Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured listList of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starList of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is the main article in the Marvel Cinematic Universe films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 1, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 26, 2014Featured list candidatePromoted
April 5, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
November 17, 2017Good topic removal candidateKept
April 9, 2018Good topic removal candidateKept
Current status: Featured list

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
  • Q: Why are the Raimi and Webb Spider-Man films, and the X-Men and Fantastic Four films (from 2000-2019) not listed in this article?
    • A: This article is for all the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), which are films independently owned and produced by Marvel Studios. The Spider-Man films before the February 2015 agreement between Sony Pictures and Marvel are not part of the MCU. The rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises were controlled by 20th Century Fox until the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney was completed in March 2019. Any future film in either franchise will be added if they are reliably sourced to be existing in the MCU.
  • Q: Why are some characters who have appeared (or will appear) in multiple films, like Darcy Lewis, J.A.R.V.I.S., or Jasper Sitwell, not included in the Recurring cast and characters table?
    • A: The cast and characters included in this table, are ones that have appeared or are scheduled to appear in multiple, different, MCU franchises and have appeared in the billing block for at least two of those films. For example, Nick Fury has appeared in the Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and Avengers franchises, and has been in the billing block more than twice. Franchises are film series headlined by the same character or group; for example, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Iron Man 3 make up the Iron Man franchise. As well, the billing block is the text that appears at the bottom of the theatrical poster indicating the starring actors and actresses for such films, as seen by their inclusion in the infobox for each film. Thus, Darcy (Thor) who has only appeared in a single MCU franchise (as noted), is excluded, as are characters like J.A.R.V.I.S. (Iron Man and Avengers) and Jasper Sitwell (Thor, Avengers and Captain America), who have appeared in multiple MCU franchises, but have not received billing credit. For the complete list of cast and characters, please see List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors.

Drafts for upcoming films[edit]

A listing of all current draft articles for upcoming future MCU films, can be found at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Drafts. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding CinemaScore to Critical response[edit]

i think we should add CinemaScore to Critical response like another marvel movie page (List of films based on Marvel Comics). 14.139.122.120 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CinemaScore is not a critics site. It's audience response.★Trekker (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I created another section for audience response.★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus for a section on audience response (I do NOT think such a section is necessary) it should at least be a section that is completely filled with information, not a whole bunch of empty cells. SassyCollins (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

People always dislike it when someone comes up with a new idea they're not used to seeing yet on Wikipedia. As for calling my edits "half-assed", it's not my fault that not all the sources are awalable yet because I need to get an account on one of the websites to see it, (which I'm planning to do because this subject of film reception is something I care about), but I guess this is one of those cases where people feel the need for something to be "perfect" right away. Which is frustrating because Wikipedia is an ongoing process and always being changed and evolved. Studios care what audiences think, that's why movie companies pay tons of money to CinemaScore and PostTrak to get that info, because it's important. It's also very frustrating to put in a ton of work on something which is relevant and then someone comes along and pretty much says you need to ask for permission first.★Trekker (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, and to be clear; I have said nothing about your edits themselves, rather I have an opinion on the final product. As for needing the product to be perfect; I don't agree it needs to be perfect. I do, however, think it should be more complete than it is as of now to be moved to the main-space, (and yes - but again, MY opinion) if at all. SassyCollins (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
What would you say needs to be added before it's put back?★Trekker (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would say ALL cells that are now empty but COULD be filled because the info exists, should be filled. If, with that done, there remains a vast amount of empty cells, the question should remain if the table is noteworthy at all. As a final thought: maybe look into feasibility of combining the two tables into one. Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Tip: set it up like Favre up top for the drafts of upcoming films (1) and invite people to collaborate. This might also increase consensus for the addition of this section. SassyCollins (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see how combining video sales and audience ratings into one table would make much sense. They're not really the same thing.★Trekker (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think CinemaScore should be under Critical Response with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Just because audiences aren't professional critics, doesn't mean their evaluation of the merits and faults of a film isn't a critical analysis. This is why the CinemaScore is under "Critical Response" for most movies' pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:D00:35CF:25EF:B972:3BE8:BF7E (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

100% disagree. By that logic box office could also count as "critical reception" because it shows people voting with their dollars.★Trekker (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I commend Trekker for his work, finding the list of CinemaScore ratings is easy, but gathering all those details from PostTrak is an impressive piece of work. I think the article is certainly better with that information included in some form or another. Even including CinemaScore in the RT/MC table in the short term although not as good would still be better than the current situation of not having CinemaScore listed at all. As for there being a few gaps, Wikipedia was built on gaps, and Perfect is the enemy of good. Either way please include CinemaScore in some form! Since I had to dig into the article history to find the list of CinemaScore and PostTrak scores for all the Marvel films I link to it for others and again thanks Trekker for putting together that table. -- 109.78.227.196 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
There are pages that have a "Reception" header, then "box office response," "critical response," and "audience response" as separate sub-headers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldssa95 (talkcontribs) 05:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the others in adding the CinemaScores to the article. It seems like there's a consensus to add that data, but not necessarily a solution to implement it. I would suggest adding a column to the current critical response table for the CinemaScore and changing the section's title to "Critical and public response". - Brojam (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
But CinemaScore is a complelty different thing than critical response, I think having them together would just be so confusing. Why are people so down on PostTrak? It's no longer very hard to find ratings from them for the majority of the films now and they're the prefered source of audience reactions now days for studios.★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hence why it would be under "Critical and public response". It's still part of Reception after all, and this way, we don't have to duplicate the table with all 22+ films again. - Brojam (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The page already duplicates the list of films for the box office and the critical reception. And if the split does end up happening like sugested below size won't really be a big problem for the page anymore.★Trekker (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
All the more reason not to duplicate it for a third time when we can easily just add a column to the existing one. - Brojam (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No, absolutely false. You're pretty much saying we should confuse readers, misrepresent information and give priority to box office over all other things, since it gets it's own very detailed section with nothing else cramed in. Audience response is not the same as critical reception and I will not accept go along with any attempt at confuing that for the sake of someone thinking it looks a little less nice to have films listed another time. That is 100% an estetic issue and has no place in this kind of discussion.★Trekker (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you're underestimating the ability of readers' comprehension. I personally don't think any of it would be remotely confusing to the average reader. And, I think you should give the benefit of the doubt to all of us arguing that critic and audience sites should be together and that if we thought it was so confusing, we wouldn't argue for it. But, let's say there was a heading "Critical and Audience Response," and the columns were Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, and Cinemascore. Even if a person hadn't heard of any of those sites, I think a logical reader would innately figure that critical sites come first then audience sites because of the heading. Then since the column name has the word "Critic" in it, it would be obvious that the previous column is also a critics' column which would mean the last column was an audience column. I know what I described sounds complicated, but readers do these type of logical deductions all the time in fractions of seconds. Furthermore, aesthetics are very important in article writing, ESPECIALLY in graphical representations of data. Writing is about engaging your audience and I think there is an argument to be made that having a third similar-looking table in a row would get monotonous for a reader. I don't really care either way as long as PostTrak is added if it's in a separate table (a two column table would seem unnecessary when you can just add it to the critics table). Regarding your question why people are so "against" PostTrak: I don't think we are. It's just much less known to writers and readers than CinemaScore because you need a subscription to access scores. - Feldssa95 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Considering it's not that hard to find the PostTrak scores for the films (since I've already done that), that's not really a huge issue and I don't see why that would matter.★Trekker (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point, it should just be added for the sake of the useful info. I often want to see the CinemaScores and/or PostTrak of all the MCU films in an array and there's nowhere else that really offers that. So, I disagree with SassyCollins that such a section is unnecessary (and it seems many others do too). But I also think that we shouldn't be so pedantic about where this information. At some point, having the information on the page in a still coherent and understandable way is more crucial than disputing minor details and splitting hairs. I personally think we should go back to the way Trekker had it with CinemaScores and all of the PostTrak scores that are available. I don't think it's big deal at all that there are no PostTrak scores for the early movies. - Feldssa95 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think CinemaScore should be added and the section should be renamed as "Critical and public response". --Mazewaxie 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
What about PostTrak? I really don't get why people don't want it too. It's the top polling servide for the film industry today.★Trekker (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that we should keep the "Critical response" section as is, and add a new "Public response" / "Audience response" section for the scores from CinemaScore and PostTrak since those have both been brought up beforehand. It would be simple and nice to have both CinemaScore and PostTrak scores shown for the public's scores, just as is done with the critics' scores because it shows multiple different scores. This is, of course, unless PostTrak doesn't have scores for all of the MCU films. If that is the case then maybe we could just include CinemaScore's scores in the public / audience response section and maybe find another public review site. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
PostTrak has scores for all films after it was created, which was in 2013.★Trekker (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Than I'd say it's not as useful for that reason. Adding a section for responses from CinemaScore would be just fine. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Why would that be better? All it does is keep information away.★Trekker (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean, if PostTrak doesn't have responses for all of the films, is it really necessary? We can have it, I really don't care. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't have PostTrak data for 10 of the 22 films. It's not really useful when almost half the films don't have the data. - Brojam (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I think it is. Keeping it out is all about estetic preferences, which shouldn't matter. Leaving it out is exactly what it is, leaving out information.★Trekker (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Considering that, I guess it's fine to include the information that CinemaScore provides rather than not including it at all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So did we ever land anywhere on this, @*Treker:,@Trailblazer101:, @Brojam:, @Mazewaxie:? It seems there's a general consensus to add at the very least Cinemascores and people seem to be ok with PostTrak. It also seems that most disagree with ★Trekker and think this data should be combined with the critical response table. I personally like the way the Pixar movie page has it but without the coloring. In the end, as I have said, having the information on the page in a digestible way is more important than squabbling over what that best way is. So since there is an apparent consensus to include the data, we should just put it in. Feldssa95 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it can be added in. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it can be added too. We can go back in the history and recover the data. --Mazewaxie 19:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't the PostTrak scores be added in as well since people generally seem fine with its inclusion? Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding PostTrak. I don't want to cause more controversy, but how did we decide what the average Cinemascore is? You can't really average letter grades. If you go by the American GPA system, it averages to a 3.96, which is very close to an A, but is that still considered an A average? Feldssa95 (talk) 2:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I’m for the idea that Cinemascore and PostTrak should be added as COLUMNS in the existing table instead of creating a new section and table for them. It’s just a bad design. A new section would also open room for people to start arguing to add those BS Rotten Tomatoes audience scores. The page is already too big and there’s no need to add extra length unless we absolutely need to. As for the format, we could do a rowspan / colspan where Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic columns are under a “Critical” subheading (merged header column); while the audience columns are placed under a “Audience” subheading. Starforce13 03:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
MCU Films Critical and Public Response Test.png
Is this setup good? I have the edit format of it ready to go. We can always add the PostTrak scores to the "Public" colspan at a later date if needed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the format I had in mind. Starforce13 23:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed[edit]

