Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I understand the above sentiment of separating video games from the films, but it logically can't be discribed as outside media since video games are a form of media. It more appropriately belongs with other media or excluded all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The outside media means media outside the MCU, rather than stuff outside of media. That is how we have been using the term at the main MCU page to refer to things that are just inspired by the MCU like the Lego game or that Coke ad. Perhaps you can think of a better heading for us to use? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is truly outside, does it belong here? Perhaps "Related topics", but that might be too general and encourage even more creep.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really mind whether we keep it here or not myself. I think the reason for including it was so readers of these related articles can easily navigate to the actual MCU stuff. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this for MCU-only articles, and just adding some see also links to these pages instead of the template. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If they are to be listed, it should be reorganized or relabeled. Outside media doesn't work because it was listed with a live attraction which is truly a non-media. Also the fewer groups, the cleaner the template. It's not so choppy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, but if the video games are going to be listed here, then it must be in an outside or related section, other wise we are giving undue weight to media that isn't actually part of the universe, and therefore giving readers the idea that they are part of the MCU, or significant to the MCU in someway. And if we aren't including the video games because they aren't part of the MCU, then we shouldn't be including the theme park ride either. Also, the music isn't another part of the MCU in a different medium, it is behind-the-scenes information about the making of the universe. Putting the music in the other media section would be like having an article on the costume design of the universe and putting it under other media; yes, it is technically another medium, but it isn't a part of the MCU, it is about the MCU. That is why I proposed a production section above, for all the behind the scenes information that is separate from the actual projects set in the universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they should all go then. Also music section lists a bunch of soundtrack articles, which is a different medium from films and television. Costume design isn't a medium but albums are. Now if Marvel released a book about the costumes like they released albums of the music, then it would a medium.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with the way it was listed previously, unless "Outside media" needed another change. I don't think we should group the One-Shots and music as subheadings to "Other media". If we did, then the TV series should go too, because they are technically "other media" to the original feature films. But because those two have their own "top" article (Marvel One-Shots and Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe) plus sub articles, I think the previous formatting was best for them. And since the comics and WHIH are the only items for each, they fit nicely under "Other media". I'm indifferent to the inclusion or exclusion of the GotG attraction and the video games, only I know users will definitely keep trying to readd them if we decide to remove them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Costumes are definitely a medium, but that's not the point. We should be listing all the things set in the MCU, and I think Favre is right in that we should use the "top" articles as sub headings for films, TV, and short films, with the other under an other media heading. Then there is the music, which is obviously not a new project set in the shared universe, it is behind-the-scenes/production information that applies to all of the universe, so it should get its own section that will expand to a broader production section when needed. And then we can include other inspired-by things, such as the video games and attraction, or we don't include them at all. If we do include them, we can use the outside media heading, or something else if someone comes up with something better. However, I'm starting to think that we should remove that section due to how vague it is being a general related section. There are quite a few things, including the current animated series and even some of the actual comics, that take inspiration from the films and could be seen as related to the MCU in someway. Perhaps it is best to just remove the section and be prepared to revert any unwanted additions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Again soundtrack albums are not "behind-the-scenes/production information". Perhaps the information in the music article is, but the soundtrack albums are not. They are their own medium that is released, sold and reviewed separately. Anyway I grouped the video games under "Related articles" for now unless you all decide to remove it all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think that the soundtracks to films and TV shows are completely separate from them, and are just another individual story set in the MCU? That doesn't make any sense to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about a story? Soundtrack albums are distinct individually sold entities seperate from the films and series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just made "video games" a 'first class' header. Is there anything wrong with that? --Izno (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is going way off track now. This template is about the MCU, not anything kind of MCU related. Only the projects that are set in the MCU should be listed as such. Then other related real world things can be listed below. The way you guys have managed to make it, during this discussion, just doesn't make sense. The soundtracks and video games are not set in the MCU, we shouldn't be tricking people into thinking they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This should be really simple. Either they're a apart of the franchise or they're not. If they're not then they don't belong in this template at all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The video games and that attraction aren't part of the franchise, they're just based on it, so they can go. And maybe the soundtracks shouldn't be here either, as there is enough of them to have their own template. The music article would still go here though, under a production header at the bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No-body in any discussion has shown why they shouldn't be included simply because they aren't quote "in the universe", and I will steadfastly disagree to removing them. There are literally hundreds of templates that include the video games, whether canon or not, in their templates. Speaking of which, we're not here to document what's canon, we're here to provide navigation for the users--and I would bet that the vast majority of users would like to know a video game exists of their particular film of interest. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, usually canon isn't relevant for Wikipedia. But in this day and age of big, multi-media shared universes it is important to differentiate between what is part of the franchise (and is set in the continuity and therefore goes out of its way to conform to it) and what isn't part of the franchise, but has been made to look like it for marketing reasons. Marvel's animated shows are not part of the MCU franchise, but they do copy things from the films to trick kids into thinking it is the same. The video games aren't part of the franchise either, but their release ties in with the respective film's release, so the games copy some things from the film so players think it is an extension of the film when it isn't. Now, a navbox is meant to provide links between related articles, and it is feasible that a reader would be interested in these video game articles. But we have to make it clear that the games are included because they are related, not because they are actually MCU games. That's why a related section at the bottom seemed logical. Removing them all together as Triiiple said would also make sense, as long as we are internally consistent and remove all non-MCU articles. I don't know if that is necessary or not though. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Nav boxes aren't meant to show what is and isn't part of a franchise–it is meant to help readers navigate to relevant and appropriate articles about the given subject matter for the template, per everything stated at

WP:NAV#Properties. The soundtracks, video games and live attraction all belong in the nav box because of that principle. As the template exists here is fine at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 03:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If we were supposed to just link to all the related pages that users might want to navigate to then we wouldn't use any groupings or headings, we would just leave everything for them to figure out. But we don't, we link to all the relevant pages, and we organise it in a way so that the readers can find certain articles and know why/how they are related. So we use a subheading to let people know which articles are about MCU films. We use another for MCU TV series. We use parenthesis to indicate the individual seasons of a TV series. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense, and would be really unhelpful for something that is supposed to aide navigation. This template is for MCU articles, plus any other article that we think a user may want to navigate to. Mixing those two different things together is literally the same as having just one section for films and TV series—yes, the reader would eventually figure out what all the articles are and how they fit together after visiting them all, but they shouldn't have to. We are supposed to be making it easier for them to find the pages that they are looking for.

I'm not trying to be in-universe focused or anything like that. I understand what Wikipedia finds trivial and irrelevant, and what it does not. But the basic function of these templates, which is for easy, visual navigation, just doesn't work if the links aren't grouped and ordered in logical ways, and the way that they currently are is not logical or the best for navigation. Remember, most of our readers do not have an ingrained understanding of all these articles, their functions, and their subjects like we do. For many people, finding this template at the bottom of an article will be their first discovery of a lot of these other articles. If we give them the wrong idea from the start, it's just going to cause problems down the line. The focus should be on helping our readers get where they most likely want to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that was a lot of text, but I don't think I am being unreasonable here. This is all I suggest we change the template to at this time: