Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Archive 2

Yeah it's pretty pointless. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Release says Details about a film's release can include noteworthy screenings at film festivals and elsewhere, and I agree. Since Wikipedia is not a database like IMDb or Wikidata, the article should only include notable screenings. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, obviously the US release date and its premiere dates. And then it should be the first country or countries that it does release in, with some additional weight also given to the countries in which major filming was done (so for Love and Thunder, noting Australia's release would be ok in my eyes). If there are countries where it doesn't release (notably) or are banned, that's a separate situation I feel like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I have started a discussion at

I'm recommending that this article be sent back to the draftspace to be reworked, any objections to that should be raised at the discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion at Draft talk:Spider-Man: Freshman Year, based on the recent announcements from SDCC. Input is welcome. —El Millo (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

An article that been involved with (Deadpool) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Wade Wilson (film character)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to

The RfC at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § RfC: Should Citation bot use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news? has just been closed. Unfortunately, our concerns were not addressed there, and the closer ruled that the majority of respondents were in favor of using {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite news}} over {{Cite web}} for magazine- and newspaper-associated websites. As sad as it is, it appears our only option now is to adhere to the results of the RfC and let Citation bot do its thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I still believe the RfC didn't ask the correct question, and the results make complete sense with what was asked. It's not worth reverting the bot constantly despite the disagreements that it shouldn't be making adjustments as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree on all points. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I made an effort to stay clear from this RfC as it wasn't really of my interest or desire to get involved in a heated debate, despite it centering on citations, but the bots will be operated as the bot controllers see fit. The outcome makes sense, and as such, I will uphold it in my future edits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I was planning on running the bot for MCU articles, but I was waiting on a decision to be made. So it's fine to just do it now? -- Zoo (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Characters adapted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I saw Category:Marvel Studios Animation was recently created by MegaSmike46. First, should this even be a category? Yes, Marvel Studios has an animation arm, but as far as I'm aware, it has never formally been made a proper division within the company, or stated as "Marvel Studios Animation" (uppercase 'a'), just "Marvel Studios animation" (lowercase 'a'). Which leads me to asking if this category should exist, is this the proper name? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the category has to exist. Marvel's animation studio has shifted over the years (e. g. Marvel Productions & Marvel Animation, Inc.), so I feel it's worth mentioning as it's a mini-studio for many upcoming projects.

Also, sources have confirmed it as "Marvel Studios Animation" (via Marvel Youtube and Comicbook.com). MegaSmike46 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In an instance like this, an "official name" from Marvel Studios seems necessary, which as I said, I don't believe exists, because "Marvel Studios Animation" isn't officially a thing. It's just "animation from Marvel Studios". Hence, I don't think this is named properly. It likely should be Category:Animated series produced by Marvel Studios. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this category may not be necessary. I also don't think "Marvel Studios Animation" is the actual name of Marvel Studios' animation division, it's mentioned twice on the Marvel Studios article but neither reference say it's the proper name of the division. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I can potentially see one to house the studios' animation projects, but it's too soon given only What If has a mainspace article. I think we should head towards deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Before you do that, let's think. While some details about it are unclear, there are still several upcoming projects. Remember, it's a mini-studio animation division. We want to differentiate it from live-action productions. Until then, we can always change to category. MegaSmike46 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Either deletion or renaming needs to happen, because the name as it stands now is not correct to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's still too soon. Eventually we should have a category, but maybe once more series actually air or are at least in the mainspace. But if we do decide on just renaming, I support the suggestion by Favre of changing it to Category:Animated series produced by Marvel Studios -- Zoo (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The cat can be used on the current redirects for the upcoming articles in the draft space, so while I did feel deletion would have worked, renaming probably is better at this time. I'm going to make the request to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_29#Category:Marvel_Studios_Animation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, collected the short descriptions of the films and series in below table. Most films follow same pattern but less consistent for series. The majority of films are at 46 characters so slightly over recommended 40 (