Considering the fact that the first 23 films have now been retroactively coined "The Infinity Saga" and the sheer length of the section, I believe that it is time to split this section into a new article. In its place, we should have a section called "Sagas" and two subsections, one which summarizes the Infinity Saga and another for the untitled saga that will begin in 2020. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That sounds nice, but what is the next saga going to be called? We didn't get "The Infinity Saga" until Year 11. Should we just split the article without a name for the next saga, and just call it "Untitled Saga" for the time being? I mean, what if we end up having to wait another ten years for them to finally announce "The Galactus Saga" or whatever? --Bold Clone 22:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bold Clone: I think a working title such as "Marvel Cinematic Universe saga, 2020–present" should be used until one is given by Marvel Studios. Here is an example of formatting:
== Sagas ==
=== "The Infinity Saga" ===
{{Main|The Infinity Saga}}
=== Untitled Saga ===
{{Main|Marvel Cinematic Universe saga, 2020–present}}
Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Still way too early. We have no clue how things will be grouped/labeled after Endgame. Will there even be a second saga? Also, if we were to split right now, this second untitled saga page would have barely anything. Let's wait and see how things unfold first, before rushing into a split. - Brojam (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I'd have to agree with Brojam on this. Really it's just too early. I would prefer to wait as least a couple months. Who knows? Maybe they will announce the new saga at San Diego Comic-Con or D23 this summer. --Bold Clone 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Too soon I think. But I do think some kind of split will be needed soon. Maybe we should have separate articles for the Phases?★Trekker (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this is something to look at, but currently the split would be between all of the confirmed films and a few ideas. Until we can justify the second page, I think those extra bits should stay tacked on here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
To be fair there has been some coverage about the separate phases.
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].
I think there could be some coverage of this in articles about each phase.★Trekker (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I support some such split, mostly because it would help reduce the size of this article in keeping with a true list format. This one goes into too much detail for an article that is titled as a "list". Tables with all the main details would suffice. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Star Trek and Star Wars lists for related discussion. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Support - The sheer length of the article makes it daunting to read. In addition, this is a list, so such detail is unnecessary for this page - AquilaFasciata (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
What kind of split do you support? A Saga or Phase split? "The Infinity Saga" is a rather new concept with a lot less sources for it I feel personally, and it would still be very huge, if we split it to the three phases the articles would be much more managable.★Trekker (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for any split for now. For saga split it's to early. Mike210381 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Not seeing a reason to do so yet. Once there are more actual films in the successive saga the split may be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Support but not now, I definitely think that a split should be done at some point, but perhaps even waiting til after Far From Home is released and seeing what's next. QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - no reason to assume the next 20-30 films will comprise a saga. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a true point, we don't know if the Saga concept is something that will for sure be brought up again or when it will be.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Considering the volume, it's also possible they'll run two sagas concurrently, which would really screw up the table if we try to separate them. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm unsure of what you mean with this. How or why would they have two "Sagas" at the same time?★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
As an example, films released in even years might build toward Galactus, and movies released in odd years might build toward Atlantis Rising. As the canon grows, we shouldn't assume the big team-up movies will continue to feature everyone at once. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair, I guess that is very possible. Do you think it would be better to split the page into phase articles once it gets too big? The phases have been around for far longer and don't seem to be as storyline bound.★Trekker (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is a very good option. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternative, phase split[edit]

So far some people have expressed that they would rather see a split for the three phases than one for "The Infinity Saga". I think there are several reasons to favour this:

  1. A Saga split would still result in a rather huge page, spliting into three phase articles would be much more managable.
  2. The phases are far more well known and longer running than the Saga which we only recently learned about.
  3. There are more sources to support adding information to each article of the phases than for the Saga (right now). We can cover a lot of information that is currently lacking on Wikipedia with the three new pages, there has been many articles about each phase and comparision pieces between each of them.

I would like to see more people give input on this directly.★Trekker (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Splitting the page into separate Phases would work much better than separate Sagas. --Bold Clone 19:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, but if it is decided to split then we should should still have a master list of all the films at this location.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh I don't mean to imply we get rid of this page. A full list of all films will still be needed. But I think most of the prose could be moved to other pages to avoid this list becoming to gigantic.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a viable option, but I think a demo should be put together for everyone to have a look at before we make a decision either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree, I would like to see a draft of this before making a decision, but definitely think a split needs to happen somewhere, it's just determining where. QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I would agree to a split by phases, but I would like to suggest a merge of the first three phases in the future, when the next saga takes shape. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
If Marvel Studios does indeed keep using the Sagas format I can agree with this. But by now we don't know if this is the case.★Trekker (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I can see separate Phase pages working quite well. As others have said, a draft of this change would be nice to see ahead of implementing it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

I have made a draft for it now, it's mostly just the film info right now but I think it will be good to work on. See here Draft:Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe).★Trekker (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the drafts for the other two phases Draft:Phase_two_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), Draft:Phase_three_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe). #Person (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:a902:5300:10e7:c33d:c370:df4c (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Those are going to need a lot of work done on them in order to be proper. There's a lot of errors on them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Waking up this thing again[edit]

