Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe

Recurring cast and characters

Anyone else feel like this table has gotten a bit ridiculous, especially now that crossovers between film and TV are going to be very common moving forward and those will be covered at each of the Phase Articles as well? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Was just feeling this. Especially with the addition of Barton's children in Hawkeye. Yes they've appeared in films and will now in a TV series, but do they need to be in this table? Maybe for criteria, an actors has to appear in a billing block for a film, in the main cast for a TV series, or were one of the "prominent" characters for a short or digital series? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds better, did you want to mock up what that would mean for the table? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree table should be limited to actors appearing in the billing block for a film or the main cast for a TV series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This table should be reserved for actors in the film billing and main cast in series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the Barton children. Not sure about the rest of the cast. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

On another bit regarding the cast table, I was wondering if we should move the actors that are in the films and What If from the "Outside media" tab to "Television series" given now that the series may as well just be listed together with the rest of the series, especially since it is in Phase Four and the series' cast are listed normally on that article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: I think that makes sense. I was also wondering if we should be even more restrictive in the table and only include characters that appear in at least three columns (i.e. characters from a film, TV series, and one other piece of MCU media) rather than having a massive table with every character that jumps between the films and Disney+ shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I'd just be much easier for navigation, and we can include notes for their specific type of appearances, A for an animated series such as What If, O for One-Shots?, S for shorts such as the One-Shots, Peter's To-Do List, Team Thor? D for digital series like WHIH and DailyBugle? and L for live attractions? That's my thought process for what that could look like. Not sure much of the digital series or shorts cast will last with the three column films, series, and one other media piece, but I am willing to support it as not everything needs inclusion here and this does seem to be the best approach for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should use "media type" as the defining criteria for who shows up in the table. I think the goal should be to provide the most relevant information to the readers that will help them understand the article (and MCU). So, to me it feels wrong to list barely notable characters here just because they happen to show up in different types of media - but leave out key players like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. It just feels as if we're servicing trivia, not providing useful information. My proposal is to change this to someone who has appeared in billing blocks for multiple Marvel Studios franchises (films or Disney+ series). Notability and relevance are significant pillars of Wikipedia; and I just think people like Tony Stark are more notable recurring players in MCU, than say, Felix Blake. — Starforce¹³ 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could remove this table and instead have a prose overview of the ways that cast members have crossed over across the whole franchise (Sam Jackson's initial deal, The Avengers, Gregg and Atwell in the One-Shots and TV shows, crossovers between films and Disney+ shows, etc.). That way we don't have another big unwieldy table here when we already have so many other tables, and we can focus on the notable recurring cast members rather than just adding people to the list based on criteria that very soon will not be all that noteworthy (as crossovers between film and TV become more common). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would be down with getting rid of the table and mentioning the notable ones in prose. With Feige in charge of basically all things Marvel, the crossovers are only going to increase and the table will get out of control soon. — Starforce¹³ 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that. It all feels too radical and sudden shift to me, as we commonly use a table to display the recurring casts across media franchises and in all the other Phase articles, etc. I think a rundown of the more prominent recurring cast and deals of them would be a noteworthy inclusion atop the cast list, but I still feel the listing should remain, just be condensed. Adam's 3-column proposal sounds good to me on the surface, but as I've looked through the cast more, I think it requires a proper execution. We know film and TV crossovers are becoming increasingly common, but they are still notable as they are across different mediums and there are different companies that made them, with the Marvel TV shows still requiring some inclusion here. I think it is best to move the What If actors with the TV ones, and change the "Television series" header to "Television" for this table as some content like the GotG Holiday Special and I Am Groot aren't necessarily shows but are on TV, albeit streaming. The shorts (One-Shots, Team Thor, and Peter's To-Do List) and the digital series I feel could be combined in a "Tie-in media" header with notes specifying which they appear in. Same note style can be used to specify actors in TV specials (GotG), television shorts (Groot), and animation (What If). As for the live attractions, I think those can remain as we have them in "Outside media" but change that header to "Live attractions". The note for "Outside media" can also go then. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Trailblazer101, we could keep the table for now, but what do you think of my previous proposal of changing the criteria so that we only count characters if they've also appeared in billing blocks of a Marvel Studios franchise (films or Disney+ series)? This will help narrow down the table and avoid giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to less known characters over notable key players. Yes, I know, Marvel Television shows are technically MCU, but I feel like including characters who aren't major players in a proper-MCU-canon Marvel Studios project dilutes the quality of the table.— Starforce¹³ 21:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As for the billing, I feel it would intentionally negate the inclusion of not only the Marvel TV actors, but any actors' appearances in films, television, and other media. See J. Jonah Jameson, whose in FFH and TheDailyBugle.net. That's a fairly notable casting, yet as of now, he has not been in any billing, so should that be enough reason to remove him entirely? My thought process is standard billing applies for most of these, but some that aren't in the billing and do appear across different MCU media should be included. It's not really undue weight as they are notable to different parts of the MCU, and I feel any attempts to intentionally exclude or mitigate the Marvel TV content really isn't beneficial to readers and wouldn't be that professional or organized on our parts. That is one thing I don't believe should be done. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think too radical is a bit over the top, especially in this case where the table is just getting messy and the only solutions to that so far would render it almost meaningless. I'm just trying to suggest a better alternative because I agree it doesn't make much sense to be so restrictive that barely anyone is included, but at the same time the current format is just not working. We already have big tables that show crossovers between films, crossovers between TV shows, and crossovers between films and TV shows, so the whole point of this section is to show recurring cast members over the franchise as a whole and at the moment I don't think we are doing a very good job of showing that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We could still make this table useful and include common cast members across the films in the billing just in that section, like we do on the Phase Four article, while also condensing it. I just feel a complete removal would be overkill in this display, which is much easier than having to explain the cast crossovers. To me, the media type still holds value. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If we are to keep the table, we have to come up with a clear way to determine who stays and who goes. Which is the current threshold for inclusion in this table? Is there any? —El Millo (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation is that actors who are in the billing of films or shows that appear in multiple forms of media in the MCU are included. As my current proposal above brings up a condensing option and based on points from others, I feel we could extend this to include film actors that received billing who frequently recur throughout the films but aren't in any other media, as we do on the Phase Four article. I don't think restricting this list to just actors based on billing in films AND shows would be useful as we still have some actors in the films like Simmons and Everhart, Rockewell, and Sadler, etc. who headline digital series or other media, which are still somewhat notable. I do apologize for my improper word use beforehand, but I do maintain my view that a complete removal of the table would not necessarily help readers and would instead complicate things even more with a prose overview. We don't need to go too in-depth with this as it should be a easy-to-look at visual tool. I think the qualifier could be any actors who appear in films, television, or other media (like tie-in and attractions) of the MCU are included, as are prominent actors and actors who recur in the films and are on the billing of them. I feel finding a compromise and revising this table would be more suited than abandoning it. I hope this is more clear. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think main billing in a film and TV show is restrictive enough as we already have a bunch of those from WandaVision and that is just the first Disney+ series. It is just going to grow too much too quickly. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But most of those actors billed in WandaVision haven't appeared in films. The same issue can be brought up with a listing for just billed actors without the media type splitting, so I'm really not sure how we want to go about this. I still think splitting by "Films", "Television", "Tie-in media", and "Attractions" would be best. I'm just not sure if we need to include main actors from only the films in this, but as the franchise becomes more focused on Marvel Studios' output, it's tough to figure out what's best. Actors like Downey have only been in the films, so they don't seem warranted for inclusion here unless we were to change it somehow to be across company works, and even then, I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe we could have it be actors that have starred in at least 2 or 3 MCU films and/or episodes and another MCU media (TV, shorts, etc.) and then condense everything? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had another think about this and this is what I know for sure:

• We should not be including an "Outside Media" column in the table, this is for recurring MCU cast and characters and the article hasn't even got to outside media yet anyway.
• We should be consistent with how we are treating What If since we call it "Outside Media" here at the moment but not at the Phase Four article where it has its own "Animation" column. It is also inconsistent that we are treating What If different because it shows alternate events, but not Loki which is also set in an alternate timeline from the main MCU.
• Film actors appearing in TV shows is no longer noteworthy, there is already a full table at the Phase Four article showing all the ways that this is going to happen over the next two years. This article does not need to just repeat all of that.
• TV actors appearing in films is soon to be less noteworthy as well, as can also be seen at the Phase Four article.
• AoS actors appearing in both that series and Slingshot is also not really noteworthy enough to make it as prominent as it is here since that was a direct spin-off made on the set of that series and was released as essentially a bonus episode.

This all reaffirms for me that we need to rethink what the point of this section even is and whether it needs to exist, or if it does then whether it needs to have a table. We already have full tables for all the films, series, and One-Shots, plus tables for each phase as well as one for all four phases. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand these points more clear now. What If should have its own "Animation" section as we do on the Phase Four article. The rest of the Outside media content isn't really useful. I'm not sure if we should remove the Avengers: Damage Control and the other live attractions actors, but will agree to it given most of them are in other content. My view on this is we should prioritize on recurring cast and characters across the universe, so that would be major actors really who are billed. I'm really not sure how the billing criteria should go, as if we go too far with it, it could seriously restrict lots of actors or overdue them like we have already. AS the film/TV crossovers are getting more common, I guess those can be saved for the specific Phase articles and the like. Notable actors should be included, but again, I'm not sure what criteria would warrant such an inclusion. I'm still iffy on the shorts and digital series and feel they may be helpful but really only for actors like Holland and Hemsworth, and given they aren't a major focus of this article, could also be removed. That would leave it to just the Films, Television (assuming others are up to this change given the GotG HS is a special and not a series; this could also be done on the section at the Phase Four article and in other templates where this occurs), and Animation. Maybe we could split them up by The Infinity Saga and "Upcoming/Future"? Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The main focus of these articles is the films and Marvel Studios Disney+ series. The outside media, digital and shorts are hardly notable to non-hardcore fans and they're nothing more than marketing campaigns. So, I think we should remove them and focus on films and TV series. What if is obviously a television series. Just because the content covers potential alternate realities is not a reason to treat it as alternate media. With multiverse starting, we're going to have lots of projects featuring other realities. And then we can narrow it down to multiple-franchise main billing. I know someone asked about that criteria excluding the Daily Bugle guy, but honestly, he doesn't play a major role in MCU. I don't see why he deserves to get attention over key recurring players like Iron Man. He isn't even notable to non-hardcore fans because he's just a guy on TV screens.— Starforce¹³ 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing all of this again, I'm totally onboard removing the Outside media, digital series and shorts. I don't wanna jump the gun on the multiverse for this. I think it might be best to not organize them by any headers like "Films" and just have a rundown of the common characters throughout the franchise (in text or in a table; if a table, we'd have to find some grouping. I feel as the MCU expands, this will always need to be relooked at and what we have right now really isn't working, as evident by this discussion. So, yeah, I feel we could remove the table and give an overivew of recurring characters in the franchise unless we are able to construct a new table format grouping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. What if we changed the table to show:

