Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cast

Hey there, Facu-el Millo and TriiipleThreat. There was nothing "be bold" about the edit, it was fairly conventional. None of this was meant to be controversial, nor out of the ordinary. The producers have specifically chosen the names and order of the main actors featured above the closing credits full list. The decision on those prominently displayed names is seen by all of the tens of millions of customers who have already seen, and can continue to confirm, with every single viewing of the source material. It's not a tricky item based on original research or a random personal opinion about which actors should come first - it is a direct result of the prominent billing of the cast as determined by the people who produced the film and laid out the credits (sorry, prominently seen Akira Akbar as Monica Rambeau, who becomes a Captain Marvel in the comics - the producers have placed you in the general cast list). I admitted, and did include a note for transparency, that one change had been made - I included the actor performing the 13-year-old version of Carol Danvers along with the actor performing the grown version. That change may have been an overstep, and if her name should properly be moved to the bottom of the list of the 14 actors that the producers deemed should be included in the highlighted credits, then so be it. Regarding the order of some actors in the prose below the main cast list, such as Chuku Modu and Vik Sahay, that simply adopted their order in the longer cast credits where their names appear, while the little addition of prose explaining their context in the film ("On the planet Torfa, Chuku Modu portrays Kree spy Soh-Larr, while Vik Sahay plays a heroic Torfan") does not seem to need removing, but maybe this was controversial. Regarding the roles themselves, they have been referred to as credited, per WP:CASTLIST: Minn-Erva is not entered here as Doctor Minerva, Korath is not entered here as Korath the Pursuer, Talos is not entered here as Talos the Untamed, and none of those names have been used in this list - by the same token, Ronan and Agent Coulson are the names as credited for those two characters. If needed, the extra prose after the credited role can hold any further details, such as Ronan is "a leader of the Accuser Corps in the Kree Empire", or perhaps "the Supreme Accuser of the Kree Empire"(?), or that "Gregg stated that Phil Coulson would be younger in the film …". Again, none of this was intended as a stretch or bold change, and I addressed some of this in the edit summary to show that it was not some kind of spiteful revert. Thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that cast lists in film articles never go by the same order as in the film's end credits. There is a general consensus about basing the order off the billing on the poster. TriiipleThreat referred to your edit as "bold", I presume, precisely because of that, because you changed the criteria by which the actors were ordered. Now, in my opinion, there is no reason why we should treat this specific article's Cast section in any different way than any other article's. El Millo (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where it says a "movie poster" versus actual on screen credits. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film refers to Billing (performing arts), and Billing discusses the opening and closing credits for films. Is there a different Manual of Style that says movie poster names only? Jmg38 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The MOS allows us to decide as a community what is best for each article, and the established consensus for all MCU films is to follow the billing unless there is clear consensus to include someone who was not billed but we believe should have been, or to take out someone who was billed but we believe should not have been. So if there is someone you think is missing from the list, or someone you think does not deserve to be there, then make your case and we can see what the consensus feeling is on that after discussion. Otherwise, the list should remain as billed. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - was not aware that the consensus for MCU articles was the movie posters. Where can I find that discussion, as it may come in handy on some other items I am working on? Jmg38 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this has been discussed many times at many articles over many years. You may be able to find something in the talk page archives of some of the other MCU film articles. I know that we have discussed changing the order from that which is billed on the poster at Avengers: Age of Ultron and Avengers: Infinity War several times. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Should/could this be added to the Manual of Style/Film, as a subsection for MCU? Not every one of the 120,034 active editors, who do not live and breathe MCU articles, will know that something different has been agreed to for those articles, or should ever be expected to read through random talk page archives, hoping to just maybe find some MOS information, if the MOS that exists for this purpose could simply include it. Jmg38 (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, Adamstom.97: per the suggestion, I did explore the archives, which led to Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 6#Mention of Atwell and Elba in the lead?. It seems that the discussion is about how to chose the names to include in the opening of the article, where it would create a "cloud of blue" if every one of the actors shown with their own highlighted page/pages in the film's main credits were included. The suggestion was to use the movie poster to provide guidance for the names that appear in the lead - and that makes tons of sense, and is good guidance for all film articles, not just MCU. What we have been talking about here is the actual cast section of the Captain Marvel article, not the lead section. Jmg38 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The only time that we have not used the same list for the lead, infobox, and actual cast list is Infinity War, I believe. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. This has worn me out, too much work required to find the unique secret MOS for MCU buried in archives of random talk pages, but which doesn’t actually always apply, as in Infinity War. In the end this was all about 3 names from the main pre-scroll credits, so I will stop trying to find logic and just go relax at a movie. No need to answer the other items I asked about but which have been ignored, regarding the ability to make up the credited roles and regarding clarification of what was wrong with the short prose added regarding the characters seen on planet Torfa. ;) Jmg38 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose the dogmatic way these cast sections are structured. This article is the lesser offender among the two non-Sony MCU films this year, but "we structure the list based on the poster billing, which is not subjective" is simply a ridiculously laughable excuse that keeps getting trotted out every time this is brought up. It is a subjective decision to use the cast list given in pre-release marketing materials rather than an objective ordering based on reliable secondary sources (or even the film's end credits, which are not trying to hide the real cast so as not to spoil the film). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

To the "Home media" section, add that Captain Marvel was released in Blu-Ray 3D format in every region except the USA. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=305995 NimaZeighami (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Forums are not reliable sources. — MRD2014 (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Should it say...

