Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ditto51 (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 10 February 2015 (→Spider-Man). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:00, 10 February 2015 by Ditto51 (talk | contribs) (→Spider-Man)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Misplaced Pages.

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is the main article of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe films" series, a current good topic candidate. A good topic should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 1, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 26, 2014	Featured list candidate	Promoted

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Comic book

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

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 Phil Coulson, 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 phases of the MCU and have appeared in the billing block for at least three films. For example, Nick Fury has appeared in Phases One through Three, and has been in the billing block more than thrice. 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, Phil Coulson, who has appeared in many films but only been in the billing block for two, is excluded. For the complete list of cast and characters, please see List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, and for more specialized recurring tables for each phase, see the Recurring cast and characters sections on the Phase One, Phase Two, Phase Three, Phase Four, Phase Five, and Phase Six articles.

Header dates

Do we really need to put the year in both the level-2 and level-3 headers. It seems the year in the level-3 headers would be sufficient. Also though its widely known, The phases are currently unreferenced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I think the dates in the level 2 headers is a bit much. If we need to source the phases, I think the lead of the cast page has the sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The cast table

The cast table, which should be more of an overview, is starting to get a little long, with characters (such as the Collector's aide or Senator Stern) who aren't really recurring or important. Should we maybe add another stipulation? Say, the character must have appeared in the main cast of at least two films? We could use the same criteria we use for the film page infoboxes. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How about just add "...and must be in the billing block of at least one of the films in which they appear"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer two films, as that helps us limit it to characters who are actually major recurring presences, rather than characters who have one major appearance and then a bunch of cameos. But I suppose I'd be okay with one, too. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If we did two, that would eliminate (beyond the two you mentioned above) Coulson, Jarvis, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Sitwell, Howard Stark, and The Collector. While Coulson and Sitwell were more recurring than starring, I think both deserve a spot here, partially due to their appearance in the One Shots and SHIELD (even though I know this tables does not cover that). So I guess that brings up another question, should the table currently here be mimicked at all on Marvel Cinematic Universe to cover recurring characters across the three mediums: films, One-Shots and TV? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well this page is focused on the films, so their appearances in the other media shouldn't have an effect on the table here. And I'm not sure about another table on the main page, it seems that that information is handled in the prose there, for the most part. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so back to the task at hand: one or two billings. I think one is fine and two might cut too much imo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then let's try one for now and we can reassess later as needed. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Coulson is often referred to as "the glue" in the MCU, so if he is cut from the table, the table seems almost pointless. One works well. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy and usefulness

I started this conversation over at the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors page, but it really should be discussed here. Basically, I feel that this table is not serving the use it was intended to as well as could be. Yes, it is a nifty way to see which characters have shown up in different franchises, but it is made redundant by the actual list, where the recurring nature both through individual films and across phases is emphasised. I believe that prose can much more accurately represent the recurring nature of cast and characters throughout the films, just as is done at Marvel Cinematic Universe, where a table like this could be easily set up to show which characters have appeared in which mediums, but ultimately it is unnecessary, and it would prevent the section from including such important information as the multiple actors who portray Howard Stark, etc. This is a similar situation, and if we had prose instead of this table, we would be able to identify not just recurring characters and cast members, but significant characters and cast members who perhaps do not fit into the current parametres of the table. It should also be noted that as more films are released, the parametres of the table must tighten, and even more characters will be cut out, increasing the redundancy of the table. I think this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with, so please carry on this discussion if you have any thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I have in mind. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Compared to the current table, that is worse. That prose is not really recurring information, rather commentary on the leads of each franchise, a select few characters that have reappeared, and recasting info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I admit that the table was a nifty idea, as it is cool to see which characters have recurred throughout the films, but it has gotten to the point where important characters do not fit within the parametres, and more will have to be omitted in the near future as more films are released. I do understand the desire to have this, but as you said when I tried to turn the cast section of the MCU page into a table of cast and characters who have recurred across mediums, not everything needs to be in a table, and not having that table has turned out really well, as we have been able to fit important information there that we otherwise couldn't have. If somebody is reading about the MCU films, yes its cool to see that The Collector has appeared in both the Thor and Guardians franchises in table form, but we already know that from further up the page - that sort of info easily fits, as it already does, in the continuity/MCU connections sections for each film. With this prose, we are explaining why there is no normal cast table on the page - there is no main cast, as there are multiple lead actors. We do give the recurring characters info anyway, and other important casting issues (recastings). And if anyone wants to see this information, and more, in table form, then they simply have to click on the link to the actual page. Having a really good cast table, and then another much less useful one on this page is pretty much the definition of redundant. If you think the prose needs to be rewritten somewhat to be more about the recurring side, then that can be done, but I don't think you should push this away so offhandedly. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This version focuses more on the recurring side, but is still not constricted like the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Has this new version changed your mind? I believe I have addressed your complaints. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The section is 'Recurring cast and characters'. As of yet, Pratt, Douglas and Rudd are neither of these. Hence, the table, with the rules from the FAQ is still a better alternative to state this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That statement has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If you can't be bothered or don't really care, than just let the change be made. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Had a cache issue regarding the updated look. I don't know. I don't really see the usefulness of replacing the table with text saying the same thing. See if someone else can offer an opinion before attempting anything. If no ones responds, will examine this again I guess. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Although the table is a bit cumbersome, I think it's much more useful than chunks of prose that just list appearances. I think if you were to list appearances, you would want to go about it in a very easy-to-read manner, with headers dividing things, etc. But that's probably not something that belongs here. Maybe it's an alternative to the gigantic tables at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I still think the table needs to be changed to prose, but I can accept that this might not be the right time. At such a point as the prose becomes more manageable/easier to read then the table, the change should be made (I think this might happen after a few more characters are added to the table). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisit

@Favre1fan93 and ProfessorKilroy: What do you guys think about the table now that it has become so big? I think we at least need to tighten our criteria for inclusion in the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think the table is the best way to go about this, but I do see the size becoming the issue. I was just thinking, of say, only actors that appear mainly in Avenger films and other, but that only removes like 3 rows. Possible idea that might work: remove the table and just leave the "main" template. Use a prose that say, "In the films multiple characters have recurred. They include: A as Y; B and C as D;" etc. But the key is NOT to use refs or all the film appearances. I don't know if that would be okay to do, essentially saying "find all refs at the main page. here's just a sampling." I feel as though there is a policy/guideline saying that if the info is sourced somewhere on a related topic page, it is okay not to be sourced. I could just be crazy though about that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That could be good, as basically a bit of a summary to help with this page, with more info there. I think anyway of getting the table to pretty much fit on one screen would be good though, as, I don't know about you, but I have to scroll down to the bottom of the table, then across, and then back up, to see which characters in the top few rows are in some of the later films. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Do you have any insight into my idea? Would that work / have you ever seen this policy/guideline I seem to be thinking of? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, we are not supposed to reference other Misplaced Pages articles, which is essentially what you are proposing. If the table gets to size that hinders more than it helps, then we should remove the table and leave the link to main list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess one idea for tightening the criteria would be to increase it from two franchises to three. But that cuts out a lot. It brings the number of rows from 20 down to 8 (featuring the Banner, Carter, Coulson, Fury, Rogers, Romanoff and both Starks). That's pretty drastic, but since it'll get bigger over time, that might not be an issue. Or maybe this is something for later down the track. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be beneficial to convert it to prose, if it's still a sticking point. It does break up the flow of the page with the unwieldy table and having to scroll so far for the information is probably not all the helpful for readers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cap 2 RT score

Can someone fix it? I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Suzuku (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been in contact on the template page. Still trying to get it resolved. In the mean time, the info can be added as a field, to bypass the error message until the bot comes to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A crew table

Why this page don't have a crew table like other like Star Wars or X-Men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:B46:2FED:48A5:46A8:DA42:1EB3 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not need one, as we have this info readily available on each of the individual film pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Doctor Strange (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Doctor Strange at Draft:Doctor Strange (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Black Panther (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Black Panther at Draft:Black Panther (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Captain America: Civil War

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Captain America: Civil War film at Draft:Captain America: Civil War until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Thor: Ragnarok

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Thor: Ragnarok at Draft:Thor: Ragnarok until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Black Widow (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Black Widow at Draft:Black Widow (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Inhumans (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Inhumans at Draft:Inhumans (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Guardians of the Galaxy 2

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Guardians of the Galaxy 2 at Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy 2 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Captain Marvel (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Captain Marvel at Draft:Captain Marvel (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Avengers: Infinity War Part 1

