Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Characters to add

What about characters like Justin Hammer, Ho Yinsen, Betty Ross, Doc Samson, Samuel Sterns, Jane Foster, Warriors Three, Sif, Odin, Heimdall, Frigga, Bucky, Dum Dum Dugan, Arnim Zola and Peggy Carter?

Happy Hogan is included. So is the computerised JARVIS. Should the other characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caged halo (talk • contribs) 08:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Change?

Why did somebody change it back to the original format? I thought that it looked better when it was based on the Transformers (film series) template. It just seamed easier to read. ONEder Boy (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss changing the template back to the format back to one similar to this. Similar formats are currently used for Transformers and X-Men. --139.168.140.27 (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the unilateral change to the X-Men template in May should be undone. This adds zero to the functionality of the templates. - J Greb (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is not for X-Men template. Discuss that at its talk page. The format on this page would add a significant amount of functionality because each film has a game and a soundtrack unlike X-Men. This helps to identify connections between films and their merchandise. --139.168.140.27 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Right... You bring up the X-Men template as an example of what this template should look like. That is commented upon and you change tact that the X-Men example is irrelevant because the content is so different. OK, we'll set that aside.

Realistically, making a clear linkage between a film, its score, its sound track, and its spin-off game is a function of the film article. Or a reader reading the links in a navbox. Iron Man under the video game group is fairly obviously linked to the film titled Iron Man. In that, the current format works.

The columns though imply that something is "missing" if each one doesn't have a game, or an album, or a soundtrack, or score listed. It also implies that either the "Characters" have/will have appeared in all 6 films or that they should be split up with a section in each column for the character(s) specific to that film. That make tings a bit clunky and redundant - Nick Fury would be repeated 6 times and most of the others at least twice. And then there is expanding this template. Right now its juggling 6 films. The columnar format is a squeezed with that. How bad will it be with work 8 or 9? Accessibility and functionality really take a hit then.

- J Greb (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

Right now the film, game, and soundtrack sections are kind of intuitively in release order. a fair thing to do with them.

But the characters... They're a bit confusing. For the most part they have been in order of first appearance. The "most part" bing that Fury has been listed second a long time though the character didn't appear until after the first film's credits and Cap who just got flipped from 2nd last to 2nd. The intuitive listing is alphabetic or:

Bruce Banner • Clint Barton • Emil Blonsky • Phil Coulson • Jane Foster • Nick Fury • JARVIS • Loki • Odin • Virginia Potts • James Rhodes • Steve Rogers • Natasha Romanoff • Elizabeth Ross • Thaddeus Ross • Johann Schmidt • Obadiah Stane • Howard Stark • Tony Stark • Thor • Ivan Vanko

And that's without adding the few extended cast missing from each movie's cast.

Keep in mind the 'box is not supposed to imply or present a "ranking" system. "Primary", "Secondary", "Hero", "Villain", "Billing", "Number of appearances", "Screen time", etc mean, or should mean, nothing here.

Shall we correct to alphebetic or is there a better schema that does not rely on the reader having seen the films?

- J Greb (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Villains/Antagonists

I feel that we should include a list of villains/antagonists in the template, because casual viewers of the films who don't know much about the comic books are likely to want to read about those characters as much as the stars of the films. I don't care if they are listed as "Villains," "Antagonists," or something else, but they should be included. Spidey104 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should refrain from creating an exhaustive list of characters. One way to neutrally do this without POV concerns is to limit it to recurring characters regardless of being a hero or villain. Also keep in mind that this template is for the Universe as a whole and not any individual film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but how are you determining who is recurring? And why is there two of the Warriors Three linked on here? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If RSs in the main article state they are recurring. We have no RSs stating Hogun is coming back in Thor 2, the other two have been confirmed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To my understanding, this template is to include all recurring characters within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, like Book:Marvel Cinematic Universe, and only that and nothing else. If this is correct then, I have no problem at all with it (the current template showing, that is). Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Recurring heroes and villians should be included, like Loki. Other mentions of one time only impactfull ones like Stane, Hammer, Whiplash/Vanko, HYDRA, Zola, and Schmidtt should be addedd. The Chitauri too. (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

"Impactfull" is entirely based on POV and should be avoided.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest just the mention the Warriors three is fine for me. Reliable source saying that they are recurring characters while being in one movie so far while they both played their roles just as recurringly sounds questionable. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant "recurring" as in appearing in more than one film. Also I dont have a problem with just listing The Warriors Three either.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I watched the Avengers...and I hardly remembered the appearances of the particular Warriors Three on the film. It took until now to go..oh yeah, they were in the film weren't they? lol Even still IMO a minor appearance for me to forget about them being on there. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they traveled with Sif to Nevada, so yeah, I got no gripes with them either. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

FWIW...

I've got a problem with "mentioned" or "flashback montage" being used to justify "recurring". That just doesn't make a recurring character. I'm also not keen on cameos being used for it.

