Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe

MCU Good Topic status

As of August 30, 2014

- Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Page	Class	Notes
Over arching Good Topic
Marvel Cinematic Universe	GA
Marvel One-Shots	GA
Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics	B
Future included titles
Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe	NA	Working draft in a Favre1fan93 sandbox. All are welcome to contribute.

Page	Class	Notes
Film articles Good Topic
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films	FL
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors	FL
Iron Man	GA
The Incredible Hulk	GA
Iron Man 2	GA
Thor	GA
Captain America: The First Avenger	GA
Marvel's The Avengers	GA
Iron Man 3	GA
Thor: The Dark World	GA
Captain America: The Winter Soldier	GA
Guardians of the Galaxy	B
Future included titles
Avengers: Age of Ultron	C
Ant-Man	C

Page	Class	Notes
Potential television articles Good Topic
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series	B
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors	NA	Working draft in an adamstom97 sandbox. All are welcome to contribute.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.	B
List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters	List
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)	B
"Pilot"	B
"0-8-4"	Start
Future included titles
Agent Carter	Start
Daredevil	Start

Page	Class	Notes
Potential included titles
Phil Coulson	Start
Erik Selvig	Start

Draft for Doctor Strange (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Doctor Strange at Draft:Doctor Strange (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Black Panther (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Black Panther at Draft:Black Panther (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, god, wow. I put together these print-only references ages ago: edit. Hope the content finally comes home to roost. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So that was you, good job! Hope so too, Fiege said he planned to release the film sometime in Phase 3. I really like this new namespace BTW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just poking around this newfangled "Draft" space. Looks like a simpler system! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those initial edits Erik! Triiiple and I have already started clean up with the Doctor Strange draft, but got a little scared due to the "ancient" nature of the source. And I do like this new namespace as well. It takes away the issue we had with the Ant-Man page in the incubator. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft for third Captain America film

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the third Captain America film at Draft:Captain America 3 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft for third Thor film

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the third Thor film at Draft:Thor 3 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Black Widow (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Black Widow at Draft:Black Widow (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Inhumans (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Inhumans at Draft:Inhumans (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Guardians of the Galaxy sequel

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy at Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy 2 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Jessica Jones (TV series)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Jessica Jones at Draft:Jessica Jones (TV series) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Good articles invite attacks and poor editing

This article has achieved Good Article status. Has it become a magnet for careless editing? People seem to think it's ok to just delete stuff without checking that what they have done has not caused a cite error. This kind of drive by editing does no service to Wikipedia or to those who do this kind of thing. Jodosma (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it actually does anything, it is just more noticeable than a "C-class" article being edited in the same way as the "C-class" article it can be explained as trying to improve it, on "GA-class" articles people just attempt edits that then end up making the page no "GA-class" so people revert/undo and moan saying it is GA and as such big edits that change the page need to be talked about and examples given in sandboxes. So no I don't think having an article grading system is bad and encouraging borderline stupid edits, I think it is just that tiny bit more noticable as big edits could easily demote the page.

On a side note, the grading system also tells the various projects which pages need working on the most out of all the page under said project--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The broken refs are there because someone transcluded a table but didn't add the refs. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have commented out that transclusion until the time that that table is ready to be transcluded (if at all). Now, it is back to how the page was before those edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Universal Monsters universe

Here's an article about Universal Studios' upcoming shared monster universe. Its not comic book related but the author makes a comparison to the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think if we decide to include this, we would have to make exceptions to the other shared universes users tried adding. I skimmed the article, so could we maybe include it in the general reception comments? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand, I just wanted to get some opinions about it. I'm not sure if should burden the article every time a studio sets up a new shared universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the issue I think. Do we just keep it to studios with comic book character rights, or include all studios that do a shared universe model? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever decision is made, it should probably be defined in the FAQ for future reference. I think we should only add studios who state they are influenced by the Marvel model, or who clearly are. We can't really include every shared universe, as there will undoubtedly be many popping up in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Strange Date

Despite what the cited Variety article states, the Doctor Strange movie has NOT been officially dated yet by Marvel. Variety is dating that movie on their own accord. Granted it's the most furthest along in production (which is why they are likely making that assumption), but even in interviews this week Kevin Feige has left the slate after Captain America 3 unannounced. Comic-Con starts tomorrow, so this will likely be a moot issue very soon, but for now that date is not officially accurate - AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we have a reliable source to cite the date. If it changes, we can change the source and the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are two reliable sources that confirm no date yet [1][2] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

But again. The Variety source is a reliable source (even stated again here) that, again per WP:V, will be used until a new or different reliable source comes around that says otherwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

But why? We have multiple reliable sources that can be used (and they have the added bonus of actually being right). I would think that two (different) reliable sources that say otherwise would trump a single source. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, look at the dates, the IGN source you provided is older than the Variety one so an announcement could of been made on the 22nd or 23rd, in between the two sources. And then the screenrant one doesn't seem like the most reliable source as it appears to just be a top 5 wanted movie list and not actually about the currently announced films (plus it says that it is likely for the 2016 July spot anyways). If you can find any sources that state that "Doctor Strange" is still undated from after the 23rd of July then please add them here and they can hold more wait.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Variety source cited source in the article is older than the sources I provided. And as I previously stated, Doctor Strange is almost certainly going to get that July spot. However, it has not been given that date yet, so stating so is currently inaccurate. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

