Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Entertainment Weekly citation type

There has been some back and forth on whether Entertainment Weekly citations should be web or magazines. It mostly started as a result of the citation bot changing all of them to magazines yesterday, which @Adamstom.97: made a note of on the bot's talk page.

• The main argument for using the magazine citation is that the EW website is for the magazine.

• The main argument for using the web citation is that most, if not all the EW articles used for the MCU pages are only on the website and not in the print magazine.

I thought that the magazine citationn was fine as I'd seen the web citation being changed on other non MCU articles in the past. So I thought nothing of it when me and some others were running the citation bot yesterday.

I figured I'd bring this topic here to see if anyone has anything to say since it's about MCU articles. I'm fine with it being a magazine citation since that's what the citation bot uses. If we come to a conclusion that we should only be using the web citation for Entertainment Weekly (and on a smaller scale Rolling Stone), then it's gonna be a pain to go through each article that was changed yesterday to only fix the citation type and not the other useful changes by the bot.

Articles that may have had citations changed to magazine were:

• Articles for each phase
• Phase 4 movies
• A couple movies from other phases
• The shows
  • The episodes
• Some characters
• MCU drafts

I think everything I saw or that I personally used the bot for falls under one of those categories. -- Zoo (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I get annoyed with Citation Bot sometimes for this very reason, because it has a habit of unnecessarily converting {{Cite web}} templates into {{Cite news}}, {{Cite magazine}}, and {{Cite newspaper}} templates when there's really no need to. While all of these templates basically work the same and have almost the same parameters, I personally don't see a need for a change. That said, there's no pressing need to revert everything back to {{Cite web}} unless you or someone else really feel like it (and have a lot of time on your hands). InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 and Centcom08: you might be interested in this discussion (and the one on Citation Bot's talk page). InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe in using {{Cite web}} with citations involving URLs so I am going to use it on my first instance of adding a piece of new information but if the Citation bot does change it moving forward then I already decided today to let it go. But reading the {{Cite magazine}} states, "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters." whereas we usually find articles online. Centcom08 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many more categories and articles that I know could use a quick clean up from citation bot, but I don't want to keep adding more magazine citations. Since so far everyone here is more in favor of keeping web citations, it'd be nice if the bot was just changed so we could run it again to convert the citations back to web. -- Zoo (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be surprised if the operators/creators/supervisors of Citation Bot will be willing to make such a big change to the bot's code solely based on opposition from a small group of editors. Such a change would impact many more articles beyond those about the MCU (and films in general — I think you ran this on Avatar 2 as well?). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I did all 3 Avatar movies that have articles and I'll probably fix those citations tomorrow. -- Zoo (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

My question is why did the tool start changing EW all of a sudden? Rolling Stone has been happening for a bit and at some point I felt it wasn't worth reverting that continually, so I gave up. But EW most certainly shouldn't be using {{Cite magazine}} unless it's actually citing a print article (of which there are only a handful, if any, on the MCU articles). I'm trying to go through and restore their templates to {{Cite web}} as I'm going through my watchlist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Since the editors in charge of the bot are not interested in showing they have consensus for any of their changes, a solution would be to use {{Bots|deny=Citation bot}} on the pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like that is a little extreme. The bot is helpful overall in most cases. But yes, it doesn't look like anything is gonna be changed for this issue. -- Zoo (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

All for this, this is going nowhere. Is there some sort of command to accept "alter: title"? This is helpful in MOS:CURLY cases. – SirDot (talk)

If the only useful edits made by Citation Bot are fixing curly apostrophes and quotation marks, there are scripts out there that can handle such things. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It also adds missing dates, but that plus what you said is about it at this point. -- Zoo (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation Bot continues to make the above changes. Since the folks over there aren't going to budge, we can either implement Gonnym's {{Bots|deny}} suggestion, revert CB until the end of time, or just accept the changes and move on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to just accept it at this point. -- Zoo (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sigh... – SirDot (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

For those who are interested and haven't participated yet, there is a lengthy discussion going on at Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe § Criteria for Central, Supporting, and Minor Characters regarding a proposed major restructuring of that page. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Shall we have a channel #wpmcu in Discord?

In my humble opinion, shall this WikiProject have a channel in Wikipedia's Discord server to better communicate with each other? We can discuss anything related to the improvement of MCU articles or share sources that can be added to those articles, which doesn't really require having a talk discussion. Centcom08 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've never used Discord, I always thought it was a video game thing or something. If there is an official Wikipedia channel then I don't see why this would be an issue, but I think you would be excluding those who choose not to use it if you don't bring important things to this talk page where all can see them. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I prefer to keep conversations about development of the project on-wiki. BD2412 T 02:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Adamstom.97 and BD2412. I don't use Discord either, my understanding is that it's mainly for online gamers. I see no benefit in hosting Wikipedia-related discussions off-wiki, which could cause confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with all above. Keep any relevant discussions here on-wiki. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I also concur, and prefer to keep these discussions on-wiki. It's easier to navigate than going to another platform. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Episode article leads

Should we change up the wording in the leads for episodes from The episode is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), sharing continuity with the films of the franchise to something like The episode is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), sharing continuity with the films and series of the franchise? I feel like it makes sense to mention the series as well as the films for continuity. -- Zoo (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, series are an increasingly major part of the MCU Indagate (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The idea is that it's understood it shares continuity with the series, what's noteworthy is that it shares continuity with the films as well. —El Millo (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we would only mention the other series if the show has an explicit connection to another series. That was the approach we took for the Marvel TV episodes back in the day. So it may make sense to use this wording for Echo and House of Harkness since they explicitly connect to existing series. Maybe Hawkeye as well for the Kingpin connection? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Hawkeye (2021 TV series)

Template:Hawkeye (2021 TV series) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Hawkeye (2021 TV series) where discussion is underway on whether the template is redundant due to the links also being in Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe -- Zoo (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Wanted to get a feel of where MCU editors stand on this before starting a big RM. Per WP:NATURALDAB, natural disambiguations are preferred over parenthetical disambiguations, so The Avengers (2012 film) should be moved to Marvel's The Avengers. By the same token, almost all Marvel Television articles need to be moved as well, namely Agent Carter (TV series), Daredevil (TV series), Jessica Jones (TV series), Luke Cage (TV series), Iron Fist (TV series), The Defenders (miniseries), Inhumans (TV series), The Punisher (TV series), Runaways (TV series), and Cloak & Dagger (TV series). This would be a pretty major change, and I could see arguments for WP:COMMONNAME, which is why I'm posting here first. Thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Marvel's X" were all of their WP:OFFICIALNAMES and were way more commonly known by simply their titles without "Marvel's". As they're disambiguated now feel like better articles titles because those are the only TV series with these titles (or miniseries in The Defenders case). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

