Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recurring cast and characters

This section is about cast members and the characters they play appearing over multiple mediums. The Paul Bettany line feels out of place, because it concerns only the films, and would be more appropriate at the list of film actors page only. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see why you are saying that because of how the section is written. But the title of the section (perhaps that should be renamed?) doesn't necessitate that the section only be about actors who have played their roles in different mediums, just that section be about recurring cast members and/or recurring roles. I would say that it should stay, but spaced down a line into it's own little paragraph instead of added onto the end of the paragraph it currently is in. Bettany is a recurring cast member that has played a recurring role in multiple films and it is a notable fact that he will now be playing a second role. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To adam, the "recurring" nature of Bettany, is that he has portrayed the two roles. Maybe it should be on the film page too, but I think it is worth noting here as well. Also, to Anon, we should avoid single paragraphs per the MOS, so that is why it is amended to the previous paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Favre, you always remove content from this page that concerns only the films, or only the tv shows, etc. and that is what this is. If you add this info here, you are stating that any notable fact about casting in any MCU product could go here, and i would argue that certain recastings are just as notable as this fact. I feel that we have to remain consistent with what info we put where, especially if we are going to deal with any others who add these things as they would. I think you should reconsider, and maybe get some other opinions, because, though I agree it is quite notable, it really, logically, cannot go on this page.

Also, I know the MOS suggests against having single sentence paragraphs, but it is not an outright rule, and proper English (and logic) dictates that a new subject requires a new paragraph. Tacking on to the end of the previous paragraph, which is in itself just an extension of the paragraph before it, doesn't make sense, adds confusion for the reader, and almost hides the information from anyone not interested in reading about every cast member/character who has crossed mediums, but still looking for info. If the MOS outright said that single sentence paragraphs were prohibited on Wikipedia, then what you have done would be fine, but it doesn't, and I'm sure at some point at school you have written something which has required paragraphing, and you would have started a new paragraph with a new subject. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at it from the fact that the actor was used recurringly, not just because they are only in the films (which happens to be the case). Recastings would not fit in this, because the actors have not been recurring. The intent of the section was to highlight the characters that have appeared across multiple film franchises as well as mediums. Until this point, these characters have all been portrayed by one actor or actress. I do feel it is notable to highlight the recurring nature, to state that Bettany has been multiple characters in the universe. That is using a recurring actor or the "cast" opposed to the recurring "character". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to keep it, it really should be its own paragraph, for all of the reasons I stated above. The MOS states "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". The article is clearly of a high quality already, and does not contain many, if any, single sentence paragraphs, so adding one for the sake of good English and to improve the section, should be permitted. There is always the chance that it will be expanded or rewritten in some way further down the road anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I question your addition of Laura Haddock. I didn't want to remove it yet, but I feel that her role in Cap is insignificant and should not be mentioned. We should limit that info to any big character roles featuring a recurring actor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of the new version of the paragraph? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it. Another way to look at it (at least I am), is her role in GotG is actually a character, while her Cap role wasn't. I know IMDB isn't reliable, but they list her as "Autograph Seeker" for Cap, which isn't really a "role" or "character" per se. So I don't feel it is notable enough to be mentioned here. It also has not got the notable coverage that Bettany has. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Do you think that this info should be in the lead of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors as well? If so, should Haddock be mentioned there? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That lead is getting very big. I think we should start a discussion there about removing some from the lead, and making a section before the table. So I say for now, remove from here, and hold off on Haddock and Bettany both on the film actor page, per the outcome of said potential discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I recently added some info about characters appearing in comics to the recurring cast and characters section, but it was removed, with WP:WEIGHT cited. Previously it had been discussed giving comic-appearances the same weight as other appearances in the MCU, but ultimately consensus was against it. Therefore, I looked for alternative ways to present this info without giving it undue weight, and realised that a paragraph or two could be added here to indicate characters recurring in another medium (per the title of the section) which would pretty much negate the need to add the info anywhere else. It also ended up tidying up the page, as the comic book section was no longer divided from the other sections (which doesn't really make sense since it is grouped with them everywhere else on the page). If the consensus is that the paragraphs I added need to be re-written in order to remove any applied undue weight, then that would be fine, but I do think that the info should be here, and would like to know if anyone has any thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: What if we were to add the following paragraph?

Multiple characters appeared in official tie-in comics before being introduced in feature films: Steve Rogers / Captain America and many supporting characters from Captain America: The First Avenger were first introduced to the MCU in Captain America: First Vengeance. Likewise, the Guardians of the Galaxy and many supporting characters from Guardians of the Galaxy were first introduced to the MCU in Guardians of the Galaxy Infinite Comic and Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude.

The other paragraph I initially added could be saved for a potential character section on the actual comics page. This way we are acknowledging the fact that some of the characters first appeared in the MCU outside of the films, but we aren't really giving WP:Undue weight to the comics, which I know is what you are trying to avoid.

I would also suggest that maybe we mention that the characters already described as recurring in the first two paragraphs, who have also appeared in comics, did so also. I am thinking something like this:

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has seen multiple characters appear across the films, One-Shot short films and television series, with many of the actors reprising their roles. Clark Gregg, who portrays Phil Coulson, an original character to the MCU, has appeared the most in the franchise, appearing in Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, two One-Shots, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Samuel L. Jackson has also appeared frequently, portraying Nick Fury in five films, with one planned, as well as appearances on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Hayley Atwell, who portrayed Peggy Carter in Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, also appeared in the One-Shot Agent Carter, and will reprise her role in the television series Agent Carter and Avengers: Age of Ultron. All three characters have also been featured in at least one official tie-in comic.

This is a very small addition to the page, and by doing so, we are not listing the comics as other appearances by the actors or anything, but are simply reinforcing the recurring nature of the characters. I really see no reason why these two edits shouldn't be made, and they would, in my opinion, improve the article. I understand your stance on this and your not wanting to give undue weight, but I don't think that's what these edits would be doing, as the comics would still barely be mentioned in a substantial article. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The comics should not be mentioned, because as stated in our previous discussion (which I cannot seem to find), a character appearing in the comic, is not the same is it being portrayed by an actor, which is a real life aspect. While the comics are set in the MCU, I think it is incorrect to view it as, say, Chris Evans' Cap appearing, because Evans' is not make any such appearance. Or, take for example, Rocket and Groot in the GotG ones. Can we consider them the same as Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel's characters? I don't think so, because those actors have no attachment to the character's appearance. Because the original source for the MCU is the comics, Marvel Comics has the liberty to use such characters, as well as a bunch of others in the tie-in comics that may never make it to a visual motion medium. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the character is not the same as the actor, but the character is the same as the character - when a role is recast (i.e. Howard - Cheadle) the character remains the same, even if the portrayal changes. I do remember our previous discussion (I even referenced it above), and that is why no connections are made between the comic appearances by the characters, and the actors. What these edits would illustrate is simply the recurring nature of the characters, separate from the actors, just as the info on Bettany illustrates the recurring nature of an actor, separate from the characters. I really do understand your point of view, but the info here is not making the connections that you believe they are. If I was equating the appearances of, say, Coulson, in tie-in comics, to his portrayal by Gregg, then the tie-in comics he had appeared in would be listed as additional appearances following the list of other mediums (i.e. Clark Gregg, who portrays Phil Coulson, an original character to the MCU, has appeared the most in the franchise, appearing in Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, two One-Shots, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and multiple tie-in comics). This is not the case. All that is stated is that the characters have also made appearances in the tie-in comics. Likewise, the paragraph on first appearances is not a complete list, like the first two paragraphs on recurring actors/characters, but a simple acknowledgement of the fact that the character initially appeared in an official MCU tie-in comic, before appearing in a film. Perhaps this could be illustrated more with a slight re-write:

Multiple characters were introduced in official tie-in comics before being portrayed in feature films: Steve Rogers / Captain America and many supporting characters from Captain America: The First Avenger were first introduced to the MCU in Captain America: First Vengeance. Likewise, the Guardians of the Galaxy and many supporting characters from Guardians of the Galaxy were first introduced to the MCU in Guardians of the Galaxy Infinite Comic and Guardians of the Galaxy Prelude.

It is never stated that, for instance, the Chris Evans version of Steve Rogers / Captain America appeared in tie-in comics. All that is stated is that the character of Steve Rogers / Capatin America was featured in a tie-in comic before his first live-action portrayal in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Favre, the comics are not notable (for lack of a better word) here. What is notable are the performances. You mean to tell me that Captain America appears in Captain America: First Vengeance and Thor appears in Thor: The Dark World Prelude?!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's just childish, and completely ignores everything I have been saying. All this info says is that Coulson, Fury and Carter all appeared in at least one tie-in comic on top of their film, one-shot and tv appearances, something that is not necessarily obvious if the comic isn't named after them. Also, we would be stating the the tie-ins for The First Avenger and Guardians were released before the films, so the characters were introduced to the MCU in comics rather than films. This is a very small amount of information compared to that on the portrayals, so we aren't giving undue weight or anything, but it is still notable and relevant to this section because it concerns the recurring nature of the characters throughout the universe. Again, you guys have yet to give me a good reason for us to not add this info. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We have given you a good reason: it's that a character's appearance in a comic is not the same as an appearance in a visual motion medium. I can't explain this, but a character appearing in the comic is not the same character that is portraying on screen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The characters are the same. All that has changed is their portrayal - in one case, they are being portrayed by an actor, in the other they are being drawn by an artist. Clearly one form of portrayal carries a lot more weight than the other, and yes they are clearly very different from one another, but they are still appearances by the same character, and deserve at least a minor mention in a section dedicated to the recurring nature of both cast members and characters across different mediums, within the MCU. All of the information I propose adding fits the criteria for the section, follows the Wiki rules by being a fair representation, whilst avoiding giving undue weight to an admittedly less significant area of the MCU. The only issue you seem to be having, is that you believe these facts are in fact not true. You think that a comic appearance doesn't count as an appearance by the character. You think we are making something too notable when it shouldn't be. A big deal is being made out of nothing here, and the end result of this discussion won't have much of an effect on the page as a whole. The reason I am pushing for this so hard is because without the info the page will be ignoring something that can be covered in a couple of sentences. It is a simple fix that has little effect on anything else you are doing - it doesn't compromise or contradict anything else that is already there, all it is is covering a subject that otherwise isn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are to add anything, then it should be: "Additionally, characters appearing in the filmx, One-shots and television series make appearances in the tie-in comics." or something of the like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just tying the info into what was already there, rather than having a completely random sentence that was pretty much common sense. Most people can probably guess that there will be characters in the tie-in comics who first appeared in the films, etc., but they might not realise that some characters appeared in the comics first. Also, if you are listing the appearances of characters in the MCU (Coulson appeared in..., Fury appeared in...etc.) Why not state the tie-in comics as well. We don't need to list the individual tie-in comics alongside them, as one tie-in comic is clearly not the same as one film, but acknowledging that all of them have appeared in all mediums in the MCU just reinforces the recurring nature that the first paragraph is trying to convey. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I realise we are in WP:NORUSH, but I don't feel like this is an argument that we need to keep dragging on. I believe that these are edits that need to be made in order to improve the coverage of the page and therefore the quality of it. So far no one has given me a logical reason to not make the changes (and no, saying "a character appearing in the comic is not the same character that is portraying on screen" doesn't count, because it doesn't make sense), but I don't want to start an edit war, so I would rather we come to an agreement here first. I have taken all of the good advice and reasoning you have given me, both during this discussion and in previous ones, and have come up with a compromise that should really please you as it does me, but I'm afraid that your continuous denial of these edits without reason is starting to look like WP:OWN. I don't think this is as big a deal as you are making it out to be, and you have shown willingness to at least make a brief acknowledgement of the comics in this section, so I hope we can just finish this discussion as soon as possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sticking by what I proposed. The section is "Recurring cast and character". It is meant to highlight actors appearing multiple places, and in H. Stark's case, multiple places and multiple actors. I'm still with my stance that the character's in the comics are not the same as on screen, because an actor's characterization is not the same as one by a comic writer. An appearance by Cap in the the comic is not considered the first appearance. It's Cap:TFA, based on Evans' portrayal and characterization. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot take that stance because, by that logic, Edward Norton's Bruce Banner and Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner are different characters. They are not, because they are the same. Just because they are two different interpretations of a character does not make them different characters. When Cap appears in the comics, it is the writer(s) and artist(s) interpretations of him that we see. When he appears in the movies, it is the writer(s) and Chris Evans' interpretations of him that we see. They are both appearances by the same character, within the same universe, and though the comic appearances carry a lot less weight than the film appearances, they still deserve a mention in this section, as it is notable that the comic writer's and artist(s)' interpretation of the character was introduced to us before the film writers' and Evan's interpretation was. It belongs in this section, because it is called "Recurring cast and characters", so even though the focus is on the more significant, WP:Real world aspect, the cast, the characters are still a part of it. If you want to follow the logic in that comment, then this section, as well as all others like it, should be renamed simply "Recurring cast", and every time a character is recast (Banner, Rhodes, etc.) should be separated into the the individual characters who are actually not the same, even though everybody else, both in-universe and out, believes that they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking back over the discussion, I feel this suggestion of yours is acceptable.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has seen multiple characters appear across the films, One-Shot short films and television series, with many of the actors reprising their roles. Clark Gregg, who portrays Phil Coulson, an original character to the MCU, has appeared the most in the franchise, appearing in Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, two One-Shots, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Samuel L. Jackson has also appeared frequently, portraying Nick Fury in five films, with one planned, as well as appearances on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Hayley Atwell, who portrayed Peggy Carter in Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, also appeared in the One-Shot Agent Carter, and will reprise her role in the television series Agent Carter and Avengers: Age of Ultron. All three characters, as well as others, have also been featured in the official tie-in comics.