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 at Draft:Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Downey be added to the cast since he's technically contracted for The Avengers 3, which would be this? 2601:C:780:234:511D:BD81:BCA8:F8D3 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't Josh Brolin be on there as Thanos since he was seen as the teaser for Infinity War? Also, he's referenced here as having a part in Avengers: Infinity War, Part 1 and Part 2. 2601:C:780:234:511D:BD81:BCA8:F8D3 (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential trademark filings

So I came across this article here that said Marvel had filed some trademarks which relate to films that have come out or will be. Yet, I went to the US trademark filings and found a few (here, here and here), and they all say the filing is for "Downloadable electronic publications in the nature of comic books, comic magazines and stories in illustrated form." Compare that to Thor: The Dark World's filing, which says "Audio and visual recordings featuring live-action entertainment; musical recordings; video game software; cases for cellular telephones." Just want to make sure I am reading this correct that these are in fact NOT for films, but possibly upcoming comic titles/series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Phase One/Two

What does it mean? Is it a fan insider? --Red-Blue-White (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The phases are a group of films that Marvel has tied together. Phases (so far) have been capped off by Avengers films. So all of the Phase One films, while individual in nature, all lead up to The Avengers. All of the Phase Two films will lead up to Avengers: Age of Ultron and presumably, all of the Phase Three films will lead to Avengers 3. Sources for the phases are provided in the article lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Feige explained it recently as being a simplification for discussing movies. He referred to all the movies leading up to and including The Avengers as "the first phase" at a convention once and it caught on, so Marvel made it an official system for clumping movies together. There is no real regularity or patterns in these things, it is just a way of breaking up the movies into more manageable groups (which also means other things connected to the MCU like TV shows are not included in the phase system). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Why aren't the latest Spider-Man films included? Isn't Spider-Man a Marvel character? 137.205.170.1 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. The rights are at separate film companies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all down to the film rights, the Amazing Spider-Man films and its upcoming spin-offs are in a separate universe, the X-Men and Deadpool franchises make up another universe, and the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot will be in yet another universe (additionally a lot of older films are in their own universe). Everything else that will be released in future is in the MCU (plus the films listed in the article that have already been released). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

But I don't get it why isn't Spider-Man on this page? Both Marvel and Sony have both confirmed that Spider-Man is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That Marvel will produce the film's but Sony will distribute them like what Marvel and Universal did with Hulk. Why can't we add Spider-Man too this page? Zzaxx1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Zzaxx1, please go here, there is currently a debate going on discussing this. You'll probably take the other side but they haven't actually confirmed it yet unfourtunatly.--18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Film table

The comics, One-Shots, and TV pages all have a or several tables which are transcluded to the main MCU page. Should we look at doing that here or is there no point? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with summarizing the list with a table, especially as the list of films keeps growing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do a table per phase. So all phase 1 films would have one table (similarly to on the main page) under the section, before the Iron Man subsection, and then the phase 2 section would just have its films, etc. I think that would be the best imo versus one large table, given how we have the page formatted now. See my quick mock up here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, and what I would expect to see. If anyone wants to see all of the films in one table, then they can see that at the main MCU page. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a different style of page where it would not really fit or look good to have the table all together, like the One-shots or comics ones. And it would be very hard to split and transclude all three to how it is the main page, as I will be doing with the TV series' two tables, so I think this is the best option if we were to do it. Any thoughts on my mock up TriiipleThreat? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to clean up the Film Table, which was not only split into separate Phase One and Phase Two tables, but also featured the rest of Phase Two and all of Phase Three further down the page in the "Future" section. I managed to cleanly consolidate all film entries into one table with the correct Phase identified. However in doing so I seem to have created an issue with the citations and references. Any help or advice on correcting this would be greatly appreciated. I had no intention of deleting any content, just wanted to help reorganize it to make it more clean for the reader with a consistent format and minimal excess scrolling. Mlcorcoran (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Stan Lee Confirming Black Panther

just wondering if the page should be updated to mention Stan Lee confirming Black Panther being in the MCU, its already updated on the Black Panther Page itself. maybe there should be part of the list or something where it has confirmed MCU films, but the ones that don't have official dates yet (like Thor 3 and Black Panther, both confirmed but don't have release dates yet, Thor has its director and stuff set though...)173.51.207.69 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