True, true. But those names are still used by sources from time to time: 1, 2, 3, 4. WP:NATURALDAB notes: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. (bolding my own). Though I get where you're coming from. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Isn't "Marvel's" simply a way of branding? — SirDot (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Those were the actual, full titles, not like how modern-day Marvel Studios likes to call everything "Marvel Studios' _____". You can tell the difference between it's written as Marvel's Daredevil (not Marvel's Daredevil) but Marvel Studios' Ms. Marvel (not Marvel Studios' Ms. Marvel). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I still stand that the titles without "Marvel's" are the common names. — SirDot (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this. I would also suggest that to the extent that previous properties have been adaptations of the marvel characters, branding MCU properties as "Marvel's" would be confusing. For example, the character Luke Cage is a Marvel character, and could easily be referred to in print as Marvel's Luke Cage. BD2412 T 18:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely an argument for using "Marvel's" since that is part of those shows' official names, not just marketing like with "Marvel Studios'", but we have intentionally moved away from doing that because it is much more common not to include "Marvel's" in the titles. It also does appear like marketing even if it isn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @BD2412: in that since these are all Marvel properties, it is not a good WP:NATURALDIS. A good natural disambiguation should be something that makes it easier for a casual reader to easily tell the articles apart. Someone who wants to read about Daredevil series is likely to easily know which article to choose if it's labeled "Daredevil (TV series)" as opposed to trying to decide between Daredevil and Marvel's Daredevil. While the "Marvel's X" is the formal title, a lot of people just know them by their common names or just naturally ignore the "Marvel's" part. You also have games with titles like "Marvel's Avengers" which will only add to confusion. — Starforce¹³ 00:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I always reference Solo: A Star Wars Story as a great WP:NATURALDAB example, since the common name would just be "Solo", but it would then need to be disabiguated to "Solo (2018 American film)" given the other options at Solo (film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Wouldn't a hatnote be sufficient to distinguish between the film and the character though? For instace, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is far more commonly known as 1984, yet the article isn't titled 1984 (book) per WP:NATURALDAB and instead relies on hatnotes to distinguish between the book and the year. We currently rely on hatnotes for character article as well, such as Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (which could refer to the group, the film series, or the first film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguating with "(TV series)" is still a better and clearer way to title these articles and follows WP:NCTV. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

MCU episode and character drafts

I feel as if there are a large amount of MCU episode articles and some character articles that could be on mainspace, but are not for whatever reason. Some of them could be submitted right now and get on easily mainspace (ie. Draft:Hide and Seek (Hawkeye)), others have been practically abandoned (ie. Draft:Sersi (Marvel Cinematic Universe)). As for specifics, Draft:Hide and Seek (Hawkeye), Draft:Echoes (Hawkeye), Draft:Ronin (Hawkeye episode), Draft:Summon the Suit, Draft:The Friendly Type, and Draft:Crushed (Ms. Marvel) are all pretty much ready for mainspace in my opinion. A couple of more, like Draft:Kamala Khan (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Draft:Partners, Am I Right?, and Draft:Marc Spector (Marvel Cinematic Universe), need some level of updating or polish. Others, like Draft:Sersi (Marvel Cinematic Universe) need a massive overhaul. I am hoping that all of these articles can enter mainspace within the next couple of months, and hopefully before other Marvel productions take the spotlight away again.

Now it is time for the pings, in no particular order: @Ferret:, @ZooBlazer:, @Favre1fan93:, @InfiniteNexus:, @YoungForever:, @SirDot:, @(a)nnihilation97:, @Gonnym:, @Jolly1253:, @Sariel Xilo:, and @Lipshiz:. I hope that was not too many pings. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, those episode drafts are not ready for mainspace, per WP:NTVEP. Please check Talk:Hawkeye (2021 TV series)#Episode drafts, Talk:Moon Knight (TV series)#Episode draft links, and Talk:Ms. Marvel (TV series)#Episode draft links for what still needs to be done, which is mostly episode-specific production info and/or reviews. You are welcome to contribute to those drafts and the many character drafts, but there is WP:NORUSH to send them to the mainspace just because other Marvel productions [will] take the spotlight away again soon. Also, try not to submit MCU-related drafts to AfC without first consulting on the draft's talk page or on this page, if the taskforce believes it is ready for mainspace one of us will make the move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"Hide and Seek" has production info sufficient to support moving to mainspace, so I have gone ahead and promoted it. BD2412 T 04:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You really should have brought it up here or the episode's talk page before doing so like InfiniteNexus just said. It was stated on the episode's talk page that more episode specific info was still needed before the page was moved. -- Zoo (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not so sure. It is missing a Writing section after all... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no credible argument that the episode is not notable. The primary question that reviewers are supposed to ask from an AFC context is: would this be likely to be deleted if moved to mainspace? Draftspace isn't for perfecting articles, it is for showing that they meet baseline notability. BD2412 T 04:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

While that might be true, it seems neither (Oinkers42) or yourself even edited that article once other than submitting it for review. If the actual editors working on it feel that it isn't ready yet, it seems in very bad faith to do so anyways. What this could lead is editors working in their own personal sandbox so highjacks like this cannot be done. Would you find that contributes to better editing? Gonnym (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not even once? In any case, if you feel that the article is unsuitable for mainspace, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. There is no ownership of drafts. There isn't even really ownership of userspace drafts. BD2412 T 06:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not even once... until today doesn't help the argument that you barely contributed to the draft other than moving it. The page doesn't need deleted. Just moved back to draftspace. -- Zoo (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. You edited it for the first time less than 30 mins before you moved it, after it was nominated by someone who never edited. Feel free to abuse your page mover right if that makes you feel better. I personally would suggest that editors in this task force start working on new drafts in a dedicated user sub-page, not place them in draft categories or draft navboxes, so random editors like (Oinkers42), whose only contribution is this conflict, won't know where to access them. BD2412 thinks this is a better solution than actual discussion and consensus building. Gonnym (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You are being unrealistic. I created most of the MCU character articles (including Clint Barton (Marvel Cinematic Universe)), so I am hardly a newcomer to this space. I was pinged to this discussion. As for the imagined dispute, if there is content that is sufficient to stand in article space, then it does an absolute disservice to the readers of Wikipedia to keep it draft one minute longer. Of course, if things are kept in user space, then nothing prevents well-established editors such as myself from ignoring those completely and going ahead and creating the articles in article space straight away. BD2412 T 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what Wikipedia needs is more excellent episodes instead of articles which are of higher quality. Again, it's nice that you confirm that you prefer aggressive, conflict-creating editing, over actual discussion and consensus building. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Accusing good-faith contributions as "aggressive" is unnecessarily uncivil and assuming bad faith. Your examples should be deleted for lacking notability, much different to the MCU drafts are episodes articles that are notable and well-referenced so not comparable. I'd say content fork issues when too little content but there's plenty for the article in original post. If an article would not be deleted at AfD in mainspace then it should be in mainspace so more people are aware of them to read and work. Don't see any need for a person to edit a draft before submitting it for AfC or moving it to mainspace if they think it's ready, other editors can comment or nominate it for deletion. Moving episodes articles to userspace like you suggest and not using draft navigations aids is uncollaborative and ownership. MCU articles shouldn't have different rules than other articles. Indagate (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not agree with your depiction of the editor's actions as good-faith. Describing the actions is also not uncivil but calling it what they are. Being aggressive and ignoring editors that work on these articles and not even attempting an appearance of a discussion is completely bad faith. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:NOTHERENORMS and WP:AAGF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The difference here is that "aggressive, conflict creating editing" gets results, and good ones too. An article does not need to literally be perfect to be on mainspace and, if submitted for review, it would most likely make it. WP:BEBOLD exists for a reason. (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Good job. Keep up the good work Oinkers. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I reverted these submissions because of the fact Oinkers had not contributed to any of the drafts in question. This, coupled with the fact he had previously submitted one of them and been reverted by the active authors, and failed to engage them despite being pinged to a discussion on what was needed, led me to believe the draft author's felt the article was still at risk of AFD. Now, that is a subjective judgement, but in general, I think the people working on a draft should submit them. If your rationale for pushing a draft forward is "it deserves to be in mainspace" or "we have to move before something else is popular", you're not working from the notability guidelines.

This discussion however was the appropriate next step and I'm glad to see Oinkers opened it. (I've not watchlisted this task force, ping if you think my further input is needed.) -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Television project over the past few years have been grappling with what notability means for the project, and specifically episode articles. Hence the creation of WP:NTV and the sections there to help reflect the consensus on the matter. Episode articles shouldn't just be plot, reviews, and then a listing of "expected" production material that is just forked from something you could see on the main or season page. Think of it like songs on an album. Not all of them deserve articles, but the notable ones do. Gonnym linked some good examples of episode articles that exist that probably fail WP:NTVEP. So the questions should be, "why are all these here and when can I move them?", but more, "what can I do to help them meet the notability threshold?". If we spend our energy doing that, not debating should they or shouldn't they be moved in their current states, we might actually build out article that are worthy of the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The second paragraph in Hide and Seek (Hawkeye)#Development is Writing section material. Hide and Seek looks good, but needs a bit more episode-specific production info for it to satisfy WP:NTVEP—which is why I disagree with BD2412's controversial and undiscussed move from draft to mainspace. :::Gonnym's "userspace draft" idea is too much when "Hide and Seek" just needs a couple episode-specific production bits. All the other Episode drafts mentioned by (Oinkers42) can be incubated into draftspace until they pass WP:NTVEP, not because future Marvel Studios projects will overshadow them—Moon Knight episodes 2 & 3, 5 & 6 are still in draftspace after 2–3 months (production info is the problem again, while episode 6 just needs reviews); "The Tomb (Moon Knight)" was moved four days before Ms. Marvel. Favre's analogy of single notability is good. Marc Spector draft needs reviews and cleanup towards Concept and creation for it to move per WP:MCUCHARACTERS. — SirDot (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NTVEP says (with emphasis added): "Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot". This seems to indicate that an episode is notable if multiple reliably sourced reviews exist, and the rest is gravy. Furthermore, it is clear that discussion of production aspects is a non-cumulative list, meaning that having any of these is good enough. There is no specific requirement under WP:NTVEP that content be included on both development and writing. BD2412 T 17:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest in the future, if there is disagreements as to what satisfies enough production material to move (I personally always will err on having more than the bare minimum), I suggest a talk page discussion be started on the draft in question so the active editors can discuss, and if a consensus can't be reached, I think reaching out to the TV project to have a member from there evaluate the draft would be beneficial. Not necessarily an AfC though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because an episode is notable based on available reviews, etc., does not mean that a separate episode article is the best place to house that information. Notable episodes can be discussed in the relevant series or season article until we are happy that a separate episode article is justified beyond basic notability. That is why WP:NTVEP was created. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This episode was ready. BD2412 T 23:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

We should probably add in something about this to WP:MCU#Explanatory supplements. Perhaps something similar to the bottom paragraph of WP:MCUCHARACTERS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What if we repurposed the character article eligibility tracker on WP:MCU/Drafts to list what drafts are close to mainspace status and what still needs to be done? That would be more centralized than the current talk page sections on each series article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, more likely to get done if there's a list of what should be done on each draft, like articles that need reception, need production, etc Indagate (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Character drafts

While I can't speak on most of the articles listed above, I did agree with Oinkers42 AfC submission for Draft:Kamala Khan (Marvel Cinematic Universe) which is why I reverted the edit that removed the AfC submission (this was then reverted & flagged for needing discussion). I think this article is ready for AfC given its Reception & Concept and creation sections meet notability standards (WP:WAF doesn't list specific standards for characters & just refers to WP:GNG; this project's WP:MCUCHARACTERS guidance is discussion before straight moving to mainspace & skipping AfC entirely). The plot section isn't done, however, I don't think an article needs to be perfectly "done" before being added to mainspace. The plot section can continue to be developed as the article sits in the AfC queue (which at the current rate will probably be reviewed after the show finishes). Plot isn't what makes an article notable; it's just the nice finishing touch. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It is preferred to move it, when done, after the series ends. — SirDot (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is that local consensus of the film/tv projects or just the MCU task force? Can you link to past discussion on it? If that is local consensus, WP:MCUCHARACTERS should be updated to reflect that guidance since that's not stated in the current criteria for moving character articles to mainspace (it simply says There is no deadline that needs to be met for such articles). Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE is usually understood to mean that there is no rush to complete things, though. BD2412 T 17:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no written rule for that, it's just it may be WP:TOOSOON for this draft. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would wait until the series is over before moving the page. AfC is not needed, just make a post on Draft talk:Kamala Khan (Marvel Cinematic Universe) or here. In addition to the plot section, the page is also missing sections for Differences from the comics (which there are many, many) and In other media (see Avengers: Quantum Encounter). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think WP:MCUCHARACTERS should be updated to list recommended sections just to provide more guidance to editors who don't usually edit in this space (I've popped over from comics). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

These sections are present on all MCU character articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not true; I picked 3 random characters in that cat (Clint Barton (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Scott Lang (Marvel Cinematic Universe)) and none have a Differences from the comics section. This is addressed loosely in the Concept and creation of these articles in that it talks about the origins of the comics characters. Part of why I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force#Explanatory supplements needs to be updated is often MCU project editors will revert based on "that's not how it's done" without referring to specific consensus or guidance. It's just assumed that editors new to the project will pick up on it. I think when a project has very specific style preferences (especially preferences that differ from the larger project it falls under or other Wikipedia style norms that don't limit to one MOS:VAR) then that should be made clear on the project page (again, by citing discussion that has led to local consensus). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, maybe they're not as widespread as I had thought, but see Hope van Dyne and Carol Danvers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) for what I mean. I don't recall any discussions specifically on the layout of character articles, but I would not be opposed to adding such guidelines/explanatory supplements to WP:MCUCHARACTERS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with waiting until the end of the series (it's just a few weeks, anyway), as we will then have sources evaluating the impact of the character for the season as a whole. BD2412 T 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Hey, seems like only the 29 feature film articles use a "N 1" system for notes, every other article in Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe that has notes section seems to use "a" system. Not checked every article but many. Why are they inconsistent? "a" system seems more popular so probably the one to use if make them consistent? Indagate (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The films use {{refn}}, which came in to existence before {{efn}}, which is used elsewhere. There isn't anything wrong, per se, with how the film articles do notes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for reason. Yeah, nothing wrong but they appear inconsistent within MCU topic, films are outlier. Indagate (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on countries to be included in the Release section