That bit at the end works for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Way too much comma usage in that paragraph though. Ωphois 01:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

By what criteria? I'm going to add the info in, and then it can be copyedited if necessary, but I don't see any problem with it. I would also like to revisit the other paragraph at some point, but I see this as a good start. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Parenthetical phrases within parenthetical phrases, notably the Coulson and Fury sentences. Ωphois 16:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That is only an issue if the sentence is unreadable or unfollowable, which really isn't the case here, but if you can come up with a better way to do it then that would be fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Returning to discussion

Seeing as how my latest comment on this matter has been ignored, I am going to summarise my thoughts here so that hopefully this discussion can be continued and shortly ended, rather than leaving it "hanging", so to speak.

• The section is called "Recurring cast and characters", which means recurring cast members, and recurring characters. It deals with cast members and their characters who have recurred across different mediums. It also deals with cast members who have recurred across different characters, and characters who have recurred across different cast members. Logically then, there is also the option of characters who have recurred across mediums, without the cast members also recurring, which is within the initial scope. Knowing this, if there was a significant example of a character appearing in different mediums, but not being portrayed by the same person in said mediums, then it would be worth noting here, as I'm sure it would be interesting information for anyone reading about the subject.
• I propose that we add to this section something along these lines:

The first significant character to be introduced to the MCU before their initial live-action appearance was Steve Rogers / Captain America, who featured in the official tie-in comic Captain America: First Vengeance before he was portrayed by Chris Evans in Captain America: The First Avenger.

By adding something like this, we are establishing that some characters appeared in the tie-in comics before they appeared in the films, which I think is very significant and worth mentioning in the article. Only one example, the first significant character, is given, and it is only a single sentence, so I don't feel that we are giving undue weight to the comics, which is something that we want to avoid per WP:WEIGHT. This ties into my previous point because in a comic, the characters are portrayed by the artist(s), rather than actors, so the character is recurring across mediums (films and comics) but those portraying him are not (Chris Evans is not the comic artist).

• At first my proposal was denied because of undue weight given, but I have completely re-written the info and removed quite a bit so as to avoid this.
• My proposal was then denied because "a character appearing in the comic is not the same character that is portraying on screen".

I think it is pretty obvious how dumb that excuse is, but to satisfy certain egos I am going to explain exactly why this is not the case.

THEY ARE THE SAME CHARACTER!

No editor is allowed to decide who a character is. Marvel has made a film about Captain America, and before they have released it they have released a tie-in comic that is officially a part of the same universe as the film, featuring Captain America. Therefore, the Marvel Studios version of Captain America appeared in both the film and the tie-in comic. Just because they are portrayed by different people does not make them different characters - are the Edward Norton Bruce Banner and the Mark Ruffalo Bruce Banner different characters? NO, they are the same character portrayed by different people. Is Eric Bana's Bruce Banner the same as them? NO, his version does not exist within the same universe as the others, so cannot be the same character.

Continuing to insist that they are not the same character is arrogant and idiotic, and in the end is really just being disruptive.

Now, having established that Cap in the films and Cap in the comics is the same character, I think this info should be added to the page. I think the fact that the we were introduced to him through the tie-in comic rather than through Evans' film portrayal is significant enough to be included here, especially since there is no where else we can put it (the tie-in comics page does not have a character section, this is not within the scope of the film actors page, etc.). If someone has a good reason for this not to happen then I am willing to discuss the matter, but I believe that I have taken all previously expressed opinions, as well as potential variables, into consideration before producing the above proposal. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The last addition changed the conditions of the original consensus. I think editors agreed with it because it limited the mention of the tie-in comics to a single sentence. I, in turn changed it back to a single sentence that works as a cover-all that just basically acknowledges the existence of the tie-in comics. Also the last paragraph seems to contain WP:OR or at the very least WP:SYNTH. The sentence; "Howard Stark is the first character to be portrayed by multiple actors, not due to recasting" is not verified by any source. The refs just verify the various castings. The same goes for the sentence; "Paul Bettany was the first actor to portray multiple characters in the universe."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am going to revert the changes you have made regarding the comics, as what you added does not belong in this section, and it is unsourced. I don't mind discussing this, but we can't leave the page like that. As for the OR/SYNTH claims, you should talk to Favre about them. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It can be sourced, no reason to remove it but lets see what the past participators think. @Favre1fan93 and Ophois:.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you were just a bit rash with your edits. I understand reverting my latest addition - I did say WP:BRD - but the other info had been agreed upon earlier, and what you replaced it with doesn't fit within the scope of the section. It is about the recurring nature of cast members and characters throughout the universe and across mediums. The first paragraph specifically highlights this aspect of those three characters. The comics line expanded/extended that, but avoided adding undue weight to the comics by not listing the comic appearances individually, as was done for the films, short films and tv series, and making it more of a general statement. You can't really replace it with what you did, as that has no relevance to the scope I described above, and was instead a general, common sense statement on the nature of characters in comics. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The change Triiiple did gives the right amount of coverage regarding the comics and the characters appearing, because a good amount have appeared beyond these, but it would be exhaustive and unnecessary to list all, or in the vein that Adam did with his edit. As for the OR and/or SYNTH content, didn't really think that would need a source, given we have the films themselves as sources (for their release years), plus all the characters/actors appearing sourced. This is all "attributable" information, "even if not attributed". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to TriiipleThreat's request, I will give my opinion. I think that a sentence mentioning that the characters appeared in the tie-in comics would be helpful, but I don't think anything beyond that is necessary. Pointing out that Captain America is the first one to be introduced in the tie-in comic before the movie was released seems insignificant, and seems more like fan trivia rather than something appropriate for the article. Ωphois 22:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that consensus is still against the Cap info (despite the lack of opposition to my proposal here, which is frustrating) so that doesn't need to be added again. I agree with Favre's sentiments about the OR/SYNTH, I think it should stay as it was, and I also think 'significant' should be re-added, as otherwise we are opening up the section to a ridiculous amount of unnecessary info, rather than having an exhaustive list. As for the first comics line, it really should be as it is now, as that ties into the scope of the section, whereas the new line from Triiiple doesn't. I guess what I am saying is we should revert the page to this edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jarvis