All he said is that they are working on it, which we already know.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that, what I was saying though is mention that its been confirmed by him that it will be in the MCU, I wasn't arguing about whether he said they were working on it or not. In other words have a line in there or something that says something to the effect of "in Late August/Early September 2014 (I don't remember the exact date) Stan Lee confirmed that a Black Panther Movie is in development and confirmed that it will be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Lineup", would something like that be ok to add onto the page, since it is factual information confirmed by a reliable source?173.51.207.69 (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is all Lee actually said, "They are already working on Ant-Man, Dr. Strange and the Black Panther and there are others I am not allowed to talk about." Nothing in that sentence contains new information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Future section

Regarding today's announcement: we do not need a bazillion single sentence sub-sections. Many of these can still be folded into the "Other potential projects" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Although, that should then be changed to "Other projects". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some have some more info. Sorry. Did a big edit before seeing this. I'd agree to this though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

When I cleaned up the Film tables I removed the redundant entries regarding Phases Two and Three. The 'Future' section should only include those film projects that were not part of the official Phase Three announcement made by Marvel and do not yet have a clear position in the franchise. Mlcorcoran (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing redundant before your edits. Also the future section is for films that are scheduled to be released in the future, hence the name.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Future section is growing too long and appears inconsistent with the Phase Tables. The page as a whole feels disjointed. The structure of: Phase One table; Phase One synopses; Phase Two Table (only what's been released so far); Phase Two synopses; etc. requires excessive scrolling and does not feel concise from a readers' point of view.

I propose that the Future section focus on proposed films that are not included in the scope of any of the three Phases per Marvel's most recent announcement. Furthermore, I suggest one table for all Phases, with each Phase appropriately identified, followed by the plot synopses for each entry of the franchise in chronological order. I am developing a mock-up of this proposal (based in large part on my original bold edit) on my Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mlcorcoran). Any suggestions, feedback, and input is greatly appreciated. Mlcorcoran (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So you want to remove all of the actual prose content that lays out the development of the franchise film-by-film in favor of the exact table that already exists on the main Marvel Cinematic Universe page? I could maybe see an argument for moving the Phase 3 items above the box office/recurring cast information but I have no idea why you would want to remove all of the content on the page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This page is a List page. Some prose outlining the development of the franchise as a whole may be helpful, but the prose as it currently stands is excessive; it goes into detail about the plot synopsis and production history of each film, which is information best suited for the Wiki page of each film itself (each of which is linked in the list). By contrast, the table that exists on the main MCU page could be removed in favor of the link that points to this detailed List page. If consensus is that the prose as-is should not be removed, I would still recommend consolidating the Phase tables so that the Phase 3 information is not so far removed from the rest of the franchise information. Mlcorcoran (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The prose contextualizes the film series with an overview of the development of each film, and information about crossovers. The only thing that makes this page a "detailed List" is the prose, the table is nice for a quick glance but as I said it fits quite nicely on the main page and a reader would likely want more, without having to read the even more in-depth information on each individual film page. Hence, this page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw any objection to removing the prose :) My greater concern is the structure and organization of the content. My suggestions, as illustrated on my Talk page, are as follows:

Consolidate the Phase film list into one table. This keeps consistency with the Cast and Box Office tables further down the page.
Arrange all prose outlines for the film entries in chronological order, including Phase Three films that have not yet started production, and remove Phase Three entries from the "Future" section. Limit the "Future" section to the "other project" films that have been proposed but are not yet an official part of a franchise Phase.

Please let me know if you find these suggestions agreeable and helpful to the page. Thank you for your feedback and guidance. Mlcorcoran (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment as a good layout for this page is a breakdown by phase, the table as is should not be changed or combined. That's point 1. Point 2, all films not released are still future films, regardless of if they are in Phase 2, Phase 3, or not announced yet. Placing a future film with films already released would signify that they have been released, not that they have yet to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I honestly don't see any issues with the page myself, and to clarify, I moved the entire future section to the bottom of the page a while ago because, in every film article I have seen, the future section always comes after everything else, so that's why it appears to be "so far removed" from the rest of the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request Withdrawn Duly noted. I withdraw any further requests to modify the page. Thank you for your feedback :) Mlcorcoran (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent change