I'm about to make contributions to the article Thor: Love and Thunder, but I found it has countries that I think should not be included (to the point it becomes like a directory). Starting this discussion because I always encountered this scenario in every film that is about to be widely released theatrically since I started working in the MCU task force. I always only include English-speaking countries with an early screening ahead of U.S. and Canada release (except for those countries that have gained notability due to controversies like Eternals), in line with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FILMRELEASE. What do you guys think? Centcom08 (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty pointless. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Release says Details about a film's release can include noteworthy screenings at film festivals and elsewhere, and I agree. Since Wikipedia is not a database like IMDb or Wikidata, the article should only include notable screenings. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, obviously the US release date and its premiere dates. And then it should be the first country or countries that it does release in, with some additional weight also given to the countries in which major filming was done (so for Love and Thunder, noting Australia's release would be ok in my eyes). If there are countries where it doesn't release (notably) or are banned, that's a separate situation I feel like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms

FYI, I have started a discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#NPOV regarding concerns I have about that article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm recommending that this article be sent back to the draftspace to be reworked, any objections to that should be raised at the discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Freshman Year canon or not?

There's currently a discussion at Draft talk:Spider-Man: Freshman Year, based on the recent announcements from SDCC. Input is welcome. —El Millo (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Deadpool

An article that been involved with (Deadpool) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Wade Wilson (film character)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Disney's press site

Thanks to InfiniteNexus, they found another of Disney's press sites here, which has production briefs for the Phase Four films, which we couldn't find at [1]. We should get the links to all of them, even if we put them in {{ref ideas}} on the film's talk pages, just so by some chance the access to that site goes away, so we can work on the briefs when editors can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation bot: next steps

The RfC at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § RfC: Should Citation bot use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news? has just been closed. Unfortunately, our concerns were not addressed there, and the closer ruled that the majority of respondents were in favor of using {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite news}} over {{Cite web}} for magazine- and newspaper-associated websites. As sad as it is, it appears our only option now is to adhere to the results of the RfC and let Citation bot do its thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I still believe the RfC didn't ask the correct question, and the results make complete sense with what was asked. It's not worth reverting the bot constantly despite the disagreements that it shouldn't be making adjustments as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree on all points. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I made an effort to stay clear from this RfC as it wasn't really of my interest or desire to get involved in a heated debate, despite it centering on citations, but the bots will be operated as the bot controllers see fit. The outcome makes sense, and as such, I will uphold it in my future edits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I was planning on running the bot for MCU articles, but I was waiting on a decision to be made. So it's fine to just do it now? -- Zoo (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Characters adapted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been nominated for discussion

Category:Characters adapted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Studios Animation

I saw Category:Marvel Studios Animation was recently created by MegaSmike46. First, should this even be a category? Yes, Marvel Studios has an animation arm, but as far as I'm aware, it has never formally been made a proper division within the company, or stated as "Marvel Studios Animation" (uppercase 'a'), just "Marvel Studios animation" (lowercase 'a'). Which leads me to asking if this category should exist, is this the proper name? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the category has to exist. Marvel's animation studio has shifted over the years (e. g. Marvel Productions & Marvel Animation, Inc.), so I feel it's worth mentioning as it's a mini-studio for many upcoming projects.

Also, sources have confirmed it as "Marvel Studios Animation" (via Marvel Youtube and Comicbook.com). MegaSmike46 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In an instance like this, an "official name" from Marvel Studios seems necessary, which as I said, I don't believe exists, because "Marvel Studios Animation" isn't officially a thing. It's just "animation from Marvel Studios". Hence, I don't think this is named properly. It likely should be Category:Animated series produced by Marvel Studios. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this category may not be necessary. I also don't think "Marvel Studios Animation" is the actual name of Marvel Studios' animation division, it's mentioned twice on the Marvel Studios article but neither reference say it's the proper name of the division. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I can potentially see one to house the studios' animation projects, but it's too soon given only What If has a mainspace article. I think we should head towards deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Before you do that, let's think. While some details about it are unclear, there are still several upcoming projects. Remember, it's a mini-studio animation division. We want to differentiate it from live-action productions. Until then, we can always change to category. MegaSmike46 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Either deletion or renaming needs to happen, because the name as it stands now is not correct to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's still too soon. Eventually we should have a category, but maybe once more series actually air or are at least in the mainspace. But if we do decide on just renaming, I support the suggestion by Favre of changing it to Category:Animated series produced by Marvel Studios -- Zoo (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The cat can be used on the current redirects for the upcoming articles in the draft space, so while I did feel deletion would have worked, renaming probably is better at this time. I'm going to make the request to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_29#Category:Marvel_Studios_Animation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Hey, collected the short descriptions of the films and series in below table. Most films follow same pattern but less consistent for series. The majority of films are at 46 characters so slightly over recommended 40 (WP:SD40). Is the word "produced" necessary?

Film	Short desc.
Iron Man	2008 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
The Incredible Hulk	2008 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Iron Man 2	2010 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Thor	2011 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Captain America: The First Avenger	2011 American superhero film
The Avengers	2012 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Iron Man 3	2013 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Thor: The Dark World	2013 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Guardians of the Galaxy	2014 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Captain America: The Winter Soldier	2014 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Avengers: Age of Ultron	2015 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Ant-Man	2015 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Captain America: Civil War	2016 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Dr. Strange	2016 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Guardians 2	2017 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Spider-Man: Homecoming	2017 American superhero film
Thor: Ragnarok	2017 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Avengers: Infinity War	2018 American superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Ant-Man and the Wasp	2018 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Black Panther	2018 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Captain Marvel	2019 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Avengers: Endgame	2019 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Spider-Man: Far From Home	2019 American superhero film
Black Widow	Superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Shang-Chi	2021 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Eternals	2021 American superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Spider-Man: No Way Home	2021 American superhero film
Dr. Strange in Multiverse	2022 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
Thor: Love & Thunder	2022 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios
WandaVision	2021 American television miniseries
Falcon & Winter Soldier	2021 American superhero television miniseries
Loki	American superhero television series
What If	American animated television anthology series
Hawkeye	American superhero television miniseries
Moon Knight	2022 American television miniseries
Ms. Marvel	2022 superhero television miniseries produced by Marvel Studios
She-Hulk	2022 superhero streaming television series produced by Marvel Studios

