Talk:Marvel Animated Features

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles 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. Animation: American / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Instead of having eight different infoboxes for each film, this information would be better combined into a single table similar to Marvel Cinematic Universe#Films or Marvel One-Shots#Films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has probably been discussed before but why were all the articles reduced to one page, instead of each film having its own article? Surely it seems more sensible for a film to have it's own article right?

The films were not notable in their own right and this article is barely scraping by on notability with IGN and MTV being the notable sources. They had articles of their own, some of which did not even had a single source. There for if you argue for their own article that is like saying say should not have their own article at all. --Spshu (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really know much about notability and such, but I’ll chime in saying that the article is quite unwieldy and hard to read in its current form. I came here to read about the Planet Hulk movie, and needing to scroll through a bunch of irrelevant content was needlessly bothersome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.25.105.91 (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The recent Captain America/Ironman and Lego/Marvel films should be listed here. You agree with me, don't you? If you don't, that might be because you hate freedom.

No, No and No. This is an article about the Marvel Animated Features direct to video line done under the MLG Productions group joint venture by Marvel Animation and Lionsgate. The Captain America/Ironman is at the

Lego Marvel Super Heroes: Maximum Overload has its own article, but doesn't yet have the significant sources (or any sources for that matter), if their is another Lego Marvel movie then prehaps a Lego Marvel movie article page should be selected. --Spshu (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Its a plain list of data without context regarding its relevance to the overall understanding of the subject. It is simply unencyclopedic knowledge. One does not need to know that the DVD of Ultimate Avengers comes with an Avengers Trivia Track or a first look at Ultimate Avengers II to understand it. Per

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Also #1 is in regards to plot-only descriptions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Since very few people have historically responded to discussions in this article, I have invited

WP:FILM participants here (see invitation).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that these details are too indiscriminate for inclusion. They may be appropriate for some films where the DVD or Blu-ray disc features have been reviewed, to provide context for the reviews themselves. However, the details here do not appear to be buttressed by such reviews. An example of a film article that does this is Fight Club#Home media (first paragraph; last three are messy and need to be cleaned up). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They placed in the article based on independent source which 3Threat points out WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the test. Reviews could be considered "technical minutiae" as is not encyclopedic as it the reviewer's opinion and also the editor's opinion on which reviews to include. IF it was just listing the usual trailers than yes it would be trivial. We include nominal credits, ie. credit based on just the fact they are an executive at one of the production companies. Spshu (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing an independent source is insufficient to only list the additional materials. It would make sense to outline a DVD's additional materials (preferably in prose) before summarizing a review of such materials. I would also argue this is best done on an individual film's article and not at a series article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to other content in different ways. For example, it would be indiscriminate to summarize over 30 reviews in a film's article. Clearly the number has to be less to ensure encyclopedic readability, and consensus among editors can be used to determine what the actual amount of content should be. As for credits, I'm not sure why this article needs to include executive producers. Such persons are generally considered indiscriminate, e.g., not having a field in the film infobox or only being mentioned in the article body if coverage involves mentioning them. I would even say the "Films" section's table is on the indiscriminate side, listing minor details such as runtime, which I don't recall seeing at other film series articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think some middle-ground is available here. Unusual extras can be of interest to the reader especially if they further an encyclopedic understanding of the work itself, but we don't need a full-blown description of every single thing on the disk because Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. I briefly covered extras at Don't_Look_Now#Home_media which I think has a decent balance. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, Re: series article v. a film's article: I see these types of article as more as subarticles being built to a possible independent article. That is why I find dislikng having different rules. Like considering

WP:EL

to apply to a "list", or "subarticle" article, such that routine links (to imdb or external logos) are stripped out of such an article. While they would be kept if a regular article. They will have to be "found" again if any of the subarticles are found to have notability. It is also seems bureaucratic in intent and/or application to me.

Eric, run time is a field in both films and TV series iboxes. They were obviously moved to the table as each movie woudl have its own run time.

I think the executive producer credit is indicative of the problem. Executive producers for TV shows have one to a few that are the actual show runners while the others are representative of the funding partners or granted credit as creator or other various reasons. But say the RSource indicates all executive producers with out indicating the show runner, then would not we not be entering into the opinion (NPOV) and original research (OR) area in attempting to figure out who the show runner is? Also, Disney Studios, Marvel Studios and Marvel Animation (including MLG) don't really produce films, the are consider the producer because the real production company is a work for hire company. Are we going to disclaim those credit(s) under WP:INDISCRIMINATE? We know that DongWoo Animation did the Ultimate Avengers DVDs while Starburst Entertainment did Invincible Iron Man. Yes, the MLG Productions studio did do the designs and overseeing the contracted production company but really are not the production company, just like Avi Arad probably did not carry out any executive producer duties on the MAFs.

NPOV and OR were reason I did not drop any of the preview material from the list of extra which is routine to DVD/Blu-Rays. Spshu (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel Animated Features. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125185240/http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=23001 to http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=23001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel Animated Features. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dvd.ign.com/articles/811/811268p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104055510/http://thor-dvd.com/ to http://www.thor-dvd.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

world war hulk return 2400:AC40:609:E145:75F9:9E69:7DDB:8C16 (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shang Chi And Venom Future Soon 2400:AC40:620:6A0:6DA8:3D48:A0EC:CFA (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]