Thanks, Indagate (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Could just say "20XX superhero film from Marvel Studios", "20XX limited series from Marvel Studios", "American TV series from Marvel Studios", something like that? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that "from" is better than "produced by". It is clear and to the point. BD2412 T 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Hawkeye's definitely needs the year in its SD, given there's the 1994 TV series that we dab from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been told before that for short descriptions of articles that already have the year in the title, the year is not supposed to be in the SD, as is done for Black Widow. I think we could just simplify it to "20xx superhero [film or television series] from Marvel Studios" and leave the "miniseries", "anthology", and American bits to the article. For co-productions, we don't necessarily need to state the partner, i.e. Sony for Spider-Man, given Marvel Studios is the main studio, but it wouldn't hurt to mention them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

TV series would need to exclude "superhero" I believe to get it under the 40 characters. "20XX television series from Marvel Studios" or "20XX limited series from Marvel Studios" are the best route for those I think, with the films using "20XX superhero film from Marvel Studios". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This might seem like a radical and

Sheesh, sound like you have some personal issues that need to be addressed away from this talk page (

WP:SHORTDESC is an information page, not a guideline and definitely not a set of rules that need to be strictly followed. And the example that you included comes from a section that says "here are some examples, though they can all be varied if the context allows something better", so I'm really not sure why you are acting this way. It also uses this format for the example: "[year] [type of publication] by [author or director]". I think you will find that Marvel Studios would generally be considered the "author" of these films and shows rather than the directors. Consistency is good, as you say, and we have a way to ensure it for a small group of articles by making a plan here so you should actually be on board with this discussion. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't continue the above discussion and then make the agreed-upon changes. - adamstom97 (talk

) 04:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I've always been bothered by the inconsistent short descriptions (how many times have they been inexplicably changed by random IP users?), so I think we definitely need to establish some sort of standard. If we want to keep these as short as possible, perhaps we could do [year] Marvel Studios/Television [film/television series], since "Marvel Studios" and "Marvel Television" are essentially synonymous to "superhero fiction" to most readers? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed short description. Looks neat to me. Centcom08 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Of the options presented above, which would you prefer we use for the short descriptions? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option A - [YEAR] superhero film from Marvel Studios for films, [YEAR] limited series from Marvel Studios for limited D+ series, American TV series from Marvel Studios for ongoing D+ series (as proposed by Adamstom.97)
• Option B - [YEAR] superhero film from Marvel Studios for films, [YEAR] limited series from Marvel Studios for limited D+ series, [YEAR] television series from Marvel Studios for ongoing D+ series (as proposed by Trailblazer101 and Favre1fan93)
• Option C - [YEAR] Marvel Studios film for films, [YEAR] Marvel Studios television series for all D+ series (as proposed by InfiniteNexus)

Straw poll

• Option C I think this is the simplest and most straightforward option to convey what's needed for the short descriptions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C I agree with Favre's assesment as this is straightforward while remaining as short as needed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, per the above. A "Marvel Studios" production is a genre in and of itself. BD2412 T 18:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C for simplicity, Option B as a second option for accuracy. —El Millo (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per above. -- Zoo (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C I believe this is the most concise out of the three. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C looks like this is where everyone is leaning, happy to go with what is most concise. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. Looks neat to me and easy to be followed even by non-MCU task force members. Centcom08 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. It is the most concise for the short descriptions, as the top paragraph would have presented more details about the film/series. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm going to add material on this to the project page, and start adjusting SDs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If anyone sees this before they hop on to do any edits for all the expected reveals at D23, just wanted to remind everyone that if any of our known series get formally announced and placed into a Phase (ie Armor Wars or Wonder Man), all of their sections and development history etc. are at Draft:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Seven, and should be removed from there and placed at the relevant Phase article. Enjoy all the announcements! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just noticed that per