Thanks, Indagate (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Could just say "20XX superhero film from Marvel Studios", "20XX limited series from Marvel Studios", "American TV series from Marvel Studios", something like that? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that "from" is better than "produced by". It is clear and to the point. BD2412 T 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Hawkeye's definitely needs the year in its SD, given there's the 1994 TV series that we dab from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been told before that for short descriptions of articles that already have the year in the title, the year is not supposed to be in the SD, as is done for Black Widow. I think we could just simplify it to "20xx superhero [film or television series] from Marvel Studios" and leave the "miniseries", "anthology", and American bits to the article. For co-productions, we don't necessarily need to state the partner, i.e. Sony for Spider-Man, given Marvel Studios is the main studio, but it wouldn't hurt to mention them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

TV series would need to exclude "superhero" I believe to get it under the 40 characters. "20XX television series from Marvel Studios" or "20XX limited series from Marvel Studios" are the best route for those I think, with the films using "20XX superhero film from Marvel Studios". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This might seem like a radical and bold suggestion but you could stop acting like Marvel films are special or exceptional and actually follow the WP:SHORTDESC guidelines! This misguided attempt at consistency in the short descriptions is counter-productive. The purpose of the short description is to disambiguate similar titles, and using the same generic description across a small subcategory of film articles does not necessarily help achieve that stated purpose. I would love to see more efforts at consistency in this encyclopedia but this doesn't seem like the best case to be strict about it. Again it would be better to do what the short description guidelines actually recommend and follow the pattern included in the documentation, specifically the section WP:SDEXAMPLES where is recommends the pattern YEAR film by director, e.g. "2017 film by Jordan Peele". Highlighting key personnel such as an author or director provides better disambiguation in most cases. (Please also note that if the page name already includes the year there is no need to repeat the year in the short description: WP:SDDUPLICATE "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title" ie do not repeat the year when the page title already includes it.) If this exception to the rules is so badly needed and there really is a consensus to ignore what the guideline recommend could people please at least make sure it is clearly documented at WP:SHORTDESC so that anyone who reads and understands the documentation and is trying to follow the guidelines does not waste time trying to fix this precious and exceptional group of articles. I understand these guidelines are relatively new and it takes some time to get used to them and understand their purpose but it is it really asking too much for Wikipedia editors to follow reasonable Wikipedia guidelines? -- 109.78.195.60 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh, sound like you have some personal issues that need to be addressed away from this talk page (WP:NOTFORUM). WP:SHORTDESC is an information page, not a guideline and definitely not a set of rules that need to be strictly followed. And the example that you included comes from a section that says "here are some examples, though they can all be varied if the context allows something better", so I'm really not sure why you are acting this way. It also uses this format for the example: "[year] [type of publication] by [author or director]". I think you will find that Marvel Studios would generally be considered the "author" of these films and shows rather than the directors. Consistency is good, as you say, and we have a way to ensure it for a small group of articles by making a plan here so you should actually be on board with this discussion. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't continue the above discussion and then make the agreed-upon changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I've always been bothered by the inconsistent short descriptions (how many times have they been inexplicably changed by random IP users?), so I think we definitely need to establish some sort of standard. If we want to keep these as short as possible, perhaps we could do [year] Marvel Studios/Television [film/television series], since "Marvel Studios" and "Marvel Television" are essentially synonymous to "superhero fiction" to most readers? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed short description. Looks neat to me. Centcom08 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Of the options presented above, which would you prefer we use for the short descriptions? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option A - [YEAR] superhero film from Marvel Studios for films, [YEAR] limited series from Marvel Studios for limited D+ series, American TV series from Marvel Studios for ongoing D+ series (as proposed by Adamstom.97)
• Option B - [YEAR] superhero film from Marvel Studios for films, [YEAR] limited series from Marvel Studios for limited D+ series, [YEAR] television series from Marvel Studios for ongoing D+ series (as proposed by Trailblazer101 and Favre1fan93)
• Option C - [YEAR] Marvel Studios film for films, [YEAR] Marvel Studios television series for all D+ series (as proposed by InfiniteNexus)

Straw poll

• Option C I think this is the simplest and most straightforward option to convey what's needed for the short descriptions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C I agree with Favre's assesment as this is straightforward while remaining as short as needed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, per the above. A "Marvel Studios" production is a genre in and of itself. BD2412 T 18:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C for simplicity, Option B as a second option for accuracy. —El Millo (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per above. -- Zoo (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C I believe this is the most concise out of the three. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C looks like this is where everyone is leaning, happy to go with what is most concise. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. Looks neat to me and easy to be followed even by non-MCU task force members. Centcom08 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. It is the most concise for the short descriptions, as the top paragraph would have presented more details about the film/series. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm going to add material on this to the project page, and start adjusting SDs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

D23 reveals

If anyone sees this before they hop on to do any edits for all the expected reveals at D23, just wanted to remind everyone that if any of our known series get formally announced and placed into a Phase (ie Armor Wars or Wonder Man), all of their sections and development history etc. are at Draft:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Seven, and should be removed from there and placed at the relevant Phase article. Enjoy all the announcements! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(miniseries)

I've just noticed that per WP:NCTV#Series television, (miniseries) should be used to disambiguate articles about miniseries instead of (TV series). So far, this would apply to Hawkeye (2021 TV series), Moon Knight (TV series), Ms. Marvel (TV series), and Secret Invasion (TV series). The only Marvel Television miniseries, The Defenders (miniseries), also follows this guideline, presumably because The Defenders (TV series) is a dablink, so at the very least Hawkeye needs to be moved. Unless there's a good reason not to? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably have formal move discussions for them unless we think these will all be smooth changes and uncontroversial. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I could see some potential concerns on this over the usage of "TV series" and "miniseries" based on what the precedent has been for these thus far, and any moves for the miniseries that do get second seasons, though those would be simple at least. The Hawkeye one would be a good use for this akin to The Defenders. I do think having a formal move discussion for these would be beneficial and more coordinated. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Part of the issue is I feel like the leads of some of these at I time were using "miniseries", other's just "television series". It's definitely hard to say from the initial announcements and release, because I guess technically all of them are "miniseries" until Marvel announces second seasons. And it's possible we get second seasons confirmed later than one would normally expect, so I think we need to be cautious with any moves. We can also look to what categories each series submits for in the Emmys, while not totally accurate, it is at least can be helpful if need be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed that the articles that say "miniseries" in the lead have "officially" been confirmed by Marvel to be miniseries in some capacity. Is that not the case? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like no? But I'm not sure. I just feel editors have put it because we know they're six episodes with no indication of anything more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We tried to update these at one point but they are not necessarily all correct. If Marvel has confirmed that there will be a continuation in a film or show then we should be good to move those to "miniseries" until we hear otherwise, so Hawkeye -> Echo, Ms. Marvel -> The Marvels, and Secret Invasion -> Armor Wars should be fine to move. Moon Knight is a bit trickier since it is still unclear whether there will be a second season or if he will show up somewhere else, but it does sound like he only signed on to star in the 6 episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, if we're doubtful on whether a series is a miniseries then we shouldn't put it in the lead. Taking a quick look, WandaVision, Hawkeye, Moon Knight, and Ms. Marvel all have "limited series" awards, but I don't see any evidence on the TFATWS, She-Hulk, and Secret Invasion articles that they're miniseries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say all Marvel Studios series that are not renewed or are clear cut not getting additional series should be stated as "limited series", which quickly viewing Limited-run_series#Classification means they have the potential for renewal, where "miniseries" does not. And in that case, disambiguation where needed should stay as "TV series". So I don't think we actually need a change for any article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I would be cautious with citing other Wikipedia articles, not all of them are as high-quality and up-to-date as articles that get heavy traffic. The source for the "potential to be renewed" bit on Limited-run series doesn't actually say limited series can be renewed while miniseries can't, hence the {{Failed verification}} tag. I genuinely don't think there's a difference between the two terms, they're essentially synonymous in this day and age, the only good argument to change "miniseries" to "limited series" would be that the latter is more commonly used in the US. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Bronn-Char redirect

More !votes would be helpful at the redirect discussion for Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (note in Captain Marvel the character's name is spelled Bron-Char with one 'n'). It's been relisted twice to get more consensus. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_27#Bronn-Char_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Category:Films based on Marvel Comics characters before the MCU

This category is under discussion. It seems intuitive to me that we need some kind of categorization scheme for non-MCU Marvel Comics films, but I grant that it could be better titled. BD2412 T 00:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Marvel Studios Animation

BestDaysofMusic There is no "Marvel Studios Animation". That is not a formal name for the animation division of Marvel Studios. See #Category:Marvel Studios Animation for more on this being discussed. As such, I don't know if this draft is appropriate, but even so, it is not named correctly. I didn't want to redirect or adjust without alerting you to this, as well as allowing others to discuss and weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Then how about we rename it "Marvel Studios' animation division" or "Unnamed Marvel Studios animation division" or something like that? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Marvel Studios' animation division" would probably be best. Let's see if any other editor weighs in before we adjust. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support using that title for the draft. We can always work on it further down the line to see what comes of it as we get more animated properties. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed with Marvel Studios' animation division. — SirDot (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Moved to Draft:Marvel Studios' animation division. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Jake Gomez (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

This redirect is under a discussion for its deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Jake Gomez (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and any votes would be helpful in it. The Jake Gomez character never appeared in the Werewolf by Night special and was more or less a ruse. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Full names

When do we have to use the full name field for MCU characters? For example, why Nick Fury has the "full name" field compiled but Peter Parker hasn’t? If it can be helpful, I added the full name to the Smallville iteration of Clark Kent, but my edit was reverted because “...is irrelevant. infobox is for info essential to the character. He's probably had the name "Clark Joseph Kent" shown or recited like twice in a 10 year show”. Redjedi23 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about Smallville since that's beyond this taskforce's scope, but for MCU characters, the full name parameter is used for characters whose full name is known (with a source provided, since we cannot assume MCU characters have the same full names as their comics counterparts) and different from the article's title. For example, "Anthony Edward Stark" for Tony Stark. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Has Murdock ever been called by his full name? Because the article of Daredevil reports the one of the comic books' counterpart of the character. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe he's been called Matthew before, but not sure whether his middle name is known. If there is no source, that info should be removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

He was called Matthew a lot in Daredevil season 3, I know. I concur with InfiniteNexus, without a source for full names, they should be removed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the Marvel Comics

Pretty much all of the Phase 4 movies and shows have been using the "Based on the Marvel Comics" credits as opposed to the original creators. So would it not make sense to do the same for all MCU articles from now on? - Richiekim (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have supported this if not for Eternals's deviation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

List article about post-credits scenes

There is an ongoing discussion about post-credits scenes guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film § Post-credits scenes, and editors are invited to comment. That said, has there ever been any consideration to make a List of Marvel Cinematic Universe post-credits scenes (or some similar name)? It could supplement individual film articles in providing brief scene descriptions and related commentary, either for specific scenes or as a whole. This list could exist regardless of whether or not the individual film article details or mentions the scene, as I know for some films, some scenes are meaningless for the plot summary (jokey, fourth-wall, etc) and hard to fit otherwise. Such a list could be available via footnote at the end of a summary. For such a list, I found some sources readily enough:

• Variety: Every Marvel Studios Post-Credits Scene, Ranked From Worst to Best
• Vox: The rise of the post-credits scene, explained
• CNET: Marvel Cinematic Universe post-credits scenes ranked as Shang-Chi hits theaters
• Esquire: It’s Time to Stop Making Post-Credits Scenes
• Total Film: Marvel’s post-credits scenes are fast becoming one of the MCU’s biggest problems
• CBR: 10 Worst Marvel Post-Credits Scenes, Ranked
• The Guardian: Why post-credits scenes are slowly ruining blockbusters
• Time: Breaking Down Every Single Marvel Post-Credits Scene

Thoughts on this possibility? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think this is a good idea. It's very minor for it to be collectivelly a list, if anything it could warrant a section in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or List of MCU films articles. Post-credits scenes relevant for their own film or future films belong at the plot sections of their respective films, as they currently are at best and as footnotes at worst. Let's wait for the current discussion to arrive at a consensus, but I think this particular option of a separate list will result in a WP:TRIVIAL list. —El Millo (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to make a post here to alert MCU editors of that discussion, as that involves several MCU articles. Input is much appreciated. As for Erik's post-credits article idea, I agree with El Millo that that seems overly trivial. (Besides, there's already a mostly-unsourced List of films with post-credits scenes, though that has zero commentary and probably needs to be split, or possibly deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I digress.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Judging from my findings above, I feel like there is plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources about these post-credits scenes, both in terms of listing individual scenes and talking about their value (or lack thereof) as a whole. A book with "critical perspectives" about the films mentions them multiple times here. There is also this in-depth look, "Bryan examines the interplay within modern superhero blockbusters, which grants the geek a degree of social power: Marvel’s use of the post-credits scene is indicative of the larger process, creating a ritual enacted by fans, who interpret the scene for the uninitiated." WP:TRIVIA is about "Trivia" or miscellaneous sections that have largely been purged from articles for over a decade now. WP:NOTESAL is more appropriate to apply, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The above sources support that notion, and the list can be comprehensive. I'm suggesting to have this list anyway, regardless of the outcome of the MOS discussion. If anything, it could provide another option for handling a film's post-credits scene, so editors aren't only limited to the scope of the individual film article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably feel better building out a little sub section at post-credits scene specifically for Marvel covering any relevant commentary beyond ranking articles than a dedicated, standalone list on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps a section at Marvel Cinematic Universe, or actually, Reception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say any of those three options rather than its own list article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Unless we can keep find enough coverage about the reception of the postcredit scenes, I don't think the reception of the MCU article is a good spot. I'd prefer to let that article be solely about MCU's reception and response to Marvel studios business practices. Squeezdakat (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We could have a Mid-credit and post-credit scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, discussing the phenomenon substantively, and including a list. I would note that the film-based list alone would be inadequate for the subject, since the MCU has used also these in its television series. BD2412 T 02:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, I have started Draft:Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe‎. I will work on it further in a week or two. BD2412 T 06:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: this has now been promoted to mainspace at Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe‎. BD2412 T 15:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Mantis (Marvel Cinematic Universe) now mainspace

