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.

Since we are taking another look at articles that probably shouldn't exist in the discussion above this one, I would like to bring this article up. I already raised these concerns at Talk:List of unproduced Marvel Cinematic Universe projects#Redundant and Trailblazer101 made some adjustments in response, but I still feel that this article only contains redundant information copied from existing MCU articles. Plus there is already List of unproduced film projects based on Marvel Comics and List of unproduced television projects based on Marvel Comics. I think this one needs to be merged with those. - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of this article, which seems at first glance to be a WP:CONTENTFORK. I would definitely support merging and assimilating into the other relevant articles. IronManCap ( talk) 11:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I now say merge it to where the info belongs. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 11:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge as it is. – ChannelSpider ( talk) 19:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an awful idea. MCU article should stay separated from those articles. İh2055 ( talk) 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@ İh2055: We have to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, which do not allow redundant articles containing identical content, known as content forks. Just you liking it or you wanting it isn't a good enough reason to retain the article. IronManCap ( talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

How are we going to add Loki in the Red and Black timeline? I mean will it be a new timeline diverged from 2012 (main timeline).I am very excited. Marvelouseditor6651 ( talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Since Loki appears to not be set in the main MCU timeline, it probably won't be added. The same goes for What If?. - adamstom97 ( talk) 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh,Okay. Marvelouseditor6651 ( talk) 20:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a question, yes, since there are no more words about Loki in DS:MOM section in Phase Four Article, but there is still a line saying that DS:MOM is tied to Loki in Timeline Section of the Main MCU article. Marvelouseditor6651 ( talk) 21:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: DS:MOM meaning Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four#Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022). BD2412 T 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That should probably be updated since Feige has called this into question recently. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Feige didn't reconfirm it after having said so in the past. That's not the same as calling something into question. It's hard to conclude anything from silence. UnderIrae ( talk) 22:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am becoming increasingly concerned over the amount of in-universe information / fan cruft that has been introduced into this topic recently. When we started this topic over ten years ago, we made the commitment to focus on the WP:Real world aspects and keeping plot details to a minimum and built a catalog of good articles, even reaching good topic status by following this idea. However, this started to change once we introduced character articles; first with MCU-specific characters, then major characters, and then supporting characters. Now, we have lists like Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and soon Draft:Major events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that focus on WP:In-universe information and minute plot details. This is topic is slowly starting to resemble the Fan Wiki and losing its encyclopedic tone. This problem has plagued WP:COMICS for years and now is now spreading to WP:FILM. </Rant> -- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. These topics are necessary and notable. But they can be better done. Also Wikipedia is a work of progress though. They are sometimes imperfect too. If anything it can and should be fixed through time I hope. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree we should minimalise the WP:FANCRUFT on these articles, which I have been trying to do to some extent for the features and major events articles. Like Jhenderson777 said, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the intention is to add more sourced real-world contexts to those articles. For instance, major events should not be published until there is significant real-world sourced commentary of every event. MCU character articles are WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY satisfying in terms of real-world coverage, and ones that were not, such as Sif (Marvel Cinematic Universe), have been moved back to draftspace. IronManCap ( talk) 18:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, you're the architect behind a lot of these. If you truly want to minimalize fan cruft, you can start by removing a lot of the entries in those lists, particularly the ones that are nothing more than summary-only descriptions. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

About being the architect behind a lot of these, the only page of those I started was the major events draft as a WP:SPLIT of Features, which was becoming WP:TOOLONG. The teams and species articles were created by now-retired user Limorina following some consensus for a split on Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think that the list articles could maybe be reworked into bulletpoint formats to minimalize the fancruft, focusing more on including real-world sourced info as the bulk of the article. I know that Facu-el Millo is working on this kind of format for Characters in his sandbox. IronManCap ( talk) 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey I created the “characters of” article. I deserve the half of blame became I haven’t watched it good enough as I should. I feel like there is still potential to fix it. I am not sure I wanted a list like Facu-el Millo's idea but anything is possible. I should note that the DC Extended Universe is going through the the same thing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of WP:FANCRUFT around here which is why I was opposed to an earlier draft about Villains of the MCU. Likewise, the major events draft is an even bigger dive into this. It's extremely detailed with day-to-day scene-to-scene breakdown. Most of them are hardly notable outside "big fans" circles. "Ego's expansion", hardly had any notability outside the GOTG v2, not even within the MCU so far. Others like "Fury's big week" are purely trivial. In reality, the most notable events are: The fall of SHIELD, Ultron/Sokovia accords, Civil War, The Blip and probably the battle of New York (though that's mostly only relevant for in-universe connections). And some of them either have their own articles or are fully covered in their respective film articles. So, unless something is well known and highly notable outside the fan community, let's avoid it.— Starforce¹³ 22:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The villains draft list had at least had a good reception at the bottom. Which is so the opposite of fancruft. Other than that it's be the same thing as Characters. Although I want to change the villains draft into an external list and see if that can slide. Going back to the events thing. Yeah that’s pretty much cruft. No matter how many sources are placed for it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ TriiipleThreat: Is there any of those articles you listed that you think should be kept? — El Millo ( talk) 22:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I know you didn’t ask me but they should still be kept I believe. Just treated with more care. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this sentiment TriiipleThreat, and the increasing number of MCU-specific character articles being created lately has frankly been ridiculous. Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe seems inevitable to me at some point, but the current version is mostly unsourced, is not formatted or organised in any useful way, and includes a large number of characters that non-fans would not find to be noteworthy. I would strongly support draftifying it and having a serious re-think about what that article should contain and how it should be presented so that it is coming from a logical, real-world perspective. Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe need to go, in my opinion, they are completely fan cruft, in-universe, and barely sourced. I didn't realise Draft:Major events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe existed, there is no way that should ever be moved to the mainspace. As for the character articles, they seem to be doing much better in terms of real-world information and sourcing, but after looking at a few of them I can see that they mostly have duplicate information from other film/TV articles as well as ridiculous in-universe character summaries that need to be almost completely removed, and they do not have anywhere near the amount of reception information that I would expect. IronManCap says only the noteworthy articles have been kept in the mainspace, but if duplicate information and long plot summaries are being used to determine noteworthiness then I am afraid that we may need to do a mass draftifying of those articles as well. - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all of this. I'll add that non-noteworthy entries at Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be removed and links to these entries should be pointed back at the "in other media" sections of their respective comics articles.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also agree with everything Adam said. The "Teams and organizations" and "Features" absolutely have to go and almost all character pages should be draftified since like Adam said they are pretty much just a duplication of info already found in other MCU articles with long plot summaries. - Brojam ( talk) 14:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I also agree with this Adam. The characters article is probably the only one I feel should probably stay, after it goes through some reduction and reorganization. I know there's been a lot of work done recently to adjust links to MCU-specific titles for various characters, objects, etc. I think this is great because redirects are cheap but that doesn't necessarily mean the target page needs to be an MCU-specific one. Many times, simply linking to an existing comic article's "in other media" section will suffice. That will probably help remove some of the in-universe dumps/copies at some of these articles, while still retaining the article links across the relevant pages should it warrant an actual article at any point. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The character article probably goes through lots of views. Which might make it more controversial to merge it. That’s my two cents on that. There is already lots of reception from reliable sources stored in the villain draft both for the individual characters and overall. So we can maybe use it on the character article. There is a lot of romantic interest sources I happen to notice too from the web. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, retargeting a lot of supporting/minor characters and teams to 'in other media' sections is certainly plausible, as they actually have more detail with good images anyway. About character articles, I agree their reception sections are a little underdone for a lot of them, although it seems that consensus was that well-sourced concept and characterization sections made up for that. I feel most of them do still satisfy WP:GNG though, although the Guardians ones are admittedly questionable. About Features, although a lot of it is WP:FANCRUFT, I feel it does still have some good sourced info that could be integrated into individual character articles, with the article either very redacted or deleted after that. Similar argument for Major Events, in that some of it (eg the "I am Iron Man" part) does have well-sourced info, and could be integrated into other character or film articles. IronManCap ( talk) 15:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @ InfiniteNexus, Sir Magnus, and ChannelSpider: as they may be interested in this discussion. IronManCap ( talk) 15:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adam about "strongly support draftifying it and having a serious re-think about what that article should contain and how it should be presented so that it is coming from a logical, real-world perspective." More reception, and possibly like how some of the DCEU's character pages have "Film appearances," where it's just a long summary of whichever movie the character appeared in. We might do that but have a small overview of that character's actions, other than that, I completely agree with Adam. – ChannelSpider ( talk) 16:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I reckon take the minor characters off the Characters page (Minor - clue is in the name!), and trim down the rest to what can be/is decently sourced. Same for Features. With all the pages, if they're well sourced (not just one or two references), keep, otherwise draftify/delete. Sir Magnus has spoken! ( So can you!) 17:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with mostly everything being said here. Some of the articles for individual characters may need to go. I've begun trimming down the Features and Major events articles, but more work still needs to be done. The Characters and Teams and organizations articles also need to be cut down. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could convert the Teams and Species articles into bulleted lists and merge them back into Characters. Same thing for Major events, which would go into Features. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Geez, I didn't even notice Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But the point is we don't have to document/list every aspect of the MCU. A lot of the entries in these lists can just be deleted. They do not provide any additional information that would be beneficial to readers that cannot already be gleaned from the preexisting film article or comics article.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Trailblazer101 for any thoughts. IronManCap ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adam, Favre, and TriiipleThreat on this all. Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and most of the characters' articles in the mainspace are pretty much all we need, once the Characters article gets a serious redo of how to present it and what goes where. I wouldn't mind supporting a draftifying of that article to rethink its approach. I don't have much of an opinion on how all of these characters are handled, but we must have well-sourced information relevant to the real world to warrant any of these articles. The "Features" article, in my opinion, is beneficial, but still needs a lot more work. Major events shouldn't be moved to the mainspace and, if anything, should just merge with "Features" or be non-existent as the events in each property are covered on the films and TV series articles already. We definitely shouldn't be trying to make a timeline of sorts on here, we're not a fandom wiki. I know I presented this before, but the "Species" and "Teams and organizations" should just be merged with "Characters" where those species and groups can be explained along with the characters, or into "Features" actually, if not be entirely deleted. We seriously can't afford to make huge list articles for just anything in this franchise, as it still has to apply to the real world in relevant, properly source ways. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 18:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreeing with Trailblazer, "Species" and "Team and organizations" should merge. The basic stuff (Characters of the MCU, Mainspace character articles, TV shows + Movies + Digital series articles) should probably the ones that are important. In all, "We seriously can't afford to make huge list articles for just anything in this franchise, as it still has to apply to the real world in relevant, properly source ways." – ChannelSpider ( talk) 20:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding moving minor characters info from the "characters of" article back to the Comics character articles.... I think we should introduce a new level-2 "MCU version" section header, instead of trying to dump all the MCU info as a bullet point under the "In other media" section. MCU is very notable compared to the other character versions, and this will help us expand the section as needed until the character gets their own article (when the time comes). This approach could also be used for other bigger characters who haven't qualified for their own article yet... instead of bloating up the list of characters article. We used a similar approach on the Captain America's shield as opposed to creating a new article or splitting TFATWS content into a bullet under the TV section while the rest were bullets under the film section. Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, IronManCap and everyone else, would you find this as a good compromise to help keep the "characters of" article small, but also provide a good, clean & complete section for the MCU version of the character on the comic character's page?— Starforce¹³ 22:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Starforce13, If I recall correctly. I actually tried to do this on Valentina Allegra de Fontaine but was reverted repeatedly. That is definitely a feasible option for many characters, and also features, as already done on Captain America's shield, Mjolnir and Wakanda. IronManCap ( talk) 22:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely not every incarnation of a comics character in the MCU deserves its own section in the character's article. De Fontaine has appeared in like two scenes in total thus far. Those characters that don't qualify for an article but have had quite substantive appearances are the ones that merit their own section in the orginal character's article. — El Millo ( talk) 22:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, hence why I tried to create a separate MCU section on the comics article for the redirect. IronManCap ( talk) 22:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that the section dedicated to the MCU-version of de Fontaine was reverted because it would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to dedicate one section to a character that appeared in two scenes of a TV show. For some MCU incarnations, a bullet point is enough, at least until the character makes more significant appearances. — El Millo ( talk) 22:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I guess we could use Template:Anchor to avoid the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problem. IronManCap ( talk) 23:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If we do that, do you think the Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should stay in any form? — El Millo ( talk) 22:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Facu-el Millo: Personally I would say yes, as it has quite a few original characters on it as well that may be useful for redirects, and can be useful for an overview of the central characters, although it should be condensed by removing characters where possible. IronManCap ( talk) 22:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, yes, the "characters of the MCU" article would stay but it would serve as a list/summary article to help us include as many important characters as needed without making it too large. For the ones with very little info we could do a level-3 header under "In other media" and then once we get more info, move it to its own level-2 section. This way, the redirect remains intact. — Starforce¹³ 22:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing to be wary of with Starforce13's proposal is that we don't add an undue amount of in-universe content to the "In other media" sections of the comic book character articles. To Facu-el Millo's point, I think it will exist in some form at some point but for now that can be decided in the draftspace once we have re-evaluated everything.