More than anything, the IGN article quotes Kevin Feige himself talking about how 2015 will have an existing franchise and a new franchise and how they "hope to maybe continue that model in the coming years." Kevin Feige's words should automatically trump anything. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean Variety dated the movie on their own accord. If they'd done that then they would have said something like "Doctor Strange seems likely to take the July 8 slot". Why on Earth would they suddenly decided to write it like this "Another possible franchise starter, “Doctor Strange,” is also dated for July 8, 2016." if it isn't officially confirmed?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's well know that Doctor Strange is the furthest movie along in production in Marvel's queue. It is almost certainly going to be granted that July release when the announcements are made during Marvel Studio's Panel at Comic-Con. It's "all-but-confirmed" as the expression goes. That's why you see it in articles like Variety. But the key is that it's not confirmed yet and despite everyone's expectations, Marvel could announce that it is getting a later date -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you agree that it is likely and "all-but-confirmed" so surely we can just leave it considering that it is Comic-con this weekend so any announcements will be made over the next few days. Since it is almost certain and it will likely just be re-added either today or tomorrow isn't it easier (less edits and less strain on the Wikipedia servers) to just leave it as it is and change it only if necessary.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Leave it because it will probably be right" qualifies as original research and is a violation of Wikipedia principles when there are more recent reliable sources available with quotes from the head guy that state the contrary. As a result the article will be changed. If, and when, (even if it's tomorrow) the actual date is announced, it can be changed back then with cited sources. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a source with the date, it is likely to be that date, it is likely to be announced in more sources within the next couple of days. So lets leave with the source that states that it has the date, save the strain on the servers and save extra edits and time off of whoever edits that date. If you are that fussed about it, changed the source when it is annonaced soon. Otherwise don't change it as it is currently 2(maybe 3)-1 in-favour of keeping it the way it is--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Saving server strain" is a terrible excuse to cover this lazy attitude. We should be striving for articles built upon reliable sources to maintain accurate information. Quite frankly, your argument that it's a vote as to use the most accurate and citeable information in an article is non-sensible. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, one source gives the date that we have on the article so just leave it. And its not a lazy attitude, it just happens that we have a source that says the date in a way that says it like it is confirmed. And the IGN Source is from the 21st while the Variety source is from he 23rd. Saying that we should be striving to build articles from reliable sources while at the same time trying to combat a known reliable source just seems contradictory--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gotten involved in this discussion so far, but frankly, it's getting ridiculous. The film has not been given an official date by Marvel, hence why every site except Variety says something along the lines of "it will most likely be released in 2016". AnonWikiEditor is correct when he says Variety dated the film of their own accord - out of nowhere they started using the 2016 date as if it was official, probably so that if it is announced for that date, they will be able to say that they called it. It is pretty obvious that this is exactly what happened, so I don't understand why everybody else is arguing against that point. However, I agree that there is no point changing it up now, considering the Marvel SDCC panel is tomorrow, and even if they don't have an actor signed to announce, I am sure they will give the film a date, so it should be fine to leave it for now and to sort it out after the panel. Seeing as this seems to be the consensus here, I think it should be pointed out to AnonWikiEditor that making a bold edit to an article before a discussion on the talk page reaches a consensus, especially if it clearly goes against the majority view, is not how Wikipedia operates, so you should seriously rethink the edits you just carried out in which you cited updated sources. Things like this indicate to me, and probably the other editors involved with this discussion, that you are just looking to make the changes you think are right, without heading to the majority views of the community, and are, in effect, looking to start an edit war. I would be interested to hear a response from you regarding this topic, as well as any other editor who may agree or disagree with the statements I have made here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before I made the changes because I don't believe article accuracy, when they are plenty of reliable cite able sources, is something that is something to be voted on. When something is wrong and there are plenty of sources stating it is wrong, it should be changed immediately. Otherwise you're changing the article from fact based to something resembling opinion based. And yes, "don't change it because it might be right later" IS a lazy attitude (and also acknowledges that the article is wrong). I'm saddened to know that fellow Wikipedia editors would rather argue for laziness than having the best and most accurate (with reliable sources) article possible. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone comes to the article and wants a source that confirms the date then they have one, again general consensus of the people above have all agreed to leave it as it is for now.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Marvel Studios SDCC panel came and went without any mention of Doctor Strange. Are we still going keep the release date in the article despite all the sources that confirm the movie has not been given one? [3] [4][5][6][7] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any further objection and the previous reasons for objection no longer apply now that Comic-Con has ended without any Doctor Strange announcement. The article will be changed shortly. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well you only posted this yesterday. The date should not be removed. Once again, Variety is a reliable source, who's sources told them about the date. They have also not retracted their information. So per WP:V, we have a reliable source stating the date. If we get one saying the date is different, not that it is not that, then we can change it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Think of it also like this: In May we got reports that Brolin would be Thanos in Guardians. We got "official" confirmation of such at Comic-Con. So because it wasn't official (as you have said) we shouldn't have included it in the Guardian's article? No. We had a source stating this, and added it to the article. An even better example: Around the same time, we had a report that Thanos/Brolin would be in Avengers: AoU. However, Feige did an interview recently, saying that at the time being he is not in that film. So we removed the info. Wikipedia is a work in progress and is always changing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We've been discussing this for a while. The objections previously stated were because it was likely to be announced Saturday night so it was argued there was no point in changing it. That didn't happen, meaning the objections presented are no longer valid. Another argument was that Variety was the most recent source (it's not). The movie not having a date is not opinion. It's fact. We have one source, Variety, that says the date. We have pretty much every other website out there that says no date. How does one source trump every other source? We even have Kevin Feige in one of the sources talking about how they're still discussing 2016 plans. Yet Variety tops Kevin Feige? This is absurd. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your example it was not the same because every site reported that. You could find dozens of sources. It wasn't a situation where one website reported it and every other website reported that no one had been cast like this. You could even write it, that it has been reported Josh has been cast, but Marvel has not confirmed it - just like how I wrote that the movie was widely expected to be released in 2016, but Marvel has not confirmed it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, the general consenes was that it would be left until after Comic-Con because it was likely (although it didn't happen) to be annonced then, as such AnonWikiEditor changing the page was by what was agreed upon here.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I must have fallen off at that point in the discussion or misinterpreted it. But I still believe the date should stay. And we should probably get more voices in this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't all of the regular editors to this page already stated their view. Either way, he is right he has more sources that verify that it has no date than we do that it has a date. The only reason I wanted it kept was because of how close comic-con was at the time he brought it up so it wouldn't make sense to remove it just to re add it if it were announced, but comic-con is over now. Also he's got a point of us trying to use variety over Kevin himself.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging people who have not commented in the discussion yet that regularly edit. @TriiipleThreat and Richiekim: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just so we all understand, what exactly are your arguments for keeping the date and that one source when we have a multitude of other sources that say otherwise including one with comments from Kevin Feige himself? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I support keeping the date, since Variety is an industry trade publication and an extremely reliable source. Just because other publications have not reported on this doesn't contradict the source.-Richiekim (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, found another source for the July 8, 2016 release date. [8] however I also found another source from after Comic-con which kinda destroys Variety's Source in terms of date the source was released.[9]--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are both unreliable sources Ditto, so they could not subsequently be used. Users tried added the Kpop one I believe. And as I've been saying, and Richie added, just because others have not reported on the date, does not mean they are all right, and the lone extremely reliable source that is Variety is wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think the fact that the article source states there is a date and 2 days later Kevin Feige talks about how 2016 is undecided would make the Variety source questionable (especially in conjunction with just about every other website. I don't see how you can reasonably say Variety is a more reliable than president of Marvel Studios himself. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So we have Kevin Feige(!)[10], IGN[11][12], Entertainment Weekly[13], Screencrush[14], Screenrant[15][16], The Guardian[17], E![18], MTV[19] as well as the complete lack of any mention of Doctor Strange's release date or announcement on Marvel.com like they've had for every movie the past few years (Avengers: AoU[20], Ant-man[21], Cap3[22], GotG2[23]) ....and in the other corner we have Variety [24] and the fact that having significantly more and more recent reliable sources means nothing...for some reason -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair the Marvel website should be enough, especially if we have a page on there website for GotG2 which is to be released after (keyword) Doctor Strange. Anon is right here and the sources he supplied (mainly Kevin and the lack if a date on Marvel's site) shoule be enough for Variety to be disproven--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, none of these sources cited above contradict Variety's source, just that it hasn't been officially announced by Marvel. Unless a source explicitly states that Doctor Strange is NOT coming out on July 8, 2016, I don't see any reason we should remove the date.-Richiekim (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And back to the start of this discussion. Marvel have not confirmed it. Kevin has said himself that they are still planning what to put where for 2016. Even if it were leaked, surely it should not be on the article until Marvel themselves have confirmed it. Saying that because Variety says so does not make it true and all of the sources have stated that July 8, 2016 is currently undated or they say that it is likely We have more sources that state that is is either likely, or just flatly say that it is undated than the on variety source that we have stating that it has that date.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So what if Marvel hasn't confirmed it? They are the king of all secrets and only let you know what they want you to know, when they want. If we went off of official confirmations for everything, half of the content on some of these upcoming film pages would not exist. This brings me back to my Thanos/Brolin answer. Heck, even Lilly and Stoll for Ant-Man! They were only "officially" confirmed as being cast Saturday, yet we had them as in the film on the Ant-Man film page for a good few months. And I once again concur with Richie's statement about a source saying it is NOT coming out on that date. None of those say it is NOT coming out on that date. So we should not remove it, because we have verifiable info for that date. If we had sources saying "our sources tell us Doctor Strange will not be the film released on July 8, 2016", that'd be a different story, because we'd have conflicting reports. But we don't have that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources that say Doctor Strange has not been given that release date. In regards to your casting example you keep bringing up, I will once again bring up the fact that there were many sources available to cite that fact just like there are many to cite the fact that Doctor Strange does not have a release date yet. The fact of the matter is your one source does not take precedence over the multitude of other sources that are both more available in greater numbers and are more recent. Wikipedia is about what you can cite and we can more than cite that Doctor Strange does not have a release date. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The list article was (at one point after Comic-Con passed per the consensus before this discussion took a big turn) written something like "While Doctor Strange is widely expected to be released in 2016, no date has been officially announced". I propose that is how we change it back. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If we have one source confirming it, and no sources denying it, then we should keep the date until such a time as it is found to be wrong (which it most likely will not) - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We have many sources that confirm no release date yet. We have a source featuring Kevin Feige posted two days after the article's source that confirms no release date yet. If the movie doesn't have a release date, then that means it's release date is not July 8, 2016. If sources say the movie has no release date, then that source is saying the release date is not currently July 8, 2016. Whether it becomes that at a later point or not is irrelevant right now. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The one source does not even specify why they list that date. If they had a inside source from Marvel they would likely say so and other outlets would likely have the info as well but no other site is confirming it. They are likely assuming because it has a director attached it is next in line but since it is a new property pre-production will be a longer process for it than Thor 3 since the main roles need to be cast and contracts need to be signed. Also Thor 3's script was started long before Doctor Strange. If Kevin says they are still undecided it is because they are probably not sure they can launch a new property in under 2 years. Also the Variety article is not even about Doctor Strange but was an announcement for other dates and none of Variety's other articles on the film have mentioned the date. It should be removed until it is confirmed by Marvel or at least multiple sources.Lowriders95s10 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While obviously there exists a miniscule amount of doubt in the source, it is reliable and most certainly doesn't contradict any official information (of course if we just go by what Kevin Feige has said it could be in the May 2017 slot instead). The schedule certainly has been locked in now, and filming will begin next spring so the July 2016 date seems very sensible (just as a sanity check rather than any way of saying it is definitely yes or no). Ruffice98 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You just provided an example of a contradiction in your explanation of how it doesn't create a contradiction... -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said there is nothing officially giving an exact date, and the official information only narrows it down to two dates (really it narrows it down to three, but the first date suggested has been taken by Captain America 3 now). There is no contradiction, what exists is a potential alternative and that's what causes the problem and the slight doubt I mentioned. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