I believe reporting on the soon-to-be-released The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special pushes this one over the top for freestanding notability, and have moved the draft to mainspace accordingly. BD2412 T 15:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A picture is needed for the page, by the way. BD2412 T 15:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I just saw that this page was moved. Even if we're counting the Holiday Special, Mantis still does not satisfy WP:MCUCHARACTERS. Guardians 2 and Infinity War are her only non-cameo appearances. I'm not so sure if the Holiday Special alone makes her extra notable that an exception is warranted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The character is a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy, so is in a titular role in any Guardians of the Galaxy media that comes out. I'm not sure that could have been said after Guardians 2 (since it does not become clear that she's part if the team until Infinity War), but now she is, and is in a separately titled Guardians of the Galaxy release. BD2412 T 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, she is currently at three (GotG2, IW, and GotGHS) presuming we do not count her as a title character as a part of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Either way, she is most likely to play a major role in GotG3, so the worst case is to wait until then. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that we generally have counted team members for a title team as title characters, as we have a number or articles on that rationale already. I don't see another basis for having Drax (Marvel Cinematic Universe) or Rocket (Marvel Cinematic Universe), who have only each been in one additional media other than in cameo appearances. I'm sure we had Clint Barton (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Natasha Romanoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe) at a point where they were only supported by their inclusion as members of the title team in the Avengers films. BD2412 T 22:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't contest this further, but for the record since the Guardians films do not have a titular character (only a titular team), only the two leads (Peter and Gamora) would automatically be mainspace-eligible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Where would this "only the two leads" rule come from? It seems like something made up on the spot. Also, there is a reasonable argument that Rocket is the actual leader of the team, and in any case the argument seems moot in light of Drax and Mantis clearly being the lead characters in the Holiday Special. BD2412 T 15:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it is less of "there can only be two leads" and more of "the movies only have two lead characters, those being Peter and Gamora". The actual "leader" of the team is irrelevant. Also, Rocket, Groot, and Nebula passes anyway with four major appearances (GotG, GotG2, IW, Endgame), (GotG, GotG2, IW, IAG) (also I Am Groot is titular), and (GotG, GotG2, Endgame, What If) respectively. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of a titular character (e.g. Eternals, What If, Armor Wars), the lead character(s) fulfill(s) the second criterion outlined in WP:MCUCHARACTERS. The two Guardians films have no titular character (i.e. there's no one called the "Guardian of the Galaxy"), only two leads in the form of Peter and Gamora. But yes, you're right, with today's Holiday Special release Mantis probably satisfies that criterion given her co-lead role with Drax. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I presume we are officially going to abbreviate the Holiday Special as GotGHS? However we word out criteria, it would be silly not to have a separate article on Mantis at this point. An in-character picture is still needed for the page, by the way. BD2412 T 19:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midtown High School (comics)

I noticed that Midtown High School (comics) (Peter Parker's high school, featured in all of the live-action Spider-Man films to date) has been nominated for deletion, including an alternative proposal to merge it into a relevant MCU locations article. Perspectives from this project would be useful in that discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Where is the suggestion to redirect this to an MCU locations list? I don't see it in the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at the nominator's suggestion that a "redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe could be considered", and misread that as referring to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which does list "Midtown School of Science and Technology" as a location, with a link to the article currently nominated for deletion). BD2412 T 02:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. I've !voted nonetheless. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Film cast order

With Black Panther: Wakanda Forever now the latest MCU film to credit a previously-unannounced actor in the main titles but not the billing block for spoiler purposes, I think it's time we officially switch to basing the cast order for films off of the main titles instead of the billing block. WP:FILMCAST does not specify what form of billing must be used, and the main titles order is often near-identical to the billing block anyway. This would also make the film articles more in line with our television ones. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

For reference, I've compiled a list comparing the two orders in my sandbox here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am very eager to support this citing the Wakanda Forever main titles, as well as those for No Way Home including more actors who were not announced or included in poster billings, as they are more reflective of the contents of the film. Having some unity between the cast derivatives would be helpful in presenting the material correctly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd support this change with a few caveats. 1) Endgame shouldn't change because that was explicitly set to the poster order. 2) we should clarify how the end titles sometimes "groups" actors together. In the vast majority of cases, when we talk about the main on-end order, we will be talking about actors who have their credit appear by themselves. The poster should still be used up until a film's releases, and then upon release, if the credits in the film are different, those adjustments can be discussed/made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Endgame would be the only exception I'd give due to the sheer number of standalone credits, and yes I'm not referring to the grouped titles, only the solo ones. With this new system, the process would go: (1) the previous film's cast listing, with new cast added on bottom → (2) the billing block from the poster or trailer, when one is released → (3) the main titles, when the film is released. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I support the changes as discussed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the changes, except for Infinity War and Endgame. Feel free to c/e if needed. I see there are hidden notes all over the IW page indicating that there was past consensus to have the infobox and lead follow the top billing on the poster and the cast section follow the billing block (not sure what's up with that inconsistency, but okay), so I don't know if there is consensus to override that. I'll also adjusted WP:MCUFILMCAST to reflect this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus I would like to add as well the actors reprising their roles in previous MCU films and/or series are to be on first part (or sentence) of the paragraph. The following sentences are for actors who are credited at the end (not part of the main billing), which should be arranged according to their placement in the credits. The actors with uncredited cameo appearances are to be placed at the end of the paragraph. Centcom08 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly follow that order for consistency, if there is consensus to do so. Perhaps we could add something about this to WP:MCUFILMCAST? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I strongly support the decision to use the end credits cast order, but I would like to throw out the idea of allowing an exception for cast members that were included on the poster, but got “grouped” in the credits sequence, as it implies the studio found them notable enough for listing.

This applies to three movies: Clark Gregg and Cobie Smulders in The Avengers; Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, and Sean Gunn in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2; and Harish Patel in Eternals. NickH (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like an unnecessary overcomplicating of things to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

For many Marvel films, there are two distinct sets of cast lists: the first set that occurs during the film's main titles (or end titles), which lists the principal and featured cast members. After that, there is the longer scrolling cast list, which lists everyone. Given that, I would also support using the cast lists from the main titles (or end titles) where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That is what we're currently doing (following the main titles, not the end crawl). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello guys, what if we can change this rule a little bit this policy? What I suggest is in incluing actors that were part on the billing poster too, but that they appear grouped in the credits, what is ignored. (Ex. Cobie Smulders and Clark Gregg were part of the billing cast in the poster of The Avengers, so I think those actors should be in the billing cast as well) Same case as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, only instead of Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, and Sean Gunn. And the other thing that I suggest is that allow me to put Danai Gurira in the full cast of Avengers: Infinity War, because she is individually billed, which appearently follows that policy, I say this about Gurira because I found out that there was a discussion about not changing the complete cast of Infinity War, but these can be an exception, with the change of putting just Gurira in the full cast. I say this because to be honest I'm not very happy with the rules, it not including actors that were part of the billing poster, I think they need to be modified a bit. And I also want you to listen to me about the cast of Infinity War. Pablo the Helper - To your service! 00:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote above, that sounds like an unnecessary overcomplicating of things to me. I've responded below regarding the Infinity War thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

