Talk:Captain America: Civil War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Need Access

When I am trying to edit this article it says it is protected and I can't edit this.....I also want to be in part of your editing please tell me how can I get access I promise I will not make silly editing and i will discuss first before editing anything.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnaiyar (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man is allied with Iron Man

Can we add to the Civil War cast for Spider-Man'a role that he is allied with Iron Man? Screenrant said Spider-Man in on Iron Man's side when they did their Civil War set visit: http://screenrant.com/captain-america-civil-war-set-visit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B12F:42DD:287B:E4D2:3150:CE37 (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems useful as ScreenRant is not speculating, but affirming that Spidey is with Iron Man (I guess we'll see Iron Spidey in the film). Kailash29792 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd wait, because we don't know the context of their reporting. They say "Iron Man’s team which includes Black Panther, Black Widow, Vision (from the concept art), War Machine (from what we saw in the costume tent later) and… Spider-Man. But more on that later." But there is no "later" in the article or any of their other articles that I could see at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Civil War runtime revealed

Captain America: Civil War to be the longest MCU film, just by 3 minutes ahead of Avengers 1, meaning it'll be 146 minutes long: https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Movie/Captain-America-3-Civil-War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not verifiable. My region won't let me see the site in question, but it looks like a random theatre chain. They might very well be right, but the rest of us can't even see their claim, and you can't tell if they're right to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

AMC Theatres has confirmed its runtime: https://www.amctheatres.com/movies/captain-america-civil-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We should still wait for a source like the BBFC for adding it. Various theatre chains and ticketing services can list it, but most of the time, they all have variations on the runtime (ie, AMC might be 2hr 27mins, Fandango might be 2hrs 25mins, etc.) WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disney has confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter that "Captain America: Civil War" runs at 147 minutes (2 hours and 27 minutes) long. Here's the link for proof: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-civil-war-run-873534— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox starring.

The project agreement was that we can use the "Big" names on the posters over the billing block when necessary. There are only 10 big names on the current poster as opposed to the SIXTEEN currently there. I'd just do it but I'm not interested in it turning into a fight when someone disagrees so I'm starting a discussion here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We already have so much information on all of the starring cast and their characters though, and I don't think it is worth shoving some of them into the bottom paragraph of the cast section when we don't have to. Yes, 16 is a lot, but that is the point. Some movies have small casts, some have big ones, and we shouldn't be making them look similar, even if the list is getting a bit long. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You can still base the cast section on the billing block, it's purpose is to avoid fan-conflict over ordering. I'm talking purely about the infobox.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to keep the infobox, lead, and cast section listings all the same like we usually do, but I'd like to hear what some other editors have to say about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to keep as is, because if we did switch to top billing (which is fine in some cases), the names are not in the same order as the bottom billing (obviously excluding the ones not there). It wouldn't be a simple reduction, because it would then present a different order to the lead and section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, using the bottom billing block is the current consensus with the wording in the template documentation, and is currently being discussed again at Template talk:Infobox film#Starring stemming from this archived discussion: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 28#Starring (revisited again) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Civil War world premiere on April 12th at El Capitan Theater

According to Box Office Theory, Civil War will have its premiere at L.A.'s El Capitan Theatre on April 12th: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=33069695&postcount=546 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.64.216 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't use that, it's just a pic on a forum atm. Could be true, they typically premiere a few weeks before release, but we need a reliable source. off topic, if that's the premiere date, then hopefully a new trailer hits soon. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Definitely can't use it, as it could be fan-made for all we know. Don't worry, the sources will come in time. And yes, Rusted, hopefully a new trailer comes soon! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We have confirmation Civil War has its world premiere on April 12th next month in about a month from tomorrow: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/03/11/exclusive-marvel-girl-science-program-captain-america-movie/81629064/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First "Civil War" Box Office Projection

BoxOffice.com has provided us their box office prediction for Captain America: Civil War: http://pro.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2016-03-long-range-forecast-captain-america-civil-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

CinemaCon

Should we be mentioning this screening? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Already in the release section, as I added here and here . - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, guess I missed that one . - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It kind of blends in with all the other info around it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Release

It seems like we have quite a few release dates in the Release section. Shouldn't we really just have the premiere, the beginning of international release, and the beginning of North American release? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Release allows all that are there. The first premiere is notable because it is the first screening and appearing at CinemaCon is notable. I'd also argue that the international premiere is a notable release info. If anything, I'd remove the specific UK date. I also don't think the section is any more than some of the other more recent MCU film articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"War Machine" or "War Hammer"?

Most of the promotional materials and sources I have seen refer to James Rhodes as "War Hammer". However, I just watched a TV spot that referred to him as "War Machine" (which is what he is currently called in this article). I'm confused. What is going on here?

Additionally, should we list him as "James "Rhodey" Rhodes / War Machine / War Hammer"?

(and yes, I'm well aware that citations are necessary) DarkKnight2149 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TotalFilm has been referring to him as War Hammer. This is likely a typo, especially if a TV spot referred to him as War Machine (which he already goes by in the MCU). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While not the best source, the Funko Pops released for the film list Rhodey's as "War Machine", and those are always very accurate. Now if he changes his moniker at some point in the film remain to be seen, but everything I've seen related to the film up to this point has been "War Machine". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Since consensus on this varies from article to article, how would we handle it if he's listed as "War Hammer" in the end credits, but never referred to as such in the film? DarkKnight2149 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would table that question until that happens. No point in discussing a lengthy hypothetical if it turns out not to be the case.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. DarkKnight2149 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on

Of course it is based on "Civil War" bei Mark Millar and Steve McNiven, not on "Captain America" by Lee & Simon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_%28comics%29

New character descriptions

Stitch Kingdom has character description up on their site. Some of the info could be useful, for example, Vision taking after Edwin Jarvis when it comes to his wardrobe. Richiekim (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added mostly costume info, and the confirmation that Hawkeye is still in retirement at the beginning of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New exclusives from Comicbook.com

New Spidey details and whether Netflix characters were ever considered. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

See the above section for the Spidey link. I think the Netflix link is more for the ongoing discussion of if they will appear in the films. Yes this is specifically about this film, but they never were intended to appear in the first place. Would be a different story if it was Infinity War (where there was/is some expectation for them to appear in some form). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

By April 12:

By April 12 in the Dolby Theatre, are we going to add information from what we saw there on the synopsis page?