And there is a difference between a character that has appeared in multiple aspects of the MCU and a character that has appeared in one "set" only. I'm more inclined to see templates similar to {{1978–1987 Superman film series}} for the Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America film sets where all of the characters adapted for those films, less the stingers, can be listed. Leaving this template to list the "crossover" characters.

- J Greb (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I kind of feel that way too J Greb. I remember a picture of Jane Foster is in the Avengers movie too but we don't (and shouldn't) count that too. There should probably be a limit. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

With Iron Man being the only movie with a sequel so far that leaves us with only people to appear in The Avengers and Rhodes/War Machine as recurring characters. That basically reduces this to a template for only The Avengers. The template as I had it was not extensive and barely larger than it is now.

Joe's comment about the villains being "impactful" may not be a neutral point of view, but it still addresses the need for templates to cover the topics readers are most likely looking for. Spidey104 13:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While I don't have problem with putting it's own antagonists in the navbox. I think Ivan Vanko brings the biggest problem. First off why is he just on Whiplash (comics) when he is a amalgamation of two villains not just Whiplash. I personally think he needs to be redirected to Iron Man 2 for that reason unless he can be proved to be a notable alter-ego character like Phil Coulson. Either way a link to a section is unacceptable. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 have already begun casting, so the inclusion of characters confirmed to appear in those films are fair game so long as the appear in previous films. And keep in mind we're not just talking about the template today but also setting precedent for the future. These lists are sure to grow, its better to start reigning it in now. Also allowing POV judgements calls will undoubtedly open a can of worms, about the "impactfullness" of individual characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I don't think Iron Man 3 or Thor 2 will make it too long yet. But it will happen sometime. I don't doubt it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Another option would be to limit it to starring roles as credited on film posters and such. This method would probably included more villains.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That and if they got articles. Because Thor has got a few original idea characters. One even reprising his role in Avengers. I think antagonists and love interests are a little important for the particular films but the whole film universe...maybe. Especially when deuteragonist returning in sequels like Pepper Potts and Iron Man's sidekick Rhodey. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat's idea to use "starring roles as credited on film posters and such" for who should be included for the template. For example, that would get Jeff Bridges characters in Iron Man to finally be included on this template as he justly deserves.

I disagree about Mickey Rourke's character not being included since he is a semi-unique character to the film as he is an amalgamation of two comic book characters and therefore will not have an article devote to just him, but I can live with his exclusion as long as other villains/protagonists are included. Spidey104 15:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he shouldn't be on there. I would think it be cool that he would be on here. Just linking to a section is not what you do on a navbox...and I am not sure why Whiplash (comics) is chosen over Crimson Dynamo if he is a mix over both. You got me now Spidey104? :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your problem now. Whiplash (comics) and Crimson Dynamo both have similar sections in their "Film" section that talks about how the character is an amalgamation of both of them, so it really could link to either article. I don't know how to fix that problem since this amalgamation of characters for the one movie is probably not notable enough to warrant its own article and it wouldn't really work to link to two articles for one character. Spidey104 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Chitauri

The Chitauri should be in this template. The Chitauri article was split from the Skrull article because of their presence in The Avengers, and this template primarily exists because of the cross-connections that are solidified via The Avengers. You cannot deny that their presence is notable within that movie, and isn't notability why things are included in the related templates? Kurt Parker (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with TriiipleThreat about the Chitauri not being included. I hate to sound like a broken record but readers want to know about the Chitauri. As the resident comic book expert for all of my friends and family I always get questions when people see comic book films, and I am getting tired of answering questions about the Chitauri. It is clearly a topic that people want to know about, so it should be included. Spidey104 15:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. We do not provide links to every aspect of each indiviual film including The Avengers. If you notice there are no links to groups, locations, objects, etc. No links to Asgard (comics), Captain America's shield, Giants (Marvel Comics), HYDRA, Iron Man's Armor, Mjolnir (comics), Stark Tower, etc. Extensively long navboxes do not help the reader. Navboxes should direct them to the main topics on a subject and from there they can navigate to more precise topics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is asking to make this an exhaustive list. HYDRA probably could be included, but for the rest of the list you're making a straw man argument by listing all of these topics that could be included in the template, but no one is asking for them to be included.

I feel this is a similar argument to the one I started above about including the villains in the template because of how important they are to the films, but in this case HYDRA and Chitauri really cannot listed as starring roles on posters and such since they are armies. But just because they are not starring characters does not make them any less important. Adding two important links is not going to make this template explodes in size. And don't use the slippery slope argument in response to that comment; there are no other armies in the films that I could justify adding under what I have stated. Spidey104 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Slippery slope is exactly what we're trying to avoid by curbing fan cruft. One could argue the Frost Giants are more "important" to Thor than the Chitauri are to The Avengers. Feige even stated the race of the aliens is not impactful. But again the scope of this template is the universe as a whole not any particular film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Colm Feore as Laufey would be listed as starring, so to it would basically be duplication to list the Frost Giants and Laufey, so no farther down the slope has the template slipped.

Your argument for scope being the universe as a whole would mean that we should remove everything except the list of films and list of recurring characters. Everything else does not meet your scope argument and then the template would be reduced to a scrap that is not worthy of being a full template. Spidey104 16:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the soundtracks and video games :) --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's my point. It is normal for templates for film series to include links to soundtracks and video games, but your comment implies that they should be removed. Spidey104 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the music is as much apart of the universe as the films, and the video games are directly derived from the universe. They are tiered much higher then the Chitauri, which is to say a part of a part. I am almost inclined to get rid of the recurring characters as well, and keep the template grounded in the real world and avoid the in-universe perspective all together as we should.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually would support that, because it would end this (and any future) discussions about what characters should be included or not. I would be fine if the template removed all links to characters; the articles about the films themselves will have those links if people click there. Spidey104 21:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe we should propose this instead. And we can still provide a link List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members in the related articles section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this either. Except for Phil Coulson he counts as a related article because he originated in this universe. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I believe this is the way to go. I mean do we really need a link to Iron Man when there are three movies named after him and the primary topic in those articles are the comic book version, not their film counterparts. I'll go ahead an make the bold change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the change has already been made and it appears consensus supports this so I am not going to try and change it, but for the record I am going to state that I am still against the change that removed links to any/all characters in the movies. (My reasons for opposing it are stated above.) Kurt Parker (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I categorically deny that their presence was notable in The Avengers. They're a vague background threat until the end, when they're less vague cannon fodder. There is no gain or need to include them in the template. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

They are the climax of the movie and after Thanos (who should not be in the template because of the tease/cameo nature of his appearance) the most common thing people are curious to learn more about. How is that not notable? Kurt Parker (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Loki is the climax of the film, you could replace the Chitauri with bags of rice, who and what they are is completely unimportant to the the film or the understanding thereof.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Loki is part of the climax with the Chitauri. They spent more time fighting the Chitauri than they did Loki. Kurt Parker (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying they spent more time breathing Oxygen than they did fighting Loki.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just letting everyone know that I've reported this Brian82027 fellow and his constant addition of non-articles to the template to WP:AN/EW over here. Thanks. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The tie-in content

Why are these treated as equals to the films? The franchise, as developed, is a series of films, which is now expanding into television. The video games and soundtracks are comparatively minor, not only in terms of the development of the franchise, but in terms of interested readership. Doesn't it make more sense to note they exist as a tie-in product next to each film? Instead of including the full title of each in such a way that a quick glance would lead to the impression that they are vital, rather than relatively minor tie-ins to their major counterparts? -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

With the soundtracks I would agree, at least if they don't get folded back into the film articles.

As for the games... That I'm not so sure about. Based on the articles, two of them - Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk - appear to be "play the movie", three are expansions on the franchise, and one - Marvel Avengers: Battle for Earth - looks like it's a standard Marvel U game. If all of them fell into the first category, I'd agree that they should be listed as "(video game)" after the films. As it stand, at least some of them are as valid an expansion as the proposed TV shows.

- J Greb (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and fold the scores/soundtracks in with their films then, and leave the video games section alone for now. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the video games are not canon and thus not technically part of the MCU. It does make sense that they be listed here, as i don't know where else they would be, but they should not be put on the same level as the films, short films and television series. Perhaps a new page that lists all these games (like the one for the tie-in comics) should be made, which could then be added to the related articles section of the template? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about non-canon, they are official Marvel-licensed products. However similarly to the soundtracks they are just merchandise from the films, so they should be folded in with the films as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Television and Short Films

I feel that the scope of the template should represent the scope of the new MCU page, where the films, television, and short films are all treated equally, whereas here the television and short films links are relegated to 'related articles'. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD episodes

I was thinking of adding the two SHIELD episode pages (Pilot and 0-8-4) to this template, but realised that if other episode pages are created, the template could become too crowded and messy, so decided against it. I would, however, like another opinion, if anyone has one. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary for this template. Both are in the SHIELD template, and should the time come, the List of episodes page will be added here, which is sufficient for this template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Subgroup widths

I changed the television subgroup width to match the film subgroup width, per Template:Navbox subgroup - "If multiple Navbox subgroup templates are used inside of a parent Navbox, it generally looks better if the width of the groups matches up."