It sounds like there is general agreement to draftify the Characters, Teams, Features, and Species articles and then work on merging/sourcing/condensing etc. until we are happy for something with that info to return to the mainspace. My next two questions about that would be (1) where should these articles redirect to in the meantime so users who already know of them get sent to the next most logical place? And (2) are we happy to say that none of those articles should return to the mainspace until we have another discussion like this one with most-if-not-all of these editors? I ask the second question because I feel like it would defeat the purpose of trying to clean everything up now if a few editors were going to turn around in a few months or so and just push all the articles back into the mainspace. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) The most logical place for the redirect to point to is the In other media section of the comics character (or the Marvel Cinematic Universe section for those that have it), except of course for the ones that have their own MCU-specific article. (2) Yes, a populated discussion should take place to move them back to mainspace. — El Millo ( talk) 22:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant with question (1) is where do we think Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should redirect, for example. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that "characters" article will stay. We just need to make it more of a summary list and move the characters in-universe details to the individual comic-character article, by introducing the new MCU version section I was proposing above. The "In other media" section as it stands today, it limits how much details about the character you can add which forces people to keep expanding the already large "characters of" article... or makes people want to create a new character article. As for teams, organizations and species, we could use a similar approach and redirect to those sections. The ones that don't already have their own comic version article will be tough once we dissolve the articles and we need to decide what to do with them. — Starforce¹³ 23:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Starforce13: I think Adam was asking where we will redirect the articles whilst they are in draftspace. IronManCap ( talk) 23:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if we should draftify them to correct them. We should only draftify the ones that we agree shouldn't exist.... but only move them to draftspace after we have moved the content and updated the redirects. So, yeah, they're not perfect but rushing to draftify them before moving the content to a new target creates more chaos. — Starforce¹³ 23:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

By The ones that don't already have their own comic version article are you talking about those based on very minor comic characters or those that are original to the MCU? — El Millo ( talk) 23:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think both. If we run into a species or team/organization that's introduced in the MCU or is too minor in the comics to have its own article, what do we do with its content and redirects once we draftify the article? For example, for species, where would we put the MCU versions of Flerkens, Outriders, Sovereigns once the article goes to draftspace?— Starforce¹³ 23:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Just delete it, if they’re that minor then we probably don’t need it. Using your example, is there any reason to discuss Flerkens outside the context of Goose in the Captain Marvel film?— TriiipleThreat ( talk) 23:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The only notable character I can think of that is original to the MCU and doesn't (and most likely shouldn't) have an article of their own is Darcy Lewis, and I don't know where this redirect could point to. — El Millo ( talk) 00:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to draft-ify Characters as opposed to reworking it in mainspace, but if we do, then we should leave an anchor for Darcy on her description on either Thor (film), Thor: The Dark World or WandaVision. IronManCap ( talk) 00:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Characters" can be redirected to either Marvel Cinematic Universe#Recurring cast and characters or List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, if it is moved to draftspace. "Teams", "Species", "Features", and "Events" can be redirected to either Marvel Cinematic Universe or their comics counterparts (i.e. List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, List of alien races in Marvel Comics, Features of the Marvel Universe, and Major events of the Marvel Universe). InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the good suggestions InfiniteNexus. I see that a few editors are a bit hesitant over draftifying the list of characters article, but my thinking was that moving it out of the mainspace would force us to come up with a better solution rather than just leaving it where it is. Perhaps we should have an official proposal of what changes are going to be made so that we can be clear what will happen and make sure there is support for it? - adamstom97 ( talk) 00:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Characters of the MCU" article should not be draftified or redirected. List of characters article is a common practice on all franchises. It's fine. We just need to keep it short by making it more of a list/summary and moving the character details to the comic character article. "Species", "Teams" "Features" are never really referenced as an article. Only the subsections. Once we move the subsections content to the comic article, then the main article doesn't need to be redirected anywhere. For example, with species page as article, these would be the clean up steps:

1. Copy the "Celestials" section and refs into the Celestials (comics) article under a new section; and do necessary c/e
2. Change Celestials (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to redirect to Celestials (comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe
3. Do the same for all the other species
4. Draftify the Species article

Darcy Lewis could be one of the few characters who retain most of their info in the "Characters of" article; while the rest get summarized and moved to the comic counterparts. — Starforce¹³ 00:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That Celestials and species redirects might be significantly helpful. As for Darcy, staying her info in "Characters" seems like a plausible solution. And Loki actually had a "Marvel Cinematic Universe" header in the "In other media" section, so we could use that as a prototype. – ChannelSpider ( talk) 02:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Official proposal

I don't think there is much more to be gained from this discussion until we confirm the next steps. So, here is what is being proposed for each article:

• Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be rethought. If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace.
• Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be moved to draftspace (at least).
• Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be moved to draftspace (at least).
• Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be moved to draftspace (at least).
• Each character article needs to be re-evaluated to make sure they actually meet notability (duplicate information from other articles and large plot summaries do not count). If not, they should be moved to draftspace.