• Character
• Actor
• First appearance
• Last appearance
• Number of appearances

We could also include something to show if they've appeared in a film or tv series because I think that's still useful. Then the criteria could go back to being in multiple franchises. — Starforce¹³ 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait. Isn't the idea of the table to show how the MCU is interconnected between different media? Even though it would still be a "Recurring cast and characters" table, it wouldn't fulfill that purpose. —El Millo (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Then could we change the title to something like "Crossover cast and characters" (or something on that line)? This way, it's clear that the focus is the interconnectedness and not character significance in the series. — Starforce¹³ 05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning closer and closer to Starforce's proposal here. I think it could very well work in adequetly displaying the common thread characters of the franchise. Maybe we could specify with symbols or something if they are only film characters or are also in shows, shorts, etc.? Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Any chance we could see a small mock up Starforce? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, unless I'm mising something shouldn't the table include Natascha Romanoff? 2A02:A03F:8C5A:9B00:2555:A332:740B:E4A (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, Facu-el Millo, TriiipleThreat, and Starforce13: Going back to this off of Starforce's format, I think it would be best if we orient this "Recurring cast and characters" table to showcase what it states, the recurring cast members and characters across the MCU. As the exact type of media format is becoming less important, we should go off of the total number of appearances from main characters. I feel a reasonable criteria would be including characters who have appeared in at least three forms of MCU media (whether they be films, television series, animation, short films, and digital series), and are in the billing block of at least three films and/or the main/starring and/or guest of at least two series. I think the goal here would be to present all of the most seen actors and their characters across the MCU under this criteria and to omit anything not actually relevant (such as the games, theme parks, Team Thor, Peter's To-Do List, and The Daily Bugle, as they wouldn't fall under this criteria) Most of the Marvel TV actors also wouldn't apply, but some might. The Animation section can be used for the What If actors, and any others if animation is used more. Not sure if the "Guest" indicator would be used for those or not, but it probably should as we do so on the Phase Four page. A simpler criteria could be the actor/character has to appear in at least three MCU projects, if we don't want to get all technical about it, but that could get overflowed, so the billing criteria would probably be best, not sure if it would be how it is as I'm suggesting, it may need to be refined. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's try to get things clear. For starters, @Trailblazer101: it may be helpful if you listed like four or five characters you think would be included in this model and four or five characters that wouldn't be included. Try to make the reasons for which they either apply or not apply as diverse as possible. At least for me, that way it's easier to understand the model and to see if it would be a good model or not, based on what applies and what doesn't. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking characters such as Tony Stark, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Star-Lord, and Captain Marvel would be included as they have appeared in multiple films in the billing and some of which are in television series/special, such as Hawkeye and Star-Lord. Thaddeus Ross could also be included, as could MJ, Ned, and other characters who appear along those lines of starring or prominently appearing in at least three MCU properties. Characters such as Betty Ross, William Ginter Riva, Daisy Johnson, Samuel Sterns, and Yelena Belova wouldn't be included as they have/will appear in at least or less than two MCU properties. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, Facu-el Millo, and Adamstom.97: Here's a mockup of what I have in mind: draft. My updated criteria is: character/actor:

• has appeared in at least 3 projects (films, series)
• has been credited in the main billing block / posters for at least two different franchises

This eliminates a lot of minor (less notable) characters and gives priority to key players who have appeared in multiple franchises instead of focusing on media type which tends to favor minor characters (because they're more likely to be available for smaller gigs like voice roles, one-shots and web series). Number of appearances includes mid-credits scenes. Each show counts as one appearance regardless of the number of episodes. My count is probably not accurate. There could also be some people I forgot to include. — Starforce¹³ 14:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that is a more smooth and clear visual template for the characters listing. I'm honestly totally fine with it to focus more on number of appearances than which media they appear in, as this should be simple and easy to understand. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the criteria, but I'm not super sold on the last three columns (first/last appearance, and number of appearances). Could we keep the column headings we have now, and just put numbers under that as a way to state info? So for Coulson, he'd under "Films" he'd have 3, under "Television series" 1, and under "One-Shot" 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What are the numbers for? —El Millo (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The number of appearances in that medium. Or we could list each property as abbreviations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So instead of putting the name of the character in the first column and the actor in the rest, we'd put a number? I don't think that's helpful. The exact number of appearances seems trivial and, apart from that, I don't think it would look good. —El Millo (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Starforce had included appearances in their table mock-up, so I gave an alternate suggestion if that was desired. I agree, I'm not really a fan of tracking appearance numbers or first/last ones, at least in this table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:, I like your suggestion as well. I struggled trying to choose what to include in the additional columns and I also had a version that showed the number of films, number of shows. UPDATE: If counts are hard to keep track of, we could use highlighting to show which media format they've appeared in. I've incorporated your idea in this new version. — Starforce¹³ 23:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's best to stick to just their names, without keeping track as part of the visible table. Perhaps we could still include the count as a hidden comment as verification that the characters are up to the standard. —El Millo (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Facu. We should essentially keep the same formatting for the table now, just removing/adding people based on new criteria. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Keeping track of the count is hard and even some of the ones I included are off. But, yeah, the key thing is changing the criteria to keep the table under control. And when the table gets too large again, all we have to do is increase # of franchises and/or number of projects needed to be eligible. — Starforce¹³ 00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. —El Millo (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup. So, should we move forward with this criteria? Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a mockup of what it will actually look like to confirm? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 I have created the mockup using the approach agreed above (i.e. same as current table structure but with a different criteria that gives priority to notability/significance over platorm). Here's the mockup link.

I still think it is quite long, but it is a definite improvement over the current size so I support making that change. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's still long. I'm thinking of narrowing down the criteria to those who have appeared in at least 3 franchises. It would cut out Peter Quill, Nebula, Gamora, Groot, Rocket, Drax, Darcy Lewis, Okoye, Shuri and Monica Rambeau. We'll probably need to narrow it even further or rethink the whole thing after No Way Home and Multiverse of Madness which are likely to feature a lot of characters. Adamstom.97, how does that sound? — Starforce¹³ 02:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the cast criteria as discussed here. In the future, to keep the table small, we'll just need to increase the number of films/series and/or number of franchises to qualify.— Starforce¹³ 22:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to think we need to just get rid of the table here and have a brief explanatory paragraph. —El Millo (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that will be the ultimate solution considering the article size.— Starforce¹³ 22:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

DailyBugle

Should The Daily Bugle YouTube videos be added to the Digital Series section? StarWarsFan2247 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see #Semi-Protected Edit Request on 16 January 2021 above. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait that doesn’t really example that though. The Daily Bugle is basically the same thing as the Agents Of Shield thing (I forgot the name lol). Also the Daily Bugle thing has it’s own site and social media including twitter, Instagram, and the YouTube channel so it might make sense to talk about the site mainly. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bump. It makes a ton of sense to add in the Daily Bugle to the page. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @RobbyB3ll4s:. What is the reasoning that Daily Bugle content is not detailed here (i.e.: @Adamstom.97: the edit request you referred to with a link, no longer pulls up)?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I forgot what it was now lol RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Article cleanup

@Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, TriiipleThreat, Alex 21, BD2412, Cardei012597, and Starforce13: So, this article was recently tagged as potentially being very long and in order of some clean-up to aid readers in navigation through all of the content. There are some paragraphs that can clearly be merged together for being too short, while others seem to be quite long. Some parts may be over-specific towards the nature of this article's focus on the franchise as a whole by focusing on the specifics of certain properties that can and are covered in specific articles (i.e. the Spidey stuff, Netflix, Hulu, ABC, Damage Control, New Warriors, etc.) I think we need to thoroughly re-evaluate the bulk of information we are giving and how to order them, and tidy things up. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This is article is too long. —El Millo (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, as well. We can probably trim it down to the basics, and not overly specific details. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the amount of readable prose is too long. The bulk of the article's size looks to come from the tables which isn't a problem. I do see however, that Limorina (talk · contribs) (the editor that tagged the article) is working on a "Development of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" article in his sandbox. This could be a solution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's another thought. Since the list of films and TV series have had content split out greatly from what they used to be, we could in theory move a lot of the development info to those lists, and keep a redux version here? We could also split the Avengers Campus stuff to that article and create another overview table for the various attractions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the best solution. The Development section is the largest prose but most of that content fits perfectly into other articles; and so we don't need another article dedicated to Development. So, the "Development" section here should be a summary of the overall MCU development then break out the sub sections as follows:

• Films -> List of MCU films
• Distributors -> List of MCU films (this shouldn't even have been here)
• Television -> List of MCU TV series
• Business Practices -> Marvel Studios — Starforce¹³ 01:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I am in favor of that plan outline. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

More or less the breakdown Starforce13 presented I'm in agreement with, but all of them, particularly "Business Practices", should remain here in some fashion. They can all be redux versions of what exists now so readers still have a general overview of each part. "Business practices" I feel since they relate to how the universe was approached, shouldn't full scale be split out because most of it is related to the MCU even though it's by Marvel Studios' actions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we already have a lot of the right content at the TV and Phase articles, we just need to get the film and business stuff over to the list of films and then turn the info that is here into a summary rather than the full detail. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Another artical focused on Development of the MCU can be nice solution. Can't we just do the same as it has been done with Mark Ruffalo's Filmography Section. Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

David Maisel, Avi Arad, Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios

The current page has Kevin Feige being credited as the "creator" of the MCU. That information is false. Altough he did have contributions, the idea for the MCU came from David Maisel, and that's even said by Marvel itself. From its press release: "Mr. Maisel joined Marvel in December 2003. He was responsible for the conception and execution of the company's new film production initiative, including the establishment of the $525 million non-recourse loan facility to finance that strategy."

Also, the current page includes the information that Avi Arad left Marvel because of differences with the MCU and didn't have confidence in it. That information is also false. According to Arad himself: "Our financing would have never happened without me reaching out to Brad Grey to make a distribution deal that will give you a corporate guarantee. Other people in Marvel worked for many months with Universal and could not reach a deal. I got tired of waiting and went to Brad. The deal was done in days, successful for both companies. The big presentation to financial institutions and insurance companies took place on the Paramount lot. I was the presenter and it worked. Does this sound to you like someone who disagreed with the strategy to make our own movies? [...] We had a list of titles, but the slate didn’t have Iron Man or Hulk, and I had a very tough time getting Iron Man back from New Line, but we got it back. I always loved Iron Man. I left because I wanted to leave. It was nothing other than it was time to go. The company was growing and I didn’t like committees and I was 60 and was doing well as it was. I took a walk and thought, ‘I’m too old for this.’"

The page also says that Kevin Feige was named studio chief in 2007. Another false information. He became president of production in 2007, but was only named president in 2008.

And Marvel Studios wasn't created because of the Spider-Man films, as it was created *before* they were even developed. -- Newtlamender (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

References

First, the Marketscreener article that you referenced says "(Maisel) was responsible for the conception and execution of the company's new film production initiative, including the establishment of the $525 million non-recourse loan facility to finance that strategy." "The company's new film production initiative" i.e. Marvel Studios, not the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The article does not even mention any aspect of a shared universe. You, however, changed "Feige, a self-described "fanboy", envisioned creating a shared universe, just as creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had done with their comic books in the early 1960s." which is backed by the cited Boston.com article to "David Maisel, president and COO of Marvel Studios, envisioned creating a shared universe, just as creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had done with their comic books in the early 1960s". This is WP:SYNTHESIS at best and outright WP:OR at worst.

Some of what you say about Arad may have some merit as the archived Bloomberg Press article that is being used to verify Arad's involvement has been radically altered to its current form, which makes no mention of Arad. The same archived source is being used verify Fiege's promotion in 2007, again this has been removed in the current version.

Therefore, I think we can justifiably remove the mentions of Arad, and credit Maisel for the creation of Marvel Studios and securing the initial loan, although as you point out Arad does claim that it was his reputation that secured it, but we cannot verifiably credit Maisel with the creation of the MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First, it's not an article, it's a press release. Second, it doesn't mention the shared universe because Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk weren't even released at the time. Nobody knew that that was what they intended to do. The announcements at the time just mentioned that Marvel was making its own movies, not that they were related to each other. The films came out in 2008 and the release is from 2007. Also, I used as a reference an article by The Hollywood Reporter made by a journalist who talks directly to Maisel and people with firsthand knowledge of his tenure at Marvel who confirmed it was his idea for the MCU. The Boston.com article don't confirm that Kevin Feige was indeed the "creator" of the MCU. They didn't interview anybody related to Marvel Studios at the time. By reading the article, it seems that they just wrote that because it is the common assumption that he envisioned the MCU, which is not the case. The article is not a dive on the creation of the MCU, as the THR article is; it's just an article talking abou the MCU in general.

References

Not some things I say may have merit about Arad, but all has. He said that the BusinessWeek information is false, and there's no better source than himself in the matter of why he leaved. And Marvel Studios was created in 1993, before even Arad was involved with the studio (he became involved after ToyBiz bought Marvel in 1998) and Maisel. The THR article says that Maisel envisioned Marvel owning its movies and had the idea of the shared universe, but not that he *created* Marvel Studios, as it was already created. -- Newtlamender (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What you have in that Hollywood Reporter article is a quote from Maisel himself saying that he had the idea of a shared universe. Someone with an agenda is not the most reliable source. Are there any other sources that confirm what Maisel is claiming? Because there are lots of sources claiming otherwise. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

From the THR article: "Others with firsthand knowledge of [Maisel's] tenure support [his claims]." These sources claiming Kevin Feige envisioned the MCU are just following the common assumption that he did. No one did what THR did, getting behind the stage of Marvel Studios. -- Newtlamender (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

These sources claiming Kevin Feige envisioned the MCU are just following the common assumption that he did. No one did what THR did, getting behind the stage of Marvel Studios. This is WP:OR / POV pushing. How do you know what work into their reporting? Also per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This does not mean you erase all other viewpoints in favor of your chosen viewpoint as you have done in your recent edits. Keep in mind, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." I would definitely call this a "minority view or extraordinary claim".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing? You can just read the Boston.com article to notice that the article is not an investigative article. It's not a profile, which talked to Kevin Feige and people who worked with him. It's just an article which talks about the MCU in general, from an outside perspective, like you would find in websites and blogs like ScreenRant, /Film, ComicBook.com, etc. How do you know what work into their reporting, to maybe affirm that the work they did is similar to the one THR did? Also, I didn't remove the viewpoint that Kevin Feige helped with the creation of the MCU; my edit just mentions that he wasn't the one to first have the idea of the MCU. Kevin Feige's contribution to the MCU is still mentioned. You are saying that because most websites came to the wrong assumption that Kevin Feige was the "creator" of the MCU, it should be accepted that, but it shouldn't, as this is a false information. This can't be considered a "minority view or extraordinary claim", as it was published by a very big, important and reliable entertainment website and the information they provided were provided by not only one source, but several. -- Newtlamender (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

my edit just mentions that he wasn't the one to first have the idea of the MCU which is removing the veiwpoint from other sources. Also you have not addressed the WP:SYN concerns raised above. You cannot simply take cited information from an article about Fiege and apply it to Maisel. What should you have done is present an opposing view, not erase reliably sourced information. You are saying that because most websites came to the wrong assumption This is still a POV response, please try to remain neutral. This can't be considered a "minority view or extraordinary claim", as it was published by a very big and reliable entertainment website, if it weren't then this would be a commonly accepted veiwpoint found in other reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

1) It seems like we are going in circles. The viewpoints you mention are just an assumption, not a fact, that began to be dispersed as a fact. An assumption cannot become the true just because most people believe it's the true. It's like if most people began to say that the sun is green. It should be published in Wikipedia that the sun is green, because some websites reported that some people believe it's green, despite it's false? It doesn't matter - or it shouldn't - if some information is the "commonly accepted veiwpoint" if a major source say "Hey, everybody, about that viewpoint? Not true". -- Newtlamender (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UT

Yes, we are going in circles because you keep dismissing verifiable information as assumptions. We are neutral editors, it is not our job to proclaim what is or what isn’t truth. We simply present reliably source information. Remember, WP:Verifiability, not truth.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

you keep dismissing verifiable information as assumptions How can you say it is verifiable information? Was it you that wrote that article? How do you know they did a research and didn't go along with saying that Kevin Feige was the creator of the MCU because he is the face of Marvel Studios? If you can say I can't go and proclaim they went along with a assumption because I don't know what work went into their reporting, you can't say they verify their information because you also don't know. it is not our job to proclaim what is or what isn’t truth And yet, if you're against my edit claiming that David Maisel was the creator of the MCU, then you're saying it's a lie, because you're in favor of claiming that Kevin Feige is the creator. We simply present reliably source information And I'm presenting to you reliably source information. I'm giving you information from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. One of the biggest entertainment websites in the planet. But you say they might have an "agenda". And you gave me an article from Boston.com. Come on, man. -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability means “other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.” The information presented in the article comes from reliable sources. Again, if you have a reliable source with an opposing view, then you may present that view as well (as long as it doesn’t give a WP:FALSEBALANCE) but it does not negate the previous one. There are many ways to properly do this, but your edit did not. And yes, Maisel may have an agenda, that’s why we do not base Wikipedia articles on WP:PRIMARY sources like interviews.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I would understand not having confidence in the source if the source was only Maisel, but, according to THR, people with "firsthand knowledge of [Maisel's] tenure" confirm his claims. To end this discussion, how about making a compromise? Stating in the article that there are two versions of the story: one that Kevin Feige created the MCU, and the other that Maisel created the MCU. Also, as you already previously agreed, remove mentioning Avi Arad in the creation of the Marvel Studios (neither he or Maisel created it) and removing the said reason why he left. We can arrive at this consensus? -- Newtlamender (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are these people "with firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure"? Again, you have ONE SOURCE claiming something that goes against what a plethora of other sources are telling us. If there are such people with "firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure", surely the Hollywood Reporter is not the only source that they talked to. Unless you can find additional sources to back up THR's reporting, the weight of evidence suggests that the article should stay as is. There is clearly NO CONSENSUS to do otherwise, since not a single editor has chimed in to support your suggested edits.Rcarter555 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are these people "with firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure"? Ask the writer of the piece. If there are such people with "firsthand knowledge of Maisel's tenure", surely the Hollywood Reporter is not the only source that they talked to. This would only support what I'm saying that these websites didn't talked with anyone about Kevin Feige creating the MCU, because, if they did, these people might have said "Hey, it wasn't all Feige". -- Newtlamender (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You must realize the flimsiness of your argument. Because no other source says what THR said, it proves that other websites never talked with anyone about Feige creating the MCU, because if they did, these people MIGHT HAVE SAID "hey, it wasn't all Feige"? I mean, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but that comment is laughable. We deal in verifiable information here. Not guess work and agenda-driven editing...Rcarter555 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We deal in verifiable information here. Man, you're treating being a editor in Wikipedia like you're a police officer working on a case. Chill. -- Newtlamender (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who refuses to back down from a specious argument that not only has no consensus, but not one single other editor to date supporting you. I would respectfully suggest that you're the one who needs to "Chill"...Rcarter555 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I already proposed a compromise to end this and you appear out of nowhere and decides to attack me. This is just Wikipedia, man. Really, chill. Holy shit. -- Newtlamender (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no "attack", so please stop exaggerating. Your proposed compromise is unacceptable as it gives undue weight to an unsupported piece of information. If your attitude really is "This is just Wikipedia", then why are you here fighting so hard for your proposed change? Rcarter555 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dude, do you need any help? You look like a maniac. I'm trying to end this and you keep going, like, "Your argument is LAUGHABLE!", "Your compromise is UNACCEPTABLE!". This is not a war. This is a discussion.

My compromise is just to say as it is: there are two versions of the same story. One says Kevin Feige created the MCU, the other that Maisel created the MCU. Just include that on the article, without determining which one is true or false, because, if it not, we're gonna be here all week discussing this. If you think that's PREPOSTEROUS, MANIACAL, or whatever agressive thing you might say, if you think it's unsupported, you do you. But it can't be denied that there are are two kinds of people telling the same story. If, as was previously said here, the job of the editor is not to determine which what is or what isn’t truth, just put that there. -- Newtlamender (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks or you will be reported to an admin. Your compromise IS unacceptable to me because you're trying to give undue weight to a single source vs. the multitude of other sources that contradict that information. You're correct that the job of the editor isn't to determine what is or isn't truth, but it IS the job of the editor to only add what can be verified. One single source against the large number of sources that say the opposite is NOT sufficient.Rcarter555 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm attacking you? Now, that is laughable.