2606:A000:E6C5:500:48D1:841:72B6:F91C (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Today is April 12, the day the movie airs at the Dolby Theater, we should add some info of the story we might see in the theater like before we do so when they air in the U.K., write the whole story with some post credits to see, too

2606:A000:E6C5:500:48D1:841:72B6:F91C (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What? That was a bit of gibberish. Yes the film is premiering April 12 at 6 pm Pacific time. If after that, a user happened to see it, they are free to add the plot per WP:SPOILER without any issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

8:29 pm Pacific time, movie's over, now tell us who died, who lived, who's the villain, what's the post-credits scene, and what you learned, add the plot per WP:SPOILER, no issues! good luck!

174.107.170.85 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you are citing Eastern time. Pacific time is three hours earlier, so the film hasn't even started yet. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we see how the movie went now after the Red Carpet Premiere?

174.107.170.85 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you saw the film then add it, if not then wait until someone who saw it to add it. It might just be that none of the editors saw the film, and without seeing the film we can't write the plot. Also We are in No Rush--16:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I just add the War Machine died?

2606:A000:E6C5:500:48D1:841:72B6:F91C (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeking sources on Slattery and Condon

Just requesting people to keep a lookout. IMDB has John Slattery and Kerry Condon listed as reprising their roles as Howard Stark and FRIDAY. Seeking myself, but so far found nothing. If anyone else finds something, please post it. IMDB's also showing Rash's role as being an "MIT Liaison". Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

DFFF

I'd be very grateful, if someone would include this sentence in the text: The film received funds of €4 million, from the German Federal Film Fund (DFFF).--93.130.213.151 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's an English source on the matter, though frankly, I don't really know what the money was used for. Was it for a VFX partnership? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not the same film fund. The FFF Bayern is the regional film fund of the state of Bavaria, the DFFF is managed by the German government. However, the Bavarian money should also be mentioned. --93.130.213.151 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But what exactly are they funding? I'm not quite clear on that. Knowing what it will used for will in my opinion on adding the info, if at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The German Federal Film Fund (DFFF) (€4 Million), and the Mitteldeutsche Medienförderung (€350.000) are funding the production of the film, in general. VFX studio Trixter was awarded (€450,000) from the Bavarian film fund for the virtual shoot. Studio Babelsberg co-produced and oversaw production services for the film (in Germany). Please see here, open the "Bavaria is Marvelous" pdf, here, as well as here, here and here. --77.10.95.83 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Whilst there is an unresolved discussion about the possible inclusion of this information, I've disabled the edit request. If consensus is reached in favour of the addition, and no involved editor is able to edit the page themselves, please feel free to reopen the request. fredgandt 10:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know consensus was necessary, to include the obvious. Could someone please give a reason, why this information should NOT be included? Please See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film → "Production" on this matter: "development: development of the concept and script, as well as the securing of financing and producers"--93.130.221.80 (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

When responding to edit requests it is discourteous to ignore ongoing discussion. Until all interested parties are in agreement, there is an implicit lack of consensus. If the discussion were not already started as I responded to the request, I'd have considered it a reasonable and uncontroversial request, and performed the edit. I am watching this discussion and will respond appropriately. fredgandt 08:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Gwenyth Paltrow revealed to be cut out of Civil War

http://www.thewrap.com/captain-america-civil-war-gwyneth-paltrow/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe she was never even cast. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT

There are 2 post-credits scenes, [1] a source with Black Panther and Spider-Man.

2606:A000:E6C5:500:D0D1:20B4:A2EF:F767 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No Spoilers!

Tons of fans will be seeing the film Thursday, April 14 (special fan screenings). Let's please not add a full plot until May 5th or 6th to avoid spoiling the film for people. -Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:C148:C6BC:E577:1FBA (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, we're allowed to publish the plot once it's made available. It's on you whether or not you want to risk getting spoiled by looking on here. Rusted AutoParts 06:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add the plot for those who do want to get spoiled; and those who don't can skip it. --84.47.247.8 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The plot has been added in several previous versions of this page for those interested #wikipedia101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.243.250 (talk • contribs) 14 April 2016‎

I don't think you quite understand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is 100% blind to what is and isn't a spoiler. Any user is free to list the entire plot of the film as soon as it becomes available. We don't give spoiler warnings, we don't delete information simply for spoiler purposes and we don't go out off our way to create extra sections for those who don't want to spoiled. It is the reader's sole responsibility to choose what they do and don't read. If they want a spoiler free summary of the material, there are plenty of other sites for that. DarkKnight2149 17:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No one's making you read the plot --185.131.151.45 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

General consensus and per WP:SPOILER - we can add the plot, so please avoid the page if you wish to avoid spoilers. -- S ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, all the plots for the MCU Phase Two films were put on their articles before their offical release date, remember? Looney Guy

Does WP in fact have a spoiler policy?125.209.186.170 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone is free to post spoilers when needed in the article, and we don't use spoiler warnings. Read WP:SPOILER for more. DarkKnight2149 02:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone also removed the spoilers a few minutes ago, but I swiftly reverted it per WP:SPOILER and WP:CENSORED. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Rumors

Rumors Are that doctor strange is going appear in post credit scene. Imnaiyar (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's something to watch out for but we can't mention it until it is proven to be 100% fact (which probably won't happen until the film's release). DarkKnight2149 17:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

STUCKY IS DEAD NO ONE CARES ABOUT STUCKY IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IRON MAN RULES STUCKY DROLLS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.251.2 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please change Civil War's overseas box office debut number.

Civil War's overseas debut number is not $202.2M. It's $200.2M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Plot changes which are here:

One year after the Battle of Sokovia, the Avengers accidentally cause collateral damage in Lagos, Nigeria on a mission to defeat Brock Rumlow causing the 117 countries of the United Nations to create the "Sokovia Accords", a system of accountability and governing body to determine when to call in the team. Rogers, Wilson and Maximoff wish to operate without regulation while Stark, Rhodes, the Vision, and Romanoff are in favor of it.

Peggy Carter dies and Rogers attends her funeral along with Wilson and Sharon Carter.

A press conference between the U.N. countries and the Avengers in favor of the Sokovia Accords goes awry as a bomb explodes, apparently triggered by Bucky Barnes a.k.a. The Winter Soldier. Among the deaths of the accident include King T'Chaka of Wakanda, with his son, T'Challa, looking for revenge against Barnes. Rogers finds Barnes' hiding place, protecting him while he escapes, which initiates a chase along with T'Challa, in his Black Panther armor. Rogers, Barnes and Wilson get captured.