Once there is confirmation for this plan we can go ahead with the moves and start making progress. - adamstom97 ( talk) 03:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Agree . — El Millo ( talk) 04:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: How about we table "Characters" for later, but begin working on the others which are less complicated but more in-universe? That will help us make a huge progress fast. Teams, Species, Features should be easily integrated into their respective comic counterpart articles as an MCU section; and have their redirects updated. This can be its own level-2 section or a level-3 subsection under "In other media" for those with little content. Whenever each of these article has been fully absorbed into the comic-book articles, then it gets moved to draftspace... except for the Characters page which will need further discussion or at least reformatting. — Starforce¹³ 04:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's the opposite of what I think should happen. If we don't think we can sort it out now then it should go to the draftspace until we can clean it up. If we think it can be addressed quickly then leaving it in the mainspace should be fine. - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's a major problem with the "Characters" article besides being too detailed, which just needs to be summarized. It's a very common practice to have a "list of characters" article for franchises. The other articles are the problem. Moving it to draft, then adjusting all the hundreds of links, then adjusting them back once a new solution is found seems like overkill. ADD: This shouldn't be treated as an emergency where we need to break everything to solve the problem as soon as possible. It's more of a work-in-progress situation IMHO. Also, worth noting, the "Characters" page gets over half-a-million views every 2 months, meaning it's definitely of importance to readers. So, temporarily removing it from mainspace would be a huge inconvenience to a lot of readers — Starforce¹³ 05:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• There is a major problem with it, that is why we are having this discussion. I agree that the effort to redirect everything and then change it all back is probably unnecessary, but not if we aren't going to do anything about the state of the article. Regardless, this section is supposed to be about confirming the plan rather than discussing details. If you are against draftiying the characters list then just say that, if others agree then we know we will have to have a further discussion about exactly what to do with it soon. - adamstom97 ( talk) 06:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• The high amount of views may have to do with the fact that we have a lot of redirects to the Characters article. — El Millo ( talk) 06:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The point I was trying to make about the views is that it would be a huge inconvenience to readers if we moved it to draftspace without a solid solution to point them to the right content first. I would rather we take the time to move the content to the comic counterpart pages first and adjust the redirects before moving to draftspace - for a smoother transition. Does it have problems? Yes! But the problem isn't that it exists, the problem is that it's too large or overly detailed, and we don't solve those problems by moving an article that has been in mainspace for years with lots of redirects back to draft. I mean even this main MCU article has lots of problems that need to be solved, but the solution isn't to break everything and move it to draft to fix it first. Wikipedia is a work in progress, it's not a "perfect or nothing" situation. — Starforce¹³ 06:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• This article (MCU) has problems, yes, and we are addressing them. We want to address the problems with these other articles as well, but the way we are currently discussing is not helpful. We need a plan so we can have some structure here. - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think moving the main characters article to draft is the correct procedure. It's a bit ironic that TriiipleThreat started this discussion by saying This problem has plagued WP:COMICS for years and now is now spreading to WP:FILM and the solution proposed is to redirect to the comic pages, which even in its current state the character sections are still much better than most comic article that we could redirect to. I've pointed out in other discussions that I believe the character sections should be trimmed, with characters that have a stand-alone article having very brief one-liners, major characters without articles having bigger sections and minor characters could have one-two-lines of text and could be changed to a bulleted list. But in overall, forcing a reader looking for MCU information to spend hours jumping between different articles just to find the information about MCU characters, instead of of one single place, is completely unhelpful. -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Length is not the only problem with the Characters list. We are discussing WP:INDISCRIMINATE details such as summary-only depictions of works. If there is not much more to discuss besides the plot for a particular entry then yes it should be redirected elsewhere. Again, it’s is not our job to catalogue every aspect of the MCU including minor characters and if there is a place that already discusses them in a wider context such as comics then that perhaps would be the best place to send them.— TriiipleThreat ( talk) 11:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. it should be redirected elsewhere and it’s is not our job to catalogue every aspect of the MCU including minor characters. It doesn't matter if we send the reader to an MCU section in a comic article or to a MCU list article if they both have the same piece of information. However, having that piece of information in an MCU list article gives much better context and relevance. Also, from all the MCU sections in comic articles I've read, they were never written with out-of-universe context to the comic character, as were all the other comic version sections on those articles. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The information already exists in comics articles for better or worse and we are not discussing clean-up the whole of the WP:COMICS project but we are discussing the clean-up of this topic. But fine, if you don’t want to point those links somewhere, I’m perfectly fine with removing the links entirely. Ether way, entires that are not much more than mere summary-only descriptions do not belong on Wikipedia.—- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with Triiiple's logic here. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposed.— TriiipleThreat ( talk) 11:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• You know there is many ways to go about the characters article. Maybe with featured characters we can do an external link overview. Since most of them have articles. Or better yet put some creation and concept / characterization section info on the characters article making it looking like the tv series character list article instead. We can remove most minor characters too. There is already reception on the villains draft. I need more than just villains at some point since the list is not centric to just those characters. I welcome any ideas of copyediting without doing a remodel or drafting it again. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - moving the "Characters of the MCU" article to draftspace before pointing each character redirect to its new appropriate article/section will do more harm than good. — Starforce¹³ 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. There is a well-established consensus for the individual character articles, and nothing in the discussion preceding this touched on them to a sufficient degree to raise an issue here. The proposal appears to ignore the scrupulous review these articles underwent before being moved to mainspace in the first place, and the exceptional work that has been done to maintain them. BD2412 T 16:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Adam’s proposal for individual character articles is just to review them. I fail to see any harm in that.—- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If there seriously was a "scrupulous review" of these articles then it clearly wasn't "scrupulous" enough. No harm in having another look. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose atm per Starforce and BD2412. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and whilst these articles are definitely WP:IMPERFECT, I feel reworking/adding to them in mainspace is better then the ' nuclear option' of simply drafting them all. Conceivable merge options can be figured out for any that are dubious in terms of sustaining separate articles (i.e. Teams and Species). Many of these articles, particularly the individual character ones, do at least satisfy WP:GNG, whilst WP:NEXIST applies to the less well-written ones, a good reason for improving them whilst in mainspace. As Starforce has pointed out, drafting highly-viewed articles creates unnecessary instability for readers. I'm sure WP:TIAD can still be applied to mainspace articles in terms of cutting down WP:FANCRUFT. IronManCap ( talk) 18:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Starforce, B2412 and IronManCap. I'm sure we could develop them whilst in mainspace. – ChannelSpider ( talk) 20:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Next steps

Well this is weird, we have gone from consensus supporting the changes in one section to a full 180 in the next. Obviously people have gotten confused since most of the oppose votes are suggesting we rework the characters list in the mainspace ... which is in my proposal! As was made pretty clear in the above section by multiple editors, Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe all need to go and shouldn't really be up for debate. If everyone is just getting hung up on the characters list and articles then I suggest we move over to Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to continue discussing those ones there. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps people were "confused" by your inartful reference to draftspace in the first line of your proposal regarding the Characters page. BD2412 T 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Inartful? It literally says If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace. The only way to interpret that as "adamstom97 says we must move the Characters page to draftspace" is if you willfully misread it. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace sounds like you're not clear that there is such opposition. I'd advise that you avoid trying to shoot first. BD2412 T 22:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion on the proposal hadn't taken place yet... adamstom97 ( talk) 22:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to Adam, I wasn't confused nor was I opposing his proposal altogether, but I did have a serious issue with replacing a list article with sections in a comic article. Those articles are both bad and also not relevant to MCU readers and additionally, may lose information over time (as they are just a small section in a much larger article). A list article for MCU things is how I believe this should work. The list however, does need a redesign and consensus on how, what and where. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This is part of my proposal though, so what part are you in opposition to? - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean that it wasn't part of your proposal? And while it wasn't your proposal, other editors which supported your idea extended it to redirecting to comic articles. Since it the section turned into a poll, I made sure that it was clear that I did not support that plan of action. I do however, as I said several times, support a redesign to make these better. Gonnym ( talk) 22:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean it was part of my proposal: The list however, does need a redesign and consensus on how, what and where. = Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be rethought. If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree about Teams and Species, although, as outlined, I feel Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is salvageable per WP:NEXIST. It currently has 87 refs, and that's a reduced number after moving a lot of features elsewhere following the discussion here. A lot of the objects and places have sourceable real-world discussion that would justify the article, we just need to focus on including it in-place of fancruft. I, like BD2412, also opposed draft-ifying individual character articles instead of improving them in mainspace, as they do mostly satisfy WP:GNG. I agree about drafting Teams and Species as well as reworking the Characters list. IronManCap ( talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The features article is an indiscriminate list of places and things from the films, it is fancrufty trivia that is mostly duplicated from film plot summaries. Saying it has 87 refs is a misnomer, most of these are in just a few of the sections and are barely sourcing any good, real world information. The fact that this sort of article should not exist is the whole reason we are having this discussion. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I used 87 refs as an example of how there are sources existing for this topic, not to claim it's a well-sourced article. To quote WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. For instance, there are sources existing discussing the special effects, symbolism and costume design used for some of the suits, the real world notability of Wakanda, the Russo brothers discussing omitting Xandar from Infinity War and Jim Starlin criticizing the depiction of Thanos' blade as a change from the comics. We need to focus on all this real-world stuff rather than fancruft. Items without any existing sources can be removed from the list as non-notable. The article needs to be reworked, not thrown away. It is also useful as a redirect target for WP:CHEAP redirects for things not notable for their own articles. IronManCap ( talk) 22:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, yes, BD2412 is right - Insisting on moving the "Characters" article to draftspace first was the main problem in the proposal. I brought it up in my first comment on the proposal in hopes that we could agree to clean it up later after moving all the content to the appropriate new targets and adjusting all the redirects... but per your replies, you insisted that it has a lot of problems and moving it to draftspace is pretty much the only way to fix the problems. So, it became an "all or nothing" choice which forced me to oppose despite making it clear that I want to clean them up. And I think everyone agrees clean up is needed. The main pain point is insisting on moving them to draft first. — Starforce¹³ 22:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