Favre1fan93 promptly undid my change, but i still believe that it should be made for consistency within the template and throughout Wikipedia, and i believe that it looks better that way as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind - adamstom97 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Characters

This seems to be an exhaustive list of any character who has made an appeareance in film regardless of importantance. Should this list be cut back, perhaps to recurring characters like in the main article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently the characters of Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig are placed in parenthesis following the film cast page, which makes sense for Selvig, seeing as how he has only appeared in the films, but I don't think it is right for Coulson, who has obviously appeared in multiple mediums, and even outside of the MCU. Does anyone have any thoughts on an alternate arrangement that would be more appropriate considering this? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: This is a 3 year old comment, when the template looked very different than it does now. This was taken care of long ago. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding, which I apologise for. I just added it in this section because it was already called characters, I actually haven't even read or had a look at the previous comment. My query was about the current state of the template, which has the arrangement of Film cast (Phil Coulson * Erik Selvig). I just thought we should take the characters out of the paranthesis seeing as they are not necessarily only film characters. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, you should start new topic for new content, even if they have the same header name. Second, both originated in the films, so their location is fine and justified. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

SHIELD subgroup

@TriiipleThreat: I like the change, though I don't like that it makes the title and episodes bold. If we can have it not do that, I think that would be a good change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Headers are auto-formatted to be in bold but if you feel that strongly about it then revert it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just seems like undue attention to them. I'll see if anyone else has any opinions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying something else, feel free to revert if it doesn't work. Also, I am working on and MCU episodes navbox in case it is decided that we don't want all the episodes here (just an idea). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I restored to the original. The dates are helpful and do serve a purpose. If we have a plan to continue making episode articles, we should resurrect the AoS navbox. Pretty much your sandbox one Adam, but specific to AoS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The AoS navbox was deleted because everything there could easily fit here. Now we are making more episode pages, they don't really fit here, so as soon as we think there are too many here, we can start up something like what is in my sandbox (here is an actual example). That way, we have all the series overview stuff in this navbox, and all season/episode specific stuff in another. If we have season/episode pages for other MCU shows down the track, they can easily just fit in here, and then we wont need to worry about any other navboxes until these two become too big or unmanageable. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Eventually, I see the navbox looking something like this: a subgroup for each television series. I also don't think we should include the individual episodes. It isn't sustainable at the present rate. Credit to adamstom97 BTW, good job on the AoS episode articles. The individual episodes are better suited for a separate navbox. This also eliminates a the need for another tiered subgroup from this navbox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Triiiple. I think this navbox will eventually only need show overview type stuff, basically series page, characters page, episodes page, that sort of thing. When we get to that point, there should be a second navbox that has the rest of the show stuff - season pages, episode pages. I don't think we really need to worry about this now though, we do only have 5 episode pages so far. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding that formatting Triiiple. How, in your opinion, is using a subgroup template different than just using **? Just personally, my eyes are drawn right to that in the template, so I don't know why we can't just leave it as the shows each *, then character list and episode list as ** and the season articles *** off of the episodes. And yes adam, that GoT template is what I am envisioning for the episodes here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: With the bulleted list as it appears now, The series name appears first with subgroups appearing in parenthesis. This is fine until we have sub-subgroups which renders double parenthesis at the end. Technically, the sub-subgroup should be denoted with brackets instead to distinguish the second level tier. It might be small but its still an incorrect use of parenthesis.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Well if we do split off the episode pages, I think that would solve that issue, because we would only have a subgroup of pages, thus one set of parenthesis. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That would work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We now have more than enough pages to link together to justify another template, so I am going to be WP:BOLD and create it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Where you split it, is that really the best location? Shouldn't it be an AoS episodes template? We can't assume as of yet that you, I or someone else is going to make articles for episodes of Carter, Daredevil and the other Netflix series. For the time being, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes is a better template to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, this is an AoS episode template, but by calling it MCU tv episodes instead, it allows us to put on the MCU page and MCU tv page, even though neither of those mention the episodes specifically, but I think should have the template on them, plus it leaves the option open to add ep pages from those upcoming series here, without having to move the template or rename it or anything, which is the way to go I think rather than having individual ep templates for each series. We are simply taking advantage of the fact that everything is connected, but we are in no way assuming that those pages will be made. Basically, if ep pages for other series in the MCU are made, they can go here, if not, the template works fine as it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But it does not really belong on the MCU or TV series page, given the content in the template. Until more series episode articles are created, it should really be at AoS episodes. And then, other series should be at "[series name] episodes". By placing them all together, it implies that they are all related, when the episodes are not all related to one another. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As for your keeping of the season article, this is how I see it: Overview pages on the main template, more specific pages on the tv template. That way, the main template has the series, any character pages, and episode lists, while the new one has individual seasons and episodes. Most of the relevant pages (main MCU, MCU tv, SHIELD, etc.) have both templates anyway. I think the season page should just be on the new template. The idea of the split was to simplify/clean up the main template, but if we end up with lots of season pages (we can hope) then we wont really be doing that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it does belong on the MCU and TV pages, because it is about TV epsiodes set in the MCU. I see your point about until more series episode articles are created, so I'm again going to be bold and move it, but I disagree that future series should have their own templates. They are all set in the MCU, and are all made by Marvel TV, which are very strong WP:Real world connections, and some of the episodes themselves are related story-wise anyway (e.g. Peggy in AoS "Shadows" plus AC). If an episode article does get created for an MCU series not AoS, then there is no reason not to have it on this same template, other then to create a big mess of unnecessary, small templates. We want people reading about MCU stuff to easily be able to get to other MCU stuff, but if the only way to get from an MCU episode to another MCU episode is by going through other pages ( a route that may not be clear to some users) then we aren't making navigation easy. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in its current state. Per WP:NAV guidelines, templates should be placed on articles that are linked in the nav box. Users can get to this nav box from links on the MCU or TV page, but having a template about AoS episodes is not appropriate for either. It is appropriate for AoS, AoS season 1, AoS LoE and each episode article, where the template is currently placed. As for RELWorld, yes, they are all as you said, but a nav box's purpose is to link between like material, and the episodes from each series do not have much interconnectivity. For example, another Whedon staple, Buffy and Angel each have their own ep nav boxes, because they are separate shows, and it would not be correct to have Buffy and Angel's episode info together in one nav box. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I think it is all good for now anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

