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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What about characters like Justin Hammer, Ho Yinsen, Betty Ross, Doc Samson, Samuel Sterns, Jane Foster, Warriors Three, Sif, Odin, Heimdall, Frigga, Bucky, Dum Dum Dugan, Arnim Zola and Peggy Carter?
Happy Hogan is included. So is the computerised JARVIS. Should the other characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caged halo ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did somebody change it back to the original format? I thought that it looked better when it was based on the Transformers (film series) template. It just seamed easier to read. ONEder Boy ( talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Right now the film, game, and soundtrack sections are kind of intuitively in release order. a fair thing to do with them.
But the characters... They're a bit confusing. For the most part they have been in order of first appearance. The "most part" bing that Fury has been listed second a long time though the character didn't appear until after the first film's credits and Cap who just got flipped from 2nd last to 2nd. The intuitive listing is alphabetic or:
Bruce Banner • Clint Barton • Emil Blonsky • Phil Coulson • Jane Foster • Nick Fury • JARVIS • Loki • Odin • Virginia Potts • James Rhodes • Steve Rogers • Natasha Romanoff • Elizabeth Ross • Thaddeus Ross • Johann Schmidt • Obadiah Stane • Howard Stark • Tony Stark • Thor • Ivan Vanko
And that's without adding the few extended cast missing from each movie's cast.
Keep in mind the 'box is not supposed to imply or present a "ranking" system. "Primary", "Secondary", "Hero", "Villain", "Billing", "Number of appearances", "Screen time", etc mean, or should mean, nothing here.
Shall we correct to alphebetic or is there a better schema that does not rely on the reader having seen the films?
- J Greb ( talk) 03:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel that we should include a list of villains/antagonists in the template, because casual viewers of the films who don't know much about the comic books are likely to want to read about those characters as much as the stars of the films. I don't care if they are listed as "Villains," "Antagonists," or something else, but they should be included. Spidey 104 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Meh. I don't think Iron Man 3 or Thor 2 will make it too long yet. But it will happen sometime. I don't doubt it. Jhenderson 777 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Another option would be to limit it to starring roles as credited on film posters and such. This method would probably included more villains.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The Chitauri should be in this template. The Chitauri article was split from the Skrull article because of their presence in The Avengers, and this template primarily exists because of the cross-connections that are solidified via The Avengers. You cannot deny that their presence is notable within that movie, and isn't notability why things are included in the related templates? Kurt Parker ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this either. Except for Phil Coulson he counts as a related article because he originated in this universe. Jhenderson 777 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I categorically deny that their presence was notable in The Avengers. They're a vague background threat until the end, when they're less vague cannon fodder. There is no gain or need to include them in the template. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know that I've reported this Brian82027 fellow and his constant addition of non-articles to the template to WP:AN/EW over here. Thanks. - Fandraltastic ( talk) 02:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Why are these treated as equals to the films? The franchise, as developed, is a series of films, which is now expanding into television. The video games and soundtracks are comparatively minor, not only in terms of the development of the franchise, but in terms of interested readership. Doesn't it make more sense to note they exist as a tie-in product next to each film? Instead of including the full title of each in such a way that a quick glance would lead to the impression that they are vital, rather than relatively minor tie-ins to their major counterparts? - Fandraltastic ( talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the scope of the template should represent the scope of the new MCU page, where the films, television, and short films are all treated equally, whereas here the television and short films links are relegated to 'related articles'. - adamstom97 ( talk) 01:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
All of the articles that have been labeled as simply 'related' are actually quite important for either the MCU itself or for the making of it. I propose that this section be divided into two: 'Other', with the One-Shots and Comics grouped under this heading; and 'Production', with the Film cast, Music, and studios grouped under this heading. That way, any confusion about what those articles contain is removed, and the headings would be a lot more appropriate and relevant as well. If anyone has a good reason to not make this move, please continue this discussion! - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding the two SHIELD episode pages ( Pilot and 0-8-4) to this template, but realised that if other episode pages are created, the template could become too crowded and messy, so decided against it. I would, however, like another opinion, if anyone has one. - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I changed the television subgroup width to match the film subgroup width, per Template:Navbox subgroup - "If multiple Navbox subgroup templates are used inside of a parent Navbox, it generally looks better if the width of the groups matches up."
Favre1fan93 promptly undid my change, but i still believe that it should be made for consistency within the template and throughout Wikipedia, and i believe that it looks better that way as well. - adamstom97 ( talk) 01:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be an exhaustive list of any character who has made an appeareance in film regardless of importantance. Should this list be cut back, perhaps to recurring characters like in the main article?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently the characters of Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig are placed in parenthesis following the film cast page, which makes sense for Selvig, seeing as how he has only appeared in the films, but I don't think it is right for Coulson, who has obviously appeared in multiple mediums, and even outside of the MCU. Does anyone have any thoughts on an alternate arrangement that would be more appropriate considering this? - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@ TriiipleThreat: I like the change, though I don't like that it makes the title and episodes bold. If we can have it not do that, I think that would be a good change. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Eventually, I see the navbox looking something like this: a subgroup for each television series. I also don't think we should include the individual episodes. It isn't sustainable at the present rate. Credit to adamstom97 BTW, good job on the AoS episode articles. The individual episodes are better suited for a separate navbox. This also eliminates a the need for another tiered subgroup from this navbox.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 11:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We now have more than enough pages to link together to justify another template, so I am going to be WP:BOLD and create it. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that a new discussion is in order seeing as how everyone is just reverting and boldy changing over the top of each other. I have been thinking about this for a while now, and was wondering what everyone thinks about this as an alternative?:
- adamstom97 ( talk) 21:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth it putting dates here like this, as other multimedia franchise navboxes have done?
adamstom97 ( talk) 10:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We've had the dates here for a while now, and I am thinking that we should probably not include them. They just aren't really serving much of a purpose, given that the dates for individual films/shows etc. are all only a click away, and just stating when the phase begun/ended or when the tv studios began/ended making mcu shows isn't really necessary in my opinion. I don't know what you other guys are thinking, but the navbox would probably be better without them in my opinion. - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we've touched this in passing before, but should we even include any video games here? If, for the most part, they are just marketing for the films and not actually MCU dependent or "official", should they even be linked in the template? Why not just leave them to be linked from the films' pages? Soundtracks I think are okay because the music is actually in the films, so they are part of the fabric that makes up the "official" material, but I'm not really seeing that with the video games. And on that topic, do some of them even need their own articles? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to start a new section on this topic:
Are they the best? No. But I think it's clear that they can stand on their own as they are now. The same cleanup which would need to go into appropriately merging them would also need to be done to each of the articles individually to ensure that what a reader would like to read is captured (namely, plot, development, gameplay, and reception, at the minimum), and then the argument that they are of subpar quality falls down also. -- Izno ( talk) 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The present articles carry gameplay, plot, reception, development. They could have: more gameplay, less plot, more reception, more development. (Those are the big 4; there are sometimes other sections, of course.) None of which will easily be expanded on in the context of a film article. Or a draft. I quite frankly see it as a no-brainer that we should continue to let the articles live. I would flat oppose any merge. So, if you really think a merge should happen, drag out the RFC, the Merge Discussion, or the AFD. I'm sure that the editors at both WP:FILM and WP:VG would be happy to have a frank discussion about the value of those articles (hey, you might even get your way). And as I said before, you would need the same exact content to make the film articles good ones in respect to a section on the video game as you would for the different articles. Otherwise you just drag the quality of the film article down because you don't have the appropriate weight for the topic of the video game as a whole. -- Izno ( talk) 03:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have gone a bit off track here in regards to the original discussion, so I'm going to try and bring us back around. We are looking to add the necessary information about these video games to the marketing sections of their respective films, and then remove the video game links from here. In doing this, we believe several of the game articles will become redundant and should just be redirected to these summarised sections in the film pages. Now, whether this does happen or not really should more appropriately be discussed at the respective talk pages of the articles, but what we want to know is, if we add these sections/links to the film articles, would the community support the removal of the video game links from this template? And on a side note, should games such as the lego game, that follows the basic plots of the first two avengers films but is apparently not actually connected to them in terms of marketing or production, be included here, and considered on the same level as the one-shots and tie-in comics (which are official MCU-set products just like the films and tv series)? - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What have we got "Marvel's" in front of everything? It's unnecessary, and doesn't even reflect the article titles. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Although this film is obviously not part of Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Incredible Hulk relates to it as a stand-alone sequel. Is it worth enough to mention the film in the template somehow? -- Santacloud ( talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This web series is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
It deserves a Wikipedia page, and a mention in this template.
It features Paul Rudd as Ant-Man and Leslie Bibb as Christine Everheart.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtJkDqZzoOFYbqwOIFn2Lng — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TotalTruthTeller24 (
talk •
contribs) 15:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: I disagree with your partial revert there, so I would like to discuss why I made the changes I did. At the moment, we have more production/behind-the-scenes information than we ever have, and I do think that it is time we follow the general pattern of big franchise templates an split off the production information. There are numerous examples of this working really well: Template:Star Wars, Template:Star Trek, even Template:Mission: Impossible pretty much does this. It means we can clearly have the films/TV shows/etc. that are set in the universe, then any really in-universe stuff (in our case, just the characters), and then we can have all the production information, with related stuff at the end.
Having this logical separation seems particularly important now when we have things like the Production of Avengers 3 & 4, which does not belong in a list of films. It is supplemental to two film articles that we will be adding soon, which means that it won't even be able to come under a film article like the Avengers accolades, for example, does. If we had a production section then that would be the obvious place to put it—it is about production, and it covers more than one MCU project. I would say the same for something like an article about all the Netflix shows filming in New York. And it obviously won't be the only thing in the section, since the cast lists and music all come under production as well.
The video games may have some influence from the movies, but the real reason they are listed where they are is because they were released as marketing for the films, so they sort of come under them. But we now have a section that is dedicated to works that are kind of inspired by the films and are definitely not part of the MCU, and so are segregated off at the bottom of the template. Not only that, but the section already includes another video game that is inspired by the films and definitely not part of the MCU. Why would we not group these together? It makes sense for navigation, because someone reading about all the MCU-inspired video games can easily find them all, together, in a clearly labeled video games section at the bottom. It also removes some undue weight that we are giving to them by putting them up with other, actual MCU stuff; down the bottom, we are clearly stating that they are related to the MCU in some way, and so are on the template, but aren't part of the MCU and so are separated from the actual MCU projects.
If we have these separate segments (projects, in-universe, production, related) like I am asking, the only other major thing that is out of place, is all the TV series character lists. By moving them to the character section, which already exists, we can clean this up and essential have a simple list of films, a simple list of TV shows, a simple list of other projects, a simple list of characters, a simple list of production articles, etc. Rather than a list of films with irrelevant video games mixed in, a list of TV shows with with character lists mixed in ... and then a character section? It is just cleaner, and simpler. Navigation wise, I can understand the thinking, again, that they come under the shows so that is where people will look. But if everything is separated as I have suggested, then these lists will also be logically found in the clearly marked character section.
I see this as sorting everything by the individual projects, or by the universe as a whole, and I sincerely believe that we are at a point where the latter option is better. I know it is a bit of a change, but making this adjustment now will make it simple in future for us to add more production stuff in one dedicated section, and eventually have a reception section with articles on the critcal response, cultural impact, etc. I'm happy to discuss all of this, but I do think that it is the way to go. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What about characters like Justin Hammer, Ho Yinsen, Betty Ross, Doc Samson, Samuel Sterns, Jane Foster, Warriors Three, Sif, Odin, Heimdall, Frigga, Bucky, Dum Dum Dugan, Arnim Zola and Peggy Carter?
Happy Hogan is included. So is the computerised JARVIS. Should the other characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caged halo ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did somebody change it back to the original format? I thought that it looked better when it was based on the Transformers (film series) template. It just seamed easier to read. ONEder Boy ( talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Right now the film, game, and soundtrack sections are kind of intuitively in release order. a fair thing to do with them.
But the characters... They're a bit confusing. For the most part they have been in order of first appearance. The "most part" bing that Fury has been listed second a long time though the character didn't appear until after the first film's credits and Cap who just got flipped from 2nd last to 2nd. The intuitive listing is alphabetic or:
Bruce Banner • Clint Barton • Emil Blonsky • Phil Coulson • Jane Foster • Nick Fury • JARVIS • Loki • Odin • Virginia Potts • James Rhodes • Steve Rogers • Natasha Romanoff • Elizabeth Ross • Thaddeus Ross • Johann Schmidt • Obadiah Stane • Howard Stark • Tony Stark • Thor • Ivan Vanko
And that's without adding the few extended cast missing from each movie's cast.
Keep in mind the 'box is not supposed to imply or present a "ranking" system. "Primary", "Secondary", "Hero", "Villain", "Billing", "Number of appearances", "Screen time", etc mean, or should mean, nothing here.
Shall we correct to alphebetic or is there a better schema that does not rely on the reader having seen the films?