Yes, I would say comments like "Dude, do you need any help? You look like a maniac" constitutes a personal attack. You will find no personal attack from me, merely commenting on your proposed change.Rcarter555 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't honestly believe that you're saying that I'm trying to give undue weight to a story published by one of the biggest entertainment websites there is made by a journalist who talked to several sources to corroborate the story given by one person. That's crazy. - Newtlamender (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please list the "several sources" that the journalist talked to. You can't. And thus, that is unverifiable by Wikipedia standards. Not crazy at all. That's how this site works. Information must be verifiable by unbiased and reliable sources. The Hollywood Reporter, no matter how reliable, quoting anonymous sources to back up the claim of a man who has a stake in the veracity of the information hardly qualifies, when there are MULTIPLE sources who disagree with it.Rcarter555 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

2) What informartion about Feige I applied to Maisel? -- Newtlamender (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

See my earlier comments.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that didn't helped very much with my question. -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

In other words, “La, la, la I didn’t hear that.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

break

@Newtlamender: "...because most websites came to the wrong assumption...". That is a very bold claim, can you prove that? If you haven't already, you need to give WP:RS and WP:V a read. Also, see WP:Verifiability, not truth. (jmho) - wolf 19:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter, a very reliable source and one of the biggest entertainment websites in the world, is claiming that. -- Newtlamender (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

THR is a reliable site - BUT it doesn't say what you claim it does. There's nothing in the THR article that says Maisel started the MCU. It doesn't even mention MCU or shared universe. Marvel Studios is not MCU. Producing Iron Man is not starting MCU. The MCU is the interconnectivity between the films and you haven't provided any evidence that it was Maisel's idea. — Starforce¹³ 21:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

From THR: "Maisel says he had long before begun to ponder what would happen if Marvel owned its movies and could mix characters together as had been done in the comics, 'so that each movie could become a lead-in to the next, and, basically, after the first movie, they’re all sequels or quasi-sequels.'" -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That's still too much WP:SYNTHESIS. Having thought about it doesn't translate into he's the first or the only one to think about it or he's the one who eventually created it. For an analogy, if I said "I thought about starting this discussion", it doesn't translate to "I'm the one who started this discussion." — Starforce¹³ 21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

But he started the discussion. He proposed the idea to Marvel's board. They said, "OK". And then Marvel Studios did it. -- Newtlamender (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter article that you place so much faith in simply reported what Maisel told them. Maisel is the primary source and thus definitely someone who could have an agenda (who doesn't want to be known as the man who created the biggest franchise in the world). Did the Hollywood Reporter have other sources? If so, what are they? And since this one report contradicts many, many other sources, just the weight of that would require additional sources to back up what The Hollywood Reporter is saying. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Most sources, both before and after the Hollywood Reporter piece, focus on Maisel's proposal for Marvel to produce films themselves instead of selling the licenses, producing many films based on the properties, and securing financing for Iron Man. (Polygon, Superhero Hype, Vanity Fair, ScreenCrush Many other reliable sites have picked up or referenced THR's story though (MovieWeb, Wall Street Journal, Screen Rant, Yahoo!). To respond to a particular thing Rcarter555 said: it doesn't matter if the sources THR cites are anonymous. THR is a source of the highest reputation, so any anonymous source they cite is regarded as reliable if they consider it reliable enough to include it in their article.

So, based on this, we can definitely mention Maisel's idea to produce films instead of selling licenses, and produce several films about different properties. We can also mention that THR reported he came up with the shared universe concept, and specifically use the word reported in order not to give it the quality of truth, as it conflicts somewhat with most other sources that don't take the info directly from this interview and Feige and Marvel declined to comment on the matter. We can literally put In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter in 2016, Maisel said "so and so". That way, we include the info while given it the weight it merits, without presenting it as the "true" version of the events. —El Millo (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Editors are supposed to evaluate the information in sources and determine how much weight to give them. Adding information from this one article, only to make sure reader's are aware how flimsy it is seems counterintuitive to that. The reason we have to be cautious about adding information, especially contentious information as this appears to be, it will still be presented with Wikipedia's voice, giving it more weight than it seems it due. Arad disputes the info, and neither Feige nor Marvel will back it up (not even a courtesy "yes, he was part of the early process that lead to the creation of the MCU"... their silence is deafening). Regardless of how solid THR usually is, against this, I think they need more than just an "anonymous source", (which for all we know is some lowly intern playing both sides of the fence, possibly hoping to curry some future favor with Maisle if need be). Are there not any other sources to support this claim? - wolf 03:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with journalists using anonymous sources. This is standard practice. However the anonymous sources in the THR article are in support of Maisel taking credit for structuring Marvel Studios' initial financial model, not for envisioning the shared universe aspect as Newtlamender claims. The part about mixing characters is in Maisel's voice, not the authors'. So we cannot say that THR supports this claim, they are just telling us what Maisel told them. THR also notes that Arad disputes some of Maisel's claims, so the truth of the matter is still in question. Again, as Wikipedians it is not our job to take sides, only to relay what has been said.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021 (2)

Add "Untitled Captain America 4" Mrmatt24 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please say what you want to be changed in a 'change X to Y' format and provide reliable sources to support your edit request. MBihun (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't add until officialy announced. Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

I would like to add Captain America 4 to the Future feature films section. 119.18.1.8 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Progressive GA Reassessment of Marvel Cinematic Universe

This progressive reassessment replaced with final reassessment below

@Limorina:@Favre1fan93:@Trailblazer101: @Adamstom.97:@TriiipleThreat:@Facu-el Millo: @AxGRvS:@Alex 21:@BD2412: @Cardei012597:@Starforce13:@IronMan287: @Darkwarriorblake: I propose to make this GA Reassessment public to all involved and interested authors - while the reassessment is in progress - as this article is too long and needs immediate editing and action. Where tables are rendered elsewhere, they are to be removed from this page and a sufficient introduction to the topic can be given; thereafter, a link to the relevant page. Introductions replacing tables are to be short, sharp and concise. In the Development section, Films needs to me moved to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films - there can be a third level heading with with the lede from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. The table containing Future films and proposals for Phase Four can go with that link. In the Development section, Distributors should be moved to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. No link, no heading remains. In the Development section, Business practices should be moved to Marvel Studios No link, no heading remains. Television series → can be moved to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series and the lede from that page might profitably be utilised here. No table. Link to the page. Marvel Studio Series is on the [series] page. Drop and link. the table for Marvel One-shots can be dropped and link to Marvel One-Shots The first paragraph of the lede on Marvel One-Shots might be profitably utilised here and then link. I am Groot link is defective and should link to the animated section on Marvel Studios. Linking to Baby Groot is defective. Under the heading of Literature, we may have, inter-alia, Heading, Comic Books, First paragraph of the lede from Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics. The table goes. Link. Recurring cast and characters table is to be removed. Add the section [Characters to this MCU page, and link off. The The table goes to that page or a new page. Keep links to Film cast members (The Infinity Saga), television series cast (Marvel Studios and Marvel Television), One-Shot cast members, WHIH Newsfront cast members, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot cast members. The Music Table and Television soundtracks - along with Singles - may be moved to Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe List of video game tie-ins should get its own article, linked from this page with an appropriate introduction. The new article might contain a name similar to the relevant category: Marvel Cinematic Universe video games The page logo is not attractive; consider the Facebook logo for this page? This is the situation with this page: History This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. This page reached Good Article status on April 12, 2014. This page was tagged very long in March 2021. A Good Article Reassessment was requested at the end of March 2021. This is a high-traffic page with 2,576,881 views in the last 3 months. verage daily views are in the vicinity of 28,500 views per day. Stability This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. This is a high-traffic page. Examine Pageviews: Last 90 Days Pageviews: 2,576,881 Daily average: 28,317 Pageviews Number of page watchers 923 Number of page watchers who visited recent edits 206 Number of redirects to this page 38 Total edits 5,607 Editors 717 Reverted edits 693 Average time between edits (days) 0.7 days Average edits per user 7.8 Average edits per day 1.8 Average edits per month 42.6 There are many more issues to be considered. However, in the interests of a *very* involved and committed community of editors vis-a-vis the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the page is too long and the lot of steps need to be taken. Your collaboration is invited. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The issues presented with this page were briefly discussed in an earlier talk section in March 2021, under "Article cleanup", and it was decided to (re)move certain sections of this page. Some of the action was done, but I do agree that more should of been done to fix all of the page's issues. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm normally opposed to splitting articles, but since the TV side came in, it has made the article too unwieldly. Really there needs to be this page as an overview, and then a dedicated Marvel Cinematic Universe in film and Marvel Cinematic Universe on television, or something better than those really, where ALL that content goes. Same with the comic books, same with the huge cast list. The very extensive film history for example should be in the film article, retaining here just the important part about the origins thereof, and any notable milestones along the way. There could be potential in just wrapping this all up in the Infinity Saga banner, and starting over for the next phase as well. Also I'd probably remove the image of Joss Whedon altogether, because Joss Whedon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That split has already happened, we definitely do not need to make anymore articles. As has already been discussed at this talk page, the best approach is to move the majority of the film development information to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and the existing Phase articles. The majority of TV information is already at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. Then we just need to cut down what is here into a summary. The same can probably be done with some of the film-specific reception information. After that, we can continue working to cut down the size of the cast table (there is a separate thread discussing that already) and can also c/e all of the other media discussion to make sure we are being concise. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There may be separate articles but there doesn't appear to be any splitting going on, since everything is here. Also I'm not sure an article called List of MCU Movies is the appropriate title for an article covering development of the films, so it would probably need renaming as well. The ridiculous cast table should go in its own article altogether. You can make some solid articles out of the content, but there's either too much of stuff we don't need, like a huge table, or trying to cover too many things in one space. Personally, I'd link to an article about the cast ala List of Scream cast members, and put a bunch of headshots of main people in this one to make it more visually interesting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: You've actually got articles for list of cast members so why is this table here at all? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

An appropriate place for the cast table would be Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, although that's already too long. Maybe we can include split tables when splits of that article are live, such as Draft:List of supporting Marvel Cinematic Universe characters and Draft:List of minor Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. Or maybe it can go on Lists of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members. IronManCap (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There are already plenty of lists of cast members and characters. The point of this one is to show recurring actors across different media, but a table is not necessarily the best way to that. We are already discussing that above. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The plan as far as I knew it, was to split off basically all of the prose in "History" (and then retain a summary of the important parts) to the List of films and TV series articles, keep the transcluded tables, implement the new cast table or what have you per the discussion above, perhaps split some of the reception material to the phase articles, and then more or less leave the remaining content after that. That should solve most of the issues of the article being too long. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna say that when we seem to have as many tables as we do across multiple articles, we don't need this one, just a link to it and some pictures and summary prose. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we create a sandbox to try and implement all these changes? —El Millo (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Readers should still have an overview of all pieces of material part of the MCU here, which the table is the easiest to convey since it's just transclusions. @Facu-el Millo: I can try creating a sandbox mock up of what the resulting page would look like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I get what you're aiming for, but I'm telling you it doesn't work or make sense. I did a CTRL+F for "Evans", the only result was a reference. Downey Jr, is mentioned twice. Meanwhile on this main article overview the first character mention is "Ayo". I've no idea who that is, I assume she's one of the random Wakandan guards. It makes no sense for her to be here. The section should be renamed to something like main cast, and a general prose overview of the major stars from the Infinity phase, and by major I mean top billing only. Where they got on the ride, where they got off, the end. You could do that in a paragraph or two and then start the future segment for phase 4. It'd look a lot better than the table, and make more sense as well than listing Ayo or...*checks notes* Gideon Malick just because they appeared in different formats. For all that I couldn't tell you who Gideon Malick is. Even looking up his picture I've still no idea. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Dark, I think we may be talking about separate things. I'm mostly talking about the transcluded films, TV series, Ones-Shots, and comic book tables, retaining those because it appeared Whiteguru was mentioning removing those. I wasn't really talking about the recurring cast section, per se. But as Adamstom.97 noted, there's a separate discussion regarding that above going over how to readjust criteria for the table. I'm sure other opinions on formatting would also be welcome. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've started to make some very crude sandbox mockups of what content should go where (as of this comment I've only gone through the "Films" and "Television" prose subsections). This sandbox is for what content would remain here, and this sandbox is for the material that should split off to other existing pages. All of this would need a thorough c/e upon any implementation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This looks like the right breakdown, and unless anyone has a strong opposition or a different idea, I think we should probably go ahead and start breaking them off. — Starforce¹³ 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe its also time for all MCU-related articles to get a "This article is part of a series about the Marvel Cinematic Universe"-navigation below the infobox? It's not just the size of articles that are getting unwieldy, its also the number of articles.--YannickFran (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@YannickFran: we already have the {{Marvel Cinematic Universe}} navbox which serves its purpose on the vast majority of articles. There is also {{Marvel Cinematic Universe Phases}} which is helpful for the articles linked in that template. I don't think any other sidebar-style navbox is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

All, with this edit, I've reduced the "Films" and "Television" development sections, with a small c/e to "Other media". All the content removed was split to an appropriate article, or already existed at an article already. "Crossover to feature films" Television subsection is next to go (to the List of TV series article), I just haven't closely examined it or c/e it, hence why it wasn't in this edit. Next, I want to look at "Business practice", which I feel need to stay here mostly. After that, the other larger prose sections should be discussed/examined, and then I'd call being "too long" pretty much solved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, and Starforce13: I've attempted a cut down of the "Business practices" section. I don't believe the section should be removed from here because the info in it is relevant to the universe. That said, I've created a cut down version for this article here. I've also created one here to go to the list of films article, but I'm actually wondering if that needs to happen (there is material there from the original that I've retained in this version that is more film-specific). However, the part about Whedon should definitely be added to the Phase Two article, which can be seen in that section. Please give me any thoughts or feel free to make adjustments in my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the Whedon info for Phase Two. I have added a proposal for the MCU article that is slightly more cut-down than yours as there was still some film-specific stuff in there that I felt was less relevant here. For the list of films article, I'm not sure if we need to add all of this there. Maybe just pick out some key points, especially if we don't have them anywhere else, and then integrate into the development section there? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with any further c/e option. My one suggestion I would reinstate from my version is including the "dated" info (Whedon, Gunn, actor contracts) as it's own paragraph after the cast info and the Russo's work in Phase Three. I guess the other question then is if what has been reduced from what currently exists is even worth keeping, because I don't really want to add this type of section to the film list. I'd argue we aren't really losing anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

These are impressive cut-downs from the original. Thank you. I think most of the content cut from here seems to be specific to individual films and not necessarily needed in the "List of films" article. Example, Waititi's in Ragnarok and Derrickson in Dr. Strange. In the trimmed down "alt" version, should we add back (in one sentence) the point about Marvel Studios not necessarily looking for "big time" directors? I think that has been a notable heavily covered practice, especially with the Russos signing on with hardly any film directing experience, only to make some of the biggest films of all time. — Starforce¹³ 15:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I would just like to add that part of the timeline section could be split to Draft:Major events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. IronManCap (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starforce: Yes, I agree, if we use Adam's alternate version, we should add back in about the choosing of directors. I'm going to be bold and put Adam's change in (with the director info back, plus the small formatting change I suggested) and splitting the Whedon info to the Phase Two article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the section header Marvel Cinematic Universe#Television but changed to "Television and streaming"? --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, as "streaming" refers to "streaming television" so that would seem redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Just a heads up that I feel this draft is almost ready for mainspace with the exception of a long plot summary. Also keeping an eye out for potential edit war is noted as recommended. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessmment will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 

Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

 

---

Page History

• This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times.
• This page reached Good Article status on April 12, 2014.
• This page was tagged very long in March 2021.
• A Good Article Reassessment was requested at the end of March 2021.
• This is a high-traffic page with 908,6691 views per month.
• Average daily views are in the vicinity of 29,312 views per day.

Stability

• This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.
• This is a high-traffic page. Examine Pageviews:
• Last 90 Days Pageviews: 2,669,039
• Daily average: 29,330 Pageviews
• Number of page watchers 923
• Number of page watchers who visited recent edits 206
• Number of redirects to this page 38
• Total edits 5,643
• Editors 722
• Reverted edits 707
• Average time between edits (days) 0.7 days
• Average edits per user 7.8
• Average edits per day 1.8
• Average edits per month 42.7

Summary Assessment

The reviewed version of this page (10 April 2014) which achieved Good Article status only had 8 sections. This included, inter-alia,

• • Development
  • Films (with a small table)
  • Home Media
  • Short Films (with a link to Marvel One Shots) and a small table.
  • Television - which had S.H.E.I.L.D., Netflix, and Assembling a Universe
  • Sub heading Comic Books, one paragraph and a link to Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics
  • Reception with Impact on Other Studios and a paragraph each on the main studios.
  • There were 102 references.

That page has since expanded to 16 sections and now includes 14 tables (many transcluded from other pages) and there are now 583 references. At this point in time the page no longer resembles anything that achieved Good Article status in the past. Nearly 1 million page views per month, approx 30,000 page views daily.

The objective of this Good Article reassessment is - among other matters -

• to respond to the tagging this page is too long
• offer suggestions to remediate the page
• into a readable length and avoid (TL:DR)
• excise material duplicated from other pages
• link to that material with appropriate paragraphs
• make this a readable article
• make the task simple and easy for involved editors.

 

---

Considered Stages

• Place a hatnote at the top of the page to Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Development (and its length)

• Development has ten paragraphs and traces the formation and activities of Marvel Studios from 2005 through 2019.
• Account is given of integration with Disney Studios and the start of Marvel Television.
• See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe/Archive_12#Marvel_TV_is_officially_non-canon.
• Consider Feige said that the MCU consisted of 23 films, which would now be expanded into the TV shows as well. This raises the question whether large slabs of Marvel TV content should be on this page at all.
• Reference 10 and the meaning of Cinematic. From this definition, the relevance of TV, Books, One Shots to this page is questioned.
• Material after In April 2016, on moving the universe to Phase Four needs consideration re relevance. (It is not relevant)
• Consider reduction of Development:Films to 3 paragraphs
• In the Development section, Films needs to me moved to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films - there can be a third level heading with with the lede from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. The table containing Future films and proposals for Phase Four can go with that link.
• In the Development section, Distributors should be moved to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. No link, no heading remains.
• Television → there should be a link to Marvel Television
• Streaming: Considering Streaming media, Streaming television , a dividing line - one taken by a plurality of reliable sources - would be between "film" and "television". Streaming content is referenced here (eight times) on the Marvel Television page. Ergo, none of this steaming content belongs on this page. Move it over to Marvel Television.
• Heading Crossovers to feature films might change to Television Crossovers to feature films.
• Prose in Crossovers. He said, she said. See WP:PROSELINE applies. This section needs editing and considerable trim.
• Disney+ remains
• Business practices should be moved to Marvel Studios There can be a hatnote .
• Recommendations about Tables
• It is recommended that where tables are rendered (or transcluded from) elsewhere, they are to be removed from this page and an introduction to the topic may be given; There may be a hatnote or "See this, etc". Introductions replacing tables are to be short, sharp and concise. The example is the heading for Feature Films and the link below the heading.
• Ditto Infinity Saga. Give a one paragraph overview and move the table off this page and link.
• There may also be a link to Main articles: Phase One, Phase Two, and Phase Three
• Future films table goes off with Infinity Saga.
• Television series → the table can be moved to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series and the lede from that page might profitably be utilised here. Give Link to the page.
• Marvel Studio Series is on the [series] page. Therefore, bring the Lede from that page to here, remove the table and link.
• The table for Marvel One-shots can be removed and link to Marvel One-Shots The first paragraph of the lede on Marvel One-Shots might be profitably utilised on this page.
• I am Groot link is defective and should link to the animated section on Marvel Studios. Linking to Baby Groot is defective.
• Timeline stays
• Digital series: Can't see the relevance of this table. Does it belong here? Why is it here with no introduction or explanation???
• Literature:
• Comic books → the Lede from Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics can be brought here, and then link to the article. Drop the table.
• Books remains as it is.
• Recurring cast and characters → there is a version of this table here:
• It is sensible that the links remain (to all the other cast listings) and that the reader (and this table) be referred to the Outline of MCU page.
• Music
• Music → a condensed version of the lede (here) and links may be given. Transcluded table may be removed.
• Marvel Studios fanfares lede may be transcluded to this page
• Television soundtracks - along with Singles - may be moved to Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (They are already there.)
• Cultural impact stays
• Outside media (is that a good heading? Is this heading relevant? Something else may be more appropriate for a heading here. Discussion is here which references Outside Media.
• List of video game tie-ins should get its own article, linked from this page with an appropriate introduction. The new article might contain a name similar to the relevant category: Marvel Cinematic Universe video games
• Consider having a link to List of unproduced Marvel Cinematic Universe projects
• I am interested to know the status of Earth-199999 on this category page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe.

 

---

• I appreciate the discussion that has taken place thus far.
• My task is now to notify involved editors that there is a good article reassessment to consider and discuss and take remedial action.
• Some time will be needed as this is such a big article.
• There will be 14 days for discussion and editing, thereafter, the final assessment will be given.
• Discussion, input and edits to the page welcomed. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Final Evaluation

• A lot of work has been done on the main article which merits the retention of the Good Article status. I'll appreciate the work of Favre1fan93 here, and the many others who have contributed to the reassessment challenges given above, and taken the steps to edit the article.