New behind the scenes article on the MCU

I found this article from the Hollywood Reporter. I think it would be a good resource on the behind the scenes production of the MCU.Richiekim (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a read to see if anything could be added, that you or anyone else has not already done. Thanks as always Richie. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

captain america 3 is no longer in development it's in pre-production, that needs to be changed. Thanks. Adamcawtonn (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that verifies the claim. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Portal

Considering how big this is getting now, should we set up a Portal at Portal:Marvel Cinematic Universe to encompass all of the links that are now included? [25] --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never dealt with Portals so if you want to investigate creating one Ditto51, I would not be opposed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that this has been set up, does it get added to all MCU pages? Or just this one? Also, The previously used 'portal bar' format below the navboxes worked a lot better than the current format, so even if you only want the MCU portal linked to, I think we should revert it back to the bar. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I think so. And I wasn't sure about the portal bar or not. I think all should get this and the film portal added to them. I'm pretty much done in the portal. Now it is just formatting/stylizing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the portal is in the MCU navbox, so is it necessary to have the extra portal link? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Pages should be tagged with it too I believe. If the navboxes are collapsed, readers may not see that, but would see the portal bar. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, will leave as is. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2014

Add the movies that have announced dates, but no titles or information. You already added one. I'd add it myself but Wikipedia won't fucking let me. Justletmehaveausername (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That was only done to show that there is still a film in between Doctor Strange and GotG 2. We only add table rows once we have confirmed titles; this is an exception. As well, no need for the language. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Strange: In development / Pre-production

Doctor Strange is currently listed as in pre-production, but shouldn't it be listed as in development instead? Using the Filmmaking article as a guide, "in development" seems more accurate as the movie is uncast and currently unwritten[26][27] (or maybe in just early stages). Pre-production, to my understanding, is basicly the period just before filming starts where locations are chosen, sets are built, etc so that filming can start immediately once done. Last I heard was the filming was being discussed for spring of 2015.[28]. Just in general, it also seems strange (no pun intended) that the Doctor Strange movie is listed as being further along than the dated Captain America movie coming out some time before it (which I believe is correctly listed as being in development). The pre-production label makes sense for Ant-man as it is scheduled to start filming in August. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a source stating it is already in pre. It actually is quite far along in pre to be honest. Whereas, we have confirmation from the Cap 3 writers that they are only still in the script drafting process. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Just wanted to check because I thought it seemed to fit the other definition better, but I don't have anything that actually says otherwise. I'll look around to see if I can find an update on Cap 3. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I've looked around the past few days with comic-con for an update to Cap 3, and there isn't one. Still in development. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Upcoming Movies

Can the editors help me confirm the news of these upcoming movies as of whether it is true or not. This link is from the magazine that posted all the upcoming movies up to 2019.

https://www.facebook.com/fhmmalaysia/photos/a.10151473475440535.531900.172564000534/10152568780735535/?type=1&fref=nf

In brief:

• Avengers: Age of Ultron (1 May 2015)
• Ant-Man (17 July 2015)
• Captain America: The Fallen Son (6 May 2016)
• Doctor Strange (8 July 2016)
• Thor: Ragnarok (5 May 2017)
• Guardian of The Galaxy: War Of Kings (28 July 2017)
• Black Panther (3 November 2017)
• Avengers: Civil War (6 July 2018)
• World War Hulk (2 November 2018)
• Inhuman (3 May 2019)

Kelvintjy (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's some nice photo shop skills there. Rumors and a very unreliable source at that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I know Marvel has three 2018 movies planned, the third of which was announced a couple days after the rest of the 2017-2019 dates. The fact that this list ignores that third 2018 movie suggest to me that this was made as someone's wish list in the days between those announcements and is not some sort of official leak. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See also section

Froth had originally added a link to DC Cinematic Universe, which is currently a redirect. They then changed the link to be List of films based on DC Comics and added List of films based on Marvel Comics because "DC and Marvel are the major IPs. The list of DC movies and Marvel movies are twins." I came around and moved the Marvel link to the list of films page. Froth has now come back and readded both those previous links here, plus a link to the list of MCU films page. First, the list of MCU films page should not be in this section because it has its own section on the article (Marvel Cinematic Universe#Films) where it links to that. Second, since I did move the list of films based on Marvel over to the list of MCU films page, that is a better location, as that deals with the films of the universe. This is the overarching page for the universe, so those are not appropriate on this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The MCU page is about the universe as a whole, so any links to pages about individual films etc. should be moved to the films page (which Favre already did). The list of DC films, however, has no place in these articles at all. The see also section of any page is about further information on a subject appearing within the article that is covered more extensively elsewhere. Any mention of DC stuff on these pages should be here, in the Reception section, but as pointed out previously, the DCCU does not currently have a page to link to. At such a time as there is a page for the DCCU (and that goes for fox and sony) then they can be linked to in the Reception section, otherwise, these pages should be about the MCU only. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look over at the films page, and it already has the link to the list of films page, as well as links to all marvel comics films, in the form of the navbox at the bottom of the page. The see also section is unnecessary duplication of this info, so really, none of these edits needed to be made, or need to be kept. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97, the information added is either redundant or unneeded. The DC film information, especially, has no place in this article at this time. Maybe when it has its own article, it can be added. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Whedon quote

I just found this [29] and was wondering if we should use it somewhere in the development section? It may already be around here somewhere, so I thought I would come here first. The passage I was thinking of specifically was:

"I read all the scripts and I give notes on everything. I’ll look at cuts when they’re ready to show me. I’ll talk to directors if they want to. I try to make myself useful without being intrusive. I’ve gotten to be a part of all of them. That’s a dream job for a kid like me."

- adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That may be good. I don't know if we have that Whedon is a consultant there or not. Also, since you removed all the small paragraphs, we need to reformat the development section to include the other areas. I was thinking a single sentence for each. One about the announcement of the One-shots, the release of the comics, one for the intent to develop AoS, and one for the development of the Netflix series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I will try to add this in now since I reformatted the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Favre1fan93: great recent edits! It hadn't crossed my mind to split the section up like that, but it was getting a bit long, and the addition of the one-shot/comic/tv stuff and the Whedon stuff would probably have been pushing it for a single block of text. Keep up the good work! - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Home media section move

Thoughts on moving this section to the List of films page? I feel like it would be more appropriate there, either above or below the "Reception" section there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, as it really only pertains to the films. If there is a DVD/Blu-ray release that includes, for example, films and tv, then it should go here, but that is unlikely. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give it a few days, see if anyone objects. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Television special

Right now, the placement of this section makes no sense whatsoever. We have a section on the films set in the MCU. We have a section on the short films set in the MCU. We even have a section on comic books set in the MCU. So why then have a combined section of television series set in the MCU, and a WP:Real world television special documenting the development of the MCU? The television special should either be a subsection of the development section (which would be fitting given the subject matter of the documentary) or should be its own section on the page. I feel that this is quite a pressing matter, and would like to discuss it with anyone who has any thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be moved to television series article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be moved to the series article, because it is not a series. It should stay on this page because it covers the whole franchise, but I believe it should stay under the "Television" section, because it is a television special. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

True, I see your point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the series article is for series, so this would be inappropriate there, but by that logic I would argue that the series section on this page should remain a summary of the series article, making this inappropriate there as well. I stick by my previous proposal of either moving the subsection to the development section, or making it its own section, either just above or below the reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The section here just says "Television" not "Television series".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

...hence why it should stay there. If we just limited it to be a section on "Television series", then we should have moved it. But it is just "Television" to be all encompassing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It only says "Television" because the special is also in the section. Just move the subsection and rename the section "Television series". It really shouldn't be all encompassing, especially now that we are defining the other sections as just being table summaries of the main articles. Yes, you can just omit the "series" from the title and then the subsection fits in nicely, but looking at the page as a whole, the logical move is to have a "Television series" section, and a separate "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" section. And if, at any point, another documentary is released, be it TV special or theatrical, then the "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" section would be renamed something like "Documentaries", and then "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" would become a subsection of that, along with a subsection for the new documentary. I still don't see what the issue you guys are having with this is. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Where it is really is the best place for the info on the special. The special, while documenting the development of the MCU, has no actual bearing on the MCU's development. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about the development section, but I disagree that it is in the best place. It should have its own section, either above or below the eception section, because it is not a part of the MCU, but about it. Whether you look at it from an in-universe or real world point of view, it is clearly a completely separate thing from the television series, which deserve their own section, just as the films, short films, and comic books each have their own. There "really is" no logical reason to keep this here, it just doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This one-time television special should be less prominent not more prominent by giving it it's section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be much of an issue if we just stick it at the bottom of the page, especially since it is such a small section and clearly doesn't have its own article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is less prominent where it is, especially since Triiiple removed the heading and used the ';' coding, and fits as a subsection there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But I stand by my point that it shouldn't really be there. I know it is less prominent as a subsection without a heading, but that doesn't mean it is in the best place it should be. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What if we moved it into the reception section? I am thinking this because the reception section is about how the shared universe model has been received, with a subsection on critical reception, and then subsections on companies attempting to replicate that success. The TV special is really Marvel's thoughts on their own success, analysing the development process, albeit in a self-congratulating way. With a slight re-write, the Reception section could begin with a paragrph on the TV special, as indication that Marvel is happy with how they have gone so far and see their current universe as a success, then a paragraph on critical analysis, which is somewhat less positive, and so we would be getting some different views on the subject, and then we would have the Impact subsections, detailing how other studios have attempted to or are attempting to create their own shared universes. This to me actually seems like the best move to make: giving the TV special its own section would make it more prominent then you would like, and I can see how that could be an issue; it doesn't quite fit into the development section, even if we tried to re-write it to emphasise the focus on development within the special; by tacking it onto the end of the television series section (and then renaming the section "Television") we are being inconsistent within the page and creating confusion through poor logic; by integrating the section into the Reception section, we are making everyone happy (not being made more prominent, not in an illogical place) and improving the flow of the article.

I'm thinking something like this, but others could probably help re-write it to make it more appropriate if they wanted.

Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe

On March 18, 2014, ABC aired a one-hour television special titled Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe, which documented the history of Marvel Studios and the development of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, serving as an acknowledgement and celebration of Marvel's success. The special included exclusive interviews and behind-the-scenes footage from all of the films, One-Shots and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and sneak peeks of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, unaired episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and Ant-Man. Brian Lowry of Variety felt the special, "contains a pretty interesting business and creative story. While it might all make sense in hindsight, there was appreciable audacity in Marvel’s plan to release five loosely connected movies from the same hero-filled world, beginning with the cinematically unproven Iron Man and culminating with superhero team The Avengers. As such, this fast-moving hour qualifies as more than just a cut-and-paste job from electronic press kits, although there’s an element of that, certainly." The special will be released on September 9, 2014 on the home media for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1.

Critical reaction

Jim Vorel of Herald & Review called the Marvel Cinematic Universe "complicated" and "impressive" but said, "As more and more heroes get their own film adaptations, the overall universe becomes increasingly confusing." Kofi Outlaw of Screen Rant, stated that while The Avengers was a success, "Marvel Studios still has room to improve their approach to building a shared movie universe". Some reviewers criticized the fact that the desire to create a shared universe led to films that did not hold as well on their own. In his review of Thor: The Dark World, Forbes critic Scott Mendelson likened the MCU to "a glorified television series", with The Dark World being a "‘stand-alone’ episode that contains little long-range mythology." Collider's Matt Goldberg considered that while Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger were quality productions, "they have never really been their own movies", feeling that the plot detours to S.H.I.E.L.D. or lead-ups to The Avengers dragged down the films' narratives.