Helmut Zemo, who lost his son, wife and father during the battle of Sokovia, plans to take revenge against the Avengers by destroying them, first starting with brainwashing Barnes again, initiating his escape along with Rogers and Wilson. With Rogers' faction escaped, Stark recruits Peter Parker, a teenager whose operating in New York as the vigilante known as Spider-Man, while Rogers' faction recruits Hawkeye and Scott Lang, who operates as the vigilante known as Ant-Man.

Stark's faction corners Rogers' faction as they attempt to escape in a quinjet in the airport, initiating a battle between two factions, with both side gaining the upper hand due to Parker's skills and Lang's transformation into Giant-Man. Romanoff defects to Rogers' faction, helping them escape, while Vision accidentally injures Rhodes during the chase. The rest of Rogers' faction gets captured and imprisoned while Parker goes back home to New York.

Stark finds out that Barnes did not set off the explosion, but Zemo did. Both Barnes and Rogers chase Zemo to a Hydra compound, as Stark and T'Challa follow. It is revealed Howard and Maria Stark were murdered by Barnes under the influence of Hydra, revealed by Zemo, initiating a battle between Rogers and Barnes versus Stark. Stark loses as he rips off Barnes' metal arm and is beaten by Rogers, with Zemo being captured by T'Challa.

The Sokovia Accords is approved, with Rogers' faction staying in prison whilst Stark gets a letter from Rogers, who secretly rescues the imprisoned Maximoff, Wilson, Barton and Lang.

In a mid-credits scene, it is shown Rogers and Barnes are in hiding from the world at Wakanda, after being rescued by T'Challa. In a post-credits scene, Parker gets a gift from Stark, which is his Spider-signal.

This is from multiple people who watched the film already.

112.201.142.114 (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done plot already in place. Smith(talk) 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Marking as answered -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

Please add these:

-- In the post-credits scene, Peter Parker plays around with his web-shooter, revealing additional tech from Tony Stark, which is his spider-signal. --

 Not done We don't have a name for the gadget. Smith(talk) 20:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

and also add

-- Hope Davis is cast as Maria Stark --

112.201.147.35 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Her role is now listed. Smith(talk) 20:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Marking as answered -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

Change Jim Rash's undisclosed role to "MIT Principal"

112.201.139.208 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Kinda Done His role has been added as an "MIT Faculty Member," which is as much information as we have. Smith(talk) 20:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Marking as answered. If you have any sources that support this, please present them. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The budget?

Its hard to search the budget or what, i think we need now, because the box office start and the MOVIE START — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.87.5.185 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Real names or superhero names

I think it's odd that plots for superhero movies insist on calling characters by their legal names rather than their superhero codenames. In synopses on comic stories we prefer the codenames, so why is it done differently here? BaronBifford (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

We use real names in the plot summaries of the MCU articles to maintain consistency, since almost all the main characters often refer to each other by their legal names rather than their superhero names. The codenames are mentioned in the cast section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This an odd convention, because in plot summaries of comic book arcs, we use their codenames. In fact, in most literature on superheroes it is normal to refer to them primarily by codename. I don't think Wikipedia has any rule regarding this, it's just become a habit. I know the characters in the movies don't like to use codenames when talking to each other, but that's often the case in comic stories as well, because they all tend to be very close to each other. BaronBifford (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a habit but rather something that was discussed at length and resolved many years ago at WikiProject Comics. We're following the WikIProject Film rule and also WP:NOR, dictating that movie plots can only say what the movie itself says. If the dialog doesn't say "Hawkeye", then we can't say "Hawkeye". The credits say "Hawkeye", and that's fine — but we'd be misleading people if we claimed he's called "Hawkeye" in the movie's dialog itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

MOS linking

@Sjones23, in this diff [2], IMO, it is not WP:EGG, and this link should include like other Phase Two MCU good articles. Any opinion? Phyo WP (message) 04:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Phyo WP, from WP:EGG: [I]n hard copy, the reference...is completely lost. (Such links are sometimes called "Easter egg links" or "submarine links".) Instead, reference the article with an explicit "see also" or by rephrasing, which is also restated in WP:EASTEREGG: In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly. DonQuixote (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The same could be said for any of the comic centric references in the article. The reference to Ultron's defeat is encompassed within the scope of the article and related articles. We don't link Ultron (sentient robot) because the paper version will contain no link, similarly the defeat of ultron is not an easter egg because it goes to the relevant article, and someone reading the article either has sufficient knowledge of the subject or can find it at the relevant link. Even in paper form, it's no different than any other kind of in-universe setup, it doesn't require them to read another article, it requires them to know that it takes place after the defeat of Ultron. This linking of each film in plot has been happening a lot, and it breaks flow and is unnecessary. I don't like linking to the films in the plot at all, I find it unnecessary, but if it must be done, at least it can be in a natural form rather than explicitly linking to each film in brackets. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: list-defined references not used in the content

I commented out several references that were throwing the following errors: "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "DeadlineIntBOPreview" is not used in the content (see the help page)." See previous edit for more information. Did someone intend to use these refs, but not cite them in the content? - Paul2520 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Paul2520: please see the discussion below regarding about the box office section. The refs at the bottom of the article are the ones meant to be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Damion Poitier DEFINITELY deserves a mention under cast

Damion Poitier, the man who briefly portrayed Thanos in the end credits in 2012's Avengers has definitely earned himself a Wikipedia mention in the cast section by appearing in a SECOND MCU film (any other actor in more than one MCU film would be mentioned, am I right?), especially if Jim Rash's two seconds at MIT are getting mentioned.....just sayin'.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:8100:ef89:223:12ff:fe58:654b (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2016

What are you suggesting? He is credited at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors and The Avengers (2012 film)#Cast, as he should be. He is not mentioned in this article because neither the character nor actor appears. And he's not on Marvel Cinematic Universe#Recurring cast and characters because he doesn't meet the criteria of that particular table, but neither does Jim Rash. Reach Out to the Truth 23:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the actor DOES appear in this film, credited as "Hero Merc #1". This is probably what the OP was referring to. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to respond here, but I added Poitier at the end of the cast section. He is there now, with appropriate wording in my opinion (all of which is sourced by the ref used). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Barnes' relationship with Rogers

It is absolutely critical to the plot that Barnes is an old friend of Captain America. I cannot fathom why other editors keep removing this info from the synopsis. It's one of the most important points of the movie. BaronBifford (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to agree: Without that bit of information, Rogers' defiance of authority, of friends, and of everything else to go rescue a suspected terrorist doesn't make sense. I propose:

At the conference in Vienna where the accords are to be ratified, a bomb kills King T'Chaka of Wakanda. Security footage indicates the bomber is Barnes, who T'Chaka's son, T'Challa, vows to kill. Tipped off to Barnes' whereabouts by Sharon Carter, as well as the fact the government plans to kill him, Rogers decides to bring in Barnes — his brainwashed childhood friend — alone. Rogers and Wilson track him to his hideout in Bucharest and attempt to protect him from the authorities and T'Challa, but Rogers, Wilson, Barnes, and T'Challa are apprehended.