But that isn't what happened. I proposed that we deal with it now or move it to the draftspace. In your first comment you asked that we do neither of those, so in my reply I reiterated my opposition to that and again said we should deal with it now or move it to the draftspace. I never insisted that the Characters article be moved to the draftspace. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't intend to insist on draftifying it before moving the content and redirects to their new appropriate targets, but that's how it came out to me, and obviously most other editors... pushing them to oppose the proposal as written. Saying "deal with it now or move it to draftspace" isn't a real choice either because this is a huge article with a lot of work needed and could take weeks, if not months, to fix it or even settle on a good solution. So, that leaves draftspace as the only option. It makes it sound like an emergency or as if we're pulling "the nuclear option" like someone else put it.... which is an overkill just to fix the article. — Starforce¹³ 00:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Those opposed to the proposal, are you opposed to draftifying any of them or just against draftifying the Characters article? — El Millo ( talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Although the "Characters" article is the main one that shouldn't be draftified, the rest of the articles should also follow a proper list of steps before draftifying to avoid inconveniencing readers with misleading redirects. The best action steps to ensure that, would be something like:

1. Copy each entry (eg "Celestials" on "Species" article) section and refs into the comic counterpart (eg Celestials (comics)) article under a new "Marvel Cinematic Universe" section. This can be either its own level-2 section or a level-3 subsection under "In other media" depending on the amount of content. Do the necessary c/e.
2. Change the redirect to point to the new section (eg redirect Celestials (Marvel Cinematic Universe) => Celestials (comics)#Marvel Cinematic Universe)
3. Do the same for all the other entries/sections on the article
4. Once all the entries have been moved and redirected properly, move the article to draftspace

Use similar steps for "Characters of the MCU" article but instead of moving the article to draft, summarize the character into 1-2 sentences. Minor characters can even be placed in a bulletted list.— Starforce¹³ 00:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Facu-el Millo: I strongly oppose draftifying Characters because it is better to rework/add to them in mainspace than the "nuclear option". – ChannelSpider ( talk) 22:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I just found this discussion, and I would also oppose draftifying the "Characters" article. Is there a clear consensus of how "Characters" should be cleaned up? I agree with the others that there does seem to be an increasing amount of fancruft / fandom creeping in, and would concur with draftying the other articles, e.g. "Features", "Species", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natg 19 ( talk • contribs) 00:46, June 2, 2021 (UTC)

Clearly I got a bit excited last week when I thought there was interest in cleaning this topic up, per Triiiple's starting of this thread and the positive responses to my initial comment. Hopefully in the future we will be able to make these improvements, but I don't have the time or energy to fight for this as I tried to do previously. - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been sitting on this idea for a while, but I think it would be beneficial to create an MCU taskforce. I don't believe a whole project is in order, because the vast majority of the articles fall under the purview of either WP:FILM or WP:TV.

I'd propose Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force as a joint taskforce between WP:FILM and WP:TV (similar to WP:CBFILM with film and WP:COMICS), with the task force living in the WP:FILM namespace given the MCU started as films. This way, we can add parameters to the project templates to help track articles and assessment/class across the various articles, have a centralized place to put some MOS addendums (ie how casting sections are handled: for films, listing actors as announced or a past billing until the film's billing comes out, and why we are listing the Marvel Studios Disney+ series cast the way we are, etc.) and have a centralized talk spot that isn't here that might affect many articles under the MCU umbrella.

Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The multiple people working on MCU-related articles are already working as a pseudo taskforce, just without the advantages of having a central place for questions, discussions and fleshing out issues. So yes, I support this venture. A taskforce namespace also works with subpages better than the current use of talk page subpages (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Drafts). Note, the name should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force per the other ones. Gonnym ( talk) 17:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Question for the masses, should the Sony Marvel universe be included? Gonnym ( talk) 17:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to include "task force" in the name, my apologies. Sony should not be included in my eyes, as any connections (now or in the future) would be tangential, but shouldn't be classified under the proposed task force. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup, good idea Favre, the volume of MCU-related articles certainly justifies a separate taskforce. Would be a helpful place for centralizing priorities too. WP:STARWARS, for instance, seems to have served well. I guess SUMC articles would be low-to-mid importance on here, as they are related in terms of business practices etc. IronManCap ( talk) 17:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Per my comment to Gonnym above, SPUMC shouldn't be considered part of this in my opinion. Also please note WP:STARWARS is a project not a taskforce which is being proposed for the MCU. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I know it's not a taskforce, I was just saying having a WikiProject has served well for other franchises, so having a taskforce would be beneficial for MCU articles. IronManCap ( talk) 20:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand your point you were making. I just wanted to make sure you were not expect the outcome of a project from this. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for the creation of a task force for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It would be much easier and organized to communicate en mass new propositions, news, and changes affecting multiple articles and explaining how and why we do what we do in these articles. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 20:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that this sounds like a great idea, and the SPUMC articles should not be included as they are tangentially connected and created by a different studio. Doesn't mean that we can't continue to discuss that connection at the new task force talk page, but we should classify those films as part of the MCU. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that tagging an article for a task force is not an encyclopedic statement so if we are going to discuss pages connected to the MCU, there really isn't any reason not to tag them. It's not like we are saying "These are MCU". I'm sure if there was a better name for a task force than "Marvel Cinematic Universe and also Sony Marvel Universe and also anything tangentially connected" we could have used that instead. Gonnym ( talk) 21:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Task force has been created! - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was scrolling through to see if any updates had been done to the page and I noticed a new format for the listings of the Disney+ shows done by adamstom97 and fixed by favre1fan93 according to the edit logs (there may be others as well, however theirs were the only ones I checked). the edit sorts the shows by phases and such, which is fine, however Loki and What If have both been marked as Phase 4 and are confirmed to have seasons that exist outside of Phase 4 as well, and they are separated as such.

the issue being I don't recall anywhere else on this page or Wikipedia for that matter where shows have their seasons separated like this (it could have been done on the Arrowverse listings to differentiate them between Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons but it wasn't, at least last I checked it wasn't, seemingly to keep it consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, just as an example), and I noticed here on the talk page that there was talk about separating the sections into their own pages.