Impact on other studios

I hope you guys can see this as a viable option. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Or, if this is still too prominent, then maybe have the critical reaction, then the impact on other studios, then Marvel's reaction (the tv special). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Still stay in television, because it is related to television. It is not that big of an issue which you are now making it to be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel it is a major issue because this is supposed to be a good article, and this is to do with the inherent structure of it. If all of the sections (films, short films, comic books) had other things in them relating to them, I would also argue for their relocation on the page, because that is not what those sections are about. Are you seriously telling me that it makes sense to have a section containing a table on films, a section containing a table on short films, a section containing a table on comic books, and a section containing a table on televsion series and a barely related out of universe television special documenting the history of the entire universe. You are grouping two things together that shouldn't be together, and changing the name of the section in an attempt to justify it. Just because you don't see my point of view, does not make this an unimportant issue. That is verging on ownership, which is territory I would rather avoid, but applicable in this situation due to your behaviour.

Now, your argument is that it is related to television, so it should be combined with the television series section to form one television section. And though yes it is related to television in the sense that that is where it was aired, and that it included a few minor mentions to SHIELD, it is in fact more closely related to almost every other section on the page. Its inherent premise and subject material is the development of the MCU as a whole, and more specifically of the studio and the films. It also mentions the short films, which get about as much WP:WEIGHT in the special as SHIELD does, and it can be considered Marvel's response to their own success as well. Therefore, having it in any other section on this page would be just as, if not more so, appropriate than having it in the television series section as it is now. Now I understand that you want to keep the development section for the actual development of the MCU, not other things concerning it, so I have agreed that that isn't really an option. Also, sticking with my belief that the individual medium sections should remain about the properties that Marvel has released, the films, short films, television series, and comic books sections should all be ruled out as well. That leaves a couple of options: we could add it to the bottom of reception, which would be a bit of a stretch, even after re-writing the section, but still more appropriate than the specials current position in the article; we could give it its own section apart from all the others, which would be the perfect idea if, as you pointed out, it didn't add undue weight to the special itself as a minor area of the franchise; thirdly, we could look at other suggestions that hopefully other editors have in order to find the most appropriate place for the special.

Speaking of which, how about this - the special itself deals mostly with the development of Marvel Studios, as well as the Cinematic Universe (the section says this itself). So even though it is somewhat relevant to this page, it doesn't necessarily have to be explored in such detail here. You yourself want to minimise the prominence of the section, so why not move it to the Marvel Studios page? When you think about it, it is just as, if not more so, relevant to that page as it is to this (it is called "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" after all!). That way, all we have to do is mention it somewhere in the lead or development section, with a link to the actual section on that page, and if necessary could make "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe" a redirect to that page, and add something about it to the FAQ here, in case someone is confused about it's whereabouts. This is just a suggestion, but once again it is more appropriate than what is currently happening here on the page, so if you have any thoughts on this, please let me know.

Also, if anyone else has thoughts on this whole issue, please feel free to join in with this discussion, I would prefer not to drag it on for much longer, but I believe, as I stated above, that this is a pressing matter that needs to be resolved. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd chime in and say, the four tables with all of the MCU content sitting together looks great. And the "Assembling a Universe" special looks clearly separate from everything else. It's really easy to read and understand. Looks great! --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with those thoughts, but that is also why I think the special should be moved - it looks completely unrelated and out of place. From purely an aesthetics point of view, we should just have the four tables there on their own, without the TV special. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very good argument - the aesthetics. While they should be considered when sectioning content, you need to group and place like content together. So once again, that is currently being done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That isn't my argument, it is a side note in relation to the points raised by ProfessorKilroy. I stand by my actual argument above, and once again point out that the likeness of the content here is superficial, and the section is not ultimately in the best place it could be. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I have let this discussion pause for a few days, but I believe this to be an important matter, and I will only see this discussion as over when the changes I have proposed are made, or when someone convinces me that they should not be made. Seeing as neither of those situations have been realised ... have you considered my proposals and/or changed your mind in any way. I stand by my belief that the section should not be where it is, and I have given multiple and, in my opinion, valid reasons as to why that is. I have also proposed several alternative locations, some of which you have given valid reasons against, but others you have not. Personally, I currently think my most recent proposal - to move the section to Marvel Studios and have a single line and link to it somewhere in the lead or development here - is the most appropriate and the best way to go in terms of achieving the highest quality articles we can. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fantastic enthusiasm, and your proposals have been considered. But I believe the biggest reason for keeping it there, is that a TV special about the MCU belongs in the TV section of the MCU page. Expressing stubbornness won't help your argument, but if you feel as though your points aren't being heard, perhaps list them again concisely. I know there's a large chunk of text above that I haven't read, as it's quite large. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as stubborn, as that is how I feel about the other editors here, and it is becoming quite frustrating. To summarise:

• Yes, "a TV special about the MCU belongs in the TV section of the MCU page" if the TV section is called "Television", but as Favre pointed out above, that wouldn't be the case if it was called "Television series", which is what I believe it should be called, because
  • There is an MCU films section, an MCU short films section, an MCU comics section, but not an MCU television series section, which doesn't really make sense to me - the nature of the section, which should be an MCU television series section, has been changed to accommodate this abnormality, which I don't think is the best move that could have been made
  • The section is a summary of the MCU television series page (as the film section is a summary of the MCU films page, etc.), it even has a main article link to that page directly under the header, but the tv special info does not appear on that page, and as was rightfully pointed out previously, it should not be at that page because it is not an MCU television series, and therefore it should not be in this summary section
• I have made several proposals as to where it could be placed, seeing as I am proposing its removal from the section
  • It could be moved into the development section, as it is partly about the development of the MCU. This was countered with the fact that it is itself not a development of the MCU, and so is not really appropriate in that section
  • It could be moved into the reception section, as it is partly Marvel's reaction to its own success, and an analysis of its own universe building. I have gotten no argument against this, but I admit that it would be a bit of a stretch to re-write the subsection in such a way that it would fit naturally here
  • It could be moved to the Marvel Studios page, as it is called "Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe", and it is primarily concerned with the development of Marvel Studios, how it made the films and the universe, and how it is beginning to expand it into other media etc. I see this as the most appropriate move, and believe that the info would be much more relevant there than where it currently is. If needs be, a short sentence with a wikilink to the section could be added somewhere in the lead or development, or maybe the subsection could be added to a see also section at the bottom of the page, but that could be decided if/when the move is made. There is no real reason why the info is essential to this page, and other editors have tried their best to minimise the prominence of the section on the page (namely by changing its header to a " ; ", which removed it from the contents summary at the top of the page. When I think about it, this is the logical move to make for me, but I would like to know what others think as well.

I hope this helps with navigating the previous discussion. As you pointed out, I am enthusiastic, but that is because I feel that this definitely needs to be done in order to make the best possible article we can, which is always the goal on Wikipedia. As I said above, if someone can give me a good reason for this not to be done, then I will let the matter go, but all anyone tries to say is "TV special should be in TV section" or "it is in the best possible place" and I feel that I have made some very valid points as to why this isn't the case. And thank you, by the way, for joining in the discussion, as the more editors there are involved, the less it seems like a petty argument, and the more likely it is that the right decision will be made in the end. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