Yeah, we should probably have formal move discussions for them unless we think these will all be smooth changes and uncontroversial. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I could see some potential concerns on this over the usage of "TV series" and "miniseries" based on what the precedent has been for these thus far, and any moves for the miniseries that do get second seasons, though those would be simple at least. The Hawkeye one would be a good use for this akin to The Defenders. I do think having a formal move discussion for these would be beneficial and more coordinated. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Part of the issue is I feel like the leads of some of these at I time were using "miniseries", other's just "television series". It's definitely hard to say from the initial announcements and release, because I guess technically all of them are "miniseries" until Marvel announces second seasons. And it's possible we get second seasons confirmed later than one would normally expect, so I think we need to be cautious with any moves. We can also look to what categories each series submits for in the Emmys, while not totally accurate, it is at least can be helpful if need be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed that the articles that say "miniseries" in the lead have "officially" been confirmed by Marvel to be miniseries in some capacity. Is that not the case? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like no? But I'm not sure. I just feel editors have put it because we know they're six episodes with no indication of anything more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We tried to update these at one point but they are not necessarily all correct. If Marvel has confirmed that there will be a continuation in a film or show then we should be good to move those to "miniseries" until we hear otherwise, so Hawkeye -> Echo, Ms. Marvel -> The Marvels, and Secret Invasion -> Armor Wars should be fine to move. Moon Knight is a bit trickier since it is still unclear whether there will be a second season or if he will show up somewhere else, but it does sound like he only signed on to star in the 6 episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, if we're doubtful on whether a series is a miniseries then we shouldn't put it in the lead. Taking a quick look, WandaVision, Hawkeye, Moon Knight, and Ms. Marvel all have "limited series" awards, but I don't see any evidence on the TFATWS, She-Hulk, and Secret Invasion articles that they're miniseries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say all Marvel Studios series that are not renewed or are clear cut not getting additional series should be stated as "limited series", which quickly viewing Limited-run_series#Classification means they have the potential for renewal, where "miniseries" does not. And in that case, disambiguation where needed should stay as "TV series". So I don't think we actually need a change for any article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I would be cautious with

citing other Wikipedia articles, not all of them are as high-quality and up-to-date as articles that get heavy traffic. The source for the "potential to be renewed" bit on Limited-run series doesn't actually say limited series can be renewed while miniseries can't, hence the {{Failed verification}} tag. I genuinely don't think there's a difference between the two terms, they're essentially synonymous in this day and age, the only good argument to change "miniseries" to "limited series" would be that the latter is more commonly used in the US. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

More !votes would be helpful at the redirect discussion for Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (note in Captain Marvel the character's name is spelled Bron-Char with one 'n'). It's been relisted twice to get more consensus. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_27#Bronn-Char_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This category is under discussion. It seems intuitive to me that we need some kind of categorization scheme for non-MCU Marvel Comics films, but I grant that it could be better titled. BD2412 T 00:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

BestDaysofMusic There is no "Marvel Studios Animation". That is not a formal name for the animation division of Marvel Studios. See #Category:Marvel Studios Animation for more on this being discussed. As such, I don't know if this draft is appropriate, but even so, it is not named correctly. I didn't want to redirect or adjust without alerting you to this, as well as allowing others to discuss and weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Then how about we rename it "Marvel Studios' animation division" or "Unnamed Marvel Studios animation division" or something like that? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Marvel Studios' animation division" would probably be best. Let's see if any other editor weighs in before we adjust. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support using that title for the draft. We can always work on it further down the line to see what comes of it as we get more animated properties. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed with Marvel Studios' animation division. — SirDot (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Moved to

Draft:Marvel Studios' animation division. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 18:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This redirect is under a discussion for its deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Jake Gomez (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and any votes would be helpful in it. The Jake Gomez character never appeared in the Werewolf by Night special and was more or less a ruse. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

When do we have to use the full name field for MCU characters? For example, why Nick Fury has the "full name" field compiled but Peter Parker hasn’t? If it can be helpful, I added the full name to the Smallville iteration of Clark Kent, but my edit was reverted because “...is irrelevant. infobox is for info essential to the character. He's probably had the name "Clark Joseph Kent" shown or recited like twice in a 10 year show”. Redjedi23 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about Smallville since that's beyond this taskforce's scope, but for MCU characters, the full name parameter is used for characters whose full name is known (with a source provided, since we cannot assume MCU characters have the same full names as their comics counterparts) and different from the article's title. For example, "Anthony Edward Stark" for Tony Stark. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Has Murdock ever been called by his full name? Because the article of Daredevil reports the one of the comic books' counterpart of the character. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe he's been called Matthew before, but not sure whether his middle name is known. If there is no source, that info should be removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