Guys, since these drafts were made the page has only grown a ton more, I think we really ought to get together and decide to fix this before the page becomes acutely gigantic. I really feel I need input and help from others because on this.★Trekker (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Split by Phases: My opinion is still the same. It's far too early to split this into "The Infinity Saga" and "Whatever-the-Heck-Comes-After-the Infinity-Saga." We should split this page into separate Phases. --Bold Clone 19:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Split by Phases: I agree that the page is growing out of control, but the problem is... over 95% over the content so far belongs to Infinity Saga. That means, if we split it by Sagas, one page will be mostly empty while the other carries almost all the content. I think someone suggested splitting by Phases. I think each phase has enough content by itself to justify a standalone page. Phases are also more well-defined than sagas. We don't know how long the next saga will be or if they'll even add up to a saga. Starforce13 20:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Support phase split: The first 3 phases all have 6+ movies and phase 4 has 5 movies and 5 shows. There are even one shots that can be included. That should provide plenty of content to make pages for each phase worth it. Obviously we don't know for sure, but if phases start to be 2 years long like phase 4, this page is going to start expanding even more rapidly and it is already one of the longest pages as stated above. Plus it would be a good place to have all the info for both movies and TV shows that are included, specifically phase 4 and potentially future phases. At some point down the road if necessary we can always revisit the saga split and potentially merge the phase pages into their respective sagas or something like that if there is another saga starting with phase 4. -- Zoo (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Support split by phases, definitely not enough content to justify a split by infinity war and post-infinity war, but phases is definitely something I agree with. QueerFilmNerdtalk 01:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Split by Phases: I'm totally fine with each Phase getting split into their own pages as long as the Saga pages aren't made as it is a better way of organizing them. Plus, the Phase pages can give info on the history of production of each Phase. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've been working on all the phases, but have focused on Phase One the last couple days. It could definitely use some looking over by more people other than just me. Some sections could still be expanded such as the history section. Section like the theatrical release could use some info because I'm not sure what should go there. The video game section could use some info as well. I'd do that myself but I've only played the Lego Avengers game. AS you may be able to tell, some sections were just copied over from other pages, so they may need to be expanded/rewritten/removed. However, when it comes to the section on each movie from this page, would we just be moving that info to each Phase? If you have knowledge on the music, comics, books, one-shots, etc. please edit those sections if needed. -- Zoo (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Phase Four (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is probably good to go. At the very least maybe some expansion on the history section, but there isn't much more that can be added yet. -- Zoo (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The phase 2 article is for the most part ready to go now. I'll be working on phase 3 over the coming days and after that all 4 phase articles will be good to go. -- Zoo (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Your work has been amazing! Thank you so much.★Trekker (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I think all 4 drafts are ready to be moved to main pages if that is the consensus. -- Zoo (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree! Now we just need to shorten down this list appropriately.★Trekker (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe something like this? Keep the tables in each phase section but replace the sections for each movie with a paragraph or 2 for the entire phase since those sections for each movie are moved to the phase pages. -- Zoo (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
We could also do something like this, with all the Phase 1–3 films in one table. The lead already does a pretty good job of summarizing each phase. - Brojam (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I think Brojam's example would be the best to go with. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I like Brojam's too. But I'd like if we could have the Phase titles inserted into the table like how List of Scream (film series) cast members does it. I think that works pretty great.★Trekker (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
So like this? Personally, I don't see the need of doing it this way since the table isn't that long and it prevents us from adding the refs and linking to the article's page. And it follows a different format than we are using on all the other tables where we split the rows up by phase on this article. However, this change, does have the advantage of being able to go directly to a particular phase from the contents menu. - Brojam (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I would be ok with either, if people prefered it without it I think it's no problem, I just like that you can go directly to each pase.★Trekker (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I support Brojam's idea too. -- Zoo (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I was also wondering if we should change the cast table to be grouped by apperances in phases as opposed to franchises since the current way is really not sustainable for this ever expanding universe. The table would go from the current 14 columns to only 5. - Brojam (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
For this overall page I agree completly, but for each phase I think keeping it to the franchises is helpful.★Trekker (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed; I really like how it's done in the individual phase articles. - Brojam (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's really some prime stuff right here. GA or FA.★Trekker (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: Would you mind taking a stab at this since you did a good job with changing the other cast tables. - Brojam (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that with all the new movies and franchises coming it will become impossible to keep it by franchise. I say we try doing it by Phases here and see how it looks like. El Millo (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably best to start going by phases. More and more franchises are going to start up over the coming years so it's gonna become a bit of a mess if things aren't changed. -- Zoo (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Do we have enough of a consensus to move the Phase drafts to the main space? It's going on 2 weeks since the last (support) vote. -- Zoo (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Once we move them to main space, what happens to this article? El Millo (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably do something like Brojam put together. -- Zoo (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added this Digital Spy article as a reference for the Phases. [26] If you have other mainstream media ones that confirm this classification, please add there too. If this is acceptable then I think moving forward to split by phases would be okay. If it's reverted then you'll need to find more articles to justify that Phase is the appropriate way to split it. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


Naming of phases[edit]

Here's a list of possible names for the article. Which one should be the common name?

  • Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 1
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase 1)
  • MCU Phase 1
  • MCU Phase One
  • Marvel Phase 1
  • Marvel Phase One
  • Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
  • Phase 1 (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

The others will become aliases. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is the name used for the redirect and for the current draft. But I'm oppen to changing if people think it would be beneficial.★Trekker (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If we use words for the numbers, then Two, Three, Four should be capitalized. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree. The four current drafts all use capitalization.★Trekker (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I would go with either "Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase 1)" or "Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One)". That is, it should start with "Marvel Cinematic Universe" because that's the primary/most important detail. It would be similar to how we break shows into season — we don't do "Season 1 (The Flash)" but rather "The Flash (Season 1)". I'm okay with either numbers or words as long as we capitalize the "One", "Two" etc. Starforce13 21:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that at the very least the titles should start with "Marvel Cinematic Universe" and then the phase in parentheses. It doesn't bother me which way the numbers are shown, whether it stays as the word or if the actual number is used instead. -- Zoo (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Considering how we've always stuck to "Phase One" and the common use is, as Starforce13 mentioned, "The Flash (Season 1)", they should be done like this: "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)", as that would likely be the common version of how would type in the pages, given how they are referred to as "Phase One", "Phase Two", etc. I'm fine with the other versions being redirects, though. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I think it is rather common to use the name "phase one", "phase two" etc.★Trekker (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The reason why I’m particular about starting with “Marvel Cinematic Universe” is that for regular people searching Wikipedia/Google, “Marvel Cinematic Universe” is the keyword/phrase. “Phase One” may mean something to the editors as fans like us but to the rest of the world, it could mean lots of different things as it’s simply a descriptor of the main subject which is Marvel Cinematic Universe. Phases are used in lots of different contexts and projects and are meaningless out of context. Lots of projects use phases. If you mention “Phase 1” or “Season 1” out of context, people will have no idea what specific project or show you’re talking about. That’s how you know it’s not a keyword and therefore shouldn’t take priority over the primary subject. If it’s important to say “Phase” first, then, the fitting title format would be “Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe” like how we do with “List of” as opposed to “List (MCU films).” Starforce13 00:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would much prefer Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One) over "Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe". Its too wordy.★Trekker (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, that’s my top choice too. Starforce13 01:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Technically the proper disambiguation should be Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) since the primary topic is Phase One, not the Marvel Cinematic Universe.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. The articles aren't about the MCU. They're about each individual Phases, so, they should start with the Phase title. And, the "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" bit at the end is specifying what the Phases are for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
As long as there are redirects one way or the other, people will find what they are looking for whether they search Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) or Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One). I think it should be the latter as the phases I feel are similar to seasons of a TV show and in that case it's the show's name followed by the season in parentheses. The phases aren't specifically about the MCU, but the phases are a part of the MCU as a whole. -- Zoo (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the topic is MCU, the phases are part of MCU. Just like seasons are part of a tv show. We don’t say “Season 1 (Riverdale)” even though the page is about season 1. We do it the other way round because the season is part of the show. Phases are exactly the same as seasons. It’s a parent-child relationship. The primary subject is MCU and then under it, you have the phases. (We’re even literally creating the phase pages to split MCU page - the main topic.) The primary keyword shouldn’t be the one in parentheses. Descriptors are the ones that go in parentheses. We should follow that established convention. Starforce13 04:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be the latter as the phases I feel are similar to seasons of a TV show But it’s not a TV season. A TV season (lower case ‘s’) is a well known term associated with that medium. Phase One is a proper noun given to a block films set in the same fictional universe, which is relatively unheard of. In other words, a television season is an actual thing, film phase is not.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't equate these with seasons of a TV series, they are their own thing and we need to choose the best option. "Phase One" and "Phase Two", etc., are what they are referred to and that should be the primary topic for the articles, followed by the disambig. This is different from, say, Riverdale, which is how we would refer to that whether we were talking about the current season or the whole show and so "Riverdale (season #)" makes more sense there. So my vote is for "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)", but having the other options as redirects won't hurt. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
There's no semantical difference between "Phase One of MCU" and "Season one of Riverdale". You can over-glorify them but at the end of the day, the phases simply refer to a part of the bigger MCU. They're not their own standalone thing. The phases are just parts, breakdowns of the bigger thing. Whenever something is split into multiple parts, the part goes to parenthesis. You say "Title (Part 1)" or "Something (Chapter 1)" not "Part 1 (Title)". Phases are simply parts of the bigger MCU. Whether they call them phases, seasons, parts, books, chapters, groups, trilogies... they play the same role. It's just basic common sense. Starforce13 11:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, "Phase One" is not a proper noun. It's a very common term used in lots of different projects that are split into phases/stages by different companies/organizations. It's a naming convention WE chose over other options like "Phase 2", "Phase II", "Phase two", "Second phase" etc which can and are used interchangeably everywhere including by Disney/Marvel official press releases and articles. Even the official Marvel.com article for phase 1 movies literally uses "Phase One", "phase 1", "Phase 1" interchangeably through out the article. The fact that they are used interchangeably should give you the first clue that it's not a proper noun. The "Phase One" we use here is nothing but a naming convention which can still be challenged — and it's literally why the original list here included titles with "Phase 1" as options. If they were real proper nouns/official names like Capital One or even Phase One (company), they would be fixed, non-debatable and not subject to naming conventions. Choosing a naming convention that makes it look like a proper noun doesn't suddenly make it a proper noun. Starforce13 13:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The Marvel articles by Jenn Fujikawa Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 uses "Phase One", "phase one", "Phase 1", "phase 1", "Phase Two", "Phase 3". So she mixes it all up as well as uses it as a proper noun. So yes it could be lower-cased to be consistent with similarly named series like season 1, chapter 1, episode 1. Or to change it to numerals. See also disambiguations for Volume 1 and Phase 1 AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I have often seen "volume" capitalized. I think comparing the phases to seasons might be a mistake. This is a concept which covers films (and soon TV series) from different franchises within the MCU and is not used anywhere else this way. As for "one/two/three" v. "1/2/3", the official box setts released by Disney uses the written out words.★Trekker (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to use Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One or Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One: Avengers Assembled then that will refer specifically to the boxset rather than to the phase of films in general. Is that how you want to split the article? Example use in 2013 [27] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm just saying branding wise it seems Marvel/Disney uses "One" and not "1".★Trekker (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Branding, logos and stylizing don't represent the official name... especially if the same company continues to use the terms interchangeably in official releases. And besides, a lot of shows use "Season One" on DVD covers too. For example: Riverdale Season Three, Brooklyn Nine-Nine Season Six etc. That doesn't mean we should change season 3 of Riverdale to "Season Three (Riverdale)" because that's what that DVD happens to say. Also, most of Marvel and Disney's official releases just use "Phase 3", "Phase 1". Even Walt Disney Studios press releases use that like this. If it were a formal name, they would keep it consistent. Releasing products in phases is a very common concept in almost every organization. Just because Marvel's product happens to be movies (and no one else had used phases for movies) doesn't make it a proper noun or even an original idea. Starforce13 22:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair, I personally can't cite any notable cases of "phase...." etc being used so commonly for any production, maybe you do. As for branding, I think branding does matter to an extent, the cover of a product is about as "official release" as something gets. But again, fair if Disney uses "Phase 1" more than "Phase One", then we likley should use "Phase 1" then.
But, with that said, I think a name like Marvel Cinematic Universe (phase 1) looks clunky and doesn't put the main subject of the article on focus enough at all, which is the phase itself. I would prefer Phase 1 (Marvel Cinematic Universe) since that uses the number and puts the phase as the main subject.★Trekker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I just think that sense we've used "Phase One", "Phase Two", "Phase Three", and "Phase Four" for the longest time and those are the current names that we use, why don't we just continue to use those as the main titles of the pages with "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" at the end since it is the Phases that people would be looking for. It just seems simpler to have it this way and any other ulterior ways would be left as redirects just in case they are to be used. At Marvel Studios' SDCC panels for 2014 and 2019, they've used the words "Phase Three" and "Phase Four" for the logos of the phases, and even the box sets use "Phase One" and "Phase Two". If it's the style that Marvel Studios uses for the marketing, then, I see nothing wrong with using it as such here for the articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with this a lot, but in this case a lot of people are not so sure, so we might need to compromise, I think for me it is:
  1. Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
  2. Phase 1 (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
  3. Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One)
  4. Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase 1)
In that order.★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I think Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe), etc. is fine as long as there are redirects for the other version(s). Also I think it's best to have the word written out and not the number. As recently as comic con it was written as Phase Four when the slate was announced. -- Zoo (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. - Brojam (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Neither “Phase One” nor “Phase I” nor “Phase 1” is more correct than the other because they’re just descriptors. It’s just a matter of naming convention because at the end of the day, they’re not formal names or proper nouns. They’re basic breakdowns. And the fact that we used Phases for subheadings, doesn’t mean it becomes the main heading for a sub article after breakdown. In the same sense, a show starts with season headings and then gets broken down as the seasons increase. Just because the headings used to say “Season 1” and people looking for season 1 doesn’t mean the new page would be “Season 1 (Show Name)”. And yes, most companies release products and implement projects in phases. And movies are products. Maybe expand your knowledge a little beyond movies to learn about how companies work, how products are released and projects implemented.