 

• I see there is a lot of planning on the talk page, and in one sense, the planning is apt and flowing with consensus. My greater sense is that the MCU talk page is not the real home and that consideration should be given to creating a WikiProject for MCU, even though MCU is a sub-tenant of the Disney WikiProject. An outcome might create efficiency with better planning, consensus and oversight of tasks if it is all centralised in one Project instead of the MCU talk page. Things could get lost and archived. So I make that suggestion for your consideration. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 

 Passed

Timeline Section

How are we going to add Loki in the Red and Black timeline? I mean will it be a new timeline diverged from 2012 (main timeline).I am very excited.Marvelouseditor6651 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Since Loki appears to not be set in the main MCU timeline, it probably won't be added. The same goes for What If?. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Films and TV series tables

Is it still the plan to remove the tables in the Feature films and Television series sections and replace them with a summary in prose? —El Millo (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Was the suggestion that we replace the transcluded tables with prose and then have a prominent link to the outline article which should basically be the opposite, all tables? I'm not totally against that idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose was what was suggested, but I personally don't feel we need to remove the tables, since I feel seeing release dates and creatives here are also helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest the comic tie-ins and music tables could probably be removed, however. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea was to replace the Feature films tables with somethig similar to the lead of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and do the same with the Television series tables and the lead of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. I think it would be beneficial for this page, we should take advantage of having an article for films and an article for TV series and this seems like the best way. —El Millo (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My thinking is that the feature film, TV, and short film sections can stay the same, but for the rest I think a good argument could be made for replacing tables with prose summaries. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The main ones really in my eyes are the comics and music section. I say we start with those, and then we can reexamine if the Films and TV tables should be prose as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed those tables and made some other small adjustments. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We should still have a body link to Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe I believe, even if we don't transclude any tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it should have its own section, any thoughts on better placement? We were getting away with it when there were tables to transclude, but it isn't really "other media" like the series, shorts, and comics are. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. However, I'm now warming up to the idea of replacing the films and TV series tables at least prose, after I recently adjusted the Marvel Studios TV series one, and I had to do it at the list of TV series article, the outline, and here. That's seeming like 1 too many places... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Huge amounts of in-universe information / fan cruft creeping into this topic

I am becoming increasingly concerned over the amount of in-universe information / fan cruft that has been introduced into this topic recently. When we started this topic over ten years ago, we made the commitment to focus on the WP:Real world aspects and keeping plot details to a minimum and built a catalog of good articles, even reaching good topic status by following this idea. However, this started to change once we introduced character articles; first with MCU-specific characters, then major characters, and then supporting characters. Now, we have lists like Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and soon Draft:Major events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that focus on WP:In-universe information and minute plot details. This is topic is slowly starting to resemble the Fan Wiki and losing its encyclopedic tone. This problem has plagued WP:COMICS for years and now is now spreading to WP:FILM. </Rant> --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. These topics are necessary and notable. But they can be better done. Also Wikipedia is a work of progress though. They are sometimes imperfect too. If anything it can and should be fixed through time I hope. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree we should minimalise the WP:FANCRUFT on these articles, which I have been trying to do to some extent for the features and major events articles. Like Jhenderson777 said, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the intention is to add more sourced real-world contexts to those articles. For instance, major events should not be published until there is significant real-world sourced commentary of every event. MCU character articles are WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY satisfying in terms of real-world coverage, and ones that were not, such as Sif (Marvel Cinematic Universe), have been moved back to draftspace. IronManCap (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, you're the architect behind a lot of these. If you truly want to minimalize fan cruft, you can start by removing a lot of the entries in those lists, particularly the ones that are nothing more than summary-only descriptions. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

About being the architect behind a lot of these, the only page of those I started was the major events draft as a WP:SPLIT of Features, which was becoming WP:TOOLONG. The teams and species articles were created by now-retired user Limorina following some consensus for a split on Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think that the list articles could maybe be reworked into bulletpoint formats to minimalize the fancruft, focusing more on including real-world sourced info as the bulk of the article. I know that Facu-el Millo is working on this kind of format for Characters in his sandbox. IronManCap (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey I created the “characters of” article. I deserve the half of blame became I haven’t watched it good enough as I should. I feel like there is still potential to fix it. I am not sure I wanted a list like Facu-el Millo's idea but anything is possible. I should note that the DC Extended Universe is going through the the same thing.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of WP:FANCRUFT around here which is why I was opposed to an earlier draft about Villains of the MCU. Likewise, the major events draft is an even bigger dive into this. It's extremely detailed with day-to-day scene-to-scene breakdown. Most of them are hardly notable outside "big fans" circles. "Ego's expansion", hardly had any notability outside the GOTG v2, not even within the MCU so far. Others like "Fury's big week" are purely trivial. In reality, the most notable events are: The fall of SHIELD, Ultron/Sokovia accords, Civil War, The Blip and probably the battle of New York (though that's mostly only relevant for in-universe connections). And some of them either have their own articles or are fully covered in their respective film articles. So, unless something is well known and highly notable outside the fan community, let's avoid it.— Starforce¹³ 22:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The villains draft list had at least had a good reception at the bottom. Which is so the opposite of fancruft. Other than that it's be the same thing as Characters. Although I want to change the villains draft into an external list and see if that can slide. Going back to the events thing. Yeah that’s pretty much cruft. No matter how many sources are placed for it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Is there any of those articles you listed that you think should be kept? —El Millo (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I know you didn’t ask me but they should still be kept I believe. Just treated with more care. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this sentiment TriiipleThreat, and the increasing number of MCU-specific character articles being created lately has frankly been ridiculous. Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe seems inevitable to me at some point, but the current version is mostly unsourced, is not formatted or organised in any useful way, and includes a large number of characters that non-fans would not find to be noteworthy. I would strongly support draftifying it and having a serious re-think about what that article should contain and how it should be presented so that it is coming from a logical, real-world perspective. Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe need to go, in my opinion, they are completely fan cruft, in-universe, and barely sourced. I didn't realise Draft:Major events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe existed, there is no way that should ever be moved to the mainspace. As for the character articles, they seem to be doing much better in terms of real-world information and sourcing, but after looking at a few of them I can see that they mostly have duplicate information from other film/TV articles as well as ridiculous in-universe character summaries that need to be almost completely removed, and they do not have anywhere near the amount of reception information that I would expect. IronManCap says only the noteworthy articles have been kept in the mainspace, but if duplicate information and long plot summaries are being used to determine noteworthiness then I am afraid that we may need to do a mass draftifying of those articles as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all of this. I'll add that non-noteworthy entries at Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be removed and links to these entries should be pointed back at the "in other media" sections of their respective comics articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also agree with everything Adam said. The "Teams and organizations" and "Features" absolutely have to go and almost all character pages should be draftified since like Adam said they are pretty much just a duplication of info already found in other MCU articles with long plot summaries. - Brojam (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I also agree with this Adam. The characters article is probably the only one I feel should probably stay, after it goes through some reduction and reorganization. I know there's been a lot of work done recently to adjust links to MCU-specific titles for various characters, objects, etc. I think this is great because redirects are cheap but that doesn't necessarily mean the target page needs to be an MCU-specific one. Many times, simply linking to an existing comic article's "in other media" section will suffice. That will probably help remove some of the in-universe dumps/copies at some of these articles, while still retaining the article links across the relevant pages should it warrant an actual article at any point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The character article probably goes through lots of views. Which might make it more controversial to merge it. That’s my two cents on that. There is already lots of reception from reliable sources stored in the villain draft both for the individual characters and overall. So we can maybe use it on the character article. There is a lot of romantic interest sources I happen to notice too from the web. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, retargeting a lot of supporting/minor characters and teams to 'in other media' sections is certainly plausible, as they actually have more detail with good images anyway. About character articles, I agree their reception sections are a little underdone for a lot of them, although it seems that consensus was that well-sourced concept and characterization sections made up for that. I feel most of them do still satisfy WP:GNG though, although the Guardians ones are admittedly questionable. About Features, although a lot of it is WP:FANCRUFT, I feel it does still have some good sourced info that could be integrated into individual character articles, with the article either very redacted or deleted after that. Similar argument for Major Events, in that some of it (eg the "I am Iron Man" part) does have well-sourced info, and could be integrated into other character or film articles. IronManCap (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @InfiniteNexus, Sir Magnus, and ChannelSpider: as they may be interested in this discussion. IronManCap (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adam about "strongly support draftifying it and having a serious re-think about what that article should contain and how it should be presented so that it is coming from a logical, real-world perspective." More reception, and possibly like how some of the DCEU's character pages have "Film appearances," where it's just a long summary of whichever movie the character appeared in. We might do that but have a small overview of that character's actions, other than that, I completely agree with Adam. – ChannelSpider (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I reckon take the minor characters off the Characters page (Minor - clue is in the name!), and trim down the rest to what can be/is decently sourced. Same for Features. With all the pages, if they're well sourced (not just one or two references), keep, otherwise draftify/delete. Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 17:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with mostly everything being said here. Some of the articles for individual characters may need to go. I've begun trimming down the Features and Major events articles, but more work still needs to be done. The Characters and Teams and organizations articles also need to be cut down. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could convert the Teams and Species articles into bulleted lists and merge them back into Characters. Same thing for Major events, which would go into Features. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Geez, I didn't even notice Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But the point is we don't have to document/list every aspect of the MCU. A lot of the entries in these lists can just be deleted. They do not provide any additional information that would be beneficial to readers that cannot already be gleaned from the preexisting film article or comics article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Trailblazer101 for any thoughts. IronManCap (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adam, Favre, and TriiipleThreat on this all. Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and most of the characters' articles in the mainspace are pretty much all we need, once the Characters article gets a serious redo of how to present it and what goes where. I wouldn't mind supporting a draftifying of that article to rethink its approach. I don't have much of an opinion on how all of these characters are handled, but we must have well-sourced information relevant to the real world to warrant any of these articles. The "Features" article, in my opinion, is beneficial, but still needs a lot more work. Major events shouldn't be moved to the mainspace and, if anything, should just merge with "Features" or be non-existent as the events in each property are covered on the films and TV series articles already. We definitely shouldn't be trying to make a timeline of sorts on here, we're not a fandom wiki. I know I presented this before, but the "Species" and "Teams and organizations" should just be merged with "Characters" where those species and groups can be explained along with the characters, or into "Features" actually, if not be entirely deleted. We seriously can't afford to make huge list articles for just anything in this franchise, as it still has to apply to the real world in relevant, properly source ways. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreeing with Trailblazer, "Species" and "Team and organizations" should merge. The basic stuff (Characters of the MCU, Mainspace character articles, TV shows + Movies + Digital series articles) should probably the ones that are important. In all, "We seriously can't afford to make huge list articles for just anything in this franchise, as it still has to apply to the real world in relevant, properly source ways." – ChannelSpider (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding moving minor characters info from the "characters of" article back to the Comics character articles.... I think we should introduce a new level-2 "MCU version" section header, instead of trying to dump all the MCU info as a bullet point under the "In other media" section. MCU is very notable compared to the other character versions, and this will help us expand the section as needed until the character gets their own article (when the time comes). This approach could also be used for other bigger characters who haven't qualified for their own article yet... instead of bloating up the list of characters article. We used a similar approach on the Captain America's shield as opposed to creating a new article or splitting TFATWS content into a bullet under the TV section while the rest were bullets under the film section. Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, IronManCap and everyone else, would you find this as a good compromise to help keep the "characters of" article small, but also provide a good, clean & complete section for the MCU version of the character on the comic character's page?— Starforce¹³ 22:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Starforce13, If I recall correctly. I actually tried to do this on Valentina Allegra de Fontaine but was reverted repeatedly. That is definitely a feasible option for many characters, and also features, as already done on Captain America's shield, Mjolnir and Wakanda. IronManCap (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely not every incarnation of a comics character in the MCU deserves its own section in the character's article. De Fontaine has appeared in like two scenes in total thus far. Those characters that don't qualify for an article but have had quite substantive appearances are the ones that merit their own section in the orginal character's article. —El Millo (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, hence why I tried to create a separate MCU section on the comics article for the redirect. IronManCap (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that the section dedicated to the MCU-version of de Fontaine was reverted because it would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to dedicate one section to a character that appeared in two scenes of a TV show. For some MCU incarnations, a bullet point is enough, at least until the character makes more significant appearances. —El Millo (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I guess we could use Template:Anchor to avoid the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problem. IronManCap (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If we do that, do you think the Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should stay in any form? —El Millo (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Personally I would say yes, as it has quite a few original characters on it as well that may be useful for redirects, and can be useful for an overview of the central characters, although it should be condensed by removing characters where possible. IronManCap (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, yes, the "characters of the MCU" article would stay but it would serve as a list/summary article to help us include as many important characters as needed without making it too large. For the ones with very little info we could do a level-3 header under "In other media" and then once we get more info, move it to its own level-2 section. This way, the redirect remains intact. — Starforce¹³ 22:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing to be wary of with Starforce13's proposal is that we don't add an undue amount of in-universe content to the "In other media" sections of the comic book character articles. To Facu-el Millo's point, I think it will exist in some form at some point but for now that can be decided in the draftspace once we have re-evaluated everything.