With all that said, my question(s) is/are were these edits sanctioned by a mod or admin as checking on their pages neither of them appear to be marked as such (Adam does have a Senior Editor mark, but I'm not sure if that's a level of hierarchy or just some special award for doing a lot of edits or something)? should their formatting be changed to be more consistent with the other show list on the page and other Wikipedia articles that list shows, especially since the television section seems likely to be separated into its own page, or is it ok as is? if it's agreed the formatting should be changed, should it be reverted back to how it was before their changes, or should some kind of "compromise" for lack of a better term be made regarding it? 45.51.166.54 ( talk) 07:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes on Wikipedia are not "sanctioned by a mod or admin", everyone is free to edit here and changes to articles are determined through discussion and consensus. The edits you are referring to here were made to be consistent with changes at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, and you can find the relevant discussion regarding the changes at the talk page for that article. The reason we have decided to split the series by Phase is because Marvel Studios is including series in the Phases alongside their films. The next seasons of Loki and What If...? have not been confirmed for a Phase yet, at the moment we just have the series listed at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four together and then any others listed as future. Yes, we do not usually split series like this, but the other examples you listed were not collected into Phases like these ones have been. - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware they aren't actually sanctioned, what I was meaning is did mods and/or admins approve of the change/ask for the change to be made or was it done just randomly without them knowing or whatever. I understand why the change was made, I wasn't questioning why you did it that way, I was questioning if it should have been done that way and/or if there was a better way to do it that falls more in line with every other page that does this sort of thing on Wikipedia, if that makes any sense. Is there a way to split them like you are wanting that also doesn't split the series, that way it's more in line with how Wikipedia does it instead of it being a random outlier? Like maybe have it to where the series aren't split but put one of those little letter annotation things (I don't actually know the name of them) as like a note to this section where it pops up and says something like "this season/show is part of Marvel Phase 4" and for the ones that are undetermined/not phase 4 you could have a separate annotation saying something like "this season/show is part of an unknown phase". I'm aware the other series I mentioned are not collected into phases, I never said they were, what I was saying is that while it isn't done like that, there is a way that it could have been (separated into Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons, in reference to the Crisis on Infinite Earths event that canonically happened within that shared universe, as there is known/listed separation with such things among the series's parent company DC Comics content and the like), yet it was not done like that, so why is this done differently, if that makes any sense. 45.51.166.54 ( talk) 13:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware they aren't actually sanctioned, what I was meaning is did mods and/or admins approve of the change/ask for the change to be made or was it done just randomly - sounds like you didn't really read my explanation. - adamstom97 ( talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I did read your explanation, a couple different times in fact, I wasn't asking that question again, I was simply clarifying that's what I was meaning by it, as you seemed to have taken it to mean something else, which is partially my fault, as I'm not always the best at this sort of thing. I am curious as to why you only responded to that one part and not the rest of my response, as there is more to the response than just what you decided to pick out from it, and it is common courtesy to do so and it appears as though you didn't really read my response/explanation. 45.51.166.54 ( talk) 01:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made it pretty clear how this decision was made, why it was made, and why there was no admin approval required. I'm not sure what else you want to know. - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If you continue on reading from the part you quoted, you will also see that I say things like I understand why the change was made, I wasn't questioning why you did it that way, I was questioning if it should have been done that way and/or if there was a better way to do it that falls more in line with every other page that does this sort of thing on Wikipedia, if that makes any sense. and Is there a way to split them like you are wanting that also doesn't split the series, that way it's more in line with how Wikipedia does it instead of it being a random outlier? and then I propose a possible way of doing so Like maybe have it to where the series aren't split but put one of those little letter annotation things (I don't actually know the name of them) as like a note to this section where it pops up and says something like "this season/show is part of Marvel Phase 4" and for the ones that are undetermined/not phase 4 you could have a separate annotation saying something like "this season/show is part of an unknown phase". I also touch on the seeming confusion you had about what I was saying about comparing this with the Arrowverse I'm aware the other series I mentioned are not collected into phases, I never said they were, what I was saying is that while it isn't done like that, there is a way that it could have been (separated into Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons, in reference to the Crisis on Infinite Earths event that canonically happened within that shared universe, as there is known/listed separation with such things among the series's parent company DC Comics content and the like), yet it was not done like that, so why is this done differently, if that makes any sense. all of which you did not touch on or respond to or anything like that, especially the proposed "compromise" for lack of a better term that I had made. It could even be that whole proposition, and then just have each show sorted by year of the first season release like have a "2021 shows" divider and a "2022 shows" divider and a "unknown year shows" or "TBA year shows" divider, or something like that, that way all the information that's already there is still there, it's just done in a way that falls more in line with how Wikipedia does things, and still roughly keeps the format you already have it in. 45.51.166.54 ( talk) 15:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The issues presented with this page were briefly discussed in an earlier talk section in March 2021, under "Article cleanup", and it was decided to (re)move certain sections of this page. Some of the action was done, but I do agree that more should of been done to fix all of the page's issues. Cardei012597 ( talk) 05:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm normally opposed to splitting articles, but since the TV side came in, it has made the article too unwieldly. Really there needs to be this page as an overview, and then a dedicated Marvel Cinematic Universe in film and Marvel Cinematic Universe on television, or something better than those really, where ALL that content goes. Same with the comic books, same with the huge cast list. The very extensive film history for example should be in the film article, retaining here just the important part about the origins thereof, and any notable milestones along the way. There could be potential in just wrapping this all up in the Infinity Saga banner, and starting over for the next phase as well. Also I'd probably remove the image of Joss Whedon altogether, because Joss Whedon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That split has already happened, we definitely do not need to make anymore articles. As has already been discussed at this talk page, the best approach is to move the majority of the film development information to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and the existing Phase articles. The majority of TV information is already at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. Then we just need to cut down what is here into a summary. The same can probably be done with some of the film-specific reception information. After that, we can continue working to cut down the size of the cast table (there is a separate thread discussing that already) and can also c/e all of the other media discussion to make sure we are being concise. - adamstom97 ( talk) 10:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There may be separate articles but there doesn't appear to be any splitting going on, since everything is here. Also I'm not sure an article called List of MCU Movies is the appropriate title for an article covering development of the films, so it would probably need renaming as well. The ridiculous cast table should go in its own article altogether. You can make some solid articles out of the content, but there's either too much of stuff we don't need, like a huge table, or trying to cover too many things in one space. Personally, I'd link to an article about the cast ala List of Scream cast members, and put a bunch of headshots of main people in this one to make it more visually interesting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: You've actually got articles for list of cast members so why is this table here at all? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

An appropriate place for the cast table would be Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, although that's already too long. Maybe we can include split tables when splits of that article are live, such as Draft:List of supporting Marvel Cinematic Universe characters and Draft:List of minor Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. Or maybe it can go on Lists of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members. IronManCap ( talk) 12:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There are already plenty of lists of cast members and characters. The point of this one is to show recurring actors across different media, but a table is not necessarily the best way to that. We are already discussing that above. - adamstom97 ( talk) 01:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The plan as far as I knew it, was to split off basically all of the prose in "History" (and then retain a summary of the important parts) to the List of films and TV series articles, keep the transcluded tables, implement the new cast table or what have you per the discussion above, perhaps split some of the reception material to the phase articles, and then more or less leave the remaining content after that. That should solve most of the issues of the article being too long. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna say that when we seem to have as many tables as we do across multiple articles, we don't need this one, just a link to it and some pictures and summary prose. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we create a sandbox to try and implement all these changes? — El Millo ( talk) 00:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Darkwarriorblake: Readers should still have an overview of all pieces of material part of the MCU here, which the table is the easiest to convey since it's just transclusions. @ Facu-el Millo: I can try creating a sandbox mock up of what the resulting page would look like. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I get what you're aiming for, but I'm telling you it doesn't work or make sense. I did a CTRL+F for "Evans", the only result was a reference. Downey Jr, is mentioned twice. Meanwhile on this main article overview the first character mention is "Ayo". I've no idea who that is, I assume she's one of the random Wakandan guards. It makes no sense for her to be here. The section should be renamed to something like main cast, and a general prose overview of the major stars from the Infinity phase, and by major I mean top billing only. Where they got on the ride, where they got off, the end. You could do that in a paragraph or two and then start the future segment for phase 4. It'd look a lot better than the table, and make more sense as well than listing Ayo or...*checks notes* Gideon Malick just because they appeared in different formats. For all that I couldn't tell you who Gideon Malick is. Even looking up his picture I've still no idea. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Dark, I think we may be talking about separate things. I'm mostly talking about the transcluded films, TV series, Ones-Shots, and comic book tables, retaining those because it appeared Whiteguru was mentioning removing those. I wasn't really talking about the recurring cast section, per se. But as Adamstom.97 noted, there's a separate discussion regarding that above going over how to readjust criteria for the table. I'm sure other opinions on formatting would also be welcome. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've started to make some very crude sandbox mockups of what content should go where (as of this comment I've only gone through the "Films" and "Television" prose subsections). This sandbox is for what content would remain here, and this sandbox is for the material that should split off to other existing pages. All of this would need a thorough c/e upon any implementation. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This looks like the right breakdown, and unless anyone has a strong opposition or a different idea, I think we should probably go ahead and start breaking them off. — Starforce¹³ 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe its also time for all MCU-related articles to get a "This article is part of a series about the Marvel Cinematic Universe"-navigation below the infobox? It's not just the size of articles that are getting unwieldy, its also the number of articles.-- YannickFran ( talk) 07:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@ YannickFran: we already have the {{ Marvel Cinematic Universe}} navbox which serves its purpose on the vast majority of articles. There is also {{ Marvel Cinematic Universe Phases}} which is helpful for the articles linked in that template. I don't think any other sidebar-style navbox is needed. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

All, with this edit, I've reduced the "Films" and "Television" development sections, with a small c/e to "Other media". All the content removed was split to an appropriate article, or already existed at an article already. "Crossover to feature films" Television subsection is next to go (to the List of TV series article), I just haven't closely examined it or c/e it, hence why it wasn't in this edit. Next, I want to look at "Business practice", which I feel need to stay here mostly. After that, the other larger prose sections should be discussed/examined, and then I'd call being "too long" pretty much solved. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, and Starforce13: I've attempted a cut down of the "Business practices" section. I don't believe the section should be removed from here because the info in it is relevant to the universe. That said, I've created a cut down version for this article here. I've also created one here to go to the list of films article, but I'm actually wondering if that needs to happen (there is material there from the original that I've retained in this version that is more film-specific). However, the part about Whedon should definitely be added to the Phase Two article, which can be seen in that section. Please give me any thoughts or feel free to make adjustments in my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the Whedon info for Phase Two. I have added a proposal for the MCU article that is slightly more cut-down than yours as there was still some film-specific stuff in there that I felt was less relevant here. For the list of films article, I'm not sure if we need to add all of this there. Maybe just pick out some key points, especially if we don't have them anywhere else, and then integrate into the development section there? - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with any further c/e option. My one suggestion I would reinstate from my version is including the "dated" info (Whedon, Gunn, actor contracts) as it's own paragraph after the cast info and the Russo's work in Phase Three. I guess the other question then is if what has been reduced from what currently exists is even worth keeping, because I don't really want to add this type of section to the film list. I'd argue we aren't really losing anything. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 14:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

These are impressive cut-downs from the original. Thank you. I think most of the content cut from here seems to be specific to individual films and not necessarily needed in the "List of films" article. Example, Waititi's in Ragnarok and Derrickson in Dr. Strange. In the trimmed down "alt" version, should we add back (in one sentence) the point about Marvel Studios not necessarily looking for "big time" directors? I think that has been a notable heavily covered practice, especially with the Russos signing on with hardly any film directing experience, only to make some of the biggest films of all time. — Starforce¹³ 15:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I would just like to add that part of the timeline section could be split to Draft:Major events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. IronManCap ( talk) 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Starforce: Yes, I agree, if we use Adam's alternate version, we should add back in about the choosing of directors. I'm going to be bold and put Adam's change in (with the director info back, plus the small formatting change I suggested) and splitting the Whedon info to the Phase Two article. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the section header Marvel Cinematic Universe#Television but changed to "Television and streaming"? -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, as "streaming" refers to "streaming television" so that would seem redundant. - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

After removing tables from films, TV series, digital series, One-Shots, and Team Thor, is there anything left to summarize, remove, or otherwise change? — El Millo ( talk) 01:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it still the plan to remove the tables in the Feature films and Television series sections and replace them with a summary in prose? — El Millo ( talk) 03:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Was the suggestion that we replace the transcluded tables with prose and then have a prominent link to the outline article which should basically be the opposite, all tables? I'm not totally against that idea. - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose was what was suggested, but I personally don't feel we need to remove the tables, since I feel seeing release dates and creatives here are also helpful. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest the comic tie-ins and music tables could probably be removed, however. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea was to replace the Feature films tables with something similar to the lead of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and do the same with the Television series tables and the lead of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. I think it would be beneficial for this page, we should take advantage of having an article for films and an article for TV series and this seems like the best way. — El Millo ( talk) 20:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My thinking is that the feature film, TV, and short film sections can stay the same, but for the rest I think a good argument could be made for replacing tables with prose summaries. - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The main ones really in my eyes are the comics and music section. I say we start with those, and then we can reexamine if the Films and TV tables should be prose as well. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 14:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed those tables and made some other small adjustments. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We should still have a body link to Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe I believe, even if we don't transclude any tables. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it should have its own section, any thoughts on better placement? We were getting away with it when there were tables to transclude, but it isn't really "other media" like the series, shorts, and comics are. - adamstom97 ( talk) 03:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. However, I'm now warming up to the idea of replacing the films and TV series tables at least prose, after I recently adjusted the Marvel Studios TV series one, and I had to do it at the list of TV series article, the outline, and here. That's seeming like 1 too many places... - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Adamstom.97 and Facu-el Millo: Here is some prose mock up of the films and television sections should we want to remove the tables. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That works. That's the only necessary info we need for that section, since all the development info is already in the Development section. — El Millo ( talk) 21:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The wording looks good guys. Looking at the article now, I feel like we should be consistent with the One-Shots table as well, and for the digital series I can go either way since we don't have that table elsewhere but also it gives a lot of weight to a couple small marketing campaigns over the films and series. Also, what are our feelings about the fact that the Outline article has what a lot of people will be looking for (i.e. a list of all the MCU films and series in one place) but it is only linked at the end of the article in the See also section? I feel like it wouldn't hurt to make this more prominent somehow. - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. The Marvel One-Shots section should be prose, as the Digital series and Team Thor series sections, both for consistency and to avoid WP:UNDUE. Probably the Video game tie-ins table should go too, but we would have to include all the relevant information since there's no individual article to summarize, this is all there is. — El Millo ( talk) 05:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the debate... But I think the old format of having the feature films and television / Marvel Studios series listed on the same page was much more comfortable. This system works too though.. I just think the original one was better. = Jumpingkangaroo100 ( talk) 17:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Adamstom.97 and Facu-el Millo: I thought One-Shots and Digital series could stay as tables, because my big factor with the films and TV tables were the transclusion numbers. Excluding where each table originates, the One-Shots table only appears here and the outline, while the Digital series originates here and appears on the outline. Compared to the films and TV tables previously, those appeared three times (the respective list articles, here, and the outline). As the video games and Team Thor are "outside" the MCU, I think those are okay to stay. I do agree about listing the outline in some more prominent fashion. Maybe as a hatnote? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems like WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to give tables to those sections and not for the films and TV series. — El Millo ( talk) 17:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the One-Shot and Digital series tables are right beside the film and TV sections definitely brings up undue weight concerns for me, and it raises questions about why the film and TV articles don't have tables which we know the answer to but others do not. I feel like consistency here would be best. I don't think we need to worry about anything in the outside media section though. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, then let's convert the One-Shots and DS tables. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Late to the party, but major dislike here. Old table was much more digestible and accessible, and having them in the same page was beneficial.– uncleben85 ( talk) 13:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You may still enjoy Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe then, where the tables are better serving their purposes than what this article should be and has become per recent discussions and comment surrounding its Good Article reassessment. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Can the link Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe be added to these sections for casual users who are looking for all the tables? It took me 3 days to find this (I am not good with Wikipedia and am more a user than an editor). I also think the summaries need to be cleaned up a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipper13130 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, June 11, 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Marvel Cinematic Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change |website=Cinematical |website=[[Moviefone]] to |website=Cinematical as you can only have one |website= per citation and the first is the correct value. 98.230.196.188 ( talk) 20:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done - I have fixed the affected ref. — Starforce¹³ 20:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed it was removed? Why? We agreed that it fit and no one disagreed when we talked about it here. Any one know what happened? The YouTube channel has Flash filming, it references Far From Home a ton and even promotes it on the site. RobbyB3ll4s ( talk) 00:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There was never agreement. Adamstom.97 linked you to Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 12#Semi-Protected Edit Request on 16 January 2021, where he answered: I believe this was left out because it is only relevant to one film and should just be mentioned at that film's article for now. WHIH covers multiple MCU films so it is relevant to the MCU article. — El Millo ( talk) 01:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with Adam's assessment from the previous thread as quoted by Facu-el Millo. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Juanicolacho04 has edited this article and the multimedia franchises in film article to name Avi Arad as creator of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I have reverted, as I think such an identification requires discussion. I would think that if any individual is going to be identified as the "creator" of the MCU, it would either be Stan Lee (primary creator of the franchise characters) or Kevin Feige. BD2412 T 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This came up a while back and the consensus was that there weren't any real solid reliable sources to support that. The only argument we had from the editor was that Avi Arad had thought about the connectivity. But nothing said he's the one who came up with MCU. All we know from reliable sources is that Kevin Feige has been the mastermind since the beginning. — Starforce¹³ 16:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Stan Lee is certainly not the creator of the MCU. Creating the comic characters and storylines has no relation for the cinematic franchise known as the MCU. Gonnym ( talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was previously discussed at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 12#David Maisel, Avi Arad, Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disney+ has put Loki in their "Timeline Order" row between Endgame and WandaVision. Should we do the same for our chart? This is obviously tricky because that placement is both correct and not correct. Correct, because in the linear flow of time, the 2012 events of the Time Heist are occurring to the 2023 versions of the Avengers, and incorrect, because Loki is from that 2012 time branch and then continues to exist outside space and time. I'm not seeing any article posting about the inclusion yet. The table also doesn't have capabilities really to put anything outside of set years and TBA, so that is also a deterrent. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Disney+ timeline order cannon? Has any official rep ever commented on it? Gonnym ( talk) 21:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we are correct in not including it in the timeline, because in a way, it isn't in that timeline. It's right after The Avengers for the variant Loki, but it's after changes to the original timeline seen in Endgame. So it's after both films at the same time. Without the events of Endgame, it wouldn't exist, but it isn't after Endgame in that it happens in 2023 or after. It's set in 2012, at least in the beginning. Then, it jumps all over the place (or all over the time to be more precise). As you can see, it's complicated enough to justify excluding it from the timeline graph, and explaining its place in the timeline(s) in prose. — El Millo ( talk) 23:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as Disney+ is concerned, I think it makes sense to watch Loki after Endgame, but the actual timeline is much more complicated. Unless the next few episodes reveal that the TVA stuff is happening at a specific time instead of outside of time, I think we should leave it out of our timeline here and just explain in prose that it starts in 2012 and then takes place outside of time / at various points along the timeline. It may also make sense to discuss the sacred timeline / multiverse at some point as well. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry all, your responses some how got missed by me. That all sounds good! @ Gonnym:, no Disney-affiliated person has ever commented on it, but we do have third party articles discussing the order when that first was established. That is already in the article. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)