers of episodes and/or seasons and arbitrarily measuring them against films based on our personal interpretations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:CALC is only allowed with consensus. RM has a good point: Stan Lee has been in 15 films and 2 TV series for a total of 17 appearances while Clark Gregg has been in 4 films, 2 one-shots, 1 TV series, and 1 digital series for a total of 8 appearances. However, I am still in favor of removing it entirely as it will always be contentious. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree for the reasons against mentioning it in the lead, at least without a source. I didn't think about Stan Lee, but again as important in real-life as he may be, putting him up against the characters of the MCU makes him seem kind of trivial in comparison. He's just the "Hey, fans, it's me, Stan "The Man" Lee" cameo guy. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and there's also the fact that the MCU is mostly notable for innovations in cross-franchise continuity (which is why Coulson gets mentioned and why I think a case could be made for Stark too), while Stan Lee had been making cameos in movies based on Marvel comics long before that (i.e., his making cameos in these films has nothing to do with these films in particular, and until a few weeks ago the continuity issue was just a fun joke among fans who think too much about this stuff). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The onus of the sentence, as I've stated, is to be the lead mention for the recurring characters section of the article. Also as I've mentioned, the previous consensus was the current wording. Obviously there has been disagreement on this specific wording, but seems to be agreement the mention should be of Gregg and Coulson. So how about this: "Phil Coulson, portrayed by Clark Gregg, is an original character to the MCU, that has appeared across all the different media of the MCU." This keeps our desire to have the mention be Coulson, and is factually correct in that he is the only character/actor to appear in the films, TV series, One-Shots, digital media, and the tie-in comics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Again, please stop using random claims of "prior consensus" to justify edit-warring and removal of maintenance templates. If you cannot back up your "consensus" claims by pointing a discussion on this talk page where there was clear consensus for the content you are insisting is just fine exactly as it is and doesn't need to be tagged, you need to link to said discussion. Otherwise, making this claim as a justification for your edit-warring is even worse than the edit-warring and removal of templates in and of itself. Again, people have been TBANned for less than what you have now done multiple times. Stop it. Now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Prior consensus doesn't need to have a previous discussion: it is whatever wording is used until another user disagrees and challenges it. But since you're so hell-bent on needing a discussion, here, with no consensus to change or update the wording as it was; this is what stood as current/prior consensus. And stop with your threats on topic bans. Reestablishing the WP:STATUSQUO of disputed material in articles (as I did, twice) is necessary and acceptable during a discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

So your definition of consensus is what one user snuck into an article and managed to get it to stick for some arbitrary length of time? You didn't reestablish the WP:STATUSQUO of disputed material, as it hadn't been changed -- it had been tagged, and you removed the tag without addressing the issues. And I'm not "threatening" you; I'm just warning you about what happens to editors who pull the kind of stuff you are pulling here. As you may be already aware, I intend to steer clear of the drahma boards for a while, so it wouldn't be me acting out on these so-called "threats" anyway. Stop edit-warring while refusing to engage in discussion, stop referring to the status-quo as "consensus", stop removing maintenance tags, and stop referring to the addition of maintenance tags as a change to the text of the article that requires "consensus". No one thinks a maintenance tag is a potential improvement to the article that we should get consensus to implement: that claim was ridiculous when CurtisNaito made it two years ago, and it's still ridiculous now that you are making it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I would tweak it to highlight the notability of this achievement: "Phil Coulson, portrayed by Clark Gregg, is an original character to the MCU and the only character to appear across all the different media of the MCU."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Me too. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm... forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't recall Coulson appearing or even being mentioned in the streaming shows. The only way one gets to the only character to appear across all the different media of the MCU is by using an arbitrary definition of "media" that includes "Blu-Ray special features" and "network television" as separate media from "feature films", but lumps Netflix in with network television, and even under such a definition it's not clear how Howard Stark, Peggy Carter, Jasper Sitwell are not also among the relatively few characters to appear across all the different media of the MCU. There's nothing wrong with this arbitrary definition per se, but you need a source that supports it, and discuss it in more detail in the body of the article. A cleaner dividing line, which I think is likely the one taken by a plurality of reliable sources, would be between "film" and "television", according to which Coulson's (and Carter's, Sitwell's and Stark's) appearances in the Blu-Ray shorts would not count as separate media to the feature films, and we could happily lump the streaming shows in with the network television; but that would only increase the number of characters who have at least "appeared" in "all" (two) media exponentially. And if this definition also includes "comic books" and "video games" as separate "media of the MCU", that would be giving more undue weight to non-canonical promotional materials that the creative forces behind neither the films nor the TV shows take as being part of "the universe".

TLDR: The above suggestion by Triiiplethreat is based on an arbitrary definition of what count as "different media", and said arbitrary definition needs a source to be included in the article. I have no problem with the definition personally, but it has to be sourced.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"All the different media of the MCU" is all that are defined in the opening two sentences of the lead paragraph (and subsequent subsections): feature films, comic books, short films (One-Shots), television series (regardless of release platform) and digital series. Nothing about this is arbitrary as you are claiming (seemingly with your personal opinion of what is and isn't considered canon material of the MCU). As for sources to support it, the table in the section does so, as we have Coulson spanning all four columns, with sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with TriiipleThreat's wording. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

So am I. Which is exactly why I find it so annoying that it seems increasingly like no one gets what the real problem here is. I guess I'm partly to blame for that -- I forgot to fill in the "Subject/headline" parameter when I opened this discussion, leaving someone else (DinoSlider (talk · contribs)) to recontextualize my comment in light of something I wasn't interested in talking about. I've renamed this section accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding in Triiiple's wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposing Changes: Punisher, Runaways

- Netflix' "The Punisher" will be released in November 2017.

 Source: http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/06/01/marvel-the-punisher-netflix-premiere-date

- "Marvel's Runaways" is missing in the TV list. Hulu will premiere it in early 2018.

 It already has a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaways_(TV_series)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810C:C5C0:289C:E90B:8C3D:1918:2BE8 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 

That was not an actual announcement for Punisher, it was just a comment from someone involved that may or may not be precise. As for Runaways, we do not have confirmation yet that it is part of the MCU. See Talk:Runaways (TV series) for more. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Page's Logo needs to change

I was just wondering why in the world the image at the top of the page is being used as the shared universes official logo? Marvel Studios has had an official logo as a separate entity separating itself from other Marvel productions since the release of Doctor Strange. With that in mind, why don't we use the official Marvel Studios logo as thus far it has only been used for MCU releases?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Because this article is called "Marvel Cinematic Universe" and the current image is an official Marvel representation of those words together. Please look to the Marvel Studios article for the current Marvel Studios logo in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, this article is not for Marvel Studios, it is for the MCU. So why would we use a logo for something else instead of one for what the article is actually about? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Users: Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97, the current image is not the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" logo as it says it is. The image in use is a marketing image for a collection. It's a poor-colored image, with lousy placement. Something that better represents the MCU needs to be used. Never has this image appeared in any of the films.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no other official logo for the MCU so what would you suggest?--Refuteku (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a logo for the MCU, released officially by Disney as part of a televised documentary about the MCU. And it is by far the best option. Your alternative not only is not a logo for the MCU (and so potentially confusing), it also applies only to two films at the moment, and this article is about lots of films, plus a whole lot of other things. It doesn't make sense to use that logo over the current one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The image of this article must be the one that is an accurate representation of the material in the article. The current one is that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Venom

Amy Pascal recently said at a press conference that Venom would be set in the same universe as the rest of the MCU and that Tom Holland could potentialy appear in the Venom movie. Meaning that the Venom movie should be added on to this page Here is the source: https://www.comicbookmovie.com/venom/venom-is-a-part-of-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-according-to-spider-man-homecoming-producer-amy-pascal-a151869

Not only that, but Black & Silver will be as well. They both need to be added to this page. On another note, you need to sign your comments.^--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I have added them in a way that doesn't imply that Marvel Studios is working on them. See also the list of films page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2017

I believe there was an error in naming Sony's universe. Technically, what they have is not a "Marvel Universe" as they only have rights to Spider-Man and Spider-man related characters. Therefore I suggest that any mention of "Sony's Marvel Universe" be renamed to "Sony's Spider-Man Universe". 2001:569:7C20:CF00:4F28:8ADA:83CE:658A (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

They can name their universe whatever they want. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget about the Fantastic Four and Mutants(?) ToxicReap (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Glitch in TV series table of Netflix series for Luke Cage season 2

I had noticed a rogue colspan reference in the table on this page, but noted table inserted from List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series#Netflix_series

I fixed it there, and the change showed up as-desired in an edit preview for this page (no change actually made), but the correction is not showing up on the actual page. Semi-protected needs to allow it through? Wjwarren4269 (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Purge the page to have it update. Your edit on the TV series list was correct and fixed the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Official Marvel Studios scroll for chronology

Felt this could maybe be added, but wasn't sure where. Marvel Studios has a giant scroll tracking the events and chronology of all the films. Source - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps after the Earth-199999 info we could add a line saying Marvel started keeping a scroll tracking the films' events? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That was one option. Another was in the business practices section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Stan Lee Same Character.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kevin Feige recently confirmed that Lee has been playing the same character in every film he's appeared in within the Marvel Cinematic Universe; he mentions his Captain America: Civil War appearance as a Federal Express Agent in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Therefore, I believe that Stan Lee should be added to the Recurring Characters section. See Here: [1]. - Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 18:18 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) - Per Above

AnonWikiEditor (talk) - Feige is quoted as saying it.

BrittonJeanSpears (talk) - Aside from both Kevin Feige and James Gunn confirming that Stan Lee has played the same character in every Marvel Cinematic Universe property, the Netflix shows give him the name Captain Irving Forbush of the NYPD. Irving Forbush is the alter-ego of the Marvel superhero Forbush Man. I'm in support of him being added to the recurring characters, since we actually have a name for him and it happens to be someone from the comics. —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Batman3095 (talk) Other than it being a continuity error, I support it. —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Against

--Refuteku (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Since he is merely a cameo without a proper character or influence, i say no.

• I am also against this, since it is still a bit unclear (the article even notes that Feige was being a bit "tongue-in-cheek"), but I have updated our mention of Lee with Feige's quote. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It may not change your opinion, but to clarify - the article didn't actually say that Feige was being "tongue-in-cheek". It said that even with Feige's statement about him being the same character, the author thought it was being done tongue-in-cheek. It's the author's opinion of it, not Feige's. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand how he can be same character because he appears in a very wide time range. He appears in 1940s and 2010s. And in all of them he's in same age, has same appearance. How he can be same character then?

EDIT: Ok I get it now, theory suggests he might a character like Uatu the Watcher but still against it because it's not clear - Tehonk (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said of how did he get from Earth to the space rock he was on? We may not know fully how he traverses space or time, but our lack of knowledge regarding the details doesn't override a quote from Kevin Feige. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The info regarding this is properly noted below the table. He should not be in the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Warriors Row (Television Section Addition)

We should really add a row for the New Warriors under Television > Freeform.I would do it but Wikipedia spreadsheets are more confusing than I thought. ToxicReap (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

We currently do not have a reliable source stating that this show is in the MCU. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia page for the team listing it as a release for the freeform shows. Unless you mean it might not be connected to anything else. I don't knoe. ToxicReap (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct, an article for the series exists. But as DinoSlider pointed out, it is not confirmed at this time to be a show that exists in the MCU. Thus it is not featured here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

However, "thus"ly so each and every TV series that has been up for debate of whether it is a part of the MCU or not - HAS IN FACT been a part of the MCU. "Thus" the information in question will "thus" be added to the page, "thus". You can quote me on that "thus".--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, User:Adamstom.97 be careful with your vulgarity. WP:CIVIL/SWEARING is a real thing. Chill.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

TV series' colors

So, when there were only several TV shows as a part of the shared universe, the whole colored boxes were pretty cool because they matched the themes/colors of their respective series. As the shows have exponentially increased, the colors become more and more obscure and completely irrelevant. My question is 'why do we need those colored boxes?' and further more 'what determines the color!?'. Whatever the argument is for them, I think they should be removed. None of the films listed have them. If your argument is to keep them, then 'why don't we put colored boxes next to each of the films, too?'...yeah completely superfluous to have it on the page.--65.130.214.136 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a TV thing, which is why we don't do it for the films. The colours come from the posters for each season—go to any of the season articles (i.e. Daredevil (season 1)) and you'll see what I mean. See WP:TVOVERVIEW for more information. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Though this has been a trend, isn't it getting rather manotonous? What should happen if two shows/seasons have the same color poster? There's only so many colors in the rainbow. I think that 65.130.214.136's point holds validity in that it really isn't needed. It's becoming rather messy in my opinion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a well-established practice that is used in basically every television-related article on Wikipedia, then I'm sure there are far more appropriate places for you to complain about it than here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Other TV shows may be able to sustain that formatting, but given how many various MCU television series there are, and seasons within those shows - I agree with other editors in saying it's going to become a coding mess. With how close two differing shades can look, it's going to get even hairier. Just a thought.--205.122.234.207 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a formatting that has been accepted by the TV project for displaying such info, and has been implemented here. Is it honestly a big deal if we have *gasp* two seasons with a similar color? No it isn't, so I don't see this as an issue or a problem going forward. It also isn't a "coding mess" as the IP is suggesting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I jus think that given how expansive and continuous the MCU is -- you all are going to run out of colors. What are you going to do then? Also don't *GASP* at other editors at their expense. Let's be WP:CIVIL here.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Directors' images

This has been a topic touched on recently, and here's what I have to say about it. There were some constructive edits done by an editor that was quickly reverted on the argument that a consensus was already reached here. The directors' images on this page currently only include recurring directors. In the past, this has been the accepted layout, though said editor pointed out that the reasoning in the past was that images of every director couldn't fit and got goppy-looking. However, this can all be solved by making the directors' images smaller - as I have done similarly on the DCEU page. As this makes the page consistently look the same, and due to the fact that an average reader would have no clue that the editors have decided to only include selected directors - making the page inconsistent - I suggest we add in each of the directors' images by their FIRST respectively entry in the MCU. Adds to the aesthetic and layout of the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The events you referenced were on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page and you already started a discussion on that talk page. Your argument does not apply here since there are so many directors across several types of media. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DinoSlider, if the editor's object was to make sure that more people were aware of their edit, then they are perfectly fine with listing it here. I obviously being the one to make the edits that were reverted, appreciate it when editors are collaborative.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If that was the intent, it was not phrased in that way. It reads as if it was about this page and I responded as such. Had DisneyMetalhead referenced and/or linked to the page in question, I would have responded differently, if at all. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

"Post-Phase Three" should be "Phase Four" and that same category should include Avengers - Infinity War which will be released on May 4th, 2018. (Yes, Star Wars Day, I know 😂 )