He was called Matthew a lot in Daredevil season 3, I know. I concur with InfiniteNexus, without a source for full names, they should be removed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the Phase 4 movies and shows have been using the "Based on the Marvel Comics" credits as opposed to the original creators. So would it not make sense to do the same for all MCU articles from now on? - Richiekim (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have supported this if not for Eternals's deviation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about post-credits scenes guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film § Post-credits scenes, and editors are invited to comment. That said, has there ever been any consideration to make a List of Marvel Cinematic Universe post-credits scenes (or some similar name)? It could supplement individual film articles in providing brief scene descriptions and related commentary, either for specific scenes or as a whole. This list could exist regardless of whether or not the individual film article details or mentions the scene, as I know for some films, some scenes are meaningless for the plot summary (jokey, fourth-wall, etc) and hard to fit otherwise. Such a list could be available via footnote at the end of a summary. For such a list, I found some sources readily enough:

• Variety: Every Marvel Studios Post-Credits Scene, Ranked From Worst to Best
• Vox: The rise of the post-credits scene, explained
• CNET: Marvel Cinematic Universe post-credits scenes ranked as Shang-Chi hits theaters
• Esquire: It’s Time to Stop Making Post-Credits Scenes
• Total Film: Marvel’s post-credits scenes are fast becoming one of the MCU’s biggest problems
• CBR: 10 Worst Marvel Post-Credits Scenes, Ranked
• The Guardian: Why post-credits scenes are slowly ruining blockbusters
• Time: Breaking Down Every Single Marvel Post-Credits Scene

Thoughts on this possibility? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think this is a good idea. It's very minor for it to be collectivelly a list, if anything it could warrant a section in the

WP:TRIVIAL list. —El Millo (talk

) 23:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to make a post here to alert MCU editors of that discussion, as that involves several MCU articles. Input is much appreciated. As for Erik's post-credits article idea, I agree with El Millo that that seems overly trivial. (Besides, there's already a mostly-unsourced

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I digress.) InfiniteNexus (talk

) 23:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Judging from my findings above, I feel like there is plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources about these post-credits scenes, both in terms of listing individual scenes and talking about their value (or lack thereof) as a whole. A book with "critical perspectives" about the films mentions them multiple times here. There is also this in-depth look, "Bryan examines the interplay within modern superhero blockbusters, which grants the geek a degree of social power: Marvel’s use of the post-credits scene is indicative of the larger process, creating a ritual enacted by fans, who interpret the scene for the uninitiated." WP:TRIVIA is about "Trivia" or miscellaneous sections that have largely been purged from articles for over a decade now.

WP:NOTESAL is more appropriate to apply, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The above sources support that notion, and the list can be comprehensive. I'm suggesting to have this list anyway, regardless of the outcome of the MOS discussion. If anything, it could provide another option for handling a film's post-credits scene, so editors aren't only limited to the scope of the individual film article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 00:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably feel better building out a little sub section at post-credits scene specifically for Marvel covering any relevant commentary beyond ranking articles than a dedicated, standalone list on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps a section at Marvel Cinematic Universe, or actually, Reception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say any of those three options rather than its own list article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Unless we can keep find enough coverage about the reception of the postcredit scenes, I don't think the reception of the MCU article is a good spot. I'd prefer to let that article be solely about MCU's reception and response to Marvel studios business practices. Squeezdakat (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We could have a

Mid-credit and post-credit scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, discussing the phenomenon substantively, and including a list. I would note that the film-based list alone would be inadequate for the subject, since the MCU has used also these in its television series. BD2412 T

02:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, I have started

Draft:Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe‎. I will work on it further in a week or two. BD2412 T

06:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: this has now been promoted to mainspace at Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe‎. BD2412 T 15:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe reporting on the soon-to-be-released The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special pushes this one over the top for freestanding notability, and have moved the draft to mainspace accordingly. BD2412 T 15:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A picture is needed for the page, by the way. BD2412 T 15:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I just saw that this page was moved. Even if we're counting the Holiday Special, Mantis still does not satisfy

WP:MCUCHARACTERS. Guardians 2 and Infinity War are her only non-cameo appearances. I'm not so sure if the Holiday Special alone makes her extra notable that an exception is warranted. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The character is a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy, so is in a titular role in any Guardians of the Galaxy media that comes out. I'm not sure that could have been said after Guardians 2 (since it does not become clear that she's part if the team until Infinity War), but now she is, and is in a separately titled Guardians of the Galaxy release. BD2412 T 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, she is currently at three (GotG2, IW, and GotGHS) presuming we do not count her as a title character as a part of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Either way, she is most likely to play a major role in GotG3, so the worst case is to wait until then. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that we generally have counted team members for a title team as title characters, as we have a number or articles on that rationale already. I don't see another basis for having Drax (Marvel Cinematic Universe) or Rocket (Marvel Cinematic Universe), who have only each been in one additional media other than in cameo appearances. I'm sure we had Clint Barton (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Natasha Romanoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe) at a point where they were only supported by their inclusion as members of the title team in the Avengers films. BD2412 T 22:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't contest this further, but for the record since the Guardians films do not have a titular character (only a titular team), only the two leads (Peter and Gamora) would automatically be mainspace-eligible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Where would this "only the two leads" rule come from? It seems like something made up on the spot. Also, there is a reasonable argument that Rocket is the actual leader of the team, and in any case the argument seems moot in light of Drax and Mantis clearly being the lead characters in the Holiday Special. BD2412 T 15:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it is less of "there can only be two leads" and more of "the movies only have two lead characters, those being Peter and Gamora". The actual "leader" of the team is irrelevant. Also, Rocket, Groot, and Nebula passes anyway with four major appearances (GotG, GotG2, IW, Endgame), (GotG, GotG2, IW, IAG) (also I Am Groot is titular), and (GotG, GotG2, Endgame, What If) respectively. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of a titular character (e.g. Eternals, What If, Armor Wars), the lead character(s) fulfill(s) the second criterion outlined in

WP:MCUCHARACTERS. The two Guardians films have no titular character (i.e. there's no one called the "Guardian of the Galaxy"), only two leads in the form of Peter and Gamora. But yes, you're right, with today's Holiday Special release Mantis probably satisfies that criterion given her co-lead role with Drax. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 17:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I presume we are officially going to abbreviate the Holiday Special as GotGHS? However we word out criteria, it would be silly not to have a separate article on Mantis at this point. An in-character picture is still needed for the page, by the way. BD2412 T 19:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that

Where is the suggestion to redirect this to an MCU locations list? I don't see it in the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at the nominator's suggestion that a "redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe could be considered", and misread that as referring to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which does list "Midtown School of Science and Technology" as a location, with a link to the article currently nominated for deletion). BD2412 T 02:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. I've !voted nonetheless. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

With Black Panther: Wakanda Forever now the latest MCU film to credit a previously-unannounced actor in the main titles but not the billing block for spoiler purposes, I think it's time we officially switch to basing the cast order for films off of the main titles instead of the billing block.

For reference, I've compiled a list comparing the two orders in my sandbox here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am very eager to support this citing the Wakanda Forever main titles, as well as those for No Way Home including more actors who were not announced or included in poster billings, as they are more reflective of the contents of the film. Having some unity between the cast derivatives would be helpful in presenting the material correctly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd support this change with a few caveats. 1) Endgame shouldn't change because that was explicitly set to the poster order. 2) we should clarify how the end titles sometimes "groups" actors together. In the vast majority of cases, when we talk about the main on-end order, we will be talking about actors who have their credit appear by themselves. The poster should still be used up until a film's releases, and then upon release, if the credits in the film are different, those adjustments can be discussed/made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Endgame would be the only exception I'd give due to the sheer number of standalone credits, and yes I'm not referring to the grouped titles, only the solo ones. With this new system, the process would go: (1) the previous film's cast listing, with new cast added on bottom → (2) the billing block from the poster or trailer, when one is released → (3) the main titles, when the film is released. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I support the changes as discussed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the changes, except for Infinity War and Endgame. Feel free to c/e if needed. I see there are hidden notes all over the IW page indicating that there was past consensus to have the infobox and lead follow the top billing on the poster and the cast section follow the billing block (not sure what's up with that inconsistency, but okay), so I don't know if there is consensus to override that. I'll also adjusted

@InfiniteNexus I would like to add as well the actors reprising their roles in previous MCU films and/or series are to be on first part (or sentence) of the paragraph. The following sentences are for actors who are credited at the end (not part of the main billing), which should be arranged according to their placement in the credits. The actors with uncredited cameo appearances are to be placed at the end of the paragraph. Centcom08 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly follow that order for consistency, if there is consensus to do so. Perhaps we could add something about this to

WP:MCUFILMCAST? InfiniteNexus (talk

) 23:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I strongly support the decision to use the end credits cast order, but I would like to throw out the idea of allowing an exception for cast members that were included on the poster, but got “grouped” in the credits sequence, as it implies the studio found them notable enough for listing.