New discussion

It seems to me that a new discussion is in order seeing as how everyone is just reverting and boldy changing over the top of each other. I have been thinking about this for a while now, and was wondering what everyone thinks about this as an alternative?:

- adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of something more like this, but I wouldn't mind re-dividing the television group by network.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We both have something similar. I wonder if Favre1fan93 has any thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I like what we settled on now, with the subheading for AoS, but still including the network names. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the list of AoS characters is specific to that show it should really be included in that group. Also the Film cast list should be from the film header, that's why I proposed the "Related articles" group instead of the "Characters" group. I'm fine with everything else but I am also okay with current template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How about for now we just move the (2013–) from the ABC header to the SHIELD header? I think it will work better if we indicate how long each series is airing. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dates

Is it worth it putting dates here like this, as other multimedia franchise navboxes have done?

adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in the subgroup headings and not near each individual title? So something like "Phase One 2008-2012", "ABC 2013-". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Any idea why this is happening? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the '::' at the front of it. I also made a few other minor adjustments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better. Comparing them now, I see that moving the dates from the individual titles to the subgroup headings is much cleaner and looks better. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let us see now if anyone has an opinion on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We've had the dates here for a while now, and I am thinking that we should probably not include them. They just aren't really serving much of a purpose, given that the dates for individual films/shows etc. are all only a click away, and just stating when the phase begun/ended or when the tv studios began/ended making mcu shows isn't really necessary in my opinion. I don't know what you other guys are thinking, but the navbox would probably be better without them in my opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel they are fine. They are better than individually labeling each item. These are a concise catch all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it was definitely the right move not having individual dates, but I just think that what we have isn't really serving much of a purpose, and doesn't really need to be there either. Perhaps someone else may have some thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the dates. They don't aid navigation, and were cluttering up the navbox (and causing a problem for the Agent Carter One-shot). --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rob, they don't aid navigation and clutter the navbox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I just wrote a massive paragraph explaining why the dates should be on the series and not the networks (and got an edit conflict with you Triiiple :) ) but if the consensus is going to be that the dates "don't aid navigation, and [are] cluttering up the navbox" then I guess we should just remove all of the dates. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Navboxes aren't meant to be informational. Readers can find out about the release/production dates in the article along with everything else. If these dates were listed for disambiguation purposes between items in the same navbox, then it would different.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of video games in the template