I actually just created an account because I couldnt believe this mistake so please fix it I beg of you 😂

Goodnight

ForFangirls (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Video game list

I just noticed that the only video game mentioned in the article is Lego Marvel's Avengers, while the navbox has 7 games in it. Should they be added under Marvel Cinematic Universe#Outside media or should a new list of article be created for the games? --Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, little blurbs on each of the other games can probably be included here. I don't think a separate list should be created for them since they are outside the actual MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add something based on the articles. --Gonnym (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought we kept them off the same we kept the novelizations off, since for the most part they are just adaptations of the films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I seem to maybe recall that? But I do agree with that feeling. So I'd hold off a sec there Gonnym. If any of the others listed in the navbox are not simply adaptions of the films, they should not be included. And I do believe most of them are, outside the Lego game. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading the articles and I'm not really sure you can call them film adaptations. A few examples:

• Iron Man 2 (video game) - the lead says "This story is set after the plot of the film, although the iOS and BlackBerry versions stick roughly to the film's plot" so the console version have new content.
• Thor: God of Thunder - the plot section doesn't sound like the film
• Captain America: Super Soldier - the plot sounds like an adventure from WW2 but maybe not the story we saw in the film?
• Iron Man 3: The Official Game - sounds like this maybe be after the events? Also, its an endless runner, this really cant be an adaptation of any story :)

Anyways, let me know as its basically done. --Gonnym (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the ones you listed seem to be divergent of the film's stories. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So then we have 5 (these + lego) out of the 7 games with different stories. Isn't it strange then leaving 2 games out? Also, then what's the verdict for these 4?--Gonnym (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Been going over the references and it seems from here that the Hulk game is also very loosely based on the movie and apart the beginning and the end, the whole story is different. --Gonnym (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Finished going all of the different versions of the games and they seem to be very loosely based on either the film universe or the film itself. I've gone a head and added the short summaries of each game. As a note (to whomever read this), please don't be quick to revert if you do not like the list as the time spent researching the games and finding the references took too much time. If it fits better as a stand-alone list, go ahead. --Gonnym (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks okay, structurally. But I'm going to c/e it some and move refs around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we convert it to table instead? It still seems to weighty. We don't even go into that much detail about the films in this article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This honestly looks like something that should be developed at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe video game tie-ins or the like, with just a short paragraph here linking to that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't actually get to c/e yet (so standby on that), but I'm not sure a table would be appropriate, because we've generally reserved the tables for "in canon" MCU material. So if we want to continue that, then maybe splitting to a separate list is also appropriate. But then again, all of are splits are for the "in canon" material too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

When you finish your c/e could you also update the lead? It currently lists the Lego game as the only game. --Gonnym (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gonnym, Adamstom.97, and TriiipleThreat: In my attempt to copy edit this content, I realized that a table would actually be the better way to go, as suggested by Triiiple. Please find that table here. Should all be in agreement, I will do more work on the references for formatting (and filling them out if I needed. A lot are rough for now) and then add it into the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you thinking of adding that here? It just seems like a pretty big and intrusive table for a group of things that are only sort-of related to the franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: It looks a lot less intrusive than the prose currently included in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Hence why I went with a table and not a prose c/e. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you lose the prose and combine it all into one table? We could add a video games column to the recurring characters table if you're intent on keeping that information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I am talking about. We don't even go it specifics about the content of the films on this page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason I kept the prose as such was because, unlike the films/TV series etc., these video games do not have a separate list article where this info would be included. As such, these bits as they pertained to the universe, seemed the most relevant to keep on this article (at least the Lego stuff, which has been here pretty much the longest). How about a version (seen here) where we move the prose out of the table, below it in paragraphs? I don't think the character info should be added to the recurring cast table, again because it is not an "official" part of the universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I could probably get behind that latest version. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I still think the prose takes up too much real estate and adds too much WP:WEIGHT. We don't need a list article, that information can be found in their individual articles. I really can't get behind the prose in this article, and would rather create a separate list article if it's a must.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

How is keeping the prose as proposed any different than the prose featured for the other subsections of "Outside media" we have? It seems to be less than "Live attractions" and "Television specials" for sure. I don't feel by having it is giving any undue weight to these video games. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, it seems we are in agreement to at least have the table replace what is there currently. I'm going to format up the refs and copy it over, while we continue to discuss if the prose elements should be included or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Because there is so much of it. That plus the table puts the section way over the top in terms of weight. And like I said we don't go into detail about the content of the films, television series, one shots, or comic books here, so it's weird that we do that for the video games which as you pointed out are not "officially" connected.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have converted the section to a table, as discussed. Regarding the prose that I had included in my sandbox, I've created a new option here that I think is worth considering. Because the Lego game is not technically a "tie-in" game, this option I have created removes the Lego game from the table, and restores it to its own subsection as it has essentially been on this article before these other VG additions. In my eyes, this helps with TriiipleThreat's weight issue, because we can then look at this as two things: the "tie-ins" as the table, with the quick mentions of actor reprisals below, and then the Lego game as its own thing, with only the prose. Let me know how everyone feels about this option. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WHIH Newsfront & New York Bulletin viral videos