This applies to three movies: Clark Gregg and Cobie Smulders in The Avengers; Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, and Sean Gunn in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2; and Harish Patel in Eternals. NickH (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like an unnecessary overcomplicating of things to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

For many Marvel films, there are two distinct sets of cast lists: the first set that occurs during the film's main titles (or end titles), which lists the principal and featured cast members. After that, there is the longer scrolling cast list, which lists everyone. Given that, I would also support using the cast lists from the main titles (or end titles) where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That is what we're currently doing (following the main titles, not the end crawl). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello guys, what if we can change this rule a little bit this policy? What I suggest is in incluing actors that were part on the billing poster too, but that they appear grouped in the credits, what is ignored. (Ex. Cobie Smulders and Clark Gregg were part of the billing cast in the poster of The Avengers, so I think those actors should be in the billing cast as well) Same case as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, only instead of Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, and Sean Gunn. And the other thing that I suggest is that allow me to put Danai Gurira in the full cast of Avengers: Infinity War, because she is individually billed, which appearently follows that policy, I say this about Gurira because I found out that there was a discussion about not changing the complete cast of Infinity War, but these can be an exception, with the change of putting just Gurira in the full cast. I say this because to be honest I'm not very happy with the rules, it not including actors that were part of the billing poster, I think they need to be modified a bit. And I also want you to listen to me about the cast of Infinity War. Pablo the Helper - To your service! 00:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote above, that sounds like an unnecessary overcomplicating of things to me. I've responded below regarding the Infinity War thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

While I'm not changing the credits for Infinity War at the moment (I've scanned the credits on Disney+), the first set of credits which start shortly after the film cuts to black lists a total of 35 actors (three of them with roles): Downey Jr., Hemsworth, Ruffalo, Evans, Johansson, Cheadle, Cumberbatch, Holland, Boseman, Saldana, Gillan, Hiddleston, Bettany, Olsen, Mackie, Stan, Elba, Gurira, Dinklage, Wong, Klementieff, Bautista, Diesel (as Groot), Cooper (as Rocket), Paltrow, del Toro, Brolin (as Thanos), Pratt, Gunn, Hurt, Wright, Notary, Vaughan-Lawlor, Coon and Shaw. So we could do the list of 35 that are the principal and featured actors per the new policy, with the rest of the non-billed cast being listed in prose format. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there were discussions held back when Infinity War came out that led to the current consensus. I don't see a good reason to overturn this consensus just yet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 2#Cast section layout might be one of those discussions? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This draft was submitted to AfC a while ago, but I think it'd be better if a move to the mainspace was discussed first. Please feel free to chime in at the discussion on the draft's talk page. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No one else chimed in , so the draft has been published. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have two options in mind for possible page images for the article.

One would be a frame from this iconic moment from Avengers: Endgame, in which Steve Rogers momentarily holds Stormbreaker while Thor holds Mjolnir.

The other would be a frame from the final scene of Love and Thunder, which Love wields Stormbreaker while Thor wields the reconstructed Mjolnir.

Any preferences? BD2412 T 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the first frames of the Love and Thunder scene would be fine in my opinion. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That scene does appear to give the crispest view of the two. BD2412 T 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is “Kraglin Obfonteri” the name of the comic books character? Because if it's not, we should fix the redirect

Good question ... you might be right, I couldn't find any evidence online that his last name was Obfonteri in the comics. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On the Kraglin page is stated that "A version of the character named Kraglin Obfonteri, portrayed by Sean Gunn, appears in media set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe", so I guess that the comic books version of the character is known only as "Kraglin". Redjedi23 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirects adjusted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. We should delete the redirect