In Audience response section, it said "Unlike Wonder Woman, which was watched by more men than women, Captain Marvel's initial audience was 61% male according to PostTrak." If WW watched by mostly men and CM watched by 61% male, should it say "Like", not "Unlike" or should men compared to women be corrected like WW watched by more men and CM by female or WW watched by more women and CM by male? PlanetStar 04:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The source says more women than men watched WW, so I flipped it so our article was correct. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I wrote that the wrong way round when I was adding it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

@Adamstom.97: Did you do a source check to verify that this article includes no plagiarized text? Certainly, IMO, several sections of it include far too much quotation relative to original text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have concerns then you are welcome to address them. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So, you're not going to respond? If you are just going to issue snide and dismissive remarks at me, I'm going to revert your POINT-y GA nomination. The burden is on you to fix the copyright and other problems before nominating the article for GA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence of plagiarism though? I looked through the article in detail a while ago, and I didn’t see any problem. If you have a list of sentences that are plagiarized, it would be helpful, but as it stands, I see no reason at all why this article shouldn't be nominated for good article status. Hadassah16 (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hadassah16: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Favre1fan93. The production and critical response sections of all of these articles contain very little meaningful content that isn't between quotes, which is also copyright violation. (I don't think it's technically "plagiarism", but quotations need to be used sparingly, and to be subordinate to the main, original text.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then there's no plagiarism, just a few too many quotes. Personally, I didn't see a problem with the use of quotations, but it's no big deal really! We can work together to reduce the number of quotes. Let's do that! Hadassah16 (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You can be my guest, but I've largely given up on any effort to "fix" these articles on a large scale due to constantly being auto-reverted and subjected to personal remarks and harassment from Adam and one or two other editors. If I see a substantial change to the WP:QUOTEFARMiness of this article thanks to the efforts of you or anyone else, I'll withdraw my opposition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hadassah16: Thank you for your efforts to improve this article! As you can see, Hijiri is only interested in opposing the GA nomination and doesn't actually want to help out with improving the article, but if you have any further concerns to do with quotes and paraphrasing (or anything else) that you would be willing to work on then I am happy to collaborate with you. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please only use article talk space for discussions related to the article. If you have a personal problem with another editor do it somewhere else. Comment on the edit not the editor. —AdamF in MO (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, same could be said to you. Nothing wrong with clarifying the situation and offering my help. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You aren’t clarifying, you are casting aspersions, and speculating about Hijiri88’s motivations, which are wildly in appropriate. Please stop the personal attacks. —AdamF in MO (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I think we would benefit henceforth from limiting discussion to concrete article improvements, without criticizing any editors directly or indirectly. Anyway, I already eliminated the extra quotations, so the quotation issue appears to be settled now. Hadassah16 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 05:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is fundamentally going to come down to whether the article does or does not have a copyright problem. I will provide an evaluation of the article in terms of all six of the good article criteria (you may have to wait for a day or two for this). However, it is already my opinion, and needs to be clear from the outset, that the only likely reason for not passing the article would be the existence of a copyright problem - or some kind of major dispute or conflict at the article, whether or not related to accusations about copyright issues and plagiarism. If there is a copyright problem or a large degree of inter-editor conflict and disagreement, I can't pass the article. Otherwise very likely it will pass. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

1. The first good article criterion is that the article be well-written. I think the article meets that criterion; however, I have the following minor criticisms.

The article states, "Feige explained that Danvers is the first superhero that Fury has come across, which sets him on a path to where the character is in the modern MCU films." I think I would have written something slightly different in place of "modern" - for example, "more recent" would seem better. This is just a suggestion.

"This was changed since Star Wars is a contemporary franchise and not specific to Danvers, unlike the pilot-themed Top Gun" - in place of "this", I would have used something more specific, eg, "Its name".

"Lola looked at several of Jackson's films as a reference for his de-aging including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997." I would have written that instead as, "Lola looked at several of Jackson's films, including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997, as a reference for his de-aging."

"Trixster did initial development on the look of Danver's Binary powers, and contributed the majority of visual effects for Goose the Cat including movements that were impossible for real-life cats to act." I would have added a comma after "Goose the Cat."

"Richard Brody of The New Yorkercompared the film to a political commercial that "packs a worthy message [but] hardly counts as an aesthetic experience. The message of the film is conveyed less through the story than through its casting." There is a typographical error there. An additional space is required to separate "The New Yorker" from the next word, "compared". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done —TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, however, Adamstom.97 was the one who nominated the article, so he is going to have to review what you've done. He is free to modify it further if he wishes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

2. The second good article criterion is that the article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing "no copyright violations nor plagiarism." It would help if Adamstom.97 and other editors interested in the article could give me their views of whether the article contains copyright violations and/or plagiarism. I will of course also review the matter myself and come to my own conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Not an editor on this review, but I think I know of a tool you can use to check if there are any copyvios in the article: just pop the article link into Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Let me know if this was any help to you. Cheers! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it. It isn't 100% reliable. Whether it can detect copyright violation or not depends on the circumstances and the type of material concerned. It can also produce false positive results in some cases. In this case, it produced a result of "Violation Possible 45.1%". So possibly rewrites are needed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Freeknowledgecreator, and thanks for the help TriiipleThreat -- those changes all look good. as for copyvio, I am comfortable with the level of paraphrasing that I have done (several re-writes) with the article that it is no longer too close to any of the sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Violation Possible 45.1% confidence" is unfortunately a relatively strong suggestion of copyright violation (the strongest result, I see, was for the Nicole Perlman interview in Wired). It is important to avoid both actual copyright violation and the perception or appearance of it, and that being the case, it would be appropriate to bring the "45.1% confidence" result down through article rewrites (other editors are also free to contribute to this if they wish, and again, it would help to hear a range of views). You don't have to feel pressured to rewrite the article in a rush. The review can take a while or even be put on hold, if necessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

3. The third good article criterion is that the article be "Broad in its coverage". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

4. The fourth good article criterion is that the article be "Neutral". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

5. The fifth good article criterion is that the article be "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I have reviewed the recent history of the article, and the talk page disputes, so I am well aware the article has been the focus of some disagreement. The level of conflict, however, does not appear severe enough to fail the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