I think we've touched this in passing before, but should we even include any video games here? If, for the most part, they are just marketing for the films and not actually MCU dependent or "official", should they even be linked in the template? Why not just leave them to be linked from the films' pages? Soundtracks I think are okay because the music is actually in the films, so they are part of the fabric that makes up the "official" material, but I'm not really seeing that with the video games. And on that topic, do some of them even need their own articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We have talked about this a bit before, and I wouldn't mind if we didn't link to the video games here. It isn't like someone would be missing something that important from the topic if they didn't know about the games, especially given the quality of those pages, and Marvel doesn't actually consider the games part of the MCU, unlike some of the tie-in comics, for example. And as for them even needing their own pages, the only reasoning I would be hesitant about merging some of them back with the film articles is the ridiculous plot "summaries" some of them have. But if we wanted to look at just having the necessary information about these games in the film articles, and no game page at all, I would be happy to contribute. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think for most of them, the whole article can be trimmed to something in the marketing section of the film. We can very easily condense to something akin to what we do for the tie-in comics on the film articles. Once we do that, we should reexamine the articles that are left to see if any should be linked here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we start with IM's and go from there? We should probably discuss/do mock ups first before we proceed so we can agree on an end result. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I started with what I feel should be IM's in my sandbox here. This would go in IM's marketing section, and the whole IM game article would be redirected there. I'm going to try and work on the other ones too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say go ahead with the IM merge, and would suggest that you also merge the soundtrack info and redirect that page to the IM music section while your at it (I have a mock up for that in my sandbox here). - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting redirecting the video game articles to a single paragraph on the film articles are you? I think WP:SNOW would apply in that case! Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you! In any case this is not the forum to discuss this, hidden away on a template talk page well away from the eyes of interested parties. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is the suggestion. Because right now, at least IM's and TIH's are just large plot dumps and all the info can be condensed down to what I am proposing. And while they are tie-ins related to the films, they are not considered "canon" material of the MCU, much like the comics. This was just the start of the discussion. Once we had an idea (ie we are going to replace the articles with X content), I would have moved this to a more open location for discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste your effort. There's no question that the video games are notable in their own right, so like I said, WP:SNOW will apply. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In what way does WP:SNOW apply here? It is very obvious that most of these video game articles (and several of the soundtrack ones) are terrible and completely unnecessary, and can be easily folded into the film pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The video game articles all pass WP:GNG and WP:NVG. You'll never get consensus to delete. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Either somebody turns them into even semi-decent articles or we just merge them with the film articles, because they are an unnecessary mess which we here are trying to clean up. And just because they are notable enough to have articles does not mean we have to give them articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Then improve the articles if you're that worried about it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robsinden: Point of clarification: Notability does not inhibit us from exercising editorial judgement in deciding that a particular topic may best be covered within an article on its parent topic; the policies and guidelines which help us to make that decision are WP:SIZE and WP:WEIGHT which place maximum restrictions on article and section/paragraph size of content, respectively. So to say that this discussion should have been snow closed would be hyperbolic. --Izno (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's every precedent to include the video games. They are direct tie-ins to the franchise, and therefore perform a useful navigation aid. It follows the same logic as the Harry Potter video games in the {{Harry Potter}} navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral about their inclusion in general but lean to towards the removal of Lego Marvel's Avengers since unlike the others it was not developed as merchandise for the films. But if they all are to be kept then they should be separated in a different group, since as I just stated Lego Marvel's Avengers does not fit with the films. It makes more sense to put them together then to leave one game in the other media group.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the lego game should be removed if it isn't actually tied to a film in a marketing sense. The only reason a game like that should be included is if it is announced as being an in-cannon game (which is unlikely to happen) in which case it can go in the other media section. As for the marketing games, anything that clearly doesn't stand on its own as a reasonable article can just be merged, in my opinion, though I agree with Favre that we need to do mock ups first before actually merging the articles. And as I already pointed out, some of the soundtrack articles could be merged as well (I already did this a while ago with The Incredible Hulk). - adamstom97 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be disagreeable to its removal from the template for reasons other than merging: the criterion for inclusion in this template is that it relates to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which the LEGO video game plainly does (particularly, that its plot is the similar or the same as The Avengers and its sequel). No opinion on how to section the template up such that the video games in general are presented well. --Izno (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Though it is "related" to the MCU, it isn't a part of the MCU, which everything else in this template is (either as a project set in the MCU, or as a behind-the-scenes factor like the cast stuff). The only reason the other video games are here is because they are marketing tools that fall under the umbrellas of their respective films, so if the lego game isn't actually tied to a film but merely based on some of them then it really shouldn't be here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes have never needed to have all of the articles within their template pages be "a part of the" MCU/insert whatever. Related links are commonplace within the world's navboxes. "The only reason" doesn't hold water; there are other practical reasons why you would want to put the video games on the same template (namely, that you want to navigate to the same or similar topics as the films and you expect that they are so well-linked to each other that they make sense in the same template). Calling (these) video games marketing tools may be true (I'm not going to bother to verify your statement), but it's a little obnoxious since it doesn't particularly pertain to the discussion of whether those links are fit for use on this template. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this navbox in particular, not all of them in general. We decided previously that we weren't going to add just anything "related" to the MCU here. That isn't what it is for. If you look at the individual articles, there are more specific navboxes pertaining to the characters being adapted and the filmmakers involved. This navbox is just for the projects set within the MCU, plus a few articles that we have deemed a part of the same topic (for instance, in our recent nomination for the MCU films to be a featured topic, the film actors list was included as part of it). The reason that I explained the marketing thing is that there are plenty of video games out there about the Avengers, for example, and some could bear even more resemblance to the films than these tie-in games do, but that doesn't mean that they belong here - only those articles that are essentially child-articles, such as the games and soundtracks for the films and the episode and character articles for SHIELD, have been included. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability

I'm going to start a new section on this topic:

Just from a quick review of the articles, each of them easily establish notability separately from their parent topics.
Next we should judge whether they would make their parent topic's articles too large. Probably not.
Lastly, we should judge whether merging the video game articles would cause their parent topic's article to give the appropriate weight to each of its sections. I think the answer to this question is quite obviously no. Each of the articles has its own gameplay, plot, and reception sections (which could plausibly be expanded if someone worked on them a touch).