To counter point all of your proposed moves: To development: that was disapproved by both stances, as you said, because it does not have anything to do with the development of the MCU. To reception: this is not a third parties feelings on the universe (as the first paragraph does in that section) or something to happen elsewhere due to the universe (as the impact section covers). To the Marvel Studios page: the Marvel Studios page covers the formation of the studio, as well as how it handled the Marvel character properties (ie giving out Spidey, X-Men, etc.) This quasi-documentary covers only a part of what Marvel Studios has done (the MCU) and we have a page (this page) that has a better scope on this topic, then what is at the Marvel Studios page. So it does not fit there. So we are back to it being on this page for sure. It can't go in the Development, Films, Short films, Comic books, Recurring cast, or Reception section or be its own level 2 heading. It can be a subsection in the Television section, but not necessarily a level 3 heading, to bring undue attention to it. So as stated countless times, in the Television section is the best location for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the subsections relevance to the Marvel Studios page. If we put it there, we could explain that Marvel Studios released a television special detailing how their dealings as a company, the films that they made (including reference to character rights) and then some minor details about other media like SHIELD and the one-shots. It is completely from their perspective, completely real world, and fits in both thematically and structurally to that page. Obviously that is not the case here, as it has been placed in what you believe is the only possible location for it to be on the page, but in doing so it is breaking the structure, flow, and logic of the page and appears to make it both more relevant to the universe than it actually is, and less real world than it actually is, by putting it in the middle of summary tables that contain only properties that are apart of the MCU. Once again, I argue that:

• Yes, "a TV special about the MCU belongs in the TV section of the MCU page" if the TV section is called "Television", but as Favre pointed out above, that wouldn't be the case if it was called "Television series", which is what I believe it should be called, because

• There is an MCU films section, an MCU short films section, an MCU comics section, but not an MCU television series section, which doesn't really make sense to me - the nature of the section, which should be an MCU television series section, has been changed to accommodate this abnormality, which I don't think is the best move that could have been made
• The section is a summary of the MCU television series page (as the film section is a summary of the MCU films page, etc.), it even has a main article link to that page directly under the header, but the tv special info does not appear on that page, and as was rightfully pointed out previously, it should not be at that page because it is not an MCU television series, and therefore it should not be in this summary section

It really isn't appropriate for this subsection to be here, and by being stubborn by continuously refusing to accept the edit without providing a valid reason to counter my points, you are just being disruptive. The subsection should not be there. Period. There is no way around it. I have offered several options for where it could be moved, some of which you have offered valid points against, and so I agree that they should be ruled out. From those decisions, it is apparent to me that this info should not be on this page, as it doesn't really fit, and it isn't necessarily relevant to it. Why not just add it to a see also section at the bottom? That is what it is for. Then it can be added to the page where it fits the best and is most appropriate, which, as I explained above, is, in my opinion, the Marvel Studios page. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Had the section still be in prose rather than a table then splitting it would be sensible, but it is bad for the article's GA rating to have a section that is just a table as many people like to be able to read other stuff about it. (Could it be moved to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. page since it is being released with that) Anyway, unless more of these come out, one special surrounding it really should not have its own section and since it is about it and its reception we can't exactly move it to the Reception or Development sections, although information from the special can be (and probably already has been) added to those sections.

Basically is should remain as it is until (and if) more specials come out. (At which point they can be moved to a section called Television Specials/Documentaries?) --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, going back to one of your old points about making a section for documentaries, that should be done when there are more than one, until then it is fine where it is. And I count at least four against one as the consensus to keep it as it is so perhaps Favre isn't the one being disruptive? So maybe rather than being stubborn and trying to push your point, you should step back take a breath and then have a look to see if you can try and counteract the point that there is currently only one special and so it isn't ready for its own section--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I am sorry if I am coming across as stubborn, as that is not how I feel about this, but I am getting frustrated with what feels to me like the lack of interest in the topic. It seems like to everyone else this is a minor issue that doesn't really demand attention, and yet they still refuse to acknowledge the insights of someone who does feel strongly for the issue. I singled out Favre as being disruptive simply because every time I try to come up with a new suggestion, backed up with valid points, I get pretty much the same answer - "It is where it belongs" or "the TV special should go in the TV section" or something like that, rather than an attempt at a mature discussion. Favre said above that "It is not that big of an issue which you are now making it to be." So if you don't really care about it that much, than why stand in the way of someone who does? As for Ditto's point about consensus - Wikipedia is not a democracy, as I'm sure your know, and so despite the fact that consensus is often found to settle disputes, we should not rely solely on counting the "votes" of who is for and who is against. I wish to make changes to Wikipedia in betterment of articles, and I have supported my argument with multiple valid points. No one else has expressed much interest in the topic, and appear to want to just leave it be or ignore it. Seeing as I would rather not make this move, I propose that I just make the edits I have set forth, and then we can see if anybody comments about it, in which case we could start up a new / carry on this discussion to find a solution to that problem. Now, I would not suggest this if I had considerable opposition in the matter, but in this case no one has come outright and said that they don't want this to happen. I understand that this would be a bold move, but if it is really so insignificant in terms of the scope and interest in the page, then why make such a fuss? If someone can show that they care about keeping this here as much as I do, and have valid points to back up their position, then we could have an actual discussion and come to a conclusion, rather than a petty, half-baked argument because I am the only participant who has, as ProfessorKilroy put it, "enthusiasm".

Now, again, my proposal is this:

• Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe doesn't belong on this page, and the reasoning for this (both mine and other editors) can be found above. It should be removed from this page.
• Someone may come here looking for it (unlikely as it has hardly had the coverage for it, but you never know) so it should be added in a see also section at the bottom of the page, leading to where it is most appropriately placed ...
• It should be added to the Marvel Studios page, as it is called Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe, it is made by Marvel Studios, it is about Marvel Studios, it is about Marvel Studios films, it is about the shared universe that Marvel Studios has constructed, it is about the success of Marvel Studios, and the reception to it has focused on Marvel Studios and all the points raised within it about Marvel Studios. Yes it is related to the MCU, but it is much more relevant to the more significantly focused upon WP:Real world element of Marvel Studios.

I really don't see what the issue is. This is the logical move, and per the previous discussion, it won't really affect anyone here. If this is not such a big deal, then the changes should be made, and everyone can move on, but if it is a big deal, and people actually want to take interest, then a mature discussion can be had to determine the best outcome for the articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it appears we won't be making any progress with this, why don't you create an RfC to get more input. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I will if I have to, but I hoped that that wouldn't be necessary, and I don't really think it is, given that there is really no conflict to be settled - I believe that a change needs to be made for the betterment of the article, while everyone else doesn't really seem to care, dismissing it as not a big deal. Do really object to these changes? I know you don't think the section fits in anywhere else on the page, but do you really feel like it must absolutely be where it is right now? If I had a firmer idea of others opinions, then I could move forward more confidently, even if that means going down the RfC route, but I don't really understand your position on this issue. It seems to me, that you really don't want the subsection to be placed where it shouldn't be, but you also don't really see it as a big deal whether where it is now is the best place for it or not. I would prefer we come to a proper understanding on the subject before requesting for outside input. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do object to these changes. You keep dismissing my stance because you want to somehow convince me and others that your's apparently is the only way to a better article. Well I feel that I gave some very valid answers just above to all the locations that you wanted to move this section. Yes I feel this section should absolutely stay where it is at the given time. I believe as Ditto stated, if they were to say make another of these at some point, we could probably branch it out to a documentary section. But one subsection, either with "Documentary" as level 2 and the title as level 3, or the title as level 3, is completely unnecessary at the given time. Where it is does not detract from the tables of the other sections, or the series table. And it shouldn't really end up on the Marvel Studios page because it is not really within that page's scope. It also would not fit over there in any of the current sections there and certainly shouldn't become its own section over there. If it was there, then the argument then becomes, "Well we can get a better precision with this, by having it on the MCU page, because that is the basis of the special." We even took less prominence away from it in the section by removing its section heading and just made it a bold heading. Having it separate from the table indicates that it should not be viewed as a series, but as something regarding television for the universe. And that is what a readers sees once they read the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so promptly. I have given some thought to this, and I believe that this is where we stand now:

• The subsection Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe does not belong in the section that it currently occupies, but it is in the most appropriate place on the page that it can be at the moment, because:

• The special does not contribute to the development of the MCU.
• It is not a third party's reception to the MCU.
• Though the films are covered much more thoroughly in the special than the TV series, it was released as a TV special rather than a feature-length documentary, which is a stronger real world connection.
• The short films and recurring cast/characters are given similar weight in the special to the tv series, but like the films do not have the release connection
• The comics, as I recall, are not mentioned

Therefore, until such a time as their is more info that can be added (i.e. at least another documentary) to create a new section on the page, the subsection is in the most appropriate place that it can be on this page.