Just a thought, we currently mention that Bettany plays J.A.R.V.I.S. and Vision in this section, but is there anyway D'Arcy as Jarvis should be fit in there as well? Nothing is popping out to me, but I thought I would bring it up here in case anyone else had any thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I also thought of this, but did not think so, because technically, human Jarvis and AI J.A.R.V.I.S. are two separate characters. And Bettany (sadly) is not portraying the human one. That would have been worth the mention. But I don't think we can fit it in, or should be noted here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea that's fine. It would definitely have been notable if he was playing three different characters, even if they were linked, but I guess it wouldn't makes sense for a modern day computer to have the voice of someone from the 40s. Hopefully D'Arcy does a good job though. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Video games

I wasn't sure where to go with this, so I figured I would just come here. Currently we have start-class articles for most of the video games released as marketing materials for the films. They are all really just plot summaries (some very long plot summaries), cast lists, and maybe some minimal gameplay or reception info, that sort of thing. Although they could all probably be improved considerably, I don't believe that is necessary. Instead, I am proposing that they be merged into a single article not unlike Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics. Would anyone be against this? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If their plots do not really offer anything new or different from content that is in the film, they can probably just be merged back to the film articles, with the info on them in the "Marketing" sections expanded a bit if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I might have a look at doing that, at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The plots are definitely different in many of the cases and are contributing things to the overall picture. How much is a matter for debate of course. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I also think some of the soundtrack pages should be merged with the film articles as well, especially if the 'music of' page isn't going to happen. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Potentially. I don't see this as a glaring concern that needs addressing at the moment, but I'd be open to a dialogue on what's best to do. Maybe it's housing all "stuby" articles fully on a "Music of" page, rather than in the article for the corresponding film, to avoid album infoboxes and collapsed track listings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that its not really a major for the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We can keep it on the back burner for sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ant-Man Phase Change

Do we have a reliable source that states that Ant-Man is Phase 2? Or a reliable source that states that Captain America: Civil War is the first film of Phase 3? Ant-Man wasn't mentioned today, but that doesn't mean it's not in Phase 3 anymore. It just means they have nothing to announce for it. Whereas other films we already knew were taking place in Phase 3, had dates changed, titles and actors announced, or were simply confirmed by the studio. So, let's find a reliable source before jumping to conclusions and switching Ant-Man to Phase 2. Currently, the Phase 3 citation being used states that Ant-Man leads Phase 3. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Marvel them self announced it is now Phase 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.126.21 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some additional bits of evidence:

• Time.com has an article[2] that says "At an event Tuesday, the company unveiled “Phase Three” — movies it plans to make after Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man arrive next May and July, respectively." That definitely supports that Ant-Man is now Phase Two.
• The Atlantic makes a similar statement[3]: "Following the close of "Phase Two" in 2015, which includes the release of a second Avengers film (Age of Ultron) and the long-gestating Ant-Man (starring Paul Rudd and featuring a more irreverent tone), "Phase 3" begins on May 6, 2016 with Captain America: Civil War."
• Most damingly, here's a post on Slashfilm[4] that has a Q&A with Kevin Feige:
  • "Can you talk about the plan going forward with how many movies are planned for each phase?"
  • "I wouldn’t say we set out to say any particular number. Phase One was six films. Phase two — and for those following along you’ll realize that Ant-Man truly is the end of Phase Two and Civil War is truly the beginning of Phase Three — that leaves us with six films in Phase Two." (emphasis mine)

So yeah, nail in the coffin, Ant-Man is Phase Two. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

For Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish to be credited as writers on "Ant-Man"

78.144.228.101 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are the 'Draft' Pages?

How come they're gone from the Talk page. There were drafts for Captain Marvel, Black Panther, Captain America: Civil War...? I'm confused 2601:C:780:234:511D:BD81:BCA8:F8D3 (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is explained at the top of the page - they have been moved to their own page, as has the good topic stuff. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Why Havent the Drafts Been moved To The Mainspace?

What are you guys waiting for? Release dates have even been given! What else is there to wait for? For Kevin Feige himself to descent from the heavens and give his blessing? --Packinheat2u (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In general, articles for films should not be created until said films begin filming, even if we have release dates. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Adam is correct. Please read WP:NFF for more information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

Ant-man is a phase 3 film not phase 2. 156.11.12.65 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done it has been confirmed that Cap 3 is the first film of Phase 3 and that Ant-Man is Phase 2--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source stating that, by the way. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Bettany

I think we should say the Paul Bettany is the first actor to play two MAJOR characters in the MCU, because of people like Enver Gjokaj and Laura Haddock

24.33.127.212 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Phase 2 Producer

The producer for phase two is the same therefore can be represented by a single cell, as in Phase 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalDylan (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

it would be but due to technical limitations on the way that the table is added to the page, via translation from the main list of films page, the tables are separate so it appears separate on this page I'm afraid. I may have a look at something later--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done with this edit to the List of films page.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agent Carter: Episodes, Movie and One-Shot

Marvel has revealed the Agent Carter tv series will have 7 episodes, not 8, the pilot being a 2-hour movie. [5]