Are they the best? No. But I think it's clear that they can stand on their own as they are now. The same cleanup which would need to go into appropriately merging them would also need to be done to each of the articles individually to ensure that what a reader would like to read is captured (namely, plot, development, gameplay, and reception, at the minimum), and then the argument that they are of subpar quality falls down also. --Izno (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at Favre's mock up for Iron Man above? It simply and accurately gets across the point, that a tie-in game was released in the build up to the film that diverges from its continuity but featured some returning actors, and was ultimately negatively received. The game doesn't require/deserve any more weight than that on the page, and the same encyclopaedic information that the game article contains is conveyed in a superior way, without the ridiculous plot info, unsourced info, poorly sourced info, messy reception info, etc. If somebody was passionate about making a high-quality article that meets our standards, then I would suggest that they work on it at a draft page or in a sandbox, find some good refs, summarise the plot, etc. and then a discussion can be had about giving the game its own page again. But for now, we have a messy and frankly unnecessary article that has little interest shown in it by editors, is clearly not very notable in terms of video games, even if it meets the notability requirements here, and can easily be merged into a far superior article ... this seems like a no-brainer to me, and I am really surprised that we are being met with opposition on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I did. Problems: No gameplay. No plot (which does diverge; it's typical for adaptations to note the major divergences). Three lines of reception. No development. These are not in keeping with WP:VG/GL. Period.

The present articles carry gameplay, plot, reception, development. They could have: more gameplay, less plot, more reception, more development. (Those are the big 4; there are sometimes other sections, of course.) None of which will easily be expanded on in the context of a film article. Or a draft. I quite frankly see it as a no-brainer that we should continue to let the articles live. I would flat oppose any merge. So, if you really think a merge should happen, drag out the RFC, the Merge Discussion, or the AFD. I'm sure that the editors at both WP:FILM and WP:VG would be happy to have a frank discussion about the value of those articles (hey, you might even get your way). And as I said before, you would need the same exact content to make the film articles good ones in respect to a section on the video game as you would for the different articles. Otherwise you just drag the quality of the film article down because you don't have the appropriate weight for the topic of the video game as a whole. --Izno (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have gone a bit off track here in regards to the original discussion, so I'm going to try and bring us back around. We are looking to add the necessary information about these video games to the marketing sections of their respective films, and then remove the video game links from here. In doing this, we believe several of the game articles will become redundant and should just be redirected to these summarised sections in the film pages. Now, whether this does happen or not really should more appropriately be discussed at the respective talk pages of the articles, but what we want to know is, if we add these sections/links to the film articles, would the community support the removal of the video game links from this template? And on a side note, should games such as the lego game, that follows the basic plots of the first two avengers films but is apparently not actually connected to them in terms of marketing or production, be included here, and considered on the same level as the one-shots and tie-in comics (which are official MCU-set products just like the films and tv series)? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Marvel's..."

What have we got "Marvel's" in front of everything? It's unnecessary, and doesn't even reflect the article titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We are using the official names here, not the common names (which is what the article titles use). - adamstom97 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, "official" title or not (and this could be debatable in itself) it's pretty redundant here on a navbox solely for Marvel films and programming. There is also good reason why we have decided not to use it for the article titles, and doesn't reflect internal consistency or the internet at large. Its usage should be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The point of a navbox is to navigate. The easiest way to indicate whether something should be navigated to (for the reader) is to put the most important text first (per WP:Accessibility). In a navbox in particular, redundancy is not only unuseful (it makes the boxes bigger) but also damages the ease of navigation. --Izno (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So ... are you for or against the official titles? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Decidedly for abbreviated titles (i.e. without "Marvel's"), whether that's the "official" one or not. In most cases, that will be the names of the articles proper (minus the parenthetical disambiguators naturally). --Izno (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also for the use of common names over the official names. @Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat: do you guys have any thoughts on this? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The common name is fine with me as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think common names are fine for the nav box. It's just to get people to different articles easily. And plus they will see the official names in those articles once they get there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hulk (2003)

Although this film is obviously not part of Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Incredible Hulk relates to it as a stand-alone sequel. Is it worth enough to mention the film in the template somehow? --Santacloud (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this is just for the MCU. The Hulk specific template will include both of the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WHiH Newsfront

This web series is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

It deserves a Wikipedia page, and a mention in this template.

It features Paul Rudd as Ant-Man and Leslie Bibb as Christine Everheart.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtJkDqZzoOFYbqwOIFn2Lng — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalTruthTeller24 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY. All relevant instances of it are on the proper articles. This is also not the best location to discuss this either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Production split

@Favre1fan93: I disagree with your partial revert there, so I would like to discuss why I made the changes I did. At the moment, we have more production/behind-the-scenes information than we ever have, and I do think that it is time we follow the general pattern of big franchise templates an split off the production information. There are numerous examples of this working really well: Template:Star Wars, Template:Star Trek, even Template:Mission: Impossible pretty much does this. It means we can clearly have the films/TV shows/etc. that are set in the universe, then any really in-universe stuff (in our case, just the characters), and then we can have all the production information, with related stuff at the end.