Also, for consistency with similar situations when a movie franchise is broken into groups, take a look at Star Wars. We say “Star Wars prequel trilogy”, not “Prequel Trilogy (Star Wars”. The franchise name comes first, not the subgroup. This is the exact same situation except Marvel releases more than 3 movies in each group and chooses to call the groups something different. If DCEU decided to group their movies and called each group “chapter” or “volume” or even “season” - it doesn’t mean we should now start saying “Season One (DCEU)”. Yet, it’s a very likely situation that other franchises besides Marvel, Star Wars will start doing the subgroups too. The only difference is that the subgroups may not be referred to as “phases.” Likewise, when Marvel started using saga, Star War started doing the same. If we had acted as if saga is a Marvel original idea, we end up with a very narrow-minded structure that doesn’t work for other franchises. Think big picture - something that would work in all similar situations - and stop limiting your thinking to a narrow-minded point of view as if MCU is the only thing that exists. One thing that makes Wikipedia work great is standardizing format for similar situations.

For a compromise, we all agree that the full name of the subject is “Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One” or “Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe” since that’s how people would say it and it says everything... and doesn’t need debate over what goes in the parentheses. So, why don’t we just call it “Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One”? (it’s complete, short and precise) Starforce13 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Because it doesn't really solve any of the issues we're having right now and doesn't put the phases first, which are the main focus. (It also looks terrible.) Also, feel free to mention a case there the phases are notable for another production.★Trekker (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
1) I said "product" release and "project" implementation not "production." Production is the making of a product. A movie is a product. If you are not familiar at all with how organization work, you can just google things like "product phases", "software phases", "development phases", "project phases", "research phases", "medicine phases", "experiment phases" etc. If you search news for phrases like "released in phases", "implemented in phases" etc, you will see there's always lots of stories of different companies doing/grouping things in phases. It's not a Marvel original idea.
2) What is the actual advantage of having a phase first? Having a phase first doesn't save you from the need to pipe the link and doesn't make it any easier for search since redirects take care of that. I don't have a problem with "Phase" coming first as long as the main key word which is MCU doesn't get pushed to the paranthesis as a descriptor. If starting with "Phase One" is important, then "Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe" is the grammatically correct title.
3) Star Wars original trilogy doesn't look ugly to me. What would look ugly is "Original Trilogy (Star Wars)." IMO, titles with paranthesis look uglier than straight up titles. Those are personal preferences. Below are some of my pro-cons for Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One:
Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
PRO - Can be linked directly without piping or redirect. eg. "Far From Home is the last film of Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase Three". CON - Will always require piping or redirect even when the phase is the intended display text.
PRO - Naming convention. Existing franchise breakdowns begin with the franchise name. E.g "Star Wars original trilogy, "TV Show (seaon 1). CON - No existing franchise starts with the group/part before the franchise name.
PRO - Page name is the full name of the subject. CON - It's not the actual grammatically correct full name of the subject.
PRO - Exact phrase has been used in branding, box sets etc. CON - Disney has never used "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" in branding.
PRO - Page name doesn't require disambiguation (in parenthesis) CON - Page name requires to add a descriptor for disambiguation.
PRO - SEO optimization. Search engines give priority to the first phrase and deprioritizes anything in parathesis. MCU is the more specific phrase, improving page optimization. CON - Since "phase" is a very common word, the entire article would be deprioritized in search results.
PRO - Format can be standardized for future franchise breakdowns. CON - Format is only specific to MCU even though other franchises have/can break their movies into groups as well.

So, personal preferences aside, and without excuses like "the current drafts begin with phases" or "use redirect" (which works both ways), what are the actual logical pros of using "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" over "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One." So, let's see your pros and cons to determine which title should take priority. Starforce13 14:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the table remotly compeling. I'm going to be honest and say I will not support any alternative that looks like a sentance, it's clunky and there's a reason Wikipedia avoids it most of the time. We don't say "Season 1 of insert TV series". You still refuse to name a single actually notable example of a company using pahses this way, saying "it is this way" isn't compeling.★Trekker (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree with @*Treker:. Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is the better option IMO. --Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 14:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
1) Let's agree to disagree that the concept of grouping movies and using phases is exclusive to MCU. We'll have this debate soon when another franchise does the same and uses phases/chapters/volumes or whatever in the next few years. Since Marvel was the first to use "cinematic universes" in movies, I'm guessing you would have preferred "Cinematic Universe (Marvel)" too instead of Marvel Cinematic Universe? 2) "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" is not a sentence. A sentence has a verb. So, that argument is invalid. 3) If the problem is using "something of something"... that's literally the format used in this page. That's why list pages use this format. For example, this page is literally called "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films" not "Film series (Marvel Cinematic Universe)." And when we use paranthesis, the franchise comes first like in "Marvel Cinematic Universe (film series) which redirects here. 4) If the problem is length, we have titles like "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series" where the phrase "Marvel Cinematic Universe television series" is no different from "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One." It's just longer. So, that excuse is invalid too. 5) You can say any version is better but not giving actual reasons why it's better than the other it's not an argument! Starforce13 14:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I wrote "looks like a sentance".★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again those are false equivalencies and Marvel absolutely does use "Phase One" and to lesser extent "Phase 1" as proper nouns. That is the name they came up with, not something we randomly chose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" puts the main content on the page that people would generally be looking for (which is the Phase) at the front, while the franchise "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" should be in the back as that's not what the target page is about. Sure there are pages like "Star Wars prequel trilogy", but that's a trilogy of films with the same title "Star Wars", not a Phase of films with different titles that are under a larger shared universe franchise. I think that Phase One should be put at the front as it is the direct target, and as Starforce13 mentioned grammar specifics about the title, Disney hasn't used "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" on marketing, yes, but they have used "Phase One", so, that should be at the start as that is the main content that people would be looking for. As for your concerns on the search results, people searching for "Phase One" don't really want to find "Marvel Cinematic Universe (film series)", they want "Phase One", which is what they'd be specifically looking for. Since it is the name that has been officially used, it should logically be used at the front of the title. Even though TV series season pages have it as "The Flash (season 1)", those are about a specific continuing franchise, whereas these Phases are about a compilation of interconnected films that are a part of their own shared franchise, but the Phases are what the content is largely about, not the franchise. As for the wording and linking of the Phases on pages, it can easily work like this: i.e. Far From Home is the last film of Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe; linking to both pages properly. As for your argument that this format is only specific to the MCU even though other franchises have the potential to do something like this in the future, no ther franchise has done such a thing yet, so, there is no need to be concerned about that, especially since "Phase One" is an official term used by Marvel Studios on their marketing and at convention panels. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm querying the folks at WT:TITLE and WT:DAB AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I also invited WT:FILM.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
People looking for Riverdale season 1 are also interested in the season. So, that argument is invalid. Calling it proper noun is also invalid because it's just a phase/step/group and the phrasing is used interchangeably. Like I said, actual proper nouns like Capital One can't have "One", "1" and "I" used interchangeably. This is just a naming convention we're using. I said, you can't link directly WITHOUT PIPING or redirects. The example you gave of [[Phase Three (Marvel Cinematic Universe)|Phase Three]] literally uses piping. If there's a correct version of a page title that doesn't require piping or disambiguation in parenthesis, then it should be preferred over a version that always requires piping. In WP:NOTBROKE, it's recommended that if you have to always use a redirect, then it's worth considering changing the page name.... unless when doing it for disambiguation where there are no other suitable titles or to match an existing naming convention/standard like The Flash (season 1). Yes, we need input from people looking at it from an objective point of view that isn't MCU-biased, and people who understand the need for Wikipedia standardization.Starforce13 16:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Lets do some easy elimination. The current article sections use a word for the phase number and not a number, which means that "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 1", "Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase 1)", "MCU Phase 1", "Marvel Phase 1" and "Phase 1 (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" are out. Next, article titles are not usually abbreviated, even less so when we are talking about a sub-page of a page which itself is using the full name. This means "MCU Phase One" is out. Next, the article in question deals with the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" and not "Marvel" in general, which means "Marvel Phase One" is out. This leaves either "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" or "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)". Following WP:NATURALDIS, I'd say that "Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" would be the most correct title, but isn't given as an option above. I'm a bit hesitant about "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)", but for now, one of the two options I didn't eliminate are ok with me. --Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! And in fact WP:NATURALDIS point 3 specifically states "Parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." That's the exact case here. We have "Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe" and "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" which work fine without the need for disambiguating term. So to summarize, these are the remaining options:
  1. Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe - passes the WP:NATURALDIS policy, recommended in #4
  2. Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One - passes policy
  3. Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One) - doesn't pass the policy #3, but could work if applying TV season naming structure
  4. Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - doesn't pass the policy #3, doesn't match any existing naming convention.
I rest my case. Starforce13 20:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
So, the final options that require a consensus are "Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe", "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)", "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One", and "Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One)". I think that "Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" and "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" are fairly similar and can be used interchangeably, so, I would prefer either two, although, I must add that it has never been marketed as "Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe", it's only been officially marketed as "Phase One". I'm more hesitant on "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" and "Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One)" as that still puts the intended target at the end, but, the latter is in the same format as done with TV seasons, although it hasn't been agreed on by other editors here, as "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" seems to have the most support for the naming per this discussion. The former seems to flow like an improper sentence and I don't see how that wording would fit in pages for linking without displaying it as something else, as it would read as this: i.e. Far From Home is the last film in the [[Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One]]. That just feels off putting and improper grammatically with how pages are supposed to be titled, which is why the "Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" option sounds better grammatically and for linking wise, but, that's still not the official name as I've stated before.
In regards to this, we have to reach a consensus on the naming of the pages before they are moved to the namespace. The current redirects and drafts commonly used in Wikipedia have been "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" and seeing how this is a unique case that is similar to but not on par with stuff like TV seasons or franchise trilogies, I think we should consider these 4 options thoroughly if we are to move on from here. As a side note, wouldn't "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" be the WP:COMMONNAME used by most people, considering that that is what's been linked to on these pages for the longest time now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies take priority over personal preferences. That's why they exist for situations like this. And the policy is that if there's a qualifying name that doesn't require disambiguating parenthesis, then use that. Second, just because "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is the link someone created doesn't mean it's the WP:COMMONNAME - especially if it was created by the same person presenting the options and not based on any wikipedia policies, guidelines or consensus. That's just circular logic which doesn't pass the smoke test. That redirect has only been visited by only 5 accounts - which is definitely just the peple discussing the titles here. A redirect doesn't qualify as the common name. You can have a billion redirects. That doesn't make them all WP:COMMONNAME. Third, if you were to talk marketing, Disney doesn't market it as just "Phase One" either, they use the full "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One." Nevertheless, this isn't a marketing platform. You won't see Disney use "Phase One" used out of context and somehow be expected to know that it's talking about MCU. Once again, it's policy over preferences or popularity.Starforce13 21:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm going with option #2 Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One with option #4 Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as a redirect to be added to the Phase 1 (disambiguation) page. Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One) would be like having Friday the 13th (Part 2) instead of Friday the 13th Part 2 and the films themselves aren't referred to with the disambiguated name. For example, "We're going to see the Phase One film Iron Man tomorrow", is not something someone would say, but "We're going to see the Jessica Jones season 2 episode 'AKA the Octopus'" is natural. If someone wants Marvel Cinematic Universe, they will just look for that and not ask which phase. Given that there is a boxset called Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One, this would help attract those redirects. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to go with "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" we should separate the terms with a colon. All searches put it as "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Number". To be clear, I'd prefer either "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" or "Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One)" over that option. El Millo (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" is an acceptable format too. I'm fine with any of the other remaining options too except "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" because it violates all the related Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Starforce13 22:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One or Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I vote for not having to use parentheses if we don't absolutely have to. -- Zoo (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" as it is a stylistic change not supported by any source. Also it’s funny how some people seem to support "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" and at the same time argue it’s not a proper noun. If it’s not a proper noun then the correct format would be "Marvel Cinematic Universe phase one". Fact is most authoritative sources on the subject use the capitalization, meaning it is indeed a proper noun. Therefore, the only two correct options would be "Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" or "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe". The latter of which is more preferable per WP:COMMONNAME.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with TriipleThreat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" doesn't pass any criteria for WP:COMMONNAME. Since it uses paranthetical disambiguation, it doesn't even pass Naturalness criteria, let alone WP:COMMONNAME. And circular logic like "that's the only name used in draft" and it's pending redirect doesn't hold water.
  2. Per WP:NCDAB, which gives priority to proper noun, "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is the non-debatable proper noun. "Phase One" is not. And actually, all the top reliable sources and Disney itself mostly use "Phase 1" or at least interchangeably. So, that's a baseless argument. It's all a matter of naming convention/preference, none is wrong, none is right. For real proper nouns like Capital One, there's a correct and wrong way.
  3. "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" is acceptable because the phase is used with a proper noun to form a name clause. For example, "cinematic universe" by itself isn't a proper noun, but when used with Marvel to form one name, it becomes capitalized. That's basic capitalization grammar. Whether we use "Phase One", "phase 1" or "phase one", I personally don't care which one we use because it's just a matter of convention. Neither of them is the official name. So, that's irrelevant to the discussion.
  4. Bottom line is, "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" fails every policy, guideline and naming criteria. On the other hand, "Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe" and "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" passes all the policies. If the other titles are correct and pass all the policies, why is it necessarily to insist on the problematic title? On which Wikipedia policy grounds would anyone of sound mind and unbiased opinion choose it over the rest? Starforce13 23:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see how exactly you can claim that "Phase One" can't be the common name.★Trekker (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A WP:COMMONNAME argument would kick in if the full page name was going to be exactly "Phase One" and passed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but it's not, it gets kicked to paranthetical disambiguation stage. Once you start considering paranthetical disambiguation like you are in this case, that's when you ask yourself if there's another suitable title that works. In this case, we have alternate titles that aren't incorrect. If they were incorrect or violated another policy, that's when you proceed to paranthetical disambiguation. In that case, the non-debatable proper noun would take priority over descriptors, types etc. "Phase One" or "Phase 1" etc are very debatable.

