Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage Post-Credits MCU Scene

Should Venom: Let There Be Carnage be added to this template in any capacity, since the post-credits scene technically takes place in the MCU?The Editor 155 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per my point in the above discussion, I don't think this should be included in this template. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the other films in Sony's Spider-Man Universe should not be added, but I think the fact that the post-credits scene for Venom: Let There Be Carnage takes place in the MCU means it should be included, as the scene literally brings the film into the MCU.The Editor 155 (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I wrote at Talk:Venom: Let There Be Carnage § MCU (which has not received a lot of responses, so I would appreciate if more editors chimed in), I still don't think we should just jump to conclusions like this regardless of how apparent the situation might seem. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SSU, Venom LTBC, and Venom linked in this navbox

I think based on the NWH post-credits scene, we really shouldn't be linking these three articles here. They are fully related to just NWH, not the MCU as a whole, at least still for the time being. I'm iffy too about Osborn and Peter 2 and 3, but they at least had more prominent roles in NWH that I can see an argument for their inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Unless Venom is a main starrer in an MCU film and not just a cameo in one film (NWH), he shouldn't be here, and Let There Be Carnage especially shouldn't only for just one scene. Let There Be Carnage's scene does connect to both FFH and NWH via the multiverse, but that doesn't warrant an inclusion for the film here when we already explain it in the NWH article, and because it only connected to the MCU Spidey films and no other ones as of yet. I think it would be best to include "(Sony's Spider-Man Universe) after the "Spider-Man in film link due to how much coverage the SSU-MCU connections have on our articles, but any specific films and characters should likely be left out for the time being, with characters from the SSU and other non-MCU franchises only being included here if it's a major starrer role, like Osborn, Peter-Two, and Peter-Three. Also pininging @(a)nnihilation97:. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't even think the SSU needs a link because there really hasn't been any "true" connections between the two yet, and one can get to that info through the Spider-Man in film article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very true, I was hesitant about how we could include that. For now, we can leave it out. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would help to know in what section we are talking about as the navbox has become pretty huge. In general I think that the Venom film can be added a "related" section as both the end-credits of that film and the end-credits of NWH have valid connections. Both non-MCU Spider-Man, the 5 villains and Venom can also be in a related section as they've appeared in the film. Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of it being huge. I would think we need to split off different topics of the subject already. I don’t feel like we need an over collapsible navbox. It’s getting harder to navigate this for reader I feel. Jhenderson 777 17:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gonnym: SSU and Venom: LTBC were in "Marvel Studios -> Other", while the characters were in "Cast and characters -> Characters -> Related". @Jhenderson777: we can start that separate discussion on altering the navbox because of its size for sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pinging me in this conversation, Trailblazer101. I really do believe that the character Venom and the film, Let There Be Carnage should be included in the related/other tabs. Mainly due to Let There Be Carnage being tied into the bigger picture in the Multiverse Saga. Yes it does primarily tie into Far From Home & No Way Home, but it also ties into Multiverse of Madness which ties into Loki which also ties into Ant-Man 3. It confirms it is part of the MCU multiverse and though for a short period is set in the MCU, so I do believe Let There Be Carnage is an important/necessary addition because it sorta does add to the Multiverse Saga. While for the Venom character,... I do feel like it is necessary to put Venom in the Related tab in the Characters. I do agree that for the characters to be in the Related tab that they should have a bigger role such as Osborn and the two Spider-Men. But with Venom a piece of it/it's potential offspring is stuck in the MCU, hinting at the possibilities in the future. Maybe we could make a similar page like J. Jonah Jameson (film character) and the draft page Draft:Wade Wilson (film character) and move the symbiote to its own page, due to it hinting that the symbiote in Spider-Man 3 shares a hive mind with Venom in the Sony's Spider-Man Universe. Due to multiple versions of it being in the Sam Raimi, the SSU and now the MCU. - (a)nnihilation97 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I agree @Favre1fan93:, what I said is a totally different subject altogether. My opinion of the relevant subject so far is I don’t really have an issue with the inclusion of the multiverse related subjects if they appeared in the MCU as “related”. It’s just the only issue of it is it’s quite crowded to allow such a thing so far. Jhenderson 777 21:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd argue that now the character of Venom must be included in the navbox, as he directly appears in No Way Home. I think the inclusion of Venom LTBC was as succinct as it could be, in parentheses next to Spider-Man in film, given it's related but not exactly encompassed by that article and term, yet if it were any other way around we should have to list all the previous five Spider-Man films as well. —El Millo (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Venom should absolutely be included in the Related characters section of the infobox. As he appeared in the mid-credits scene of No Way Home, he did appear in an MCU film. --Sricsi (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jumping in here with my thoughts: are we saying that any crossovers from other franchises and continuities should only be included here (as a franchise/film link or a character link) if they have an actual role in the film and are not just a cameo appearance? I am happy to go with something like that if we are going to clearly define that expectation. Seems like we may need to make similar judgement calls for a certain movie coming up next year. Also, 'Marvel Studios > Other' sounds like it is for Marvel Studios films that do not fit under the Phase headings which is not the case here, can we go with 'Marvel Studios > Related' perhaps? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

