This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Captain Marvel (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Captain Marvel (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 19, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Captain Marvel is expected to be
Marvel Studios' first female-led film? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2019, when it received 15,788,749 views. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kiriat Monterroso,
Cecybueso.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Should we use better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or supporting source? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Emir, “personally preferring” doesn’t equal to the source being unreliable or disallowed. Don’t remove based off of a “personal preference”. Rusted AutoParts 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion involving this and many other MCU film articles at Talk:Loki (TV series)#"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence that may be of interest of watchers of this page. — El Millo ( talk) 03:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone. In the current revision of this page, IronManCap justified restoring the word "Sequel" instead of the word "Future" that had replaced it with the prior edit to that part of the page. While I agree with the change itself (the section should rightfully remain titled "Sequel", I wanted to note here for the record that the rationale given for the change appears to be faulty. According to the reason given in the edit summary: "we don't know for sure it is a team-oriented film, and it has been billed as a direct sequel to Captain rvel." Because that rationale didn't sit right with me, before I commmented on the matter here, I decided to do some research on my end. Those initial search efforts yielded the following results: This article from Variety includes the following verbatim statement in the seventh paragraph from the top (unless I miscounted somehow0): "Taking place after the events of “WandaVision,” the feature film [the Marvels] is on track to be the first all-female superhero film for the MCU." And that's just the first reference I looked at on this matter. I can bring other sources in for further verification, but in this one source, the film is clearly described as "the first all-female superhero film", with the surrounding paragraphs setting up the supporting information that Monica Rambeau will join forces with her mom's friend Captain Marvel and with Ms. Marvel to handle whatever the problematic situation in that film might be. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily picky about the word choice on the edit summary here, but using a faulty argument as an assertion to justify a revert may not be the most effective strategy. Having said that, my issue again is with the edit summary, not the substance or detail of the edit itself in question. Just wanted to go on record about that here. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Captain Marvel (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Captain Marvel (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 19, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Captain Marvel is expected to be
Marvel Studios' first female-led film? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2019, when it received 15,788,749 views. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kiriat Monterroso,
Cecybueso.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Should we use better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or supporting source? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Emir, “personally preferring” doesn’t equal to the source being unreliable or disallowed. Don’t remove based off of a “personal preference”. Rusted AutoParts 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion involving this and many other MCU film articles at Talk:Loki (TV series)#"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence that may be of interest of watchers of this page. — El Millo ( talk) 03:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone. In the current revision of this page, IronManCap justified restoring the word "Sequel" instead of the word "Future" that had replaced it with the prior edit to that part of the page. While I agree with the change itself (the section should rightfully remain titled "Sequel", I wanted to note here for the record that the rationale given for the change appears to be faulty. According to the reason given in the edit summary: "we don't know for sure it is a team-oriented film, and it has been billed as a direct sequel to Captain rvel." Because that rationale didn't sit right with me, before I commmented on the matter here, I decided to do some research on my end. Those initial search efforts yielded the following results: This article from Variety includes the following verbatim statement in the seventh paragraph from the top (unless I miscounted somehow0): "Taking place after the events of “WandaVision,” the feature film [the Marvels] is on track to be the first all-female superhero film for the MCU." And that's just the first reference I looked at on this matter. I can bring other sources in for further verification, but in this one source, the film is clearly described as "the first all-female superhero film", with the surrounding paragraphs setting up the supporting information that Monica Rambeau will join forces with her mom's friend Captain Marvel and with Ms. Marvel to handle whatever the problematic situation in that film might be. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily picky about the word choice on the edit summary here, but using a faulty argument as an assertion to justify a revert may not be the most effective strategy. Having said that, my issue again is with the edit summary, not the substance or detail of the edit itself in question. Just wanted to go on record about that here. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)