Having this logical separation seems particularly important now when we have things like the Production of Avengers 3 & 4, which does not belong in a list of films. It is supplemental to two film articles that we will be adding soon, which means that it won't even be able to come under a film article like the Avengers accolades, for example, does. If we had a production section then that would be the obvious place to put it—it is about production, and it covers more than one MCU project. I would say the same for something like an article about all the Netflix shows filming in New York. And it obviously won't be the only thing in the section, since the cast lists and music all come under production as well.

The video games may have some influence from the movies, but the real reason they are listed where they are is because they were released as marketing for the films, so they sort of come under them. But we now have a section that is dedicated to works that are kind of inspired by the films and are definitely not part of the MCU, and so are segregated off at the bottom of the template. Not only that, but the section already includes another video game that is inspired by the films and definitely not part of the MCU. Why would we not group these together? It makes sense for navigation, because someone reading about all the MCU-inspired video games can easily find them all, together, in a clearly labeled video games section at the bottom. It also removes some undue weight that we are giving to them by putting them up with other, actual MCU stuff; down the bottom, we are clearly stating that they are related to the MCU in some way, and so are on the template, but aren't part of the MCU and so are separated from the actual MCU projects.

If we have these separate segments (projects, in-universe, production, related) like I am asking, the only other major thing that is out of place, is all the TV series character lists. By moving them to the character section, which already exists, we can clean this up and essential have a simple list of films, a simple list of TV shows, a simple list of other projects, a simple list of characters, a simple list of production articles, etc. Rather than a list of films with irrelevant video games mixed in, a list of TV shows with with character lists mixed in ... and then a character section? It is just cleaner, and simpler. Navigation wise, I can understand the thinking, again, that they come under the shows so that is where people will look. But if everything is separated as I have suggested, then these lists will also be logically found in the clearly marked character section.

I see this as sorting everything by the individual projects, or by the universe as a whole, and I sincerely believe that we are at a point where the latter option is better. I know it is a bit of a change, but making this adjustment now will make it simple in future for us to add more production stuff in one dedicated section, and eventually have a reception section with articles on the critcal response, cultural impact, etc. I'm happy to discuss all of this, but I do think that it is the way to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Production of Infinity War article, once the actual film articles are moved to the mainspace, I saw this becoming like The Avengers accolades and being in parenthesis after each title as "production". For the video games, I'm pretty sure they are part of the MCU, though tangentially, much like the novelizations. So it makes sense to keep them where they are. If they aren't, then yes the "Outside media" section is best. As for the TV series character pages, I don't think those should go with the Film cast and TV cast articles because those are the lists for all in the universe. The TV series casts are specific to each series, so they should stay with the listing of the series and their seasons, etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I had thought about that for the production article, but the two films will be separate, and we shouldn't link to an article twice. That's why a separate section that can cover production for multiple projects seems like the right move for me. The cast lists and music come under that as well. I was pretty sure the video games took a wee bit of inspiration from the films, but weren't beholden to canon and went way off track, so I had a look for confirmation and found this discussion on twitter: "@willgrem Oh cool! I have them all then, yay! Would the video games go under "inspired by" too?", "@wyokid in a sense, yes. @cbake76 and the fellas over in Marvel Games like to use a term coined by TQ Jefferson as 'Film Agnostic'". So the games are inspired by, and take plenty of liberties, like the Lego game. I agree with your point about keeping the cross-project cast lists and single-project character lists separate, so I propose another section that is neither for the TV series nor the overall universe production - a character section, that includes the series' character lists and any article for an MCU character. Having this separate character section means that the film/TV/other sections are basically just for the final products, then there is a more in-universe section that has the characters (and other articles about in-universe things could eventually go there), and then a behind-the-scenes production section. Like I said, I think we are in a good place with the number and quality of articles we are making to now have these separations here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Given what you said about the video games, I'm fine with those moving below with the Lego game and will make that change. I still think the TV series cast lists should stay with the series links, so a reader can easily navigate through all of the articles related to the series if they chose. And I don't really see the Film and TV cast lists as the "big headers" to necessitate moving all of the content together like we just did with the music. As for the Infinity War production article, at this time, I think it should still stay up where it is, at least until the main articles are in the mainspace. I don't think it would be a problem to double link them up there, but we can possibly revisit it at that point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I can understand keeping the production article up there for now, but I do think it makes the most sense to move it down once we add the main articles. We can discuss it then. My thing with the character lists is that I don't think we should have all of the production articles split off except some, and there is a logical place for them to be split off to in the character section. But again, we can talk about that once we make the Avengers moves. Otherwise, I think it is looking good, and we're doing a great job with all our articles at the moment :) - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)