The page Agent Carter (film) should be renamed Agent Carter (One-Shot or Agents Carter (short film), as the TV series pilot shall be a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.186.182 (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the 2-part premiere is still two separate episodes, they will just be aired one after the other. The Agent Carter One-Shot is still the only Agent Carter film. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Gunn, Guardians and Infinity War

Just came across this, and did not know where it would best fit. Gunn has also stated in some other recent interviews on this subject. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it isn't really anything new. Marvel has always striven to have individual films be individual (to varying levels of success). Marvel will still put the Guardians and Thanos in Infinity War if they want, and Gunn will still try to make the best solo movie he can if he wants. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If it hasn't already been noted though, we can put this at the GotG2 draft page, just saying that Gunn wants to focus on the single film rather than the bigger picture. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I see we do have some stuff on that at the draft page, so I don't no where else it would be useful. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters

@Favre1fan93: Since this section is about all of the MCU, not just the films, hasn't Gregg still appeared the most? He has been in 32 TV episodes so far, and Jackson has only been in 2. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about properties, you can't compare a tv episode to a feature film. If that were the case Patton Oswalt might be have been in more then Jackson.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should be changed to "appeared in the most properties in the franchise" or something, to clarify. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, wording may have to be adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

State of the Articles (Jan 2015)

Hi all. Been meaning to create something like this for a while. Just wanted to kind of do a check in on the pages we have been working on to address anything, and what not. I think this past year, we made some really great strides and new article creations, and welcomed a bunch of editors into our "regulars" fold. At least for me with this, I wanted other opinions on GA and then just to kind of look ahead for the next few months for what pages have to worry about.

GAs

• To start, I think that GotG may be ready now from when I nominated it back in October. And if others agree, and it passes that will take me to my next point:
• If GotG is nominated and passed, do we feel ready to nominate the film articles for Good Topic?
• I also feel the list of television series article may be ready to nominate for a featured list, but I have thought of maybe waiting until Daredevil releases.
• Maybe Adam and our other more TV-series centric editors can answer this, but are any of the AoS articles ready for GA? I know there was a small discussion a bit ago on the season 1 talk. Would the main page, the season 1 article, or any of the episodes be ready? And if not for the first two, what work do we still need to do to get them there, in your opinions?

Upcoming work (~5 months)

• Jan-Feb: Agent Carter continues to air
• March: Agents of SHIELD comes back
• April: Cap: CW begins filming, draft article moves to mainspace; Daredevil premieres
• May: Age of Ultron releases, page has protection through October 2015; Doctor Strange begins filming, draft article moves to mainspace
  • For Cap: CW and Doctor Strange, I have the resulting sections that should subsequently appear at Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Sequel and Doctor Strange#Film once the mainspace articles exist.

I think that is it from my end. If I forgot anything in the upcoming section, let me know. I'm going to ping known editors that are always contributing, but others are more than welcome to join the conversation. Please let me know your thoughts on what I said, and add anything else you feel we need to go over! Looking forward to a productive 2015! @TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Adamstom.97, Sock, and Fandraltastic: @Drovethrughosts and Ditto51:

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea Favre, communication is never a bad thing :) Concerning GotG, as long as the lead, post-credits scene, and box office issues are sorted out, I am fine with this being nominated. Once that passes, that will be 10 film GAs, so I would be happy to go ahead with the topic nomination straight after. I'm not so sure about the TV list, but if we leave it till after Daredevil comes out, hopefully we will have some more info on JJ and maybe some of the other series, and potentially on the futures of AoS and AC, so maybe waiting till then could help fill out the article a bit, etc. I wouldn't look to the AoS and AC episode articles for GA anytime soon. I plan on continuing to just create and expand these, and think that that should be the focus for now, but maybe down the track a bit. As for the main AoS articles, I think if some of us give the Season 1 page a full c/e, and then we perhaps ask the guild to do the same, and just make sure there isn't anything missing or something like that, then I would be happy to nominate that one. As for the main page, I am working on some issues in the reception section there, and I intend to completely redo the cast and characters section, so perhaps have a look at GA after that? I can't really think of anything else right now, just that I am looking forward to a good year :) adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The biggest issue that the reviewer had with GotG was that it was unstable because it was still in theaters and so still had box office numbers coming in. Coverage is also something that is fixed as time goes on and various things that were missing like DVD releases and stuff are added to the article. The only bit I'm not sure on is if the sources have been ironed out yet or not.

I think Season 2 for AoS can go up for testing against the "B-class" criteria now. The List of characters page could use a few more sources in the character desciptions, just to ensure everything is sourced. Season 1 should go up alongside the main AoS page for GA-status if we are going to do that. While it does need copy editing (probably), it appears to be more sourced and detailed than the main article and nothing new and big is really going to come out because we are on season 2, so it is stable.

I have no idea on how to improve the list of episodes article though...

• Main AoS page →
• Season 1 page →
• Season 2 page → --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, could we discuss the list of episodes article and how that works? Do we just leave it as a normal list? I can't see it changing much ever. I am also curently working on a revised version of the AoS characters page, as I said I would at that talk quite a while ago, but it is still an ongoing project, and I don't know if anybody else is interested in it or not, but if we are going to use it, it could help that page get to GA, since at the moment it is a pretty bare set of tables and lists really. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There isn't actually must information at the MoS page. Just look at the other 3 examples I guess.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the AoS LoE should be examined once the series ends, or has a few more seasons under its belt. I agree with Ditto's suggestions for changing classes. So pretty much, for the time being in the very near future, we will be planning three articles for GA: Main AoS, AoS season 1 and GotG? Adam, would the AoS Pilot be close to GA at all you think? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely the closest out of them all. If you were interested in nominating it, then I wouldn't object. As long as there isn't anything that we really should be taking out/putting in, then I guess we could just c/e and give it a go. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

Spider man has recently joined the MCU and this page hasn't featured that so I would like to edit this page adding information about this and the consequences of it. Thank you 86.181.153.1 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please see above section--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Black panther release date

On the page you have it marked as releasing in 2018, but variety, a respected and reliable source for this type of thing says 2017, so should it be corrected or not? Here is the link:http://variety.com/2015/film/news/spider-man-marvel-sony-movies-1201429508/ 71.104.252.230 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Variety is mistaken in this case. Marvel.com reported that it would be released on July 6, 2018, whereas Variety appears to think that it says 2017. Thanks for bringing it up though! Sock (tock talk) 16:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. mistakes happen, nothing big. Also thank you for being so kind. 71.104.252.230 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If/when it is determined that Sony's Spider-Man is part of the MCU, is it part of Phase 3?