6. The sixth good article criterion is that the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". The article meets this criterion, being well-illustrated. The copyright status of the images doesn't appear to present a problem. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall, the article clearly meets most of the good article criteria, except that 2 poses a potential problem, as noted above. Again, it's important to avoid both actual copyright violation and the appearance or suggestion of it, so I would like to see rewrites to bring the "45.1% confidence" result down. Even if Adamstom.97 does not wish to do this, other editors are free to. Shortening the quotation from Perlman that begins, "We've been talking a lot about..." is an example of the kind of thing that could be done. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to take a look at the problem areas raised with the copyvio tool, but I can't get to it right away. If you put the review on hold then myself or another helpful editor will be able to look into this and then hopefully we can get the review wrapped up this week. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, there's no rush. We can get things worked out gradually. I've put the review on hold as per your suggestion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: I have cut down on a couple larger quotes in the article and the copyvio detector is now at violation unlikely. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. It's currently at "Violation Unlikely 37.9%", which is significantly better than the previous result. I will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that disappoint me about the article and I hope they can be improved before declaring this article good (therefore making it even harder to convince the average editor that the article does need further improvement):

1. ) Pixelated picture. I get that people like to include pictures because they are available (and also the paranoia about not including an potentially copyrighted material in commons) but a picture that is largely pixelated out, and otherwise only includes the backs of heads and people far in the distance, does not seem like an improvement to the article. I felt disappointed to click on an the image and find so little of any interest in the full sized version. I suggest removing the image File:Anna_Boden_and_Ryan_Fleck_at_the_Pentagon_4.jpg from the article. When I read "well illustrated" it take that to quality images of particular relevance.

The picture is included and was decided to be kept because it conveys a sense of the atmosphere around the screenings during the film’s press tour and is thus still useful. The pixelation of the film poster (which is unpixalted in the infobox) doesn’t detract from that.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that picture (the one captioned "Boden and Fleck screening the film in Washington, D.C. in March 2019") and thought it was a little odd - but it didn't strike me as important. I do not particularly care whether it is included or not. TriiipleThreat's comment about the picture is not unreasonable. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

1. ) Critical response coverage is severely limited. The trolls were out and the natural reaction was to include lots of praise for Larson, but the article has not been developed further and still includes nothing about Sam Jackson's performance and wonderful rapport with Larson for example ("the origin stories of both Carol Danvers and Nick Fury"). The article has until recently been in lockdown, but maybe it really is stable and maybe most people don't think it needs more work.

The sources lead us where they may. We do not search for particular pieces of criticism to tailor the article to match our own opinions. We find the most reputable sources first and see what they have to say about the film. That said if one of these does mention what you are suggesting, feel free to add it.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with TriiipleThreat here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

In response the above point that suggested replacing "modern" with "more recent" I have the same problems with the revised phrasing as the editor seemed to have with the previous version. An encyclopedia should try to avoid vague time references WP:RELTIME so the phrase "more recent" is again not specific, and needs further rephrasing, or dropping the time entirely and instead say something like "who he will become". I do think the article is generally good, I just feel that when an article is labelled GOOD or a list is FEATURED editors become much more reluctant to change anything. -- 109.77.229.26 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The phrase is as specific as it needs to be, in my view. If other editors want to change it to something else, nothing is stopping them in principle. Editors can work these things out among themselves as they usually do - it's not a crucial point for the review. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

In the critical response section please change "Ehrlich did praise Larson's performance, however." to "Ehrlich praised Mendelson and Larson's performances."

The Indiewire review says : "Giving the best performance in a movie that relies on its excellent cast to compensate for its empty characters, the ever-reliable Ben Mendelsohn elevates Talos into a genuine menace" so since he gave the best performance it seems appropriate to mention him too. -- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Arguably the review doesn't actually praise Larson for her performance at all. Found the edit where the Indiewire review was added, the claim that Larson was praised for her performance was there from the start but I'm not seeing it in the review. -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Larson's performance is mentioned in the article body 2-3 times, as well as in the summary at the top, and Mendelsohn is, as you admit in the above quote, only mentioned as the best performer in a cast of several of such good performances. Also, quoting a positive view of Larson's performance fits a "theme" established by this source and quoted in the image caption immediately to the left; removing the reference to Larson and adding in Mendelsohn would hurt the synergy. On a related note, your arguing that the Indiewire review doesn't actually praise Larson's performance when it's actually much more prominent than the praise for Mendelsohn's makes it difficult to assume good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The review specifically said Mendelsohn gave the best performance. It is odd to ignore something that specific and that was the point I wanted to address, I could think would still like to see that omission corrected, and only suggested the smallest possible change but I'm not hung up on the specific wording. (The sentence particularly drew my attention because it is oddly stilted and feels tacked-on, I can see now that is at least partly a result of it being cut down from the earlier wording.) I only asked for that one specific change, my other comments are incidental, I was surprised it took so long to get any response at all and still wanted to see the change made.

I agree Larson gave a good performance but the Indiewire article doesn't articulate that very clearly, there are better sources to pick from if you specifically want to praise Larson. The review does mention Larson repeatedly but it seemed like a more mixed report to me, I guess you can read it both ways, but it is an odd choice when the reviewer singled out Mendelsohn as the best performance. (Personally I think she did great work with an underwritten part, and the whole amnesia thing didn't make it easy for her.) There was clearly an effort to establish the theme that Larson gave a good performance but the section shouldn't neglect to mention other aspects of the film. I can certainly understand why people did that at the time reacting to all the trolls but the critical response section has room for change and can and should be improved. If you are worried about balance, more reviews could be added. Such as the one from Christy Lemire at RogerEbert.com which says "the character, and the tremendous actress playing her in Oscar-winner Brie Larson, deserved more than fine." Vulture/NYmag makes their praise of Larson is unequivocal "The best reason to see the movie is Larson". Those could be added to the text or simply included as named references beside the image captain to reinforce the point but that's another matter.

I only asked for what I thought was a small reasonable and specific request because the extract from the Indiewire review is kinda clunky and not particularly accurate, so I am still asking for a small change similar to above. Any other changes you think to make after that would probably be good too but please do make the small change requested. -- 109.77.229.77 (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so would you be in favour of replacing the Indiewire citation entirely with the above Lemire quote? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Any amendment that corrects the misrepresentation of the source would be acceptable. If the article remains unlocked I'll make the change myself soon. -- 109.76.142.35 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a bit of both, I rephrased it so that IndieWire said Mendelsohn gave the best performance, and added Christy Lemire praising Larson.