It sounds like there is general agreement to draftify the Characters, Teams, Features, and Species articles and then work on merging/sourcing/condensing etc. until we are happy for something with that info to return to the mainspace. My next two questions about that would be (1) where should these articles redirect to in the meantime so users who already know of them get sent to the next most logical place? And (2) are we happy to say that none of those articles should return to the mainspace until we have another discussion like this one with most-if-not-all of these editors? I ask the second question because I feel like it would defeat the purpose of trying to clean everything up now if a few editors were going to turn around in a few months or so and just push all the articles back into the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) The most logical place for the redirect to point to is the In other media section of the comics character (or the Marvel Cinematic Universe section for those that have it), except of course for the ones that have their own MCU-specific article. (2) Yes, a populated discussion should take place to move them back to mainspace. —El Millo (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant with question (1) is where do we think Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should redirect, for example. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that "characters" article will stay. We just need to make it more of a summary list and move the characters in-universe details to the individual comic-character article, by introducing the new MCU version section I was proposing above. The "In other media" section as it stands today, it limits how much details about the character you can add which forces people to keep expanding the already large "characters of" article... or makes people want to create a new character article. As for teams, organizations and species, we could use a similar approach and redirect to those sections. The ones that don't already have their own comic version article will be tough once we dissolve the articles and we need to decide what to do with them. — Starforce¹³ 23:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starforce13: I think Adam was asking where we will redirect the articles whilst they are in draftspace. IronManCap (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if we should draftify them to correct them. We should only draftify the ones that we agree shouldn't exist.... but only move them to draftspace after we have moved the content and updated the redirects. So, yeah, they're not perfect but rushing to draftify them before moving the content to a new target creates more chaos. — Starforce¹³ 23:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

By The ones that don't already have their own comic version article are you talking about those based on very minor comic characters or those that are original to the MCU? —El Millo (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think both. If we run into a species or team/organization that's introduced in the MCU or is too minor in the comics to have its own article, what do we do with its content and redirects once we draftify the article? For example, for species, where would we put the MCU versions of Flerkens, Outriders, Sovereigns once the article goes to draftspace?— Starforce¹³ 23:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Just delete it, if they’re that minor then we probably don’t need it. Using your example, is there any reason to discuss Flerkens outside the context of Goose in the Captain Marvel film?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The only notable character I can think of that is original to the MCU and doesn't (and most likely shouldn't) have an article of their own is Darcy Lewis, and I don't know where this redirect could point to. —El Millo (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to draft-ify Characters as opposed to reworking it in mainspace, but if we do, then we should leave an anchor for Darcy on her description on either Thor (film), Thor: The Dark World or WandaVision. IronManCap (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Characters" can be redirected to either Marvel Cinematic Universe#Recurring cast and characters or List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, if it is moved to draftspace. "Teams", "Species", "Features", and "Events" can be redirected to either Marvel Cinematic Universe or their comics counterparts (i.e. List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, List of alien races in Marvel Comics, Features of the Marvel Universe, and Major events of the Marvel Universe). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the good suggestions InfiniteNexus. I see that a few editors are a bit hesitant over draftifying the list of characters article, but my thinking was that moving it out of the mainspace would force us to come up with a better solution rather than just leaving it where it is. Perhaps we should have an official proposal of what changes are going to be made so that we can be clear what will happen and make sure there is support for it? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Characters of the MCU" article should not be draftified or redirected. List of characters article is a common practice on all franchises. It's fine. We just need to keep it short by making it more of a list/summary and moving the character details to the comic character article. "Species", "Teams" "Features" are never really referenced as an article. Only the subsections. Once we move the subsections content to the comic article, then the main article doesn't need to be redirected anywhere. For example, with species page as article, these would be the clean up steps:

1. Copy the "Celestials" section and refs into the Celestials (comics) article under a new section; and do necessary c/e
2. Change Celestials (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to redirect to Celestials (comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe
3. Do the same for all the other species
4. Draftify the Species article

Darcy Lewis could be one of the few characters who retain most of their info in the "Characters of" article; while the rest get summarized and moved to the comic counterparts. — Starforce¹³ 00:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That Celestials and species redirects might be significantly helpful. As for Darcy, staying her info in "Characters" seems like a plausible solution. And Loki actually had a "Marvel Cinematic Universe" header in the "In other media" section, so we could use that as a prototype. – ChannelSpider (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Official proposal

I don't think there is much more to be gained from this discussion until we confirm the next steps. So, here is what is being proposed for each article:

• Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be rethought. If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace.
• Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be moved to draftspace (at least).
• Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be moved to draftspace (at least).
• Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be moved to draftspace (at least).
• Each character article needs to be re-evaluated to make sure they actually meet notability (duplicate information from other articles and large plot summaries do not count). If not, they should be moved to draftspace.

Once there is confirmation for this plan we can go ahead with the moves and start making progress. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Agree . —El Millo (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: How about we table "Characters" for later, but begin working on the others which are less complicated but more in-universe? That will help us make a huge progress fast. Teams, Species, Features should be easily integrated into their respective comic counterpart articles as an MCU section; and have their redirects updated. This can be its own level-2 section or a level-3 subsection under "In other media" for those with little content. Whenever each of these article has been fully absorbed into the comic-book articles, then it gets moved to draftspace... except for the Characters page which will need further discussion or at least reformatting. — Starforce¹³ 04:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's the opposite of what I think should happen. If we don't think we can sort it out now then it should go to the draftspace until we can clean it up. If we think it can be addressed quickly then leaving it in the mainspace should be fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's a major problem with the "Characters" article besides being too detailed, which just needs to be summarized. It's a very common practice to have a "list of characters" article for franchises. The other articles are the problem. Moving it to draft, then adjusting all the hundreds of links, then adjusting them back once a new solution is found seems like overkill. ADD: This shouldn't be treated as an emergency where we need to break everything to solve the problem as soon as possible. It's more of a work-in-progress situation IMHO. Also, worth noting, the "Characters" page gets over half-a-million views every 2 months, meaning it's definitely of importance to readers. So, temporarily removing it from mainspace would be a huge inconvenience to a lot of readers — Starforce¹³ 05:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• There is a major problem with it, that is why we are having this discussion. I agree that the effort to redirect everything and then change it all back is probably unnecessary, but not if we aren't going to do anything about the state of the article. Regardless, this section is supposed to be about confirming the plan rather than discussing details. If you are against draftiying the characters list then just say that, if others agree then we know we will have to have a further discussion about exactly what to do with it soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• The high amount of views may have to do with the fact that we have a lot of redirects to the Characters article. —El Millo (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The point I was trying to make about the views is that it would be a huge inconvenience to readers if we moved it to draftspace without a solid solution to point them to the right content first. I would rather we take the time to move the content to the comic counterpart pages first and adjust the redirects before moving to draftspace - for a smoother transition. Does it have problems? Yes! But the problem isn't that it exists, the problem is that it's too large or overly detailed, and we don't solve those problems by moving an article that has been in mainspace for years with lots of redirects back to draft. I mean even this main MCU article has lots of problems that need to be solved, but the solution isn't to break everything and move it to draft to fix it first. Wikipedia is a work in progress, it's not a "perfect or nothing" situation. — Starforce¹³ 06:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• This article (MCU) has problems, yes, and we are addressing them. We want to address the problems with these other articles as well, but the way we are currently discussing is not helpful. We need a plan so we can have some structure here. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think moving the main characters article to draft is the correct procedure. It's a bit ironic that TriiipleThreat started this discussion by saying This problem has plagued WP:COMICS for years and now is now spreading to WP:FILM and the solution proposed is to redirect to the comic pages, which even in its current state the character sections are still much better than most comic article that we could redirect to. I've pointed out in other discussions that I believe the character sections should be trimmed, with characters that have a stand-alone article having very brief one-liners, major characters without articles having bigger sections and minor characters could have one-two-lines of text and could be changed to a bulleted list. But in overall, forcing a reader looking for MCU information to spend hours jumping between different articles just to find the information about MCU characters, instead of of one single place, is completely unhelpful. --Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Length is not the only problem with the Characters list. We are discussing WP:INDISCRIMINATE details such as summary-only depictions of works. If there is not much more to discuss besides the plot for a particular entry then yes it should be redirected elsewhere. Again, it’s is not our job to catalogue every aspect of the MCU including minor characters and if there is a place that already discusses them in a wider context such as comics then that perhaps would be the best place to send them.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. it should be redirected elsewhere and it’s is not our job to catalogue every aspect of the MCU including minor characters. It doesn't matter if we send the reader to an MCU section in a comic article or to a MCU list article if they both have the same piece of information. However, having that piece of information in an MCU list article gives much better context and relevance. Also, from all the MCU sections in comic articles I've read, they were never written with out-of-universe context to the comic character, as were all the other comic version sections on those articles. --Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The information already exists in comics articles for better or worse and we are not discussing clean-up the whole of the WP:COMICS project but we are discussing the clean-up of this topic. But fine, if you don’t want to point those links somewhere, I’m perfectly fine with removing the links entirely. Ether way, entires that are not much more than mere summary-only descriptions do not belong on Wikipedia.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with Triiiple's logic here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposed.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• You know there is many ways to go about the characters article. Maybe with featured characters we can do an external link overview. Since most of them have articles. Or better yet put some creation and concept / characterization section info on the characters article making it looking like the tv series character list article instead. We can remove most minor characters too. There is already reception on the villains draft. I need more than just villains at some point since the list is not centric to just those characters. I welcome any ideas of copyediting without doing a remodel or drafting it again. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - moving the "Characters of the MCU" article to draftspace before pointing each character redirect to its new appropriate article/section will do more harm than good. — Starforce¹³ 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. There is a well-established consensus for the individual character articles, and nothing in the discussion preceding this touched on them to a sufficient degree to raise an issue here. The proposal appears to ignore the scrupulous review these articles underwent before being moved to mainspace in the first place, and the exceptional work that has been done to maintain them. BD2412 T 16:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Adam’s proposal for individual character articles is just to review them. I fail to see any harm in that.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If there seriously was a "scrupulous review" of these articles then it clearly wasn't "scrupulous" enough. No harm in having another look. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose atm per Starforce and BD2412. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and whilst these articles are definitely WP:IMPERFECT, I feel reworking/adding to them in mainspace is better then the 'nuclear option' of simply drafting them all. Conceivable merge options can be figured out for any that are dubious in terms of sustaining separate articles (i.e. Teams and Species). Many of these articles, particularly the individual character ones, do at least satisfy WP:GNG, whilst WP:NEXIST applies to the less well-written ones, a good reason for improving them whilst in mainspace. As Starforce has pointed out, drafting highly-viewed articles creates unnecessary instability for readers. I'm sure WP:TIAD can still be applied to mainspace articles in terms of cutting down WP:FANCRUFT. IronManCap (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Starforce, B2412 and IronManCap. I'm sure we could develop them whilst in mainspace. – ChannelSpider (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Next steps

Well this is weird, we have gone from consensus supporting the changes in one section to a full 180 in the next. Obviously people have gotten confused since most of the oppose votes are suggesting we rework the characters list in the mainspace ... which is in my proposal! As was made pretty clear in the above section by multiple editors, Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe all need to go and shouldn't really be up for debate. If everyone is just getting hung up on the characters list and articles then I suggest we move over to Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to continue discussing those ones there. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps people were "confused" by your inartful reference to draftspace in the first line of your proposal regarding the Characters page. BD2412 T 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Inartful? It literally says If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace. The only way to interpret that as "adamstom97 says we must move the Characters page to draftspace" is if you willfully misread it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace sounds like you're not clear that there is such opposition. I'd advise that you avoid trying to shoot first. BD2412 T 22:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion on the proposal hadn't taken place yet... adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to Adam, I wasn't confused nor was I opposing his proposal altogether, but I did have a serious issue with replacing a list article with sections in a comic article. Those articles are both bad and also not relevant to MCU readers and additionally, may lose information over time (as they are just a small section in a much larger article). A list article for MCU things is how I believe this should work. The list however, does need a redesign and consensus on how, what and where. --Gonnym (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This is part of my proposal though, so what part are you in opposition to? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean that it wasn't part of your proposal? And while it wasn't your proposal, other editors which supported your idea extended it to redirecting to comic articles. Since it the section turned into a poll, I made sure that it was clear that I did not support that plan of action. I do however, as I said several times, support a redesign to make these better. Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean it was part of my proposal: The list however, does need a redesign and consensus on how, what and where. = Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be rethought. If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree about Teams and Species, although, as outlined, I feel Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is salvageable per WP:NEXIST. It currently has 87 refs, and that's a reduced number after moving a lot of features elsewhere following the discussion here. A lot of the objects and places have sourceable real-world discussion that would justify the article, we just need to focus on including it in-place of fancruft. I, like BD2412, also opposed draft-ifying individual character articles instead of improving them in mainspace, as they do mostly satisfy WP:GNG. I agree about drafting Teams and Species as well as reworking the Characters list. IronManCap (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The features article is an indiscriminate list of places and things from the films, it is fancrufty trivia that is mostly duplicated from film plot summaries. Saying it has 87 refs is a misnomer, most of these are in just a few of the sections and are barely sourcing any good, real world information. The fact that this sort of article should not exist is the whole reason we are having this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I used 87 refs as an example of how there are sources existing for this topic, not to claim it's a well-sourced article. To quote WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. For instance, there are sources existing discussing the special effects, symbolism and costume design used for some of the suits, the real world notability of Wakanda, the Russo brothers discussing omitting Xandar from Infinity War and Jim Starlin criticizing the depiction of Thanos' blade as a change from the comics. We need to focus on all this real-world stuff rather than fancruft. Items without any existing sources can be removed from the list as non-notable. The article needs to be reworked, not thrown away. It is also useful as a redirect target for WP:CHEAP redirects for things not notable for their own articles. IronManCap (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, yes, BD2412 is right - Insisting on moving the "Characters" article to draftspace first was the main problem in the proposal. I brought it up in my first comment on the proposal in hopes that we could agree to clean it up later after moving all the content to the appropriate new targets and adjusting all the redirects... but per your replies, you insisted that it has a lot of problems and moving it to draftspace is pretty much the only way to fix the problems. So, it became an "all or nothing" choice which forced me to oppose despite making it clear that I want to clean them up. And I think everyone agrees clean up is needed. The main pain point is insisting on moving them to draft first. — Starforce¹³ 22:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

But that isn't what happened. I proposed that we deal with it now or move it to the draftspace. In your first comment you asked that we do neither of those, so in my reply I reiterated my opposition to that and again said we should deal with it now or move it to the draftspace. I never insisted that the Characters article be moved to the draftspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't intend to insist on draftifying it before moving the content and redirects to their new appropriate targets, but that's how it came out to me, and obviously most other editors... pushing them to oppose the proposal as written. Saying "deal with it now or move it to draftspace" isn't a real choice either because this is a huge article with a lot of work needed and could take weeks, if not months, to fix it or even settle on a good solution. So, that leaves draftspace as the only option. It makes it sound like an emergency or as if we're pulling "the nuclear option" like someone else put it.... which is an overkill just to fix the article. — Starforce¹³ 00:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Those opposed to the proposal, are you opposed to draftifying any of them or just against draftifying the Characters article? —El Millo (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Although the "Characters" article is the main one that shouldn't be draftified, the rest of the articles should also follow a proper list of steps before draftifying to avoid inconveniencing readers with misleading redirects. The best action steps to ensure that, would be something like:

1. Copy each entry (eg "Celestials" on "Species" article) section and refs into the comic counterpart (eg Celestials (comics)) article under a new "Marvel Cinematic Universe" section. This can be either its own level-2 section or a level-3 subsection under "In other media" depending on the amount of content. Do the necessary c/e.
2. Change the redirect to point to the new section (eg redirect Celestials (Marvel Cinematic Universe) => Celestials (comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe)
3. Do the same for all the other entries/sections on the article
4. Once all the entries have been moved and redirected properly, move the article to draftspace

Use similar steps for "Characters of the MCU" article but instead of moving the article to draft, summarize the character into 1-2 sentences. Minor characters can even be placed in a bulletted list.— Starforce¹³ 00:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

List of unproduced Marvel Cinematic Universe projects

Since we are taking another look at articles that probably shouldn't exist in the discussion above this one, I would like to bring this article up. I already raised these concerns at Talk:List of unproduced Marvel Cinematic Universe projects#Redundant and Trailblazer101 made some adjustments in response, but I still feel that this article only contains redundant information copied from existing MCU articles. Plus there is already List of unproduced film projects based on Marvel Comics and List of unproduced television projects based on Marvel Comics. I think this one needs to be merged with those. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of this article, which seems at first glance to be a WP:CONTENTFORK. I would definitely support merging and assimilating into the other relevant articles. IronManCap (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I now say merge it to where the info belongs. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge as it is. – ChannelSpider (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an awful idea. MCU article should stay separated from those articles. İh2055 (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@İh2055: We have to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, which do not allow redundant articles containing identical content, known as content forks. Just you liking it or you wanting it isn't a good enough reason to retain the article. IronManCap (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Television Section question

Hello, I was scrolling through to see if any updates had been done to the page and I noticed a new format for the listings of the Disney+ shows done by adamstom97 and fixed by favre1fan93 according to the edit logs (there may be others as well, however theirs were the only ones I checked). the edit sorts the shows by phases and such, which is fine, however Loki and What If have both been marked as Phase 4 and are confirmed to have seasons that exist outside of Phase 4 as well, and they are separated as such.

the issue being I don't recall anywhere else on this page or Wikipedia for that matter where shows have their seasons separated like this (it could have been done on the Arrowverse listings to differentiate them between Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons but it wasn't, at least last I checked it wasn't, seemingly to keep it consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, just as an example), and I noticed here on the talk page that there was talk about separating the sections into their own pages.

With all that said, my question(s) is/are were these edits sanctioned by a mod or admin as checking on their pages neither of them appear to be marked as such (Adam does have a Senior Editor mark, but I'm not sure if that's a level of hierarchy or just some special award for doing a lot of edits or something)? should their formatting be changed to be more consistent with the other show list on the page and other Wikipedia articles that list shows, especially since the television section seems likely to be separated into its own page, or is it ok as is? if it's agreed the formatting should be changed, should it be reverted back to how it was before their changes, or should some kind of "compromise" for lack of a better term be made regarding it? 45.51.166.54 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes on Wikipedia are not "sanctioned by a mod or admin", everyone is free to edit here and changes to articles are determined through discussion and consensus. The edits you are referring to here were made to be consistent with changes at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, and you can find the relevant discussion regarding the changes at the talk page for that article. The reason we have decided to split the series by Phase is because Marvel Studios is including series in the Phases alongside their films. The next seasons of Loki and What If...? have not been confirmed for a Phase yet, at the moment we just have the series listed at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four together and then any others listed as future. Yes, we do not usually split series like this, but the other examples you listed were not collected into Phases like these ones have been. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware they aren't actually sanctioned, what I was meaning is did mods and/or admins approve of the change/ask for the change to be made or was it done just randomly without them knowing or whatever. I understand why the change was made, I wasn't questioning why you did it that way, I was questioning if it should have been done that way and/or if there was a better way to do it that falls more in line with every other page that does this sort of thing on Wikipedia, if that makes any sense. Is there a way to split them like you are wanting that also doesn't split the series, that way it's more in line with how Wikipedia does it instead of it being a random outlier? Like maybe have it to where the series aren't split but put one of those little letter annotation things (I don't actually know the name of them) as like a note to this section where it pops up and says something like "this season/show is part of Marvel Phase 4" and for the ones that are undetermined/not phase 4 you could have a separate annotation saying something like "this season/show is part of an unknown phase". I'm aware the other series I mentioned are not collected into phases, I never said they were, what I was saying is that while it isn't done like that, there is a way that it could have been (separated into Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons, in reference to the Crisis on Infinite Earths event that canonically happened within that shared universe, as there is known/listed separation with such things among the series's parent company DC Comics content and the like), yet it was not done like that, so why is this done differently, if that makes any sense. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)