Besides, all the Marvel's official pages for the phases like this actually consistently use "Phase 1 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" in the text and the page titles use "Marvel Phase 1 | Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase 1" - That is, in all cases, MCU takes priority over phase name even in a Marvel site where it should be obvious. And when Phase comes first they use "Phase 1 of." Since that's the only official Disney/Marvel listing of the phases, it should take weight. Starforce13 00:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, that Marvel.com link is hardly the only official mntion of phases we have. As far as I'm concerned the box sets that get sold have far more weight.★Trekker (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
An alternative could be "Marvel Phase One" or "Marvel Phase 1" according to the title in the tab of that Marvel.com link. El Millo (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Technically, the Marvel site uses both "Marvel Phase 1" and "Phase 1 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" - one before and one after the "|". I'd go with the latter since it's more descriptive. But I don't have any preference over "One" or "1". My only argument is that "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is incorrect. If you go by the box sets Trekker provided, then they use "Marvel Studios Cinematic Universe Phase One" which still doesn't support "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" format and adds "Studios". So, box sets are a null argument. I'm saying "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is incorrect because it violates WP:NCDAB, WP:NATURALDIS, WP:CRITERIA and therefore, it isn't even qualified to be considered for WP:COMMONNAME. Since "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is a paranthetical disambiguation, I really urge everyone to read especially WP:NCDAB policy which addresses that naming convention and criteria for the words that go in paranthesis. This debate would be more productive if people understood (or respected) the established policies. Starforce13 01:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Those are even worse. They're super ambigious.★Trekker (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the box set titles are horrible. The point I was making is that you can’t use them to justify “Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)” format. You can use them to argue for “Phase One” over “Phase 1” but I don’t have any preference on that. Starforce13 01:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No. That's not at all what I mean. I mean that "Marvel Phase One" is about the worst option there is.★Trekker (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────────────────────────I don't think "Marvel Phase One" is ambiguous. I have no knowledge of anything else related to Marvel that's referred to with the word "Phase". It's short, it doesn't have parenthesis, it's more searched than "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One". According to Google Trends, when comparing "Marvel Phase Three" and "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three", in almost every case the first option is the most searched. I think it's a compromise we can all agree on. El Millo (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No one ever calls it just "Marvel Phase _", it's the worst possible option. We're pretty much picking an obscurre version for the sake of being short if we pick that one.★Trekker (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with El Millo that those options should be considered too. In fact, one of the criteria for determining WP:COMMONNAME is to use search engines to determine what phrase people use the most. I personally prefer to include "Marvel Cinematic Universe" in the title because it's the more specific (WP:PRECISE), but those options are valid too and meet most, if not all, naming policies unlike "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" which fails all the policies.Starforce13 02:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I also think "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" is more precise and that it is supported by reliable sources, unlike what TriiipleThreat said. That was the only claim against this title, I believe. El Millo (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, 100%. Starforce13 03:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please provide those reliable sources that commonly punctuate the title with a colon.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry TriiipleThreat, I meant that it's used by other sources and pretty much interchangeably with the version without a colon, i.e. "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One". El Millo (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────Ok, so to wrap this up, after invoking Wikipedia title policies – WP:NCDAB, WP:NATURALDIS, WP:CRITERIA, WP:PRECISE – and assuming "Phase One" naming convention, below are the remaining valid titles. To re-add an eliminated title or remove one of these, please be have the decency to list all the Wikipedia policies to support your case. (Remember, WP:COMMONNAME considers the entire title, not just part of the name... and it must also qualify as WP:PRECISE (contain both "Marvel Cinematic Universe" and "Phase One")... and needs evidence). Otherwise, please vote on the following remaining titles:

  • Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One - if we treat it as a subtitle, part of series (ref: MLA, Library of Congress, WP:SUBTITLE)
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One) - if we use TV season naming convention
  • Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe
  • Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

My vote is Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One because it's the shortest version that meets all the policies. Thank you. Starforce13 13:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm more lenient on "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" as, with what was mentioned before, inserting the colon is the proper format for such a title. Everything else mentioned can easily be a redirect. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I think after all the discussion and the choices listed, Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One is my official vote. -- Zoo (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I can also be counted as a vote for "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" as well since that's also one of my top choices. Starforce13 17:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

When has the name "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" ever been used? That option is neither the official name nor the common name. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We're just looking for consensus based on the remaining list of valid titles. You can vote for something else from that final list. Starforce13 22:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
adamstom97, Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One is used for the boxsets, so that would be my vote. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I would support using "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" as the official name and "Phase One" as the common name, with the page called "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" since the page should follow common name but will need the disambig. Perhaps a more formal vote or RfC will help come to a consensus here? As it is the discussion is very long and hard to follow. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Done, see below.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments[edit]

It has recently been decided to split this article per WP:SIZE. Editors have already created several drafts by splitting the article by phase (ex. Draft:Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)). However, there is disagreement on what these new pages should be titled. Some have suggested Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) per WP:COMMONNAME (as seen here). Some have suggested Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One, based on the cover art of the box set, or Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One with a colon inserted for legibility. Others have suggested the more formal Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe per WP:NATURALDIS and Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One) by adopting WP:TV naming conventions for television seasons. Other suggestions include Marvel Phase One and MCU Phase One.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is my preferred option, per COMMONNAME, with "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" acknowledged as an "official" title from the home media release within the article unless there is strong opposition to that title. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • My vote is "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" or "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" if we treat it as a subtitle, part of a series, or go by DVDs. Since "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is not a natural title but a parenthetical disambiguation, it fails WP:NATURALDIS, WP:NCDAB, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. Therefore it’s unqualified and violates Wikipedia policy. For it to pass WP:COMMONNAME, it has to pass the above criteria; you must also provide statistical evidence showing that “Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)” is more commonly used than the other options. The link provided to justify WP:COMMONNAME is misleading because it doesn’t have “Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe).” If anything, Marvel.com commonly uses "Phase 1 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" as seen on the individual phase pages like here, here and here. Remember, common name applies to the entire title, not part of the title. So, you can’t use that rule for “Phase One” or for just “Marvel Cinematic Universe” because without both phrases it doesn’t even pass WP:PRECISE. If you don’t understand the policies, please read them. Starforce13 12:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My preferred option is Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) but I would be okay with Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One too. --Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 12:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
My vote is "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" as the page title while using "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One" as a redirect and official title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
My vote is Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One as it has been used before for the official boxsets. I'm fine with all the other options listed to be used as redirects. -- Zoo (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My vote is for Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) with the others as redirects. - Brojam (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Please, if you vote for a title that violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines like "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)", as explained above, please be respectful and have the decency to explain why we should throw out policies and established naming conventions to insist on the problematic title when there are many suitable alternatives. (The WP:COMMONNAME claim is incorrect as explained above - unless you provide indisputable statistical evidence, research to support "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" as most commonly used over all the other options.) Policies, logic and existing conventions before personal preferences. Starforce13 18:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Muddying the water with claims of violating policy is unnecessary. Especially when it doesn't take much research to confirm that the majority of times the phases are discussed by Marvel, commentators, and fans the term used is simply "Phase One" and not "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One", which is what makes that the COMMONNAME. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Using policies to help make decisions like these is not muddying. That's why they exist. If you don't understand the policies, please read them thoroughly. Otherwise everyone would just do their own thing and claim it's more popular. "Phase One" is not the same as "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)"; and "Phase One" alone is not even WP:PRECISE. It wouldn't make any sense out of context. You will NEVER see "Phase One" used alone out of context on a page or item that doesn't mention "Marvel Cinematic Universe" but you will see "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One" or "Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe." If a name can't make sense out of context, that's how you know it's not WP:PRECISE. "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is a parenthetical disambiguation - not a WP:NATURAL title and fails WP:NCDAB. Also, if it doesn't take much research to prove "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is more popular or "Phase One" is more commonly used without "Marvel Cinematic Universe" in context, please provide us with that statistical evidence. Otherwise, don't make false claims. Starforce13 20:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I haven't made any false claims, and I know the policies. None of them support your position, as they all merely provide guidelines on what options are preferable or generally acceptable. The final decision on what one we go with is down to consensus, which is why I asked for this formal RfC. You have made your position clear, so now I suggest you wait to see what others feel instead of trying to turn this into another big, convoluted discussion like above (which would defeat the whole point of having this more streamlined section in the first place). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm not saying policies should be adhered to blindly. I'm saying if we make exceptions to ignore them, we should have a solid argument based on facts or existing naming conventions and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Otherwise, any group of editors can just agree to violate even the most sensitive policies because we'd be turning it into a popularity contest. I would be glad to hear how the policies I invoked like WP:NCDAB, WP:NATURALDIS, WP:CRITERIA, WP:PRECISE etc don't support my argument to disqualify "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)". That would help your case better. Starforce13 21:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) per WP:COMMONAME. While reliable sources may use other titles interchangeably including "Phase 1", "Phase One" does seem to be the most common usage. Also while Phase One may not be precise enough by itself, the disambiguation does add the necessary precision per WP:ATDAB. It is preposterous to claim that common names cannot be disambiguated. In fact, we do this all the time. For example, the common name for Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope is simply "Star Wars" but since there are other topics called Star Wars, we added the disambiguation "(film)" to distinguish it from the other topics. Star Wars (film) uses the common name and is precise enough for readers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One as per the boxset and per natural disambiguation like Toyota Corolla and Toyota 4Runner. Also similar branding of film series like The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 which goes by Breaking Dawn - Part 1 or The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers which goes by The Two Towers (film). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Star Wars was renamed to include episode number and subtitle many years later. Just like "phases" were added later on. Everything that came after that uses the subtitle structure, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" not "Episode IX (Star Wars)". Type disambiguations like "Star Wars (film)" are used where the primary name "Star Wars" would otherwise be WP:PRECISE if not for existing pages. Star Wars alone makes sense out of context. "Phase One" on the other hand needs MCU/Marvel Cinematic Universe to be complete. Without MCU context, "Phase One" is a very common day to day term used for lots of different things and hence not WP:PRECISE enough to be WP:COMMONNAME. Also, disambiguating phrases are usually types like "person", "company", "film", "channel", etc not proper nouns like "Marvel Cinematic Universe" unless there's absolute need for exceptions - WP:NCDAB: #1) Natural disambiguation: When there is another term or more complete name that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. - We have plenty of other suitable, natural titles. If we had no other options, we go to #3) Parenthetical disambiguation: A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) - "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is a proper noun. Starforce13 18:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home in Infinity Saga[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about whether Spider-Man: Far From Home is in Infinity Saga. The original articles used "22" films because it hadn't been revealed that Spider-Man: Far From Home is in Phase III, which is part of Infinity Saga. All the 23 movies in Phase 1 - 3 are in Infinity Saga unless otherwise confirmed by Marvel Studios. Please don't use outdated articles to justify excluding Spider-Man: Far From Home from the saga. They were published before Kevin Feige officially revealed that Spider-Man FFH is the one that closes this chapter. this article seems to get it right. Starforce13 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference, we now have official confirmation that Far From Home is the conclusion to Infinity Saga as well: (link) Starforce13 00:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Add Valkyrie in Recurring Characters[edit]

ANSWERED
Needed clarification on recurring character inclusion rules. Starforce13 20:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
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.

I'd suggest adding Valkyrie in the recurring characters list. She was in the billing block on Ragnarok posters and starred in Endgame. She got just as much credit in Endgame as Hope and Hank Pym. That is, they were all in the credits block but left out in posters because spoilers. So why do they and the Collector qualify but not Valkyrie? Starforce13 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The table is for actors that have "appeared in the billing block for at least two of those films". Both Hope and Hank Pym appeared in the billing block for Ant-Man and Ant-Man and the Wasp. Valkyrie only appeared in the billing block for Thor: Ragnarok. El Millo (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought it's appearing on billing blocks for two different franchises. i.e Hank, Hope would need to have been in billing block for Endgame. Personally, I don't like the rule. I think if you're main cast (billing block) in one franchise and appear in another, you should qualify. Starforce13 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The rules are there to restrict the size of the cast list here, as it was getting too long. If you want the full list then you can go to the separate article that has that. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 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.

Shouldn't Far From Home be in the Phase Three list?[edit]

Spider-Man: Far From Home isn't included in the Phase Three section, even though it's part of Phase Three. And this has knock-on effects, like the separate Outline article (which extracts this article's tables) showing it in the wrong place. While the facts are explained if you carefully read the entire article, it's pretty misleading to anyone who doesn't (compounded by the widespread speculation all over the internet that it would be in Phase Four, before the official announcement).

Unfortunately, he obvious solution—moving it to Phase Three—would probably be even worse—there would then be a section for "Upcoming" films that doesn't include the first upcoming film.

I'm not sure if there's a good solution without reorganizing the whole article again. And I suppose the problem will automatically go away on 2 July. But still, I don't think that's a good reason to leave this article and others confusing for weeks. --157.131.246.136 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It will be moved to Phase 3 after it premieres. For now, it remains in the “Upcoming” section. If we start adding movies to phases before they premiere, it would open a whole new can of worms. Starforce13 18:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
See Digital Spy article that calls it Phase 3. [28] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2019[edit]

The second paragraph of the Timeline section begins:

With Marvel no longer trying to complicate their timeline

This should read:

With Marvel trying to no longer complicate their timeline

As written, it implies that during Phase One, Marvel was actively trying to complicate their timeline. That isn't true, and it isn't supported by the linked article. The suggested revision would miss some of the nuance in Feige's statements, but I don't think that's a problem for an encyclopedia article. There are other, possibly better, ways this could be fixed, such as replacing "complicate" with more positive phrasing, or moving the negative ("With Marvel now trying to avoid complicating their timeline"), etc., but I suggested this because it's the smallest change that makes sense. --157.131.246.136 (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2019[edit]

In the "Recurring cast and characters section, Rhodey/War Machine is listed as appearing in the Spider-Man films rather than the Ironman films. Additionally, both Djimon Honsou and Lee Pace (portraying Korath and Ronan the Accuser, respectively) appear in the billing blocks of Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain Marvel. They should, thus, be in the recurring cast section based on the rules set forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1342:40A3:40D5:DA8D:688E:F8D5 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done El Millo (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2019[edit]

Frank Grillo, portraying Brock Rumlow/Crossbones appears in the billing blocks of Winter Soldier and Civil War. He also appears in Endgame. He should, thus, be in the recurring cast section based on the rules set forth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1342:40a3:7469:7459:51f6:d4a9 (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Future Other Projects[edit]

Where are Nova, New Avengers and Thunderbolts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.185.29 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no reliable source to confirm that they are being planned. Starforce13 20:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

X-Men / Mutants Film[edit]

Just a note - Kevin Feige used "Mutants" when referring to the movie at SDCC. Although X-Men and Mutants are often used interchangeably, X-Men usually refers to the specific X-Men team and not necessarily all the mutants. There's no confirmation that the movie will be about the X-Men team. We just know it's about Mutants. We should keep it that way until otherwise confirmed. Starforce13 03:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In this video Feige confirms he used the words/terms 'mutants' and 'X-Men' interchangeably: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dInXtRrqcuw. Although this doesn't 100% confirm that he is talking about an X-Men movie, it's clear that he meant the X-Men by saying 'mutants', in whatever form they'll come to the (big) screen. UnderIrae (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
My issue isnt more that he didn't confirm anything, just stated that there wasn't time to talk about F4 or Mutants.Hackerjack (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The IGN question was whether they won’t do an X-Men titled movie... and after saying they’re interchangeable, he agreed that they won’t do that, they would do something different. So since the term he used is “mutants”, what’s the motivation to change it to X-Men? Put it in another context - if he said he was going to do a Spider-Man movie, and someone asked him if it won’t be about Peter Parker, then he says Peter Parker and Spider-man are interchangeable but proceeds to agree that yes, they’ll be different.... that doesn’t mean the movie would be about Peter Parker. Not all Spider-Men are Peter Parker just like not all mutants are X-Men. Yet, in a lot of contexts, they can be used interchangeably. Doesn’t mean we should change one to whatever term we prefer. Starforce13 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Although most of the press used X-Men in headlines, the actual reliable news sites like Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter used "Mutants" when describing what Feige announced. THR puts it best when it says "and movies about mutants (code for X-Men)." Screenrant and Comicbook.com are fan interpretation and fan theory sites, not actual reliable news sites. When you have to choose between them and reliable news sources like Deadline/THR, go with the latter. Starforce13 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that this should stay posted as "mutants" until a title for the film is actually presented. SassyCollins (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019[edit]

I would like to edit this page because phase 5 movies have been secretly announced by reliable sources and would like to add in Phase 5 Dragon city fanatic (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Your account is nearly autoconfirmed, but please remember that any additions to articles must be verifiable and include citations to reliable, published sources. Unpublished information (whether from reliable sources or not) is not sufficient. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add Phase 5 even after you become autoconfirmed. We don't add things that have been "secretly confirmed" because there's no way to verify secrets. You should only add things that have been officially (and publicly) confirmed by Disney/Marvel.Starforce13 13:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Cast table suggestion[edit]

The cast table obviously continues to grow. Would it therefore be best to split it into Infinity Saga and future? Otherwise it'll continue to get bigger and bigger and harder to interact with. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait until there's enough movies in the next saga to justify the split. There's no need to split the table now when there's only one saga that's complete. Starforce13 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think splitting by Phase may be a better next step. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing article to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Studios properties[edit]