I think the Critical response section can and should be expanded more. There is plenty of praise for Larson but (almost) nothing about any of the other performers. For example there is no commentary about Samuel Jackson and his excellent rapport with Larson which I think the critics may have mentioned. The critical response section might say more about the technical aspects of the film too. I point this out now because I fear people will be reluctant to change the article after it is is declared a "Good Article". -- 109.76.142.35 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"First Disney film to not stream on Netflix after the deal lapsed"

Yeah, that was the plan, but Avengers: Endgame was later announced to be a day 1 Disney+ offering. Is Endgame streaming anywhere else? Should we just remove the streaming part of the home media release?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Endgame was released after Captain Marvel, and so Captain Marvel would be the "first" film. The content is accurate, but the wording could be improved in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk)

They were both put on Disney+ on the same day. Their theatrical release dates are irrelevant--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article is talking about the theatrical release date. What ambiguity are you seeing in the reworded text for the article here? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Simmerdon3448: The rewording says: It was the first film released in theaters that did not stream on Netflix after Disney decided to let their licensing deal with Netflix expire. That is 100% accurate. The distinction still exists, given that it was the first MCU film to be released in theaters and not stream on Netflix afterward. Endgame was the second to do so, given that it was released in theaters after Captain Marvel. El Millo (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Those are fundamentally two different ideas--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate. All that's saying is that Captain Marvel was the first MCU film not to stream on Netflix, going to Disney+ instead. Is that not accurate? El Millo (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So at this point, you’re saying a piece of happenstance trivia is notable enough for mention?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the article so the issue can be discussed properly first. The information that is in the article now (as of this version) is correct and factual, but it seems that some people have been confused by it so there may be room for improved wording to clarify. Does anyone have any productive suggestions? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

My proposal would be the reworded content that was removed from the article. Adamstom.97, do you have an objection to that content? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing factual about the restored content. It and Endgame were both first to not go to Netflix, because they both went to Disney+ at the same time. Insistence without proof is not a reason to restore content. Also, if Captain Marvel was no longer the sole first, what makes it notable? Why does Disney+ have to be mentioned at all?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about the date they went to Disney+, it is about the fact that they didn't go to Netflix. Also, the date they went to Disney+ is not noted anymore in that first paragraph, given that, as you say, they were available the same day. What is notable is that Captain Marvel was the first MCU theatrical release to not go to Netflix afterward, and its notability lies on the fact that out of the 21 movies that had been released at that moment, Captain Marvel was the first one to not go on Netflix. El Millo (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with El Millo's explanation, and I assume it is similar to why the NYT reported the information in its article. The information seems more than just trivial. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Um, every film prior to Civil War was not part of the Netflix deal. Only 8 MCU films ever were, covering the 2016-18 films. The argument being made by you sounds like two people tying in a race, you’re deciding the tiebreaker to be whoever was born first.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No one else has expressed confusion over the statement, which was reported by the New York Times, a reliable newspaper. It seems you are simply interpreting a meaning for it that is not there. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m not confused over any statement, I’m saying the statement is wrong. The source is irrelevant. Going by the source (from August 2018) when Avengers Endgame wasn’t announced for Day 1 until November 2019 means you are going by outdated information. Outdated information is wrong information. Just because people agree with you doesn’t make you right. It seems your entire argument is jumping from one thing to another with no cohesion and telling me I’m wrong just because. You’re not even addressing my points anymore--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. The word first doesn't refer to when the movies arrive on Disney+, it refers to the theatrical release of the films. Captain Marvel was released before Avengers: Endgame Every source that talks about Captain Marvel going to Disney+ isn't comparing it to Avengers: Endgame, it's comparing it to all the movies that came before, like Thor: Ragnarok or Black Panther. El Millo (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

THE ENTIRE SENTENCE IS ABOUT ITS DISNEY+ ARRIVAL. You are not listening at all. You are fighting for factually incorrect information based on outdated sources, and shoving it in my face as if that’s going to make it any less outdated.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it "happenstance trivia" or is it "incorrect information"? I'm not even sure what you are arguing, but everyone else seems to find the content in this article and the NYT article as easily understandable. Might be time to just drop the stick. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with El Millo's explanation, and it seems to me that there is general consensus here to keep the wording as is, but I am still happy to clarify the wording if anyone else thinks that is necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GA review follow-up

The discussion was closed before I had a chance to reply. I take issue with the assertion "The sources lead us where they may", that is a very limited view and naively assumes editors picked the reviews without any intent or bias or even unintended influence. I strongly disagree, at the very least editors were influenced by all the trolling directed at this film and the Critical response section is overly focused on Larson (which only means it needs to be balanced with more about other parts of the film). A more objective and neutral Critical response section would provide greater coverage to other aspect of the film making process. The section is adequate, but a bit shallow and myopic is all.

It should also be noted that from the Commons Page it was TriiipleThreat who pixelated that image in the first place, and "conveys a sense of the atmosphere" is an animal manure excuse to include almost anything. The article already include other better photos of Fleck and Boden, and various other photos related to the military. Just because you have an image is not a good reason to include it, especially not a largely pixelated image. Do all the other better images in the article not already convey enough of a sense of atmosphere? -- 109.77.229.26 (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No, assuming “at the very least editors were influenced by all the trolling” is a bit of bad faith. Again, however, if you have something to contribute then please do so. Do all the other better images in the article not already convey enough of a sense of atmosphere? Not of a screening.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Where you (TriiipleThreat) the one who added the image?