A Wilson Fisk character page was created and it's already been properly linked to other outgoing and connected pages, but it has not yet been added to the navigation template. --TheOrbFromDown (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC) TheOrbFromDown (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably best to wait to see how the discussion on Talk:Kingpin (character) shakes out before modifying the template - there seems to be an edit war going on. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: That article has been redirected. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marvel's Netflix television series sub-templates

So as there are sub-templates for Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Template:Agent Carter, Template:Loki, Template:WandaVision, Template:What If...?, and Template:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, almost all of the MCU television series really, featuring information that doesn't need to be linked here and is shorter, more WP:CONCISE and less WP:BLOATED for people looking for links on only those shows, no-one would mind if I made one(s) for Marvel's Netflix television series? Favre1fan93 said to discuss it here first. MandoWarrior (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I would mind. The fact that you can't even see the difference between those templates and this is troublesome. Also, as I've stated in my many reverts I had to do, what you are doing is creating a duplicate template and not fixing any WP:CONCISE or WP:BLOATED issues as both templates will appear on pages. If you want to fix this template, then propose one that still leaves us with 1 set of links. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only was the created template full of basically all incorrect/unnecessary links, when looking at what would actually be part of a navbox (which would be the whole "Netflix" row of the Marvel Television section here, plus the links to the Luke Cage soundtrack, Matt Murdock, and Claire Temple), it's clear that a separate navbox is not necessary. Echoing what Gonnym said, it is troublesome that you perhaps don't see the difference of those templates, in which they were created when individual episode articles were made and thus would have bloated this template with those links. Since none of the Netflix series have individual episode articles, and likely won't, there is no real need to duplicate the same navigation in another template. All articles serviced by those series are coded in a way that opening this template you are able to navigate quickly to all related articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting this template

I felt this template was starting to get a bit unwieldy, and have mocked up some examples of splitting this content out by Phases. You can find the examples [[1]]. A few notes, I feel the Phase templates would need some sort of "related" section to maybe link the other phases, or at least the same ones in its saga. Secondly, I wasn't sure what to do with the cast (I felt the actor lists needed to be linked in the phase templates, but wasn't sure where), and same with Features. Let me know what everyone thinks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we were to do this, we could have a header or footer on each phase navbox for the cast lists and other overall article links, similar to what we already have on this template. That way we won't necessarily need to add every phase navbox to those lists. I don't think we necessarily need to add the other phases to each phase navbox because we already have the phase nav template on each phase article. If we are discussing a split to streamline the navbox then I would suggest also splitting off the character and feature stuff to a separate template. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have to keep some form of navigation between all the relevant articles so it isn't harder for users to get between articles. Though I didn't really have a sense of what should be done with the characters or features. For example, The Blip could clearly go in the Phase Three template, but the others I wasn't sure if they should be split out at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I've updated my example link to be a permalink to what I suggested. Others are free to play around in my sandbox with options if they want to try things out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be frank, I'm not a fan of this idea. The MCU is a very large topic, and I feel a split would do more harm than good in helping readers navigate across the many MCU-related articles. (Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe is more difficult to browse and less visible to readers.) A split would work if a topic was extremely disconnected (e.g. the articles on {{Spider-Man films}} are completely unrelated to {{Spider-Man in TV}}), but this isn't the case for the MCU (e.g. someone on WandaVision might look for Avengers: Age of Ultron, the main characters' first appearance). I'm also concerned that cutting off characters and features from the film and TV articles (unsurprisingly the most popular pages of the navbox) could possibly lead to them receiving fewer views. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would only really be fine with us having separate templates for the phases as long as those did not detract from what we have to navigate with this template, ie including the phase templates in this navbox. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is such a broad topic that we have to be very delicate with this and how readers navigate between everything, and we have to know that we simply cannot cover everything in a single template, which doesn't necessarily have to mean splitting contents. For instance, the music could just be linked to with only the music article and then only the relevant song articles in the phase sections as I've seen. The characters and in-universe contents could be split into their own templates, but how necessary and how much they are viewed (and the potential of consequently reducing the amount of views) would have to be a factor. I feel only linking to the phases in saga sectors would not be as useful and risk more confusion than navigation aid, but I do think including the sagas is a good move. Phase templates, as I've said, would only really be useful if they were transcluded as part of this template, but even then, that would risk having an abundance of nav headers and may be a poor excuse of dispersing some info across multiple templates all under one collective topic. Another option would be having templates for The Infinity Saga and The Multiverse Saga, but it would be too early to have those, and probably too early to even make temps for Phase Five, let alone Six. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say that I personally think the current format with collapsible headings is my preferred option, it avoids the messiness of having multiple navboxes while still doing a good job of streamlining for usability. Also, remember that navboxes should be on every article that they link to and if you want to link between every MCU article you are going to have to stick to one big one or include all of the smaller ones on each page. As an alternative option, we could consider doing something similar to Template:Doctor Who episodes which includes links for the entire series but when you are on a season or episode article it only shows the ones from the same season. If we wanted something like that, we could show all of the links on the main MCU articles but on a Phase, film, or TV article we could just show the links for the same phase. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like a format inspired by that Doctor Who episodes template. That, to me, seems to be one of the better options in terms of navigation and relevance. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still believe a navbox listing all MCU articles (minus episodes) is more beneficial to readers. The current arrangement with collapsible groups and the |selected= parameter is already sufficient in providing readers with the most relevant links. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]