There is this viral site made for the Netflix series, and it also has an "episode" like the WHIH Newsfront series of viral videos. It hasn't been updated for The Defenders or The Punisher so far, but we may get more in the future. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the Digital Series section, or make a "Viral Videos" sub-section for the WHIH Newsfront, New York Bulletin, and anything that may come next? They don't exactly fall in the same category as Slingshot after all. 2A02:587:8020:1700:94D1:9300:A141:4EE1 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No explanation of "phases"

The article has no explanation of what it means by the term "phase", but the term is used throughout, starting in the lede, as if it had some sort of significance. (The term "Phase Two" is actually capitalized in the lede, which seems puzzling.) I actually came to the article because I'd heard the term used elsewhere, and was expecting an explanation here. Even if it's just an arbitrary grouping used by Marvel, it seems like that should be mentioned somewhere. And if there's more to it than that, then it should definitely be explained. Xtifr _tälk 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xtifr: Yes, the "Phases" are a way Marvel groups their films together, with each generally leading to an Avengers film at the end of the phase. I can see if there is a source out there that can be used to add something to this effect in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing the article, there is definition of the term in two places: 1) In the "Development/Films" section A year later, Feige felt after the conclusion of Phase Three, Marvel might abandon grouping the films by phases, saying, "it might be a new thing." This states how Marvel groups their films; and 2) In the "Business practices" section These are put together at company retreats, which the studio holds every "18 months or so" to plan out and develop the phases of the MCU. Speaks to the planning and developing of the phases to be connected within themselves and the larger narrative of the MCU. So I don't necessarily think there needs to be another definition, but I'll still see if a source explaining such exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, while it's not a term that's used in this context outside of MCU films, it's also kind of self-explanatory. A phase according to a quick google search is "a distinct period or stage in a process of change or forming part of something's development". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I did see the quotes you mentioned, Favre1fan93, but you're asking me to infer a lot from that. Especially with the unusual and extremely formal (all-caps) way the term is used. Prof Kilroy: the formal, all-caps usage of the term suggests a significance beyond the ordinary meaning. Furthermore, as your definition says, there should be a distinct period or stage. What distinguishes Phase One (all-caps) from Phase Two? I could refer to the first three chapters of the book I'm currently reading as "phase one", but that would be silly unless there's some distinct change between those chapters and the ones that follow.

I can't be the only one puzzled by this. At the least, it would be informative to document when and where the term first appeared, even if no reliable source explains its meaning. Right now, it's not even entirely clear whether it's an official term or fanspeak the company adopted. (I would guess the former, but that's just a guess.) Xtifr _tälk 18:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Good topic question

@Jack Sebastian: As my edit summary length ran out, please comment here with what appeared to be a question by you on the good topic status of MCU-related articles. Adding a question to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Good Topic status as you did here would not be answered, because that subpage is not a discussion portal (as I explained), simply a means to display and keep track of the info. No one was going to answer it there, and it is very unlikely many others would even see it. Hence starting this discussion so you can ask you question and a discussion can be had. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why a talk page is used for that, when a normal subpage can be utilized. But okay.

As per this comment:

"Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Avengers: Infinity War, and the Untitled Avengers film have until one month after its physical home media release to be nominated for a Good Article. (Discussions on this retention period limit here and here.) They then need to be nominated to the Good Topic per the instructions here."

What is the rush? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Subpages don't exist in article space. Are you familiar with retention periods for good and featured topics? That's where our "rush" comes from. Reach Out to the Truth 05:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ROttT is correct. These types of pages are allowed per WP:SUB#Allowed uses, point #7. Additionally, all Featured Topics need to be kept up to date and have certain retention periods to meet. All that necessary info is linked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Chronology removal

Regarding this removal of the release chronology, @TriiipleThreat: offered as edit summary: "in universe fan cruft". I am not sure that this information is necessarily fancruft. Are you suggesting that the release dates should be cited? If so, that might have been more easily remedied by initiating discussion instead of wholesale removal. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Release dates are not fancruft, but a table that gives an in-universe chronology certainly is. This was a good lift. Rcarter555 (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I am missing the in-universe part. Aren't those dates of cinematic release? Are you referring to the arrangement of films by title? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The order was determined by a presumed in-universe chronological order. Everything else is already in the page. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Aww, fuck me; I totally missed the rest of the tables. So sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

MCU characters should have their own articles

Marvel Cinematic Universe characters such as Iron Man, Captain America, etc. have made significant appearances in several films with box office receipts amounting to billions. These incredibly popular characters are simply delegated to small sections composed of mere paragraphs or even just sentences in "___ in other media" pages (or the pages dedicated to their comic versions):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_in_other_media#Live-action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America_in_other_media#Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics)_in_other_media#Live-action

Christopher Nolan's Joker has his own page separate from the comic version of the character despite being in only one film. Relatively minor MCU characters such as Erik Selvig and Trevor Slattery have their own pages.

Anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredderzx (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Disney/Fox merger

It is being reported that Disney is currently in the process of purchasing 20th Century Fox for an estimated $60 billion. As I'm sure most of you are aware, if this happens then that implication is that Marvel Studios will regain the rights to many A-list characters including the X-Men, Deadpool, Silver Surfer, Galactus, Fantastic Four, etc. In the event that the deal goes through (and it is believed that the announcement could come as early as next week), how should we address it in this article? Even if the report doesn't shed any light on the direction that Disney plans on taking these properties, it probably does at least deserve a mention on this page. At the very least it probably deserves an initial mention in the Cultural Impact section under 20th Century Fox. In any case, such a merger will have enormous impacts on both the MCU and the current X-Men series at Fox. TheLastAmigo (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This is already mentioned on the Marvel Studios page. For clarification, Fox is selling their production studio and some other assets, it is not a merger. Since the Marvel licenses are non transferable, the rights would revert back to Marvel if there is a sale regardless of who Fox sells to. - DinoSlider (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a paragraph at "Business practices". It may be expanded when new info is available (if it is either confirmed or rejected). Yes, if it happens it will be a turning point with several consequences and may deserve its own section, but let's wait and see. Have in mind that we can't really talk about the impact of such a deal before it is actually made, as everything will depend on the terms and the fine print of such a deal. Cambalachero (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

After further research, it appears that Fox does not own, nor has ever held, the rights to Fantastic Four. The rights have been held by Constantin Films since at least the early-to-mid 80s, and every film in the franchise, including the 3 films released by Fox, were produced through them. It would appear that Constantin and Fox may have a distribution deal in place, and the sale of Fox to Disney may not allow the rights to go back to Marvel. Something to keep in mind if the sale goes through. TheLastAmigo (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that two of our main examples of studios being influenced by the MCU have been partly integrated or discussed to be integrated with the MCU, I wondered whether others wanted to discuss potentially restructuring that aspect of this article, having a smaller influenced by section that just mentions the main examples with a few details, and then further elaborating on the situations with Sony and Fox in the development section. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with exploring something along these lines. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Users: Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93 - totally agree with the 'studios influenced' section. Where two of the larger sections have now been integrated into the MCU - perhaps a short description of how the studio attempted similar 'shared universes', but then ultimately rebooted (Sony) and joined, or were bought out (Fox) and will be integrated. The section definitely needs to be shortened. User:TheLastAmigo - that was initially thought to be the case, but it was later confirmed that The Fantastic Four are a part of the 20th Century Fox buyout, as Disney CEO has stated as much.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Iron Man

In the Post-Phase Three section, they only state Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel and Guardians of the Galaxy 3. Shouldn't we add Iron Man 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.87.190 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that states there will be an Iron Man 4. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite millions of fans hoping... wolf 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, Robert Downey Jr. already said he could do one more Iron Man film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.87.190 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if you had a source for that, that doesn't mean can we add anything that states there is an upcoming IM4. RDJ saying he's "willing to" is a far cry from an actual announced film going into pre-production. - ^theWOLFchild 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

10 year celebration

Where is the best spot to include info on the 10 year photo shoot? I felt possibly here, but I wasn't sure the best location in this article. The list of films article could also have it, since the celebration is really about the films, and the photo completely ignores all the TV series. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What info are you planning to include? I'm not sure its worth mentioning without some sort of analysis.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Assuming we got analysis too, about how the photo shoot featured all the people it did, and that it was meant to start the 10 year celebration planned by the studio. Also potentially about the prizes for the contest they are running. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting somewhere, even if it is a small thing, but I am also unsure as to the best place for it. Probably not in the development section though. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've linked the actual photo in the EL section of the film cast list, but as to where we mention the 10 year celebration, I'm still at a lose myself. I feel like it should probably be this article, but I don't think we should start a whole new section just for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We can sit on it for a while, this discussion here should remind us if we forget. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Feature films table

Anyone going to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.129.86 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with it? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I for one think that story writers on films where they are different from the screenwriters, should be included.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Feature Films Table

Does anyone else think that the feature films table should include Rotten Tomatoes ratings? It would give people an idea of how popular/good the movies areLoki2727 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in a critical reception section...but I don't think it's absolutely needed in an already gigantic article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The reception section is for the universe as a whole. For the individual films, see List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films which does have a RT table.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

add the MCU release dates: 5/1/2020 7/31/2020 11/6/2020 5/7/2021 7/30/2021 11/5/2021 2/18/2022 5/6/2022 7/29/2022 Merrit melancon (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What does these dates refer to? And is there a source?--Refuteku (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Placeholder dates for untitled projects are not added. They will be once films get attached to them. See the info noted at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Other potential projects. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther 2

Black Panther 2 is officially confirmed by Kevin Feige: http://ew.com/movies/2018/03/09/marvel-studios-kevin-feige-mcu-future/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Loco 96 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There is already a discussion here. - DinoSlider (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Writing credits