It adds four words, six if you count the dashes, so we're still well within our limit.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would also agree with Tenebrae's proposed wording above, but we should avoid WP:EUPHEMISMS in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

At the conference in Vienna where the accords are to be ratified, a bomb kills King T'Chaka of Wakanda. Security footage indicates the bomber is Barnes, who T'Chaka's son, T'Challa, vows to kill. Tipped off to Barnes' whereabouts by Sharon Carter Informed by Sharon Carter of Barnes' whereabouts , as well as the fact the government plans and the government's intentions to kill him, Rogers decides to bring in apprehend Barnes — his brainwashed childhood friend — alone. Rogers and Wilson track him to his hideout in Bucharest and attempt to protect him from the authorities and T'Challa, but Rogers, Wilson, Barnes, and T'Challa are arrested.

I agree as well, but we can still shorten it up a bit. We can reduce "Tipped off to" to "Informed by", "as well as the fact the government plans" to "and the government's intentions", "bring in" to "apprehend", and removed the word brainwashed since he was already called brainwashed in the first sentence.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I like the trims a lot. I'm not sure "apprehend" is the right word since Cap is, as noted, a vigilante and can't arrest people. Otherwise: Good catch on "brainwashed", since Barnes in fact is not brainwashed at the time. I would suggest the phrase "Rogers goes to bring in Barnes" and leave the rest as TriiipleThreat suggests. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

How about "catch"? "Bring in" sounds a bit euphemistic? Also its shorter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I find this addition to the plot summary a little too much for its wordiness. I don't want to get involved in an WP:EDITWAR or violate WP:3RR (since I've reverted three times on the page), but I'm just bringing this up here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it should be also be noted that the editor has already surpassed 3rr.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Raft

I know that's the name in the comics, but after seeing the movie twice (and admittedly not looking out to hear it), I'm not sure I heard the prison called that. Can anyone shed light on this? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite certain the name is mentioned during Stark's helicopter ride towards it. I don't read the comics, but I remember thinking the name seemed to jive with the other facilities referred to on Agents of SHIELD. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So am I.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dino. I believe it is named or mentioned somewhere around Stark's helicopter ride towards it initially. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Dino on this matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

But is it even important to mention the name? It's just another fancy prison, a bit of eye-candy. BaronBifford (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say that since it's a major location and the filmmakers specifically chose to give it the same name as in the source material that it deserves mention. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Funny. You guys won't let me use superhero codenames but you insist on referring to this prison by its name. BaronBifford (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm not seeing a connection with superhero code names hardly ever mentioned in movies and the name of a f*cking prison. just saying.Wilson30337 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Marketing

The marketing section's become a behemoth of information and is the biggest part of this article. Anyway we could trim it, or break it off into smaller subsections? A lot of what's on there isn't necessarily related to marketing. It looks almost unreadable. -- S ^talk/_contribs 03:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and made this edit by shuffling that into filming since it has literally nothing to do with marketing, and this edit because the section has enough information to split into smaller subsections, as it was still presently long and unreadable. -- S ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I'm glad we kept the Merch section but honestly after reading and rereading this particular blurb I moved I truly don't see how it relates to marketing. This entire section is already significantly heavy. -- S ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@S: As I said in the edit summary, didn't know that was here. That part that you moved is continuing commentary on the trailer release, which is necessary to include mentions of trailer releases per WP:FILMMARKETING. It is a continuation of the paragraph right above it (and really the one above that too). The one right above just got too big, so it was split. Anywhere else wouldn't really work, because it is direct commentary on the trailer (which obviously discusses aspects of the film) but is talking about what that projects about the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood, that's a fair point. I just assumed it more or less added extra weight to a section that was already carrying enough. -- S ^talk/_contribs 03:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Box office section

Josephlalrinhlua786 please tell me what importance all the information you are including (as seen here) has on the article versus this. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means every single note for every market does not need to be mentioned. What I mean by this is, we have to consider notability with all of these, and in the larger context of the box office, anything less than a top 2 record of some form doesn't need a mention. Additionally, all the text that states what previous data something broke is not needed either. It is perfectly fine to say just what it did and its dollar value. I would very much welcome additional editors to discuss this, so it is not just the two of us contributing points. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, you restored the WHOLE section, which I kindly asked you on your talk page to not do, given the reference formatting we are attempting to keep uniform on the article. You created many errors with that change. And as I also stated, I understand there may be a few points that should be added back. But the whole of the section as you formatted it is very much against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, from now on you do all the box office edit. I won't lay a single hand on it. After contributing so much and giving so much time and emphasis on it, someone just stops along and disrupts everything. It doesn't necessarily like I said violate the WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Look at the cast section and how detailed everything there is. Some of the information for one cast is even bigger and more lengthy then the whole North America box office section. But no one is saying anything. So why do u have a problem with my previous edit. Like Tony Stark said on the film, we need to put check not only in the box office section but everywhere. OMG have you seen the marketing section?. One, I am not violating any wikipedia rules. You just brought that up to justify your edit that fits your POV and second like I said I'm done editing this this article’s box office section. At the end of the day, there's going to be too much quarreling and debating and disagreeing. So good luck editing. This means you would have to add the opening weekends and the records it broke. The amount it earned from IMAX, 3D, PLF and go on adding sophomore weekend and how well it holds and the drop %. Then conclude it with a satisfying conclusion. Then you have to move on the outside NA section and write about the top openings and the second weekend gross (since they received a scattered release). You would have to put a little emphasis on China, the worlds second biggest movie market since it is projected to make anywhere between ($154–259 million). It has already earned $68 in two days and May earn $100 million in its opening weekend (please don't forget to mention this). And then don't forget about the top section that covers the entire world section and add the number of IMAX screens and worldwide opening figure and so much more. You might be wondering why I'm saying all this but like I said I'M OUT, I WONT BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE ANYMORE. Like in the words of Cindrella in Cinderella "I don't deserve to be treated as you have treated me. So, I'm off to editing other upcoming summer movies where i pray to God I don't encounter you. Adios :) have a nice day Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk) 5:30 (UTC)

I was trying to be civil and start a discussion so we could talk about the points that should or shouldn't be added, and to allow you to have your opinions on inclusion heard, such as why you thought the fourth biggest opening in China or various opening day earnings for markets that didn't break records were notable. I presented mine, so you had the chance to present yours. Additionally, I'm not just bringing WP:INDISCRIMINATE "up to justify [my] edit that fits [my] POV". The third point of that policy ("Excessive listings of statistics") directly applies to this section, whereas that policy does not necessarily apply for the character or marketing sections as you felt. The length of a section does not automatically mean it is better or should be matched in length in another section. But if you just want to leave the page all together, suit yourself. I'll still be here if you actually want to discuss this to work collaboratively together. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The point of these discussions is to sort out the differences between opposing viewpoints in an effort to reach a compromise, or sometimes to choose one viewpoint over another by forming a consensus among editors. Josephlalrinhlua786, it appears the olive branch has been extended your way to try to determine how this can be worked out. If you choose to move on, then that's your prerogative, but I don't advise that you repeat this abrasive behavior in other articles. I noticed this attitude on display in another article recently, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Here are just a few examples: diff1, diff2, diff3.

My biggest concern here is that this section shouldn't read like a timeline of statistics. After a period of time passes, and most of the data has been collected, then we should weed out the insignificant details and write better prose so that it reads more like a summary and less like a timeline. In that respect, I agree with Favre1fan93's efforts to improve on this aspect. Remember, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree too in the terms of having the section not read like a timeline, and will most likely pass over the prose again once things have settled down to make it sound better. That was also part of the attempt in the first version I did that Joseph didn't agree with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops! I don't touch that page anymore. So, any news related to me with not be relevant anymore (Just like how Britney Spears isn't relevant anymore in this generation). I'm just keeping a track on it and find it funny. China has contributed so much yet so little recognition. You guys do know that by the end of 2017, it's going to be the worlds biggest movie market right ?. No 3D and PLF grosses. Basically you guys tried to avoid the section being a bunch of statistics and numbers but ironically it ended up being just that. No sorts or explanation why it grossed that much in that territory and has it over or under performed in BIG NOTABLE MARKETS. It's a disaster, a nightmare. I was ready to dedicated my time everyday to enrich the section to its full potentiality but since are 100+ big blockbuster films coming up this year, I will shift my interest in them. You are doing a great job spotting and eradicating contributors likes me. But things for sure, I WILL NEVER ADD INCORRECT INFORMATION AMD THE SOURCES WILL ALWAYS NE RELIABLE. These are the two biggest things u can't argue with me. U may bring up 2000+ reasons to report/block me. But I will try my utmost effort to make readers pleasurable in reading the box office articles as much as possible. A few pebbles along the way can't stop me. Nor a giant wall. Favre1fan93's GoneIn60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Very inspirational, but we will continue to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here and in other articles, whether you agree with them or not. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with policies WP:EP, WP:DR and WP:CON, as well as the essay on WP:BRD. They will help you avoid future scenarios like this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Important plot points

I'm just going to list some really important plot points that absolutely must be in the synopsis but which many editors seem oddly keen on keeping out:

• Barnes is an old friend and war buddy of Cap's. This lies at the very heart of the plot and is Cap's motivation.
• After the four heroes are arrested in Bucharest, they are taken to Berlin. This is kinda important because it explains why the climactic fight is at an airport outside Berlin.
• Zemo infiltrates the Berlin facility mainly to question Barnes on the location of the Hydra base. He tried to get this info from Barnes old Hydra handler but I guess Hydra agents are immune to interrogation.
• Rogers THINKS Zemo wants to take control of the other Winter Soldiers. Zemo could do terrible damage to the world with them, and there's no time to explains things to Ross and get clearance.
• Zemo's REAL goal was to search Hydra's archives and get the proof that Barnes killed Howard Stark. This is important because it shows that fight at the airport was unnecessary. Rogers' rebellion served no purpose. Zemo never wanted to release the Winter Soldiers (who Hydra kept on ice because they were too unstable), so if he hadn't been followed to Siberia, he would have eventually just sent Tony an email with the video attached and the world would not have ended.

BaronBifford (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All of this is either already in the plot summary, or already implied. Nothing you have listed here needs to be added to what is already said. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You're not in control of this plot summary, you know. This is a collaborative effort, which has already succeeded in all of these parts you listed. Parsley Man (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary sources

Regarding this edit, as a plot summary, the film itself is the source per WP:PSTS. While WP:OSE says that other articles doing things incorrectly do not set any sort of precedent, Captain America: The Winter Soldier has a source stating where it takes place, so should a source regarding where the film takes place (in this case Avengers: Age of Ultron) be necessary in these cases or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind it but I think it would be handled better as a note like in Avengers: Age of Ultron.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be handled as a note instead. Parsley Man (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Kudos

I gotta just say to my fellow WikiProject Comics members: What incredible, outstanding work on this article, from neutral and encyclopedic language, to well-judged inclusion of details, to exquisitely RS citing, and even down to such technical details as archiving links. I am so proud to be a small part of a group of editors this good, this mature and this responsible. This article is headed to GA for sure. What wonderful work. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae. I'm hopefully not speaking just for myself when I say the other frequent contributors of the article and I take great pride in making these articles GA. It all starts when we craft them all in the draft space and then the commitment to quality stays until the film is released in order to get it ready to nominate, and add it to the Good Topic of MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

All I ask is that you update Civil War's score on Rotten Tomatoes from 89% to 90% since there is now one more positive review added for Civil War with 90% fresh out of 296 reviews.

173.70.141.201 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been updated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

There's an error saying that Civil War made $942 million worldwide so far when it actually made $943 million worldwide so far. So, could someone please update the page with the actual numbers? Thanks. 47.23.104.20 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Amended. Looks like it's already done. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mid-credits and post-credits sequences

We don't need to specify which scenes take place during or after the credits in the plot summary. The movie credits are not part of the plot. They're irrelevant.

Put it another way, a reader wanting to know what happens in this movie's story probably has no interest in whether it takes place before, during or after the credits. Popcornduff (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to, but there's also no harm in doing so. It's keeping a level of consistency in that we always mention the mid and post credits story with MCU film articles at the end of the plot summary. -- S ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling you'd be less forgiving about unnecessary plot detail, so why tolerate unnecessary detail about editing, especially when it's off-topic?

Why is this a "thing" in MCU articles? Are they relevant anywhere? I can't imagine how. Popcornduff (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all respect, I'd have to concur with User:S. It's well-established that this is a repeated house style with Marvel Studios films. They act as epilogues, and so I believe should be noted as such. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why note that something is an epilogue? By that logic why not call out introductions, too?

I don't buy the "it's established" argument. By this premise, nothing can ever change on Wikipedia. Is there really a sensible rationale for this or is it just "that thing we do and we keep doing it because we always do it"? Popcornduff (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My apology: I meant that Marvel Studios has established that this is its house style. Wasn't speaking about Wikipedia here, but I can see how my comment could have been interpreted that way. I should have been clearer. My fault.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I acknowledge that it's a "thing" that Marvel movies do, but I really consider this an editing technique, and not part of the plot. I mean, the plot summary is what happens in the story, not for information about camera angles, editing, soundtrack etc. The information should be mentioned in another section. Popcornduff (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For the most part these are throw away scenes IMHO, but they are something that readers actively look for and have come to expect. So why not give it to them? I see no harm in it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you look for coverage in reliable sources? Siuenti (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is coverage by RSs already in article. We're talking about the plot summary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

To Triiiple's point above, yes it is something readers look for. While not super applicable here, most of these scenes are more set ups for future films (usually one connecting to the film you just watch, a second to another upcoming film). In those case, there is more importance to note they are post-credit scenes to fully distinguish that they are not really part of the proceeding film plot. With this film, it is sort of a combination between both types, with both scenes connecting to Civil War, yet teasing future films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2016

Hey Wikipedia Staff/Users,

I want to add something to the Captain America: Civil War. Before the bombings in Vienna, "Peggy" Carter had died in her sleep. Captain America (who I will refer to as Steve), gets a text about it, (to be specific). He travels to London, where the funeral is held. This is where Sharon Carter reveals that she is Peggy Carter's niece. When it is Sharon's turn to speak about Aunt Peggy, she talks about how Aunt Peggy was rejected and how no one in the world wanted to see a woman succeed. Quote:, "...even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty, to plant yourself like a tree, and say, no, you move." This quote relates to Steve's situation about him not wanting to sign the Sokovian Accords. Then Black Widow shows up at the funeral and tells Steve that Stark, Rhodey (War Machine), and Vision have signed the records. And the rest are TBD.

Thanks for reading, please summarize this in a shorter way and imply it into the "Plot" section of Captain America: Civil War -Ptrfamily Ptrfamily (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:PLOTBLOAT. This subplot of the film has no bearing on the events of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Rogers' motivation to believe what he believes partly due to events of fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Another plot point I put up a few days ago got reverted. It was regarding the motivation behind Rogers' mistrust of the Accords. I said it was partly also due to the events of 2 years prior (referring to the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the WS movie). I think that knowing that this organization that was supposed to have oversight was overtaken by people with their own agendas is at the heart of why he doesn't trust oversight of the Avengers now. I strongly feel it should be included, but had the edit reverted by User:Sock. I wanted to discuss with others to see if others felt the same way. Arnabdas (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Analysis of character motivation requires the citation of a reliable secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Did Captain America said this openly at some point of the film? Cambalachero (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he did.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Spidey in the lead

Do we mention in the lead that this is the first MCU film to feature Spidey after the Sony deal? Because I feel the inclusion of Spidey into the MCU is something significant, even though his rights are still owned by Sony. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should, because, just speaking from a character stand point, this is also the first film to feature Black Panther. Yes I know about the rights situation, but I don't see that as a reason to single out in the lead, personally. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Spider-Man is a bit more noteworthy than Black Panther (perhaps even than Cap himself). Still, I don't think it's needed to mention this in the lead, as the article itself only talks about this in the list of characters and a single paragraph of pre-production, and the character has not even been included in the film posters. Perhaps the lead of Marvel Cinematic Universe would be a better place? Cambalachero (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

typo(s)

"T'Challa mockingly dates them to try" should be "T'Challa mockingly dares them to try".

Fixed. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination deadline

This is just a notice that this article has until October 13, 2016, to be nominated to Good Article status, in order to maintain the Good Topic status for the MCU films. As a reminder, film articles CANNOT be nominated for good article status while they are still in theaters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request for the plot section

In 1991, the brainwashed super-soldier James "Bucky" Barnes is dispatched from a Hydra base inSiberia to intercept an automobile carrying a case of super-soldier serum. In the present day, approximately one year after Ultron's defeat,Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, Sam Wilson, and Wanda Maximoff stop Brock Rumlow from stealing a biological weapon from a lab in Lagos. Rumlow blows himself up, hoping to kill Rogers. When Maximoff tries to displace the blast into the sky with telekinesis, it destroys a nearby building, killing several Wakandan humanitarian workers.

U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross informs the Avengers that the United Nations (UN) is preparing to pass the Sokovia Accords, which will establish a UN panel to oversee and control the team. The team is divided: Tony Stark supports oversight because of his role in Ultron's creation and Sokovia's destruction, while Rogers has more faith in his own judgment than that of the government. Rogers is informed that Peggy Carter has died. At a conference in Vienna where the accords are to be ratified, a bomb kills King T'Chaka of Wakanda. Security footage indicates the bomber is Barnes, whom T'Chaka's son, T'Challa, vows to kill. Informed by Sharon Carter of Barnes' whereabouts and the government's intentions to kill him, Rogers intends to bring in Barnes—his childhood friend and war comrade—himself. Rogers and Wilson track Barnes to Bucharest and attempt to protect him from the authorities, but all three and T'Challa are arrested; and the shield and the suits are seized.

Helmut Zemo tracks down and kills Barnes' old Hydra handler, stealing a book containing the trigger words that activate Barnes' brainwashing. Infiltrating the facility where Barnes is held, Zemo recites the words to make Barnes obey him. He questions Barnes, then sends him on a rampage to cover his own escape. Rogers stops Barnes and sneaks him away. When Barnes regains his senses, he explains that Zemo is the real Vienna bomber and wanted the location of the Siberian Hydra base, where other brainwashed "Winter Soldiers" are kept in cryogenic stasis. Unwilling to wait for authorization to apprehend Zemo, Rogers and Wilson go rogue, and recruit Maximoff, Clint Barton, and Scott Lang to their cause. Carter returns the tools to Rogers before leaving. With Ross's permission, Stark assembles a team composed of Romanoff, T'Challa, James Rhodes, Vision, and Peter Parker to capture the renegades. Stark's team intercepts Rogers' team at Leipzig/Halle Airport, where they fight until Romanoff allows Rogers and Barnes to escape. The rest of Rogers' team is captured and detained at the Raft prison, while Rhodes is partially paralyzed after being inadvertently shot down by Vision, Parker is omitted from the team and Romanoff exiles herself.

Stark discovers evidence that Barnes was framed by Zemo and convinces Wilson to give him Rogers' destination. Without informing Ross, Stark goes to the Siberian facility and strikes a truce with Rogers and Barnes, unaware they were secretly followed by T'Challa. They discover that the other super-soldiers have been killed by Zemo, who shows them footage from Hydra's archives; it reveals that Barnes killed Stark's parents during his mission in 1991. Enraged that Rogers kept this from him, Stark turns on them both, dismembering Barnes' robotic arm. Rogers disables Stark's armor and departs with Barnes, leaving his shield behind. Satisfied that he has avenged his family's death in Sokovia by irreparably fracturing the Avengers, Zemo attempts suicide, but T'Challa stops him, decided to put aside vengeance; and Zemo is taken to the authorities.

In the aftermath, Stark provides Rhodes with exoskeletal leg braces that allow him to walk again, while Rogers breaks his allies out of the Raft. '"Captain America also sends a letter to Iron Man, discussing his actions and expressing his hope that they will work together again in the future.'" In a mid-credits scene, Barnes, along with Rogers, is granted asylum in Wakanda, and chooses to return to cryogenic sleep until a cure for his brainwashing is found. In a post-credits scene, Parker tests a new gadget.

And the reasons for changes:

1.     The phrase "in the nation of Sokovia at the hands of the Avengers" is unnecessary because most of the readers have already watched other MCU films, including Avengers 2, and know what has already happened. And if they haven't, the new link can introduce Avengers 2 to the reader.

2.     Peggy's death is a relatively important plot point which may not affect the film's story, but will affect the story of the universe later and shouldn't be ignored. The same can be said for Sharon's relationship to her.

3.     It's obvious that the government seizes Cap and Falcon's stuff; but the reader needs to know how they reacquire those after escaping.

4.     The end of all team members should be mentioned; and Spiderman can't be discriminated.

5.     The "Siberian Hydra" was mentioned before.

6.     The reader needs to know why Black Panther doesn't kill Zemo after a long struggle for vengeance.

7.     Cap's asylum is where his story ends for now and thus it should be mentioned.

8. The letter from Captain America to Iron Man is a very important point, as it can lead to the next movie, showing that the two characters may be willing to work together in the future. --HamedH94 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

#1 That introduces an easter egg link, so a big no on that one.

#2 How do you know that it'll be important? Citing a reliable source would be appropriate. And Sharon being Peggy's niece is already mentioned in the article.

As for the others, can you highlight the changes as it's difficult to spot them in a wall of text. DonQuixote (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

#1 What I offer for replacement is also an easter egg link, but shorter.

#2 Peggy is an important character who has appeared in other MCU films and TV series, one in which she is the lead actress. So her death does need to be mentioned. --HamedH94 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I made the changes bold. --HamedH94 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the problem with #1...easter egg links are undesirable. See WP:EASTEREGG and WP:EGG. DonQuixote (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed changes do not add to the understanding of plot. We can't assume the reader has seen other films or send them to other articles for information that is presented in this film. Also while Peggy's deaths is important to her overall character arc and perhaps the MCU as whole, it is not significant here. That information is better presented in her own article. The chain of custody of Avengers inventory isn't important. Spider-Man wasn't omitted from anything, he just returned home. Vengeance does not have to result in death.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Country: USA & Germany?

Imdb states that it is USA & Germany production [3], I wonder where is the truth, and how it is according to previous section and used soures [4]? Mike210381 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about Imbd considering used soures in previous discution. Mike210381 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

i've noticed that in this article and most other mcu articles, characters are mentioned by last names, not first names or aliases or nicknames or stuff like that. there is an rfc about that in this page. i invite both proponents and opponents to come and contribute. --HamedH94 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

25th film to reach $1 billion

We should put that Civil War is the 25th film to reach $1 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Source? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Try Variety, Box Office, or Comingsoon.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Or try this-http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/20/captain-america-civil-war-first-billion-dollar-movie-2016&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiYoNWgpKbOAhWFJiYKHRC4Cn8QqQIIFCgAMAA&usg=AFQjCNGV74Y9l-HS-xfI4VuJwii3LsfxAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Are you gonna put the source there and type that it became the 25th film to reach $1 billion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't you posting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk • contribs)

I would say because it's fannish triviality not a compelling or necessary encyclopedic fact. The first or even the second film to reach one billion marks a milestone. The 25th? Not so much. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How would they know the order of the films that crossed over $1 billion? Meanwhile, Zootopia was the 26th film.