The question now becomes, should it be on this page? It could also be at the Marvel Studios page, but, like here, there isn't an obvious place to put it, so we cannot decide that way. The only way to decide then, in my opinion, is to decide at which page the content of the special is more relevant. That is a matter of the scope of the special itself, so I believe this discussion should now be about whether we believe the scope and content of the special is closer to the scope and content of the MCU page or the scope and content of the Marvel Studios page. If it is decided that the former is the case, then the info should remain where it is, otherwise it should be moved to the Marvel Studios page, and the best place for it on that page can be debated separately if necessary. It doesn't matter whether the section would fit in with the sections that are already there or not, because, if that conclusion has been reached, the info will be on the most appropriate page. Before I put forth my argument on this matter, I am going to re-watch the special so I can be certain exactly what the scope of it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now, after re-watching the special, I can see that arguments can be made for either page. The special is definitely about the MCU, as it shows us how everything was connected into a single universe. But it also puts a lot of emphasis on the early days and workings of Marvel Studios, the issue of character rights, the making of individual properties, and the reception to both the universe and the films individually. Clearly the special fits within the scope of the MCU page, even if it doesn't fit within the structure of it, but I think a pretty strong argument can be given for it being moved to the Marvel Studios page. Firstly, a lot more emphasis is put on the individual things than on the connections between them. The special will spend several minutes explaining the making of a film, short film, or tv show, talking about writing, casting, reception etc. before using a connection as a lead in to the next property. Secondly, Marvel Studios is definitely highlighted throughout special - in the early days of Marvel Studios ... Marvel Studios is ... what Marvel Studios has done ... etc. Thirdly, the special into every section of the Marvel Studios page: the background and history is discussed; the character rights are discussed; executives are interviewed; the logo is featured prominently; films co-produced by Marvel are mentioned, and those fully produced by them are examined in depth; also, the different divisions of Marvel Studios, namely Marvel Television, are featured. It is clear that the special is about the MCU, but I think its focus is to create more buzz for upcoming (and then upcoming) properties by reminding viewers of Marvel's success - Iron Man and The Avengers are given the most coverage - and so the special becomes a sort of self congratulating exercise, which is supported by the inclusion of third party supporters (even George R R Martin is shown talking about how much he likes Marvel).Essentially, this a tv special made by Marvel Studios, distributed by a division of Marvel Studios, and detailing the successes of Marvel Studios. The first 10 minutes (a quarter of the special) are about Marvel Studios as a fledgling "independent studio" dealing with character rights issues, naysayers, etc. and how they made a successful movie, Iron Man. They then move through the rest of the films, short films, and tv series, putting emphasis on positive reception where it was most prevalent (a news report on how much money The Avengers made is presented) and skipping over it when it isn't (The Incredible Hulk is only really featured so that they can talk about Captain America and The Avengers freely). The final segment of the special is promoting their next films, and in the case of Guardians, doesn't even highlight connections to the rest of the universe. Also, the Marvel logo is everywhere - in the opening, with the Marvel Studios fanfare theme blasting triumphantly, at the very end as the last thing the audience sees, and then all over the place throughout.

I understand if others take the stance that it is about the MCU so it should be at the MCU page, but I think it is more appropriate at the Marvel Studios page. If it had focused more on the actual universe and less on the production side (how Marvel Studios came to be, who they hired, how they produced the films, how much money and praise they got) then I would say having it here is a no-brainer. But I think too much emphasis is put on Marvel Studios and its success to not warrant at least a discussion, if not a move. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I am proposing we move the subsection here to the bottom of the Production library section at the Marvel Studios page, keeping the " ; " coding so as not to give it undue weight. This works both because it is produced by Marvel Studios so fits under the production banner, but also because the special makes reference to most of the rest of the page above it, and in a way could be like a summary of that page. To me, it makes more sense to have it at the bottom of that page, basically where it is out of the way, then to have smack-bang in the middle of this page where everyone can see it. We want to minimise the prominence of the section, so this seems to me to be a win for everyone - you can't really make it any less prominent without deleting it all together, which I don't think should happen. Ultimately, it comes down to whether you want it on a page that it is relevant to, but in an awkward place where it draws attention to itself, or on a page that it is just as relevant to, but basically as hidden away as possible, Pretty much where no one is going to find it without reading everything, or clicking on a see also link (which I believe should be added here when the move is made). - adamstom97 (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have reached the point of WP:FILIBUSTERing. You might not like it but concensus seems clear. Like others have stated, I respect your enthusiasm and know you are acting in good faith, but it's time to give it a rest and let the community move on. We are volunteer contributors and your lengthy replies and counter proposals are preventing us from doing so. We might need to make a formal request for closure if this continues.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Like you, I am a volunteer contributor, and have many more important things I need to be doing, like studying for exams. I do this because I enjoy it, and because I am passionate about it, and so I am sorry if I am preventing you from enjoying it yourself. I understand that if everyone is just getting frustrated, then it is a good idea to take a rest, as you say, and let everyone move on. And I am sorry for my "lengthy replies", but this is how I think/write, and my "counter proposals" are just because this is supposed to be a discussion, not a debate, and if I think of an argument that is, to me, better than previous ones, or could produce a better result for the articles, I would be remiss to not contribute it to said discussion before I forget it. In this case, I feel that I have come up with a compromise that satisfies all positions previously made clear, but I would rather get others opinions on it first than just making the changes, only to have them reverted by someone who suddenly opposes someone else. No one enjoys lengthy arduous arguments, but this is preferable to waking up each morning to find all of the previous nights hard work undone with a couple of clicks of a mouse, and "was better before" or something like that given as the reason. I understand that getting outside input could be beneficial for us, considering how long the discussion has gone on for, but that is really only appropriate for debates where two opposing views are presented and then continuously debated without sight of end, whilst I have presented a new argument just now upon which any potential discussion has not yet begun. Therefore, I would rather the discussion continues to run its course for now, though I understand that everyone is just going to get more and more exasperated as it continues to be drawn out. As for your accusations of filibustering, that is not how I have interpreted this situation. Rather than pushing for something that everyone else has clearly rejected, I am changing my opinions and ideas based upon the sentiments expressed by other editors. If we just let this go now, then I will not be convinced that the best possible articles are being created, and discussion regarding the matter will be even harder to be had, but if this matter can be dealt with now, then everyone can move on and not have to worry about it anymore. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am agreeing now with Triiiple here. This has gotten to WP:FILIBUSTER territory. Since my last response, there was just so much text added that I just didn't even want to see what was said. It is discouraging me from continuing to participate because these text chunks are reiterations of everything stated left and right, with little new discussion points. We all respect the enthusiasm Adam and know this came from a good place, but let's all just move on because consensus is keep it where it is for the time being. I will also strongly support, and seek out, a request for closure if this continue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it seriously disheartening that you would dismiss me as simply reiterating everything previously stated, with little new discussion points, without even taking the time to read what I had written. After your last response, I took some time to think over the discussion, and came to several new conclusions that changed my perspective on the whole situation. I then went about coming up with a compromise that I believed would make everybody happy, while still having the best outcome for the articles considering the circumstances. To think that you were wiiling to discuss the issue, but don't even want to read my replies, even though I have done nothing of the sort to you, is saddening. You do not WP:OWN these pages, and you don't get to decide whether I am wrong about editing these pages without even knowing what I want to do, or why. If you get discouraged by large amounts of text, then you really shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

New beginning

This discussion is becoming more like a personal argument, so I think everyone needs to calm down, and a few things need to be cleared up.