Completely separate from the above debate, but if/when it is indeed determined that the new Spider-Man reboot from Sony is part of the MCU, we should determine whether or not it is part of Marvel Phase 3, or something separate since it is being produced by a different studio. Are the official "Phases" only the ones being produced exclusively by Marvel Studios, or do they encompass films made by different studios, but still officially part of the MCU? Do we wait until we hear it officially from Marvel that it is part of Phase 3, even if it is determined that the solo Spidey movies are part of the MCU, or do we treat it like the TV shows Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, Marvel's Agent Carter, or Marvel's Daredevil, which are part of the MCU, but not part of any Phases? If we don't ever hear anything from Marvel, do we still treat it like an official entry in Marvel Phase 3? Of course, this is all assuming for the sake of argument that the new solo Spider-Man movie is part of the MCU. We may have to make a call on this soon.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The phases are decided by Marvel, if/when it is annonced to be in the MCU then we will see where it falls although its release date will likely put it in phase 3 though--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it would be Phase 3 based on the release date, but if/when it is determined that it is part of the MCU, would it be listed among the other Phase 3 titles or would it be listed separately since it is not being produced by Marvel Studios?TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes because different studio or not, they are all aprart of the MCU--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's not necessarily part of Phase 3 even if it is all set in the MCU. It may very well require a separate table to be produced, much like television has to have one. This might seem a bit awkward but it does give us a good compromise on the matter of whether or not the solo film is part of the MCU. The film is currently being developed with the intention to be part of the MCU, but clearly its status within the phase system is unclear. This means we can keep it separate from the rest of the films, not lock it into the MCU but still discuss it within the article all at the same time. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If they release it in the middle of phase 3 and it is indeed part of the MCU then we can look into this. But as far as I'm concerned, if it is then it will be in phase 3. Otherwise what would be the point in putting it in the middle of the phase unless it is a prequal and is actually set in phase 1 or 2. I guess we'll have to cross that bridge if it comes around.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the phases are confined to Marvel Studio's films. The One-Shots, TV shows, comics etc. have nothing to do with the phase system. This would be no different. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the phases are confined to films in general. The fact that they are all Marvel Studios films just happens to be so, because no other film is yet set in the MCU. And anyway, there is no point in arguing about this until we actually do have to try and fit another studios' film(s) into these articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Click this link

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.

---

Let's put this whole Spider-Man not being or being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at rest. Please for the love of God watch this video http://youtube/NYfdJjszOYk this guy in the video knows what he is taking about. Favre1fan93 and TriiipleTreat. -- Zzaxx1 (talk) 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said on the List of films page, yeah that's pretty much the definition of a non-reliable source per WP:RS and WP:YOUTUBE. Consensus still stands. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Recurring character table?

I know there is a great comprehensive list of the cast in its own article, but for the sake of accessibility, shoulnd't a streamlined version be available? Be it here or the other article, focusing just on the few main characters and important supporting roles (Coulson, Fury, Loki) just in case someone, say, wants to know when Iron Man does show up? 186.134.67.124 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You are probably looking for the table that is at the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page. The characters listed here are meant to highlight the characters that have recurred and have appeared across multiple medias (ie the films, short films and television series). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man movie is a part of the MCU

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.

---

To those who don't think this is a verified fact.

The whole argument is incredibly ridiculous and an exercise in hair-splitting and futility. These are the facts from the article on Marvel's website:

1. Marvel and Sony are rebooting the Spider-Man film franchise with a new character. 2. The deal brings Marvel into the Spider-Man film franchise. 3. The new Spider-Man character will debut in an upcoming MCU film. 4. The same Spider-Man character will have a solo film in 2017, co-produced by Marvel's Feige and Sony's Pascal. 5. Marvel moved back the release dates for 4 (four !) scheduled MCU films, to make room for the upcoming Spider-Man. 6. The upcoming Spider-Man film took Thor 3's time slot in 27 June 2017. 7. Marvel and Sony will strive to include MCU characters in future Spider-Man films. 8. The "iconic web-slinger is brought into the Marvel Cinematic Universe". 9. "Spider-Man is taking his rightful place among other Super Heroes in the MCU".

It is impossible for Marvel and Sony to make a deal that involves simultaneously having two different Spider-Men - one in an upcoming MCU film and a different one in the 2017 film. It is impossible for the 2017 Spider-Man film to feature the same Spider-Man character from the aforementioned MCU film without sharing its continuity. It is impossible for the new Spider-Man film franchise to share continuity with the MCU without it being part of the MCU. It is impossible for Marvel and Sony to explore the opportunities of including MCU characters in future Spider-Man films without it being part of the MCU. It is impossible for Spider-Man the character to be part of the MCU without the Spider-Man film that feature this character and shares the aforementioned upcoming MCU film's continuity being part of the MCU. MCU is a shared universe of film franchises, not characters.

The MCU is not a film series - it is a shared universe that consists of several separate film franchises being in a continuous state of crossover with one another (every single . Spider-Man appearing in MCU films and having MCU characters appear in future Spider-Man films means the new Spider-Man series is planned to be in a continuous state of crossover with other MCU franchises. Marvel putting the upcoming Spider-Man film in Thor 3's time slot means it is being distributed as an MCU film. It wasn't put in the cancelled The Amazing Spider-Man 3's time-slot. Since it is impossible for the planned Spider-Man film to be anything but part of the MCU, it is therefore part of the MCU, and no additional clarification is required, as this is not speculation, but fact. Reverting page edits is therefore harmful and misleading, creating a false impression of ambiguity where there is none.

The bit about bugs from Slither (or Howard the Duck's after-credits scene) is beyond flinging irrelevant, comparing a humorous blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo to a fully-fledged participation in numerous films is just... unintelligent. And yes, if Howard the Duck actually was actually a real (non-cameo) part of the Guardians of the Galaxy, introduced himself as Howard the Duck from an alternate universe populated by anthropomorphic ducks, participated in the film's story and was scheduled to have a future film whose legal status made it entirely possible to feature characters from Guardians of the Galaxy - Howard the Duck should have been included in the MCU line-up, albeit not the original film which was made years before the MCU's existence.