Kraglin Obfonteri (Marvel Cinematic Universe), right? Redjedi23 (talk

) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No reason to do that, and I highly doubt it would pass RfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If Kraglin Obfonteri is the name of the MCU character, the dab should be useless (?) Redjedi23 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirects with unnecessary disambiguations are hardly uncommon, there's an entire category for them. Even though it's "useless" and we could easily do without it, there's no harm in keeping it and again, there are no grounds for it to be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So, I was reading this Vulture article (https://www.vulture.com/2023/01/inside-the-vfx-union-brewing-in-hollywood.html) and it refers to the animation division as "Marvel Studios Animation". No "Marvel Studios Animation Recap". No "Marvel Studios Animation Announcements". Just "Marvel Studios Animation". Should this be taken as an indication of that being the official name? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing issue since like The Incredible Hulk, but stuff like this, "Spider-Man: No Way Home is a 2021 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man, co-produced by Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing", is awkward and unnecessary. The publisher/distributor is such a relatively unimportant aspect of these films compared to the creatives behind them just like most other film articles. If I recall, this started mainly because of different studios holding specific rights, such as with Spider-Man, but it's explaining something that a) noone cares about, and b) really doesn't need mentioning/explaining in the opening sentence of every article. I would say it isn't noteworthy to be mentioned in the lead at all unless it is in specific circumstances such as with the Hulk and the first appearance of Spider-Man in the MCU in Civil War. I've looked in the archives and maybe I've missed it but I feel like it's just been that way for such a long time that noone thinks about it nor wants to go through 30 odd articles fixing it, but it's time to have that discussion. Thoughts? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because you may not care about it does not mean everyone else doesn't. The studios and distributors are noted on a plentiful of articles, not just Marvel or superhero related. It is helpful to note when it is Marvel Studios producing and when there are others as part of a partnership or collaboration, as is the case with the Spidey films. It could be an improvement to introduce the year and based on info as usual, and then state directed by X followed by the respective writing credits, before introducing the sequels to bit and numbered installment akin to the current wording we have for the Disney+ series, as seen at WandaVision. The goal of these articles is to best introduce what the subject is right away before divulging into specifics (albeit, summarized in the lead). Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring that I don't care about it, why is it in the opening sentence, what other quality articles are doing so, and why would that matter per

WP:OTHERSTUFF? Let us assume that this information is important for a casual reader to know immediately, of the last like 10 MCU films, only one, SPider-Man, is an outlier, the rest are "produced by Marvel Studios and released by Walt Disney". The films were this was drastically different are long gone, save Spider-Man, and I do not see what any reader gains from this being in the lead. I feel like this is just entrenched behaviour started by someone during the transition period when Disney assumed full control and people are just doing it out of habit, but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence and I think we're about 10 years removed from any films where the transition would be mentioned in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters

11:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Each article is its own separate work, though. We don't write an article presuming that the reader will have read the last ten. BD2412 T 01:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What is your point here? That someone would WANT to go back or, indeed, NEED to go look at other articles to find out previous distributors and publishers as if they matter in any way whatsoever? There will be one or two articles where it matters, where there will be some mention of that film (I'm not checking which) was the first released under Disney's ownership. THat's it. The production studio and distributor is not important to anyone but the distributor and publisher, but even if it was, it wouldn't be in the first sentence anyone reads in every Marvel article. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Every article I've seen made of it so far has just been a fork of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but I'm thinking if, should there be content like reception or development of the arc as a whole? I made Draft:The Infinity Saga so you can see what I'm thinking about. DecafPotato (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any "global" info that would support its own article. All the films would exists on the Phase articles, as for the most part, all the relevant history is on the main MCU article plus the phase articles. So we'd really just be merging info back to one large article, which is what we got away from on the films list when the split to Phase articles became necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Does Captain America in film qualify as one of the task force articles since it features the MCU movies? Mostly wondering because it just had a DYK and wasn't sure if I should add it here or not.

Edit: I guess my question is also for Captain America in other media and Hulk in other media as they also relate to the MCU. -- Zoo (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say no, given the articles' scopes extend beyond the MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur. It's broader than just the MCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It can't hurt to keep an eye on them anyway, if only to be sure that what those articles say about the MCU films is consistent with the MCU articles. BD2412 T 01:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, we still should watch over them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We can watch personally, but for the scope of this task force, no they do not fit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)