• The TV special does not belong where it is, but until there is enough information to warrant a documentary section, it is in the most appropriate place it can be on this page by default. No, this is not the belief I had when this discussion began, but views/opinions can change, and I am sorry if I inconvenienced anyone on my way to deciding this.
• the special is clearly not that major in terms of the scope of the MCU and Marvel Studios itself, so we want to minimise its prominence as much as possible (for example, using a ; instead of = for the heading). I feel that this is not the least prominent place it could be, so in a new proposal, completely separate from my original, I have suggested we move the section to the bottom of the Marvel Studios page. I do not think this is a high priority or anything, but I know it will make the information far less prominent than it already is, which seems to be what everyone else wants as well. My reasoning behind this is:

• Right now the special is in the middle of significant information that we can be almost certain a reader will be looking at. Because it is clearly in a different form to said significant information (prose in the middle of tables), people are highly likely to read it to see what it is. This is drawing attention to it that we don't really want to, when people should be reading about the films, tv series, short films, and comic that exist within the MCU. If it was at the bottom of a page, though someone who is reading through an entire article will still read it, people looking at the significant information there are unlikely to be drawn to it - it will no longer be drawing unnecessary attention to itself, and thus its prominence shall have been minimised.
• I have suggested the Marvel Studios page per the scope of the special itself. I have recently re-watched the special in order to be certain of its contents, and have just as much, if not more, emphasis to be placed on Marvel Studios itself compared to the MCU (a more detailed breakdown can be found above), so though the special is clearly about the MCU, it is also about Marvel Studios, and so would not be out of place on that page, therefore it is the most relevant page besides this one that the information could be located at.
• By having it here, we are saying that the special is somehow related to MCU television (it is in the television section on the MCU page). If it was there, we would be saying that the special is somehow related to Marvel Studios productions (it will be in the productions section on the Marvel Studios page). Both of these are completely correct, but I think the later is certainly less misleading then the former.
• The special is called Marvel Studios: Assembling a Universe.

So basically, if we want to minimise the prominence of the special, without deleting it or putting it somewhere where it isn't relevant, then this seems to me to be a pretty good move to make.

I am very sorry for any frustrations that I may have caused, I assure you it was all in good faith, and I hope we can all move on. Please also consider my new proposal, and by all means add to this discussion if you wish. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This "new beginning" changes nothing. Instead of trying to close the discussion, you restart it? We are all well aware of your rationale, we just don't agree with it. It's really simple, it's television program about the Marvel Cinematic Universe so it belongs in the television section of the Marvel Cinematic Universe article. I really believe you are being disingenuous when you say it's just as much about Marvel Studios. There is virtually no talk about anything outside of the MCU: X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Blade, etc. This is my final comment on the matter, I hope to see brought to close soon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The previous discussion is closed. I have seen your guys point of view and agree with you. It's that simple. Grow up and stop being so arrogant. I have brought the matter to a close, as obviously no one wants to continue discussing it, but you are just trying to start an argument. I have not restarted the discussion, I have made an observation based on the feelings expressed by the other editors in the previous discussion, and made a suggestion which I believe is in service of those opinions. I never said that this is an edit that needs to be made, or that it is necessarily the right thing to do, I just thought of an option which seems to support what you guys where trying to do. And have you had a good look at the special recently? It is clearly just as much about Marvel Studios than the MCU. I am being serious, and sincere when I say that. I am not saying that it should be moved to the Marvel Studios page because it belongs there more than it does here, I am saying that if you guys really want to minimise the prominence of the info, as you have repeatedly stated before, then you will be doing so by moving it to the Marvel Studios page, where it would still be on an appropriate page because of the scope and contents of the special. This is just a suggestion, and does not have to be acted on, but I thought I should tell everyone seeing as you seemed to be pretty interested in doing something like this. I would appreciate if you could just calm down and not try to make this personal. As we said above, we are all volunteers here, and all have the best interests of the articles in mind. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What he meant was that you closed the previous discussion and then decided to add a new section called "New Beginnings" that basically reiterates everything you have said in the previous discussion that we all disagreed with. Also don't insult other users just because they don't agree with you.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I must say, I resent that accusation, for I was the one being insulted because others aren't understanding me (i.e. proclaiming "This "new beginning" changes nothing" when it clearly does). I know exactly what he meant, but as I said above, I realise everyone disagreed with my point of view, I now see why, and I now agree with you guys. There is no more need for discussion on that topic, as everyone is on the same page, so could you guys please stop trying to start arguments by accusing me of disagreeing with you or directing personal attacks at me. The discussion is finished. That is the end of it. We can all just move on.

Now, in case others still don't understand, I am not trying to carry on the discussion with my new proposal, I have merely made a suggestion that may or may not better the page, based on an observation I made during said previous discussion. I don't feel the need to push it or anything, but I thought others may be interested in pursuing it, so I put it here, as that is what this page is for. If you don't think it should be done, then just say so, there is no need to gang up on me simply because I had a different point of view to you before. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD season 1 dvd release date is wrong.

on the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", and the "Universe television series" pages it says the Agents of SHIELD season 1 DVD and Blu ray release date is September 14th, but the linked article says it's September 9th, and other sources say it's September 9th. Also big named movies/seasons* don't get released on Sundays.

hope this gets fixed soon.

W3moneyw3 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for that catch. Don't know how it was missed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

CLARK GREGG

"Clark Gregg has appeared the most in the franchise"

Clark Gregg = 4

• Iron Man
• Iron Man 2
• Thor
• Avengers Assemble

But by my calculation Robert Downey Jr. holds the record

Robert Downey Jr. = 5

• Iron Man
• The Incredible Hulk
• Iron Man 2
• Avengers Assemble
• Iron Man 3

I think it should be changed, opinions please. --Warner REBORN (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Two One Shots, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., that makes 6--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Clark Gregg = 7

• Iron Man
• Iron Man 2
• Thor
• Avengers Assemble
• The Consultant One Shot
• A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's Hammer
• Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Robert Downey Jr. = 6

• Iron Man
• The Incredible Hulk
• Iron Man 2
• Avengers Assemble
• Iron Man 3
• The Consultant One Shot

--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived footage does not count as an appearance, because it is not new material. So Gregg is 7, Downey is 5, with 6 on the way (AoU). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Besides, Samuel L Jackson's been in more than Robert Downey Jr with Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, CA:TFA, Avengers, CA:TWS, and Agents of SHIELD --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think some consideration should be made for the fact that Gregg has appeared as a major character in 22 40+ min tv episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)