By detractors' logic, we should erase the entire MCU article because there isn't a single "reliable" source that clearly states that the MCU actually exists. That's right - every official statement will either refer to MCU as something that's already established, or describes what it's supposed to be, or announces what it's going to be in the future - there has never been any instance of any official statement from Marvel that plainly states "Marvel Cinematic Universe really exists right now". For all we know, the MCU could be an elaborate hoax, or an experiment, or anything else. Verifiability, not truth (ironically, Chrome's spelling dictionary doesn't recognize "verifiability" as a word").

You're not being professional, accurate, or intelligent right now. You're being dumb and obstructive, relying on arbitrary and nonsensical standards of "verifiability" that don't exist anywhere outside your imagination to keep readers from accessing established facts. Stop, before it's too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyphwright (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to your "It is impossibles": They are not two different Spider-Men, they are the same; It IS possible to have the same character appear in separate franchise, see John Munch as a perfect, very applicable, example; We don't know that the film is sharing continuity with MCU films. We only know that the possibility exists for MCU characters to appear. So once again, the Marvel press release does not confirm the film is part of the MCU. Only that the character will appear in both MCU films and Sony's Spider-Man films, and Marvel is exploring the possibility of allowing the use of MCU characters to appear in the Spider-Man films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And also for the last bit, we have a very existent standard about verifiability, in the form of the policy WP:V, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We are not saying that it IS or IS NOT a part of the MCU, only that we cannot verify that it is at this time. As Favre1fan93 suggested, this is an encyclopedia not a fansite, and as such we hold ourselves to a higher standard. We are not concerned about being first, nor is this about right or wrong. We only concern ourselves with verifiable facts. See this icon at the top of the page. That means that this a good article, one of the best on Wikipedia. Editors have worked very hard at making this a good article by adding verifiable information from reputable sources. None of the scenarios you mentioned are impossible, infact everything is possible in the world of fiction.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2017 Spider-Man film has been confirmed to be an MCU film. Anyone who disagrees is only arguing semantics at this point, and you're preventing the article from being accurate and up to date. The real question is, how do we unlock the page so we can add the 2017 Spider-Man film to the list of MCU films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBobOfBobs (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

By providing a reliable source that explicitly verifies your claim.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Already been done. It's been verified by a reliable source for over a week.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBobOfBobs (talk • contribs)

Unless you are privy to a RS that the rest of us are unaware of, then I'm afraid you are incorrect.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read through the arguments on this page, and I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2017 Spider-Man film is indeed an MCU film. The people here who have argued that 2017 Spider-Man should be added to the list of MCU films have argued their claim very well, and have verified their claim through reliable sources. You, however, have not been able to back up your claim. Yes, you've made a claim, and you edited the page based off of that claim without verifying that claim with any reliable sources. You've claimed that despite the fact that the 2017 Spider-Man film is going to use the MCU Spider-Man character, that MCU Spider-Man will continue to appear in other MCU films, it could possibly have MCU characters from previous MCU films appear in it, it's going to take place within the MCU continuity, that it's being co-produced Kevin Feige and a team from Marvel will be involved in the film. Despite all that you've claimed that it is not a verified MCU film. Why? Is it an alternate time line or universe that's just extremely similar to the MCU? Well, do have anything to back up that claim? Do you have anything to back up your hunch other than arguing that Marvel's press releases didn't mean what they said?

I understand you're just trying to be careful. You want the page to be accurate. You don't want eager fanboys making mistakes on the page because they're leaping without looking. But, as you've been worrying about other people making errors, you yourself have made an error. Please correct your error and add the 2017 Spider-Man to the list of MCU films.--TheBobOfBobs

What you have stated is not verification. You are jumping to conclusions, albeit a very likely conclusion but it is still synthesis or original research. The source has still to explicitly state what you mean. As you pointed out, there are numerous possibilities in which the examples you gave can be mutually exclusive. I do not have to prove a unknown, but rather the WP:BURDEN is on you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to verify it, it has been already been verified multiple times by multiple people on this page. Those sources clearly state that the 2017 Spider-Man film is an MCU film. Whether you know it or not, you're the one making the claim. By forcing editors to omit Spider-Man (2017) from the list page you are implying that it isn't an MCU film. Which looks bad in the eyes of the reader when it has already been confirmed as an MCU film. If you're claiming that it isn't an MCU film then the burden of proof is on you, because those who claim it is have already proven it. If you're not claiming that it isn't an MCU film, then why bother preventing people with sufficient evidence from editing the page to show it is an MCU film?

You seam to not want to accept the proof. You're argue semantics (which IMO is just petty) and nick pick the way it was announce. You claim it isn't clear enough from your perspective, but from mine and most other people's perspective it's very clear. Marvel is clearly claiming Spider-Man (2017) is an MCU film and that has already been reliably verified and sourced on this page.TheBobOfBobs (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me where "it has already been verified multiple times" and where in the source it "clearly states that the 2017 Spider-Man film is an MCU film". Have you found some magical source no one else has seen or read clearly indicating this? Because if you say it's the Marvel.com press release, you are wrong (as we have been trying to explain to you). The wording from that source does not leave a clear indiction that the film is in the MCU. It clearly states the character is becoming a part of the MCU, the film, yet to be determined. And to counter a likely response from you of "How can a character appearing in an MCU film and then again in his own film, not be a part of the same universe?", please see John Munch as an example of the same character appearing in different franchises. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"The wording from that source does not leave a clear indiction that the film is in the MCU." That's you're opinion. In my opinion the wording clearly indicates that it is an MCU film. "please see John Munch as an example of the same character appearing in different franchises." as someone else pointed out the MCU is a shared universe NOT a series. Spider-Man (2017) take's place within that shared universe, this has been clearly indicated by Marvel at Marvel.com.

Ask yourself this question: Is Spider-Man (2017) going to take place in the same universe as Captain America: Civil War? Yes, obviously it is. This has been confirmed by Marvel. That puts it in the MCU.TheBobOfBobs (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You can ask that question, but you can't answer it accurately. You may feel and want it to, but the press release does not gives us a clear indication either way. And just the fact that you pointed out that you have your view of the release and I and other have ours, shows why it can't be used to state one way or the other. Additionally, the press release says the Spidey films are still financed, distributed and completely controlled by Sony. That is how all previous Spidey films have been handled, so it is not unlikely that will continue, indicating that it is in a separate universe from the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What you're calling semantics, everyone else is calling Wikipedia's policy. It's not so much that we're not accepting the proof (or source) - we accept what the sources say (Spider-Man appearing the MCU, Fiege producing the Spider-Man film, talks about MCU characters appearing in Spider-Man films, etc.), but to say anything on top of that would be inferring things.

For the record, I also think it's really obvious that the Spider-Man film will be a part of the MCU, but the fact of the matter is, it hasn't been explicitly said that that's the case. So, until that happens, we just can't assume things - even if they seem obvious. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We are currently assuming that the sources mean that the new spiderman film will be in the MCU which is why it isn't in the article. If you ask me, all of the sources seem to go out of their way to basically avoid mentioning whether it is or not, even the Marvel press release on it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop acting like a retard and just add the bloody movie to the list. It's been confirmed and verified by Marvel themselves in a press release, so that's pretty much as reliable a source as you can get. --24.254.139.24 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop acting like schoolyard child with the name-calling. It is clear that, to many editors, it is obvious nothing in the press release says the next Sony Spider-Man movie is definitively part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. An encyclopedia deals in definitive facts, not speculation or personal interpretation. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Wikipedia deals with definitive facts, and seeing as this is a definitive fact and not speculation, you all need to quit being jackasses and add it in. It's deplorable how a single person can hold back an entire update because he's being senselessly stubborn. --24.254.139.24 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Hollywood Reporter going into more detail on the Sony/Marvel Spider-Man deal. Even though it's just speculation, the writer believes that Feige will exert creative control over Sony in regards to the new Spidey films. It's also states that Marvel will receive a small producer's fee for the new films. - Richiekim (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

One other datapoint: Box Office Mojo (an oft-cited site on Wikipedia) is including the future Spider-Man film in the MCU franchise: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=avengers.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm putting down a bet: "Box Office Mojo isn't a reliable source." You'll come to learn that with the Wikipedia Elite, reliability is only tantamount to convenience. If it doesn't help their argument, it's "unverified." All too often, you'll find cases where a specific source that has been confirmed as "credible" will suddenly become "fallacious." You know, just because. There's a word for that actually, right here on Wikipedia even! --24.254.139.24 (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To use Box Office Mojo in this instance would not be sound. It is a reliable source for box office data, not if a film releasing in two years is part of a certain series or universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is still going on? Drop the stick, guys. Please. There's no consensus for its addition, so (like in a requested move) nothing should happen yet. It's clear that neither side is budging, so this argument has become pointless. Sock (tock talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily beating a dead horse, since new reliable sources have been provided. So, let's take a step back, and not just assume what the other "side" will or won't say, or brush off these sources without sensible discussion.

The Hollywood Reporter article does seem to be just speculation. Dealing only with hypothetical situations, and not stating anything definitively, so that won't do.

As for the Box Office Mojo listing - it's true that BOM is used as a source for box office gross, but it's worth noting that List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series cites the Franchises (and films in them) that BOM lists, not just their gross. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess just wait until the movie is released (it's only about two years from now), then add it to the list. I mean, you can't get a more reliable source than the movie itself, for those people who don't want to believe the multitude of news articles on this subject that have appeared since early February. Frankly, the fact that people are arguing about this is silly and stupid. I mean, Marvel and Sony went out of their way to say that Spider-Man would be joining the MCU. They made a big deal about it. I'm not sure how someone could be confused by that. Kyle Nin (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, they didn't. Read the Marvel press release. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to elaborate further, the sources state that the character will be in the MCU, none of them have said the movie itself. Even the press release avoids saying it in a way that can't be interpreted in different ways.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Marvel mistakenly forget to mention the obvious, they didn't think of Wikipedia people. By logic if a character appears in an universe, he is part of this universe and of course every following movie will be part of it too. Some quotes from the news from marvel.com ([6]):

• "Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago."
• "Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films."
• "Marvel's involvement will hopefully deliver the creative continuity and authenticity that fans demand from the MCU."
• "[..] and with this deal, fans will be able to experience Spider-Man taking his rightful place among other Super Heroes in the MCU."

I bolded the important words for you. If you combine Marvel's own words like "continuity" and "authenticity" whith the others there is absolutely no way to misinterpret this. 85.4.215.151 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Like we have said to many, many people. All of these either state the character will be in the MCU or that Marvel will help with the Sony film. Anything else is either Original Research or Inferences / Synthesis of what we have.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Following this conversation is like a riding a ferris wheel; circular, repetitive, and a slight bit nauseating due to the wind. We are talking in circles, making the same arguments over and over and over again. It's abundantly clear that we will not reach a consensus as to whether or not it is a part of the universe, so no action should be taken yet. If someone wants to open an RfC (which is probably long overdue at this point) be my guest. But otherwise, we're just wasting time when we could all be helping other articles or contributing to discussions that are actually going somewhere. I am openly admitting that my opinion is that it's ambiguous enough that I wouldn't say we should jump and include it just yet, but that has no bearing on the fact that both sides are just rehashing the same thing, kind of like I am by typing this part again but slightly reworded. Without an RfC, this is gonna go on until the sequel to the Spider-Man movie is out. Sock (tock talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The original lot asking for its inclusion have either accepted that it isn't clear enough to add and have stopped posting their arguments are have simply just given up. Now it is just IPs and editors who haven't been a part of the discussion who can't be bothered to read it who we have to explain the situation to.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2015

Hi, under the films section, Ant-Man needs to be moved down to the beginning of Phase 3, so that it is above captain america civil war. This is because Kevin Feige the head of Marvel stated in 'Marvel Studios: Assembling A Universe' that every phase ends in an avengers movie. So phase one ended in the avengers, and phase two needs to end in avengers age of ultron and not be ending in ant-man. Thank you, p.s I'm a big marvel fan and every time I see it, it annoys me. Rowan100 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done At the Phase 3 announcement event, Feige confirmed that Ant-Man is the end of Phase 2, and Civil War is the beginning of Phase 3. This is sourced in the tables as well as being mentioned in the actual film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)