Since it seems like the Disney+ shows will be directly connected to the films, I propose grouping together only the shows produced by Marvel Television, change that article to "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Television properties", and moving the Disney+ shows produced by Marvel Studios to this page and changing the name. TdanTce (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hard oppose We don't even know what these shows will be like, and there is already an article named List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series.★Trekker (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose Yeah...that's a bad idea. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose - The Disney+ shows are for the List MCU tv series page. It doesn’t matter if they come from Marvel Studios or Marvel Television. FYI, the articles are about what’s in MCU, not what Marvel Studios produced. And for that, we split by TV vs films. Clean and straightforward. Starforce13 11:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose — That would be too confusing and we already have List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. --Mazewaxie 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Strong agree Marvel Studios presents these shows as being part of their phase four, unlike the Marvel TV shows. They also present these shows as heavily interconnected with their movies, unlike the Marvel TV stuff. So, indeed, it's a very good idea. Currently, it's quite strange to list phase four here, without half the projects it consists of and which form its continuity. There's a hard line between the Marvel TV stuff and the Marvel Studios stuff, visible among other thing in Marvel Studios' division in phases, and (as we'll see in the future, and as Feige has said multiple times) in its interconnectedness and two-way influence. Frankly, you'd only have to look at Marvel Studios' announcement of phase four to see it's a pretty obvious grouping: they themselves present their Disney+ shows and their movies in the exact same way, as being on the same level, part of the same phase, and grouped together apart from all the other Marvel Entertainment stuff. UnderIrae (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
We’re not listing Phase 4 MCU content. It’s for Phase 4 films. Also, TV shows can belong to multiple phases depending on the season. That would create a maintenance nightmare. And technically, AoS season 1 & 2 are part of MCU phase 2 because it was directly affected by Winter Soldier. Agent Carter’s version of JARVIS showed up in Endgame. Yes, I get that the Marvel Television shows aren’t as connected to the movies. But at the end of the day, it’s canon that they’re connected. Trying to argue based on how one is more connected than the other is just politics. Starforce13 12:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not politics at all. When the phases are presented, Marvel TV stuff is never included (because the phases are a Marvel Studios thing). The presentation at SDCC 2019 confirmed that. Marvel Studios stuff is divided in phases and is interconnected, the rest is in a seperate category. And I realize this page lists phase 4 films, that why there is a suggestion to change that. Because it follows from how this media is presented. I don't understand your comment on maintenance: you wouldn't include the TV shows in the phases, because they are never presented as such. You present the Marvel Studios projects together on one page, because they are all Marvel Studios projects. The rest is from a seperate division within Disney. It's pretty straightforward. Presenting all Marvel Studios projects together on one page follows the sources, is a better and more clear presentation of the facts, and makes everything more intelligible. Seperating one Marvel Studios project from the other and grouping it with Marvel Television projects is needlessly confusing. Again, all ten projects presented at SDCC 2019 were presented as belonging together, as being the only content that forms phase 4 (as said by Feige, which means that no Marvel Television show is part of that), and as interconnected. I understand people still want to keep the 'canon' and the broader MCU together, but it isn't really feasible anymore. It makes way more sense to group the Marvel Studios projects together, and the Marvel Television projects together. UnderIrae (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The list is already 419 kB and growing. It's on Special:LongPages and could soon top it with films alone. We should definitely not expand the scope with material belonging naturally in other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Have to disagree strongly with 'Belonging naturally in other articles'. All projects by Marvel Studios are presented as belonging together, made very explicit in multiple ways at SDCC 2019. The article being too long could be solved by cutting out other stuff, such as as the recurring characters list. However that may be, length is a different discussion altogether. It's a bit odd to counter the sources themselves by artificially separating Marvel Studios' output. UnderIrae (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Once again, this is not about Marvel Studios. It's about MCU. If another studio, for whatever reason, produced an MCU movie without Marvel Studios involvement, we would still include it here. And if Marvel Studios produced a non-MCU film, we wouldn't include it. We split Star Wars films and TV shows into different articles despite the fact that they're all produced and presented together by LucasFilm. It's not about the studio. It's about the franchise and type of content. That's how these articles usually work. And by TV shows belonging to different phases by season, there is a chance that some of those Disney+ shows will get renewed for more seasons. Each season will likely reflect whatever the current phase they're on. Trying to mix TV shows with movies messes up with page format especially when the page is already so huge like this one. Starforce13 14:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hard Oppose. This page is for MCU movies, not shows. --Bold Clone 19:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems like this idea doesn't have a lot of traction. Fair enough; I just wanted to bounce the idea off of everyone. Thanks for the input! TdanTce (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hard Oppose - Yeah, no. This page is strictly only for the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel Studios works on those and the Disney+ series, which are still television series in the MCU, so, they belong on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series page along with the other MCU series, just those other ones are from Marvel Television. The companies don't determine where the content goes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Definitely Oppose. I can't possibly foresee why this would be a good idea, they are both two separate pages which are each only going to get bigger in size. Merging the two would be absolutely chaotic and would result in this page being unnecessarily and substantially bigger than it already is. It's a silly idea, but I understand what the user is suggesting (having both together would be convenient, but that's really the only foreseeable benefit that could come out of an idea this hare-brained). But really, there is no urgent need for this page to be any bigger than it already is/will be in future.
Wiki pages could perhaps be made for each Marvel "Phase" if they don't already exist, this is an alternative solution I would like to suggest. – Sean Stephens (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
There are four phase drafts right now. Draft:Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Draft:Phase Two (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Draft:Phase Three (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Draft:Phase Four (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Feel free to work on those everyone.★Trekker (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with separating everything by phases, I do have a few suggestions, though (I am not equipped to make the changes myself). First, I think the recurring characters should have the same or similar criteria as they do here or else it will become too cumbersome. The Recurring Characters page is for having every single recurring character. Second, for Phase Four, I think there should be single table that has all films and TV series in chronological order as opposed to only having them split. Also for Phase Four, the TV series should be included in the recurring characters section. Feldssa95 (talk) 3:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose In the real world context, Marvel Studios' films are still the most noteworthy aspect of the MCU and continue to be considered as a singular "franchise" of sorts. It is way too early to abandon that presentation. However, I do support creating the Phase articles and having one for Phase Four that includes all 10 of the projects announced at Comic-Con. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. While I like the idea of grouping Disney+ shows with the films, I don‘t think, yours is the right solution. i‘d Either give it an extra section here (akin to how a tv-movie would be treated in a list of episodes of a tv-series), Group them all together as „list of MCU media“ or leave as is, at least for now. When the shows are released, and if the Netflix shows get a reboot, we can talk about seriously changing article names.2003:E0:6F01:2999:4D75:717C:F9C8:63E (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Future films?[edit]

Do we have decent sources confirming that the projects for Blade, Fantastic Four, and the X-Men Feige mentioned at Comic-Con are actually films? If not then I think it's a big assumption to make considering he had just finished announcing a slate that included Disney+ shows as well as theatrical films. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This article describes Blade as a feature film. Not sure about the other things you mentioned though. -- Zoo (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2019[edit]

In the "Recurring cast and characters" section, two characters are missing. Frigga has been in both the Thor and Avengers films (and appears in the billing block of Thor and The Dark World). May Parker has been in the Captain America, Spider-Man, and Avengers films (and appears in the billing block of Homecoming and Far From Home). By the stated rules, they should be included in the table.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1011:50f:210a:6acf:2ce1:29f (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This section will be changed soon to be for phases and not film series. So they'll be added then.★Trekker (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Blade film's name?[edit]

Do we know for sure the films title will be only "Blade", Blade is the characters name after all so it's not odd they're refering to it as "the Blade film". Maybe it should say "Untitled Blade film" instead?★Trekker (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's the official film logo. So yes, it's called Blade. --Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 12:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The Infinity Saga, italics, quotation marks or generic?[edit]

There have been some back and forths on this page on if it should be The Infinity Saga, "The Infinity Saga" or The Infinity Saga. Each time the section gets changed the redirect has to be updated to work for the page.★Trekker (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker: How about an {{anchor}}? Provided that stays in the same relative place in the target article, it doesn't matter how the section in the target is named or punctuated. Note that the anchor title should be different from the section title, so call it e.g 'infinitysaga' which will never be used as section title. The redirect The Infinity Saga would be to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#infinitysaga (which currently shows blue but doesn't work because there is no anchor to find). The redirect should be tagged {{R to anchor}}. Narky Blert (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the main issue here is to establish a consensus regarding which style we should use for The Infinity Saga. El Millo (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I vote for NEITHER italics nor quotation marks. The Infinity Saga simply a name that's not an official title for a piece of work/art. Here's my logic:
  1. It doesn't qualify as "major works" like books or films or tv shows that require italics. - MOS:ITALICTITLE
  2. It doesn't qualify for minor works like poems, chapter titles, episode names etc that require quotations. - MOS:QUOTETITLE
  3. It is technically a sub-unit of a franchise - and franchise names don't use italics nor quotes. - MOS:SERIESTITLE
  4. You could also think of it as a higher-level group of phases and we don't and shouldn't use italics or quotes for phases.
  5. Aesthetics - The Infinity Saga just looks cleaner; so unless there's another qualifying or compelling reason to format it differently, we should keep it generic. Starforce13 20:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, anchor sounds like a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It's all about the readers. The first priority is always to get them to the information they want as easily as possible. Stylistic issues in articles, while important (I've lost count of the number of {{cleanup section}} tags I've added for breaches of guidelines like WP:DATELIST and WP:ITALICS, let alone the many more such errors I've fixed silently), are never more than secondary. Narky Blert (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)