- J Greb ( talk) 03:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel that we should include a list of villains/antagonists in the template, because casual viewers of the films who don't know much about the comic books are likely to want to read about those characters as much as the stars of the films. I don't care if they are listed as "Villains," "Antagonists," or something else, but they should be included. Spidey 104 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Meh. I don't think Iron Man 3 or Thor 2 will make it too long yet. But it will happen sometime. I don't doubt it. Jhenderson 777 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Another option would be to limit it to starring roles as credited on film posters and such. This method would probably included more villains.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The Chitauri should be in this template. The Chitauri article was split from the Skrull article because of their presence in The Avengers, and this template primarily exists because of the cross-connections that are solidified via The Avengers. You cannot deny that their presence is notable within that movie, and isn't notability why things are included in the related templates? Kurt Parker ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this either. Except for Phil Coulson he counts as a related article because he originated in this universe. Jhenderson 777 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I categorically deny that their presence was notable in The Avengers. They're a vague background threat until the end, when they're less vague cannon fodder. There is no gain or need to include them in the template. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know that I've reported this Brian82027 fellow and his constant addition of non-articles to the template to WP:AN/EW over here. Thanks. - Fandraltastic ( talk) 02:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Why are these treated as equals to the films? The franchise, as developed, is a series of films, which is now expanding into television. The video games and soundtracks are comparatively minor, not only in terms of the development of the franchise, but in terms of interested readership. Doesn't it make more sense to note they exist as a tie-in product next to each film? Instead of including the full title of each in such a way that a quick glance would lead to the impression that they are vital, rather than relatively minor tie-ins to their major counterparts? - Fandraltastic ( talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the scope of the template should represent the scope of the new MCU page, where the films, television, and short films are all treated equally, whereas here the television and short films links are relegated to 'related articles'. - adamstom97 ( talk) 01:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
All of the articles that have been labeled as simply 'related' are actually quite important for either the MCU itself or for the making of it. I propose that this section be divided into two: 'Other', with the One-Shots and Comics grouped under this heading; and 'Production', with the Film cast, Music, and studios grouped under this heading. That way, any confusion about what those articles contain is removed, and the headings would be a lot more appropriate and relevant as well. If anyone has a good reason to not make this move, please continue this discussion! - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding the two SHIELD episode pages ( Pilot and 0-8-4) to this template, but realised that if other episode pages are created, the template could become too crowded and messy, so decided against it. I would, however, like another opinion, if anyone has one. - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I changed the television subgroup width to match the film subgroup width, per Template:Navbox subgroup - "If multiple Navbox subgroup templates are used inside of a parent Navbox, it generally looks better if the width of the groups matches up."
Favre1fan93 promptly undid my change, but i still believe that it should be made for consistency within the template and throughout Wikipedia, and i believe that it looks better that way as well. - adamstom97 ( talk) 01:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be an exhaustive list of any character who has made an appeareance in film regardless of importantance. Should this list be cut back, perhaps to recurring characters like in the main article?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently the characters of Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig are placed in parenthesis following the film cast page, which makes sense for Selvig, seeing as how he has only appeared in the films, but I don't think it is right for Coulson, who has obviously appeared in multiple mediums, and even outside of the MCU. Does anyone have any thoughts on an alternate arrangement that would be more appropriate considering this? - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@ TriiipleThreat: I like the change, though I don't like that it makes the title and episodes bold. If we can have it not do that, I think that would be a good change. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Eventually, I see the navbox looking something like this: a subgroup for each television series. I also don't think we should include the individual episodes. It isn't sustainable at the present rate. Credit to adamstom97 BTW, good job on the AoS episode articles. The individual episodes are better suited for a separate navbox. This also eliminates a the need for another tiered subgroup from this navbox.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 11:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We now have more than enough pages to link together to justify another template, so I am going to be WP:BOLD and create it. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that a new discussion is in order seeing as how everyone is just reverting and boldy changing over the top of each other. I have been thinking about this for a while now, and was wondering what everyone thinks about this as an alternative?:
- adamstom97 ( talk) 21:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth it putting dates here like this, as other multimedia franchise navboxes have done?
adamstom97 ( talk) 10:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We've had the dates here for a while now, and I am thinking that we should probably not include them. They just aren't really serving much of a purpose, given that the dates for individual films/shows etc. are all only a click away, and just stating when the phase begun/ended or when the tv studios began/ended making mcu shows isn't really necessary in my opinion. I don't know what you other guys are thinking, but the navbox would probably be better without them in my opinion. - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we've touched this in passing before, but should we even include any video games here? If, for the most part, they are just marketing for the films and not actually MCU dependent or "official", should they even be linked in the template? Why not just leave them to be linked from the films' pages? Soundtracks I think are okay because the music is actually in the films, so they are part of the fabric that makes up the "official" material, but I'm not really seeing that with the video games. And on that topic, do some of them even need their own articles? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to start a new section on this topic:
Are they the best? No. But I think it's clear that they can stand on their own as they are now. The same cleanup which would need to go into appropriately merging them would also need to be done to each of the articles individually to ensure that what a reader would like to read is captured (namely, plot, development, gameplay, and reception, at the minimum), and then the argument that they are of subpar quality falls down also. -- Izno ( talk) 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The present articles carry gameplay, plot, reception, development. They could have: more gameplay, less plot, more reception, more development. (Those are the big 4; there are sometimes other sections, of course.) None of which will easily be expanded on in the context of a film article. Or a draft. I quite frankly see it as a no-brainer that we should continue to let the articles live. I would flat oppose any merge. So, if you really think a merge should happen, drag out the RFC, the Merge Discussion, or the AFD. I'm sure that the editors at both WP:FILM and WP:VG would be happy to have a frank discussion about the value of those articles (hey, you might even get your way). And as I said before, you would need the same exact content to make the film articles good ones in respect to a section on the video game as you would