Edit request for more accurate box office number

The box office is listed as $1.153 billion which is inaccurate because the real box office number is at $1.152 billion. If someone could change it to the real number that would be great. Reel Life (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to do it since the actual figure is $1,152,738,861. It's rounded up in the infobox and article. Calidum ¤ 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hi all. This is just a reminder that we have until October 13, 2016 to nominate the article for GA status, in accordance with this being a part of the MCU films Good Topic. As a reminder, the article can not be nominated until it is no longer in theaters (ie the box office numbers finalize). Doing so before then will result in an automatic fail of the nomination. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The theatrical run has ended, so I've nominated the article for GA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"the government"

@TriiipleThreat: Could you elaborate a bit more on this edit? Your edit summary appears to imply that you agree with me that (1) the two instances of the phrase "the government" appear to be referring to different entities and (2) neither of them refers to the entity that a reader would most naturally interpret it as referring to (the former scene, set in the United States, refers to a UN body rather than he US government, while the latter, set in Germany, does not appear to refer to any German state entity, although if I recall the film was unclear on this). But your actual edit indicated that you disagree with me that clarification is needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Please refrain from using the "undo" function and using edit summaries that imply you are simply reverting me when in fact you are editing the article to address the issue I raised in my tagging. Your changes are satisfactory. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, for the confusion, it was just the easiest way to make the edit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It would have been very easy for you to edit the page or section, remove the tags, and make the changes that you did. You also would not have had to write anything in the edit summary, except, perhaps, "agreed". Making other editors think (albeit temporarily) that they are being edit-warred with just because it is "easier" is not really in line with Wikipedia:Civility. If I had not accidentally noticed that you had not actually reverted my edit, and not stricken my first post accordingly, what would have happened? I don't know how you would have responded, but my money would be on us having had another massive, and needless, talk page fustercluck over nothing more than a misunderstanding.

In the future, I highly encourage you to take the time to edit more carefully. The ANI and ArbCom archives are overflowing with editors who made tens or even hundreds of thousands of quick, easy, basically good edits, which no one disagreed with on content grounds, but their "tone" and "method of editing" got other users angry with them and they wound up getting site-banned. Ask Ryulong. For this reason, CIVIL is the most important policy on Wikipedia for people wanting to edit Wikipedia long-term by far, outstripping NPOV, NOR, V and AGF combined. You can agree or disagree with this situation (I personally find it to be repulsive, and editors who take advantage of it to win content disputes to be the worst kind of people), but them's the facts.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I would encourage you to pay closer attention to the actual edits before implusively reacting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If we were required to do that, there would be no need for edit summaries. Your edit summary explicitly stated that you had reverted me, which was not true. Responding to what you said you did rather than what you actually did was not a good idea on my part, but it was not a violation of any PAG, and in fact assuming that you were telling the truth in your edit summary was required by WP:AGF. The only reason I struck my initial post was because I accidentally noticed that your edit summary had been wrong. I was going to oppose the GAN mentioned in the section above on the grounds that the plot summary was poorly/misleadingly written, but when I "Ctrl+F"ed the current version of the article for "the government" I noticed that this was no longer the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, AGF, plus my knowledge of past interactions with you and one or two other editors on articles on films/TV shows in this same franchise, where tags I added were removed without the issues they raised being addressed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Press kit with official cast and crew

For our reference, in case there is ever dispute about the cast/crew credits, here is the link to the Captain America: Civil War press kit [5], as well as to an archive link, archived October 30, 2016. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Giant-Man in the film

Hey, just a thought here. I was wondering what the reason is behind Lang's character now being listed in the cast as Scott Lang / Ant-Man / Giant-Man, when the head of Marvel Studios, the directors, and Ant-Man director have all now called him such. With the creative minds behind the making of the movie calling him such, wouldn't it make sense to list the character this way? Some of the various times the character has been called Giant-Man are here, here, here, here, and here. I would say that given the statements, this change needs to be made. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

He is never referred to as such in the film. If anything, he is "enlarged Ant-Man" which isn't the same as him taking the new moniker. That is why it is not used in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the Giant-Man version of the character from the comics, but like Favre said he never actually becomes a hero called Giant-Man in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Billion Dollar source

Here is the source. http://variety.com/2016/film/news/captain-america-civil-war-box-office-billion-worldwide-1201779661/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That's all you needed to provide. DonQuixote (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

However, that's not a consensus for adding information. Just because something is true does not make it pertinent. Two editors have reverted this as insignificant, hype-y trivia as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 71.81.58.55 must stop edit-warring immediately, as one more edit will put him over WP:3RR and he will be blocked from editing WIkipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder that it's like writing a term paper. The first step is to research reliable sources that can be cited. The next step is to write a well-written paper/encyclopaedia article, as per protocols like the above WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Expanding, for anyone interested, in why I felt this was WP:INDISCRIMINATE: there is nothing noteworthy, per the Variety source, in the fact that it is the 25th film overall or the 4th MCU film to reach $1 billion. If there was something else to these numbers (ie the fastest of these films to reach a billion, or some other noteworthy fact as such), then the inclusion would be warranted in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it still seems that crossing the $1 billion mark is a noteworthy accomplishment considering only 25 films have ever done it. But I get it; we don't want to list excessive statistics. Maybe the compromise is to change the proposal from:

"the film crossed the $1 billion mark, becoming the fourth Marvel Cinematic Universe film, the tenth Disney film, and the twenty-fifth film overall to reach the milestone"

to just

"Civil War became the twenty-fifth film in history to gross over $1 billion"

Being the 25th to do something may not seem significant at first glance, but when you think about it from a historical perspective considering the number of films that have preceded it, the statistic does represent a significant milestone. Also somewhere else in that paragraph, it should probably also be mentioned that it ranks 12th overall, since this is pointed out in the lead. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

German

Should this edit be restored? BFI lists Germany as a country of origin.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this studio is a commonly used production studio for big films to shoot at, and it often contributes money to those films, but I don't think Marvel or anyone else ever mentioned them as a co-producer. I wouldn't say this is a German film as well unless we had reliable sources discussing a significant contribution. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This was previously discussed some here Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War/Archive_3#DFFF. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't want to open a can of worms...

But is it worth adjusting the cast order to the one used in the end credits sequence? I just added info about the sequence design and watched it and noticed the billing order is different. It is the same as the poster's billing block (which could arguably be said is not as up to date as the one used in the film) through VanCamp. Then the order in the credits goes like this: Tomei, Holland, Grillo, Freeman, Hurt, Bruhl. So it would add in Tomei and Freeman to the billing block. And just for another point, I just looked at my Blu Ray copy, and that order is the same as what we currently have, so a change could have been done there I guess (like with First Avenger adding Atwell for example on its home media billing block). Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep it simple, just use the billing block. Also it's easier to verify.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this is just a case of big name actors getting listed on screen. It happens every now and then. I don't think it is worth changing the order here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree, though it's sometimes very confusing with certain films. I remember with The Martian, in their trailers they included Donald Glover in the trailer cast listing, but replaced him with Aksel Hennie in the billing block (which made sense as Hennie was more involved in the film). It was determined to go by billing block in that case, but was still confusing as Glover was still featured in a prominent position in the trailer cast listing in further trailers. Rusted AutoParts 21:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)