I am wondering why it was decided to exclude 'story by' credits within the chart. Other similar pages list the 'story writer' credit right after the screenwriter credit, unless there is no provided/credited story writer; then there is just the screenwriters inserted across the columns. What was the purpose of omitting the story writers? Someone enlighten me.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am also wondering this. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There may be an archived discussion mentioning this, but essentially, if giving the overview of each film, the screenwriter is the one that puts out what you see on the screen, even if the structure/premise of it was created by someone else. That's why "story by" credits have been omitted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

New splits

For anybody interested and who has the time, I think we are getting to the point where the MCU-inspired attractions could probably get their own article, or we could at least put together a proposed new article where that stuff is split-off from here. A decent MCU-inspired video games article could also probably be worked on. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No objections here on either account; attractions or video games.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Also no objections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to do these myself, but cannot promise that it would happen any time soon, which is why I thought I'd put it out there in case others wanted to go ahead with it sooner. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I also would like to take a stab at something, but also know it wouldn't happen anytime soon. The content isn't going anywhere, and it isn't a super big priority in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thor Odinson

I was curious how or why it was decided to exclude Thor's last name in any of the cast listings. Everytime he introduces himself it's as "Thor Odinson". The argument could be made that he's introducing himself as Odin's son, but in the Norse mythology and Marvel's adaptation thereof this is how a last name came to be, and Marvel kept that as the character's name and for the same reason. In addition to this, over the multiple movies others call him Thor Odinson many times. Why was it decided to exclude that?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Because he is credited as Thor, not Thor Odinson.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How does that negate the fact that he introduces himself as "Thor Odinson" throughout each of the films?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A minor point: That really would be Thor Odinsson, (literally, "Thor, son of Odin.")

Pine (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comics

The MCU has several tie-in comics, which is already discussed in the article. There is, however, an issue that is not being discussed: the MCU had an impact on the main Marvel comics as well. The inhumans were pushed to leading roles in the detriment of the X-Men and even starred in crossover events, many characters are slightly or heavily modified to match their cinematic versions, the GOTG include their humor, "The Defenders" and "Avengers Assemble" had similar line-ups, Phil Coulson migrates to the comic book universe, Quicksilver & the Scarlet Witch are no longer mutants, etc. Some sources: 15 Ways The MCU Changed Marvel Comics (And You Didn’t Even Notice), How The Marvel Cinematic Universe Has Transformed The Comics, Ways the MCU changed the comics it comes from, etc.

Should this go in "other media", a new section of "Cultural impact", or some different article? Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Other media" section with the other comic book information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually think it should go in the "Cultural impact" section as its own subsection. Because what it seems to me you are trying to add Cambalachero, is the influence the MCU had on the 616 Universe, not necessarily MCU versions or MCU inspired characters appearing in the comics. If it was the later, I would agree with TriiipleThreat that it should go in "Other media" with the guidebook information.. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

But the Cultural Impact is for influences outside of Marvel. We already have information about how the MCU’s success has influenced their own films (increasing the number of films per year, etc.) and growth into other media in the development section. Also it’s nice to keep related topics together. You’re suggesting we split this information on imaginary in-universe lines.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the right place to put this is, but a section on the impact the MCU has had on the comics is more than just MCU-inspired characters appearing in other media, it should be about the general ways the comics have imitated the MCU, as well as why and if it has been successful if that info is available. I don't know if it is big enough to be considered "cultural impact", but it shouldn't be down-played as just Marvel being consistent with itself either. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Other Studios: Acquisition of Fox's Rights To X-Men & Fantastic Four Characters

This article gives a brief history or summary of "Other Studios" attempting to establish their own movie universe as opposed to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. After Disney/Marvel's acquisition of all the X-Men & Fantastic Four character rights from Fox, why is there no mention of this in the article? Is that because it hasn't been confirmed yet if any of these characters will be brought into the MCU? Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the last paragraph of the first section ("Development/Films") of the article. - Brojam (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I should have rephrased my question to "Why isn't it mentioned in the "Other studios" section?" But I didn't see that it was mentioned. Thanks though. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Film table consistency

The phase three films listed in the table seem to have an extra column, with numbers (maybe running length) in the directors column, shifting all the columns after it one to the right, so they don't match up with the table headings. --Snowhihi (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

'Recurring cast and characters' section should be updated to include Wolfgang von Strucker's appearance in Agents of SHIELD 138.251.246.170 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have refs or season & episode numbers? - ^theWOLFchild 20:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's ep 515 (here). I'm adding it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvel Earth number designation

I was searching for the number designation of the MCU and was a little surprised it wasn't in the lead and had to search for it in the article. Could the lead be changed to something similar to this?