To anyone else beside TriiipleThreat please do take a look at the photo, I'd like for anyone else to say say that they think it is a good image. The photo shows the back of peoples heads, and what I can only assume to be the directors in the distance as part of some sort of Q&A, the picture is too far away and not of high resolution enough to make out the directors faces. The pixelated out Captain Marvel poster is the only indication the photograph is even of a Captain Marvel screening. The faces of an audience reacting to a film, or posing with the filmmakers that might convey a sense of atmosphere, like the other photo already included in the article showing a group of people from a screening posing with Larson (Are these both the same screening?). The screening itself isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and isn't referenced to show Notability. The description page on commons does elaborate "The screening was held to highlight Air Force collaboration with Disney and the inspiration behind the main character's warrior ethos: "higher, further, faster." If people really believe this photo should remain in the article it should at least be properly referenced and have a better caption. (Despite my objections to the low quality image I have improved the article so the image has a reference and more specific caption.) -- 109.77.229.26 (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The review was closed because the reviewer was happy with the article and the responses given to you already, so this discussion now is really just pandering to you and I feel will not go anywhere in the long run. "A more objective and neutral Critical response section would provide greater coverage to other aspect of the film making process" -- this is not at all how it works. We don't round up every possible criticism of the film and present them all with equal prominence, that would violate the core Wikipedia principle of applying due weight. We look at a range of reviews, as well as existing aggregates of reviews, and find the most common points so we can accurately represent what is being said in general. From the sounds of it, you are letting your personal feelings about the film affect what you expect to see here. Similarly, your entire argument about the image clearly stems from a place of you disliking the look of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

So many changes in Wikipedia take the consensus of multiple editors it seems strange to me that GA status takes so few editors working off a checklist.

I dislike the poor quality of the image, what more are I supposed to say. You haven't said why you positively think a pixelated image adds to the article, you have only said you disagree with me and my choice of edit summary.

You reverted my entire edit. You could have engaged with my changes, and that maybe I'm trying to improve things, and instead only reverted my changes to the caption but kept the reference, or kept some part of my changes to the very generic caption. Please be more specific about what part of my attempts to improve the low quality image in the wrong section of the article you specifically disagree with. What exactly is it you think needs more discussion? -- 109.77.229.26 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

In his edit summary Adam wrote "please don't make this change while it is obviously under discussion at the talk page. The tone of your caption is also not appropriate for an encyclopedia" but I was actively trying to improve the article because Triiiplethreat said "if you have something to contribute then please do so". The tone of my edit summary may have been harsh but I cannot see what problem Adam has with the caption as it was merely paraphrased from Wikimedia Commons, same as reference also from Commons. -- 109.77.229.26 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that image is pretty terrible and does not serve a useful purpose that benefits the reader. I'm removing it for now due to its very low quality per MOS:IMAGES ("Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary"). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You can't delete something based on personal preference. If there is consensus for that MOS statement applying here then it would be fine, but at the moment it is still up for debate. At the moment there appears to be a couple editors who are against the image based on their subjective tastes. TriiipleThreat is free to respond to these concerns further, and I think we should give some time for other voices to be heard before making any other bold moves. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind restoring the image if a discussion is taking place, but I haven't seen anyone actually argue for its inclusion. I didn't delete the image based on personal preference, but because it is a poor quality image based on the MOS standards, which says the image "should not be used unless absolutely necessary". What are the arguments to keep it? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be objecting to the image because it contains pixilation. However, the only part of the image that is pixelated is the film poster and it is not being used to represent the poster but rather the screening event as a whole. The MOS also states "Use the best quality images available." This is the only image of a screening available. Not to mention there are tons of precedent for use of intentionally blurred/pixilated images for a variety of reasons.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm objecting to the image because it is not useful for aiding a reader's understanding. If you look at the MOS guidelines, an image should not be used if it is "dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous". Those all seem to apply here, as the image is dark and has a large pixelated image in the middle, and the subjects are too small to recognize and are hard to identify, and close to a majority is looking at the back of people's heads. As a result, the image should only be kept if "absolutely necessary" and I don't see how a picture of a film screening is necessary. Without a caption, I don't think the image would even make sense to most readers. Do you have reasons for why it should be included beyond it being the only picture of the screening? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. the subjects are too small to recognize and are hard to identify. I disagree, the subject is the event itself, not its specific components like individual audience members. The subject i.e. the screening is large and easily identifiable as a screening. Readers can easily see that image is of a group of people, seated in a theatre, facing a large screen. Even pixelated, anyone can tell that the audience is/was/will be viewing something related to Captain Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I cannot "easily see that image is of a group of people, seated in a theatre, facing a large screen". Without enlarging the photo, I cannot tell what the image contains at all (on a 15" screen), especially given how dark it is. Even enlarging it, I don't see any connection to Captain Marvel at all, with the only connection made through the caption describing that it is a Captain Marvel screening. I certainly don't see how it is "absolutely necessary" to have a picture about the screening. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I have found a suitable replacement for this image.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The picture is pretty dark, but I think it's a big improvement over the last one. Thanks so much for finding it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy with the use of IMDB in the Audience Response section

I made a note in the relevant section referencing and linking to IMDB's audience score for the movie, seen in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Marvel_(film)&diff=954100677&oldid=954100605#Audience_response. It was however removed by an editor on the basis of IMDB not being a reliable source. This puzzled me as IMDB is used at the very top of the same section to say and reference to Captain Marvel being the most anticipated movie of 2019 on it. I thus removed that IMDB reference, since it was deemed an unreliable source elsewhere in the same section, only for another editor to revert on the basis of "IMDb's findings for this are from audience pulls and such, not from them directly, unlike the other source that was reverted." This made absolutely 0 sense as they were IMDB's own polls and implied that IMDB's own audience polls WERE reliable but their own audience reviews were not. Upon challenging the editor's position, he then totally changed his tune and replied, "IMDb's source for this is justifiable based on standard reports as it was controlled by their staff, all other info on their is open to user editing, thus making those unreliable." Can someone explain to me what the hell this means, as neither the audience polls nor audience reviews are controlled by any staff? Anyone can vote in the poll for whatever movie they want just like anyone can leave their own review saying whatever they want. Neither is controlled or influenced by any staff. When I went to the editor's talkpage to discuss this further, he deleted my response, so I am bringing this here to now get other points of view.

As far as I can see, if IMDB is an unreliable source as has been stated, then you can't apply it at the start of one section to make overly positive points about a movie while then deleting it in the exact same section saying it's unreliable for anythng less than positive about the same movie. It appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:DUE and some consistency on the use of this source needs to be established. Davefelmer (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

IMDB is not cited as a source for any content in the article (except as publisher of Box Office Mojo, which is a reliable source). The other mention of IMDB is cited to a Variety source, which is a reliable source per WP:RSP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Looking at the comment you made at Trailblazer's talk page, it was more of an attack than anything else. Now, about the subject in question. Audience reviews are generally considered unreliable because sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb have no way to check if the audience reviewers have actually seen the film. IMDb's audience review scores aren't unreliable because IMDb is an unreliable source, Rotten Tomates is a reliable source and their audience reviews are still considered unreliable.

IMDb is in itself an unreliable source when it comes to the information it contains on movies, namely all the credits, trivia, etc., because anyone can add this information. It would be similar to citing a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, these IMDb polls let those users vote on which movie they anticipate the most. In order to vote, you have to be registered, you can change your vote but you can't vote twice. Since there's no verification required, unlike in a review where verifying if the reviewer saw the film would be required, IMDb's Most Anticipated Movie polls are generally considered reliable. The source used in this article is from Variety, one of the most reliable sources on the subject of films. That's a pretty good sign that these polls are considered reliable. El Millo (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@El Millo: You say there's no way to tell on the IMDB audience reviews if someone has actually seen the film, but that's the case for all audience reviews. How can you verify if someone has actually seen a given movie on ANY of these services? And just because you have to register to vote in these polls, it doesn't mean that someone can't register twice from different emails, usernames, etc and enact vote manipulation. There's nothing to stop or to suggest these are totally genuine either. Where do you draw the line on this sort of thing? It just feels like one standard is being applied to one thing, and another to something that is inherently totally similar.

My question for you guys is ultimately this, if IMDB is deemed an unreliable source, does its reference in a reliable source suddenly make it reliable? If Variety had gone, "according to Wikipedia..." in an article, would Wikipedia automatically be deemed reliable on its own for the given subject simply because it was referenced in a reliable source? If not, the Variety article includes plenty of other metrics to judge audience anticipation for the movie by, and those can all and should all be kept while the reference to IMDB itself (the half sentence at the top of the section) should be removed, as it itself is an unreliable source by which to judge. Davefelmer (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't really read the large amount of text in this thread, just giving my opinion of the use of IMDb here. We generally do not use audience scores such as the one at IMDb because we do not know where they have come from, whether the people have actually seen the film, etc. and that is why the IMDb audience score should not be included here. We have a made an exception for the Rotten Tomatoes audience score in this article only because it is accompanied by significant coverage due to a noteworthy situation. Additionally, we do not generally use IMDb for other reasons because anyone can update IMDb and so any "scoops" that come from IMDb cannot be verified or trusted. The use of IMDb at the start of the section here does not fall under that umbrella because we are not using it as a source of information about the film, we are specifically using it for something that is not a scoop about the film and does not need to be verified as coming from people who have seen the film (since the ranking is about anticipation, not reviews). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So I go back to my general points; how do you know someone hasn't register twice or thrice from different emails, usernames, etc and enacted vote manipulation on an anticipation poll? You have no way of verifying how genuine these are in the same way you don't know about the audience reviews yet one is reliable and one isn't? How so?

And I ask again; if Variety had gone, "according to Wikipedia..." in an article, would Wikipedia automatically be deemed reliable on its own for the given subject simply because it was referenced in a reliable source? Nobody has yet answered this nor explained the general policy. Davefelmer (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Variety is the reliable source, not IMDB, and yes we do sometimes mention Wikipedia when independent reliable sources do. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Davefelmer: I see where you're coming from and completely understand the confusion, but it may be easier to divide your concerns into two parts instead of trying to lump them together. Both are separate issues despite appearances that they are nearly identical. First, let's look at the audience scores you attempted to add to the article. There is a clear cut guideline against this at MOS:FILM#Audience response, which if you haven't read I highly suggest you start there. It reflects community-wide consensus of which very, very few exceptions exist. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score was included in the article, because it qualified as an exception for several reasons. I won't delve too deep into why, but there are past discussions on this talk page (and at Star Wars: The Last Jedi) that reached a consensus to include it. I encourage you to seek those out if you want to see arguments for and against as well as why it ultimately passed. The score on IMDB was not as widely reported or followed in sources, so in my opinion, it wouldn't have crossed the threshold needed for inclusion.

Now let's look at the opening line that you're bringing into focus:

In late December 2018, the film was named as the most anticipated 2019 film by IMDb, the most anticipated new standalone comic book film and the second-most anticipated blockbuster of 2019 according to the ticketing service Fandango, and the second-most anticipated superhero and overall film by Atom Tickets.

These are not necessarily reliable measures of anticipation. I'm with you on that, and I personally wouldn't include them except under one condition: they are reported by more than one major publication. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a seeker or arbiter of truth. We simply reflect what exists prominently in reliable sources. When something is iffy or questionable, the knee-jerk reaction is to wait to see if highly-reputable sources pick up on it as well. A primary source like IMDB publishing something they monitored internally is not usually enough on its own to warrant inclusion. As soon as Variety and other sources covered it, however, it becomes fair game for discussion. Don't misunderstand though. I'm not saying it SHOULD or MUST be included, but it's at that level where it can certainly be taken under consideration. Looks like it's been in the article since this early October edit by adamstom97, so it does have some implicit consensus which is a factor.

If you'd like to discuss the opening paragraph more and challenge the status quo, feel free to do so, but I don't think it will help much to try to lump both issues together in an all-or-nothing showdown. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't have distilled this down and explained it better myself GoneIn60! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I never even implied it was an "all-or-nothing showdown", and I am in fact only talking about the opening line of the Audience Response section this entire time. The very section you linked to in MOS:FILM#Audience response details that we are to use "polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available)". The key term here being 'RELIABLE source', which we have established IMDB is not. It doesn't say we can or should use polls from any source but only take audience reviews from reliable sources, it states that even polls must come from reliable sources themselves. And we don't know if IMDB's polls are reliable. As I keep saying, there's nothing to suggest that they aren't susceptible to vote manipulation from users logging in through different emails, usernames and accounts etc to manipulate the results of the polls. As IMDB itself is considered unreliable, we can't and shouldn't be including any of the information from it. The part about IMDB in the sentence should thus be deleted, while the rest of the websites brought up in the source should remain. Davefelmer (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You may want to take a closer look at the IMDB statement regarding most anticipated movies of 2018. It doesn't say that this is a public website poll. It says that they based this information on the number of page views for each movie title at their site, and even listed the number of unique visitors. Again, I'm not defending its inclusion, but I think you are misrepresenting what exactly we're talking about here.

"...I am in fact only talking about the opening line of the Audience Response section this entire time."

You spent some time talking about how you were reverted, once for adding the IMDB audience scores and then again for trying to remove that IMDB statement in the opening. You are trying to tie the two together by saying that if IMDB is unreliable, then both should go. That is the "all-or-nothing" approach of yours I was referring to. We're trying to tell you that context matters (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). A source may be unreliable for one statement, but it could be reliable for another. Here, we're talking about two different kinds of statements that require two different assessments. We should not equate them as being one in the same. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that imdb isn't used as the source--it's the subject of an article by a secondary source (Variety). If a reliable secondary source (such as Variety) mentions the audience scores, then we can cite them and mention the audience scores. DonQuixote (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: That's even less reliable! How is the number of people that simply viewed the movie title page indicative of how many people actually want to see the movie? What if they clicked on it by mistake? What if they clicked on it, checked it out and decided it wasn't for them? This on top of the potential for creating multiple accounts to view the page a ton of times that IMDB would have no way of stopping. And this is an unreliable source we are talking about from the beginning mind you! None of this is reliable.

I only mentioned being reverted on the audience score to give wider context to the debate, I never mentioned it again afterwards. You are continously explaining general things without ever actually answering any of the points, all the while saying you dont have a say one way or the other and just want to explain things! Davefelmer (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: So if a reliable source went, "according to Wikipedia..." within it, we could then publish 'according to Wikipedia' on the article and subject it was referring to? Because as far as I'm aware, we couldn't do that. Davefelmer (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A reliable source would only do that if it's commenting on Wikipedia, in which case it'll probably included in Criticism of Wikipedia. If it's using Wikipedia as a source, then it's probably not a reliable source. And...that's the point. When reliable sources criticise imdb (positively or negatively) or discuss imdb in some other form, then we can mention imdb as the subject of the secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: DonQuixote went straight to the point, and ultimately, that's where the focus needs to be. My goal was to get you out of the mindset that this was just another poll published by IMDB, and therefore should be treated the same way. Not the case, and it seems we've finally moved past that. Hallelujah! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: But there are plenty of sources out there that already say IMDB is unreliable, on top of it not being seen as reliable on the project. Why would we use a reliable source (Variety) to site an unreliable source like IMDB, especially when alternatives that are more reliable exist within the very same article? It makes no sense. You say a reliable source wouldnt site an unreliable one like Wikipedia because then it itself probably wouldnt be a reliable source, but here we literally have an example of one regarded as reliable citing one that isnt. Since there are reliable alternatives in the same article, why not remove the mention of the unreliable source and keep the reliable ones in? Davefelmer (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, it's quite simple. Let's say the subject in question is me. I'm not considered a reliable source so you can't use me as a source. However, if a reliable secondary source were to discuss me, for some reason, then you can use the secondary source to write about me. It's the same for any other thing, such as imdb. It's not reliable, so you can't use it as a source. However, if a reliable secondary source were to discuss imdb, for some reason, then you can use the secondary source to write about imdb. If you can't understand that, then it's not my problem. DonQuixote (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I get what you're saying, I was alluding to perhaps reviewing the methodology behind that process but I see that this is probably not the best place to do that. I likewise see that in any case it's quite clear that I won't be getting a consensus in favour of making the proposed change so will leave it there at that. I appreciate everyone taking the time to join the discussion! Davefelmer (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Highest-grossing and peak positions

@Davefelmer: here is the archived version to see the film's peak position, listed there as 22nd, but afterward changed to 23rd in the list given an update of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's box office total. It's all already referenced in that article. The inclusion of this information is common practice in articles on highest-grossing films, see Spider-Man: Far From Home, Avengers: Infinity War, Captain America: Civil War, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and many more. El Millo (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not a peak position, that's just an old version of the highest ranking movies list, evidenced by the likes of Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it? The information you pitch for is pure WP:SYNTH. And as previously discussed as well, something being wrong elsewhere doesnt mean it's fine to include it in other places. You've seen plenty of other examples where it isn't included such as Dr Strange (2016 film) and Thor: Ragnarok. Davefelmer (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Strange grossed $677 million, Thor: Ragnarok grossed $854 million. Doctor Strange's peak position was 94th, as seen here; Ragnarok's peak position was 60th, as seen here. At List of highest-grossing films, which is a featured list by the way, only the top 50 are shown. Hence, neither of those films is nor was included in the list, so they do not serve as examples. All articles cited above except for Star Wars: The Last Jedi are GA-status, it's hard for five (and many more) good articles to have the same "mistake". Whether right or wrong, it's still common practice and thus consensus. In order to make a change, the existing consensus needs to be overturned.

"Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it?" Do you not understand what peak position means? It's the highest rank a film has been on the list. Captain Marvel came out on March 8, and all those films were released later. Aladdin came out on May 24, Spider-Man: Far From Home on July 2, The Lion King on July 19, Joker came out on October 4, and Frozen II on November 22. Hence, it's completely right for Aladdin to still be playing and for Joker not to be playing yet. And those who overtook it had no influence on its peak position at all, precisely because they overtook it. El Millo (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude, what on Earth are you talking about? Who cares about how many movies are listed in the wikipedia article for highest grossing films? Wikipedia isn't a source for itself and that information tells us absolutely nothing. From your own sources here; and here, both Dr Strange and Thor Ragnarok appear in the same top 100 list that you link for Captain Marvel to show that movie's peak position, hence by that logic the same source can be likewise used to find dates to list peak positions for those 2 as well as any other movie that's ever been in the top 100, as per that source. Should I do that? Also, again, just because it is written somewhere else on wikipedia does not make it correct. There are also plenty of places where it is not written. And your second point is pure WP:SYNTH, you can't ultimately find a random date to say this was a movie's box office peak as the sources themselves dont say that. It's WP:OR at it's finest. Davefelmer (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The featured list does that, that means Wikipedians decided to do that. There's an implicit consensus to include this information. If you think it is SYNTH, then you're against that Peak column existing in the first place, and you're against this information being included in all articles. That means you're against the established consensus. If you want to make this change you have to change the established consensus. You cannot eliminate this information before you change the established consensus. El Millo (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, just because something exists somewhere else does not make it correct. Plus, you're forgetting that SOME articles on the featured list appear to do that, others do not. See Zootopia for example. Yes, I am against the peak column as it's SYNTH and OR, no reliable sources outright state or discuss the movie's 'peak'. And there doesn't appear to be an "established" consensus on the matter, rather a somewhat implicit one at best where someone starting editing in the information on some of the movies in the featured list article and nobody noticed or decided to look into and debate its merits. It's clear that an actual discussed and established consensus on the matter needs to be set. Davefelmer (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment – Let me start off by saying a film's peak chart position can be useful information. Return of the King is a prime example of this, as it was once #2 on the list. That's a significant fact that deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. Captain Marvel's peak position, on the other hand, probably doesn't qualify. Exceeding $1 billion is no longer an extremely rare feat, and ranking #22 (or #23) isn't as significant. Perhaps a passing mention or two in the article body would suffice if sources reported that ranking, but I don't believe it qualifies for inclusion in the lead at this point. And that brings me to the next point. Captain Marvel's peak position needs to be mentioned in prose within the article body, and of course, backed by reliable source citations. I skimmed the box office section and didn't see this statistic specifically called out.

Two things probably need to happen at this point:

1. We can continue the discussion here to gauge community-wide consensus on the matter, linking to it from WT:FILM to increase visibility. Or we can simply begin a new discussion there. This needs to be settled on a wider scale and it may ultimately evolve into an RfC.
2. The lead section is a summary of the body's most significant points. If the information doesn't exist in the body, then it shouldn't exist in the lead. This should be remedied quickly by those who support its inclusion, or I will proceed to remove it from the lead. A snapshot of the film's ranking at Box Office Mojo isn't enough to stand on its own; we need secondary source analysis of the ranking to justify inclusion.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think it's time we get a community stance on the subject. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Update – Just noticed the discussion is being held at WT:FILM#Should we be listing a movie's "peak position" at the box office?. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Critical Reception in the Lead

Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so bare with me. I noticed in the lead that the critical reception for the film is quite brief, although the actual section says it received criticism for a "convoluted plot and lack of originality".[190]. I'm just curious if we can mention that in the lead as it is already backed up. What do you guys think? Thanks TrueFilmBuff (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at length, see Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 2#Critic summary. The Hindustan Times article that you are quoting was based on early reviews of the film. It may not be representative of later reviews. The only thing that these "reviews of reviews" seem to agree on is Larson's performance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Yes, there is a consensus that additional sources may be cited to increase verifiability. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article sourced is already freely accessible. The inclusion of a second source seems redundant. —El Millo (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It says you have to subscribe to view it for me and presumably other readers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAYWALL. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about adding an additional source or two, not about removing paywalled source from The New York Times . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It says you have to subscribe to view it for me and presumably other readers.

That's nothing new. It's been like that even before the internet. You can always go down to a library with a subscription for access. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Or, just log into your library's website and access the news source via them. There are fewer and fewer excuses for paywall concerns. There is, of course, a resource here within Wikipedia that you can request verification of a source from a help desk or something.

That said, if the statement is quite bold, then doubling up on the RS seems appropriate. As it moves towards GA and FA, one of them will eventually be deleted; its better for evaluative purposes to have more instead of less. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the archive link not accessible for you? -2pou (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, why not? I don't see anything wrong with including two sources instead of just one, especially if that makes verification more convenient for readers without a New York Times subscription. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes More sources never hurt- so long as they are reliable. Comatmebro (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It would be totally OK to be used. Idealigic (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I was specifically hoping to add one of the two removed in this edit, but I understand other editors might have other suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't need an RfC for this. WP:V says that content must be verifiable, it doesn't say that sources must be free access - in fact, it explicitly states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment ... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As stated above I am talking about adding an additional free source, not rejecting a paywalled source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Using better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or a supporting source

Should we use better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or supporting source? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: following this revert. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, The New York Times is HIGHLY reliable. There's no need to replace or supplement the sourced content as all of our text is covered by that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure it's their report/originator of the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why we need to discuss "better sources than The New York Times" when that's about as good as it gets. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Emir, “personally preferring” doesn’t equal to the source being unreliable or disallowed. Don’t remove based off of a “personal preference”. Rusted AutoParts 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I said that we could add them as additional sources if we decide to keep The New York Times one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with what could conceivably be taken as New York Times-bashing, as right-wing people often do when the Times reports something they don't like. I'm not suggesting this particular case has a political background — Emir of Wikipedia has always been a good and responsible editor, in my experience — so I'd just like to ask what Emir's particular concerns are about The New York Times, which has as good or better a reputation for accuracy and original reporting as any publication on the planet. I mean, when the Times wants some studio executive to verify what some director says, that studio executive calls back. That's true of very few publications.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL, “better sources than The New York Times”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC below has said another source can be used. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence

There's a discussion involving this and many other MCU film articles at Talk:Loki (TV series)#"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence that may be of interest of watchers of this page. —El Millo (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)