While I'm not changing the credits for Infinity War at the moment (I've scanned the credits on Disney+), the first set of credits which start shortly after the film cuts to black lists a total of 35 actors (three of them with roles): Downey Jr., Hemsworth, Ruffalo, Evans, Johansson, Cheadle, Cumberbatch, Holland, Boseman, Saldana, Gillan, Hiddleston, Bettany, Olsen, Mackie, Stan, Elba, Gurira, Dinklage, Wong, Klementieff, Bautista, Diesel (as Groot), Cooper (as Rocket), Paltrow, del Toro, Brolin (as Thanos), Pratt, Gunn, Hurt, Wright, Notary, Vaughan-Lawlor, Coon and Shaw. So we could do the list of 35 that are the principal and featured actors per the new policy, with the rest of the non-billed cast being listed in prose format. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there were discussions held back when Infinity War came out that led to the current consensus. I don't see a good reason to overturn this consensus just yet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 2#Cast section layout might be one of those discussions? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mjolnir and Stormbreaker (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

This draft was submitted to AfC a while ago, but I think it'd be better if a move to the mainspace was discussed first. Please feel free to chime in at the discussion on the draft's talk page. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No one else chimed in , so the draft has been published. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have two options in mind for possible page images for the article.

One would be a frame from this iconic moment from Avengers: Endgame, in which Steve Rogers momentarily holds Stormbreaker while Thor holds Mjolnir.

The other would be a frame from the final scene of Love and Thunder, which Love wields Stormbreaker while Thor wields the reconstructed Mjolnir.

Any preferences? BD2412 T 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the first frames of the Love and Thunder scene would be fine in my opinion. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That scene does appear to give the crispest view of the two. BD2412 T 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Kraglin Obfonteri

Is “Kraglin Obfonteri” the name of the comic books character? Because if it's not, we should fix the redirect Kraglin Obfonteri. Redjedi23 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Good question ... you might be right, I couldn't find any evidence online that his last name was Obfonteri in the comics. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On the Kraglin page is stated that "A version of the character named Kraglin Obfonteri, portrayed by Sean Gunn, appears in media set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe", so I guess that the comic books version of the character is known only as "Kraglin". Redjedi23 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirects adjusted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. We should delete the redirect Kraglin Obfonteri (Marvel Cinematic Universe), right? Redjedi23 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No reason to do that, and I highly doubt it would pass RfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If Kraglin Obfonteri is the name of the MCU character, the dab should be useless (?) Redjedi23 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirects with unnecessary disambiguations are hardly uncommon, there's an entire category for them. Even though it's "useless" and we could easily do without it, there's no harm in keeping it and again, there are no grounds for it to be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Studios Animation

So, I was reading this Vulture article (https://www.vulture.com/2023/01/inside-the-vfx-union-brewing-in-hollywood.html) and it refers to the animation division as "Marvel Studios Animation". No "Marvel Studios Animation Recap". No "Marvel Studios Animation Announcements". Just "Marvel Studios Animation". Should this be taken as an indication of that being the official name? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving/Removing the over emphasis on publisher/distributors in the lead sentence

This has been an ongoing issue since like The Incredible Hulk, but stuff like this, "Spider-Man: No Way Home is a 2021 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man, co-produced by Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing", is awkward and unnecessary. The publisher/distributor is such a relatively unimportant aspect of these films compared to the creatives behind them just like most other film articles. If I recall, this started mainly because of different studios holding specific rights, such as with Spider-Man, but it's explaining something that a) noone cares about, and b) really doesn't need mentioning/explaining in the opening sentence of every article. I would say it isn't noteworthy to be mentioned in the lead at all unless it is in specific circumstances such as with the Hulk and the first appearance of Spider-Man in the MCU in Civil War. I've looked in the archives and maybe I've missed it but I feel like it's just been that way for such a long time that noone thinks about it nor wants to go through 30 odd articles fixing it, but it's time to have that discussion. Thoughts? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because you may not care about it does not mean everyone else doesn't. The studios and distributors are noted on a plentiful of articles, not just Marvel or superhero related. It is helpful to note when it is Marvel Studios producing and when there are others as part of a partnership or collaboration, as is the case with the Spidey films. It could be an improvement to introduce the year and based on info as usual, and then state directed by X followed by the respective writing credits, before introducing the sequels to bit and numbered installment akin to the current wording we have for the Disney+ series, as seen at WandaVision. The goal of these articles is to best introduce what the subject is right away before divulging into specifics (albeit, summarized in the lead). Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring that I don't care about it, why is it in the opening sentence, what other quality articles are doing so, and why would that matter per WP:OTHERSTUFF? Let us assume that this information is important for a casual reader to know immediately, of the last like 10 MCU films, only one, SPider-Man, is an outlier, the rest are "produced by Marvel Studios and released by Walt Disney". The films were this was drastically different are long gone, save Spider-Man, and I do not see what any reader gains from this being in the lead. I feel like this is just entrenched behaviour started by someone during the transition period when Disney assumed full control and people are just doing it out of habit, but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence and I think we're about 10 years removed from any films where the transition would be mentioned in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Each article is its own separate work, though. We don't write an article presuming that the reader will have read the last ten. BD2412 T 01:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What is your point here? That someone would WANT to go back or, indeed, NEED to go look at other articles to find out previous distributors and publishers as if they matter in any way whatsoever? There will be one or two articles where it matters, where there will be some mention of that film (I'm not checking which) was the first released under Disney's ownership. THat's it. The production studio and distributor is not important to anyone but the distributor and publisher, but even if it was, it wouldn't be in the first sentence anyone reads in every Marvel article. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is "The Infinity Saga" possible to be an article?

Every article I've seen made of it so far has just been a fork of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but I'm thinking if, should there be content like reception or development of the arc as a whole? I made Draft:The Infinity Saga so you can see what I'm thinking about. DecafPotato (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any "global" info that would support its own article. All the films would exists on the Phase articles, as for the most part, all the relevant history is on the main MCU article plus the phase articles. So we'd really just be merging info back to one large article, which is what we got away from on the films list when the split to Phase articles became necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Captain America in film

Does Captain America in film qualify as one of the task force articles since it features the MCU movies? Mostly wondering because it just had a DYK and wasn't sure if I should add it here or not.

Edit: I guess my question is also for Captain America in other media and Hulk in other media as they also relate to the MCU. -- Zoo (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say no, given the articles' scopes extend beyond the MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur. It's broader than just the MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It can't hurt to keep an eye on them anyway, if only to be sure that what those articles say about the MCU films is consistent with the MCU articles. BD2412 T 01:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, we still should watch over them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We can watch personally, but for the scope of this task force, no they do not fit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)