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is an American media franchise and shared universe [...] Phil Coulson, portrayed by Clark Gregg, is an original character to the MCU and the only character to appear across all the different media of the MCU. Marvel has designated the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Earth-199999 within the continuity of the company's multiverse, a collection of fictional alternate universes. Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like something that should be noted in the lead. Fans like you and I may be interested in it, but in the scope of the article I think it is a bit much to give it as much weight as you are suggesting. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That line about Coulson also hasn't been true for years, as he doesn't appear in the Netflix shows or other recent spinoffs.70.79.59.95 (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Adam. Also IP, the line is most certainly correct. Per the wording, Coulson is the only character to appear in ALL MCU media (no longer is the line stating "most appearances"). No other character has appeared in a feature film, One-Shot, TV series, or digital series. Coulson has in all (and the MCU tie-in comic books too). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Update for Stark's armor?

In the cast listing for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers 4, Stark is noted as having "electromechanical suits of armor". But we see that he has updated his armor significantly, similar to that of the 'Bleeding Edge' armor from the comics, that is nanotechnology based and stored in the new arc reactor he has in his chest. Perhaps these film pages and any other related articles should be updated to reflect that? (here's a ref) I know there are some regular editors that maintain these pages, so I figured I'd suggest it here. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with a slight reword if necessary. Or simply dropping "electromechanical" as the adjective. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dropping it, or trading it for something generic like "highly advanced", or something along those lines? - ^theWOLFchild 04:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Because one could ~presume~ that even though we don't see it, he could still have non-nanotech suits. That's a stretch of a justification, but I hope you get the idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe high-tech, “highly advanced suit of armor” could still mean late Middle Ages.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you guys think works. I just think that the later articles, like A:IW 3 & 4 should somehow reflect the updates to his armor. The media is talking notice, as seen in the ref I added above, so perhaps we should should as well. - ^theWOLFchild 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Another way to go would be mentioning it in the plot as opposed to the cast credits, eg;

• Strange recruits Tony Stark, who has a new, upgraded armor stored in an arc reactor worn on his chest. Maw and Obsidian arrive to retrieve the Time Stone from Strange, drawing the attention of Peter Parker. Maw captures Strange, but fails to take the Time Stone due to an enchantment. Stark and Parker, equipped with new Stark-designed armor, pursue Maw's spaceship, Banner contacts Steve Rogers, and Wong stays behind to guard the Sanctum.
  (This is a section of the current plot from Infinity War. Suggested additions are in green with links.)
  Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 04:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s best we change the cast discription. We can also added sourced information about specifics of the upgrade.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me either way. - ^theWOLFchild 08:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Digital series

I am unfamiliar with the term 'digital series' and can't find a definition anywhere on WP. What does it mean exactly. I am not a video game user and so I wonder if that is what is meant. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just a series of videos made for digital release (on YouTube, for example). It doesn't really qualify as a web series, which is a full television series released online. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Images

I am adding this here since it sort of applies to all of the pages across this topic, and hopefully somebody has the time to go through all of them (or at least a section or so) and sort this out. It was pointed out to me at WT:ACCESS, during an unrelated discussion, that there is a potential accessibility issue at some of our articles such as Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel. Namely, that we haven't been doing a great job of including alt descriptions with images. We just need to go through the pages and make sure that anything not really conveyed by the captions on images is being described in an alt so that people who can't see the images get an equivalent experience to everyone else. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Mention of a course teaching about Marvel - trivia/undue?

Re: [2]. Fair enough, I see some media mentions, but it seems like WP:TRIVIA/WP:UNDUE to mention this stuff. It is, after all, a single university course, a curiosity, but nothing much more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

the opening sentence about Phil Coulson is not valid

Phil Coulson, portrayed by Clark Gregg, is an original character to the MCU and the only character to appear across all the different media of the MCU.

should be changed to

Phil Coulson, portrayed by Clark Gregg, is an original character to the MCU.

Agent Carter has appeared in all the media that Phil Coulson has. You could take it one step further and remove that line all together but thats up to the editors to decide on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7C20:CF00:38F9:77D9:28DF:29A9 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement is valid. Peggy Carter never appeared in a digital series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2018

I noticed that the fourth Avengers film was titled Avengers: Reassembled. However, the title for this film has not been announced yet, so I suggest changing the title in the table from "Avengers: Reassembled" back to "Untitled Avengers Film". Bocks89 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Photo copyright

There is no way the infobox photos is copyrighted, right? Seems like it is the definition of just being text.

File:Marvel Cinematic Universe logo.png

Unless someone objects, I will find a higher resolution and amend the copyright status. Kees08 (Talk) 06:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There is File:Marvel Cinematic Universe.png but MOS:TVIMAGE prefers the actual intertitle over user recreations.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Well, we should be able to just remove the fair use rationale from the image. It is literally just text, there is no fair use required. I just wanted to have a little discussion before I did it; I am going to be bold and do it now, anyone can revert me and we can continue the discussion if necessary. Kees08 (Talk) 08:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded to Commons, but for some reason cannot get that version linked correctly in the infobox. Anyone want to give it a go? We can delete the fair-use version one as well. Kees08 (Talk) 08:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

To close out this, I uploaded it to Commons, a DR was filed, the DR was closed delete, a UDR was filed, and the file was restored. The fair use image was removed from enwiki and we are now using the Commons version. Kees08 (Talk) 19:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)