I have just made a bold edit that goes against my statement above, as I have been thinking about this page, and I realized that the Phase 3 films aren't future films in the sense that futur films listed at the bottom of a film article are for separate articles, whereas these films belong collectively on this page. Also, we are including casting info for the Phase 3 films in the table, so they really should be listed before it. If you revert this edit, I would appreciate it being discussed here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of which Phase the upcoming films are in, they are still "Future" films and have not released yet. The current distinction before your edit, clearly indicated which films had already released in the universe, and which had not. Your edit made it seem as though all of these films had released, even despite the use of release year in the headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

But not only are there years in the headers, the tables state which films are released and which aren't, also, the prose in each section clearly identifies when films are being released, and the lead also explains which films have been released an which haven't. I think that's all we can do to try and get these facts across, because, as I said above, these films aren't "future" films in the sense that we would usually put them in a future section, and they are included in the cast table, which is a bit confusing/incorrect structurally. P.S. Thanks for discussing :) - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the heading doesn't have to be "Future", rather, "Unreleased films". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline added

I have created a timeline for the release schedule to this article. I'm writing this now to explain why it's there. For starters, having a graphical representation is a helpful way of assisting visual learners an easy view of the releases, and it also summarises well how the phases have been defined. This doesn't belong in a regular article, I agree, but in a list article, such as this, it's perfectly suited. --rm 'w a vu 03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't necessary, as releases are perfectly listed vertically down the page. Releas for individual franchises do not need to be listed separately as well. If anyone wants that info, there are other pages that can provide it, like the sequel sections at the bottom of individual film pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore all the graph displays is the release year and erroneously displays it as continuous event throughout a given year rather than a single date. It's redundant, vague and more importantly flawed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of precedents for this, and there is nowhere in this article where it is "perfectly" laid out. As to it being released over a year, sure, there ar otherways in which this representation can be adjusted. I am going to place the list back in place, as the last reversion is a breach of WP:3RR, and my reversion is of a remedial purpose. Until a clear consensus of can be reached (and 2 people against doesn't diminish the value of my initial argument) for or against, the section should remain. --rm 'w a vu 05:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple people reverting your reverts is only a breach of WP:3RR on your part. The issue here is one person attempting to add something that no one else has supported, but several have opposed. Currently, the consensus, as in the general feeling of the discussion, is for this not to happen, or at least not to happen like this. If it is decided that this is a good addition to the page here, then it can be re-added, otherwise it should not. No further action concerning this should be taken in the article until this discussion has concluded. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide a clear reason not to include it, and I'll understand. Your only definitions so far and preference based. And the initial reversion is the one which counts for WP:3RR. I've lodged this for review. I will once again, re-revert the article, as is policy, to the included version until consensus is reached. I should add that when you say "multiple people" are against it, I can only see two. --rm 'w a vu 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Two is more than one, i.e. "multiple". You added something that more than one editor disagrees with, and no other editor has shown support for. Because there are opposing views on the matter, the contentious material should be removed from the page, and its re-inclusion should be discussed at the talk page. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information was rightfully included, then it should be re-added. If not, then it should stay removed from the page. Constantly re-adding it, without actually discussing, is not the way. I say not actually discussing, because you are simply making a statement on the talk page, then re-adding the contentious material. That is, unfortunately, not a discussion. If you don't want to discuss this, then please stop causing trouble for everyone else. It is disruptive and frustrating. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the status quo of this article is to not have the timeline. That's how it should stay until consensus changes. You've made your bold edit, so now it's time to step back and argue your point.

I'm against the table for reasons stated by others above, but mostly because it adds no new information, and provides no particularly new insight into the chronology - which is listed in phases here, and in full at Marvel Cinematic Universe. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Public response

I'm planning to add CinemaScore for the titles, as instructed here in the reception section. Shall I do that?? I don't wanna go for WP:WAR. DtwipzB Talk 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

CinemaScores are more useful to add to individual film articles, opposed to here. It would not fit in either table currently on the page, and a third one should not be created for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I wanted it to add it into the critical section, which will make the section look like what's here and here. How about that ?? DtwipzB Talk 08:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't see how this info should be seen as a comparison to critics' opinions. I'm pinging some other users to get their opinions too. @TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I was sure that we were trying to avoid this sort of thing. The box office gives a pretty good indication of audience response anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man films

This is a neutral notice that there is a discussion about whether or not future Spider-Man films are a part of the MCU at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Spider-Man & Sinister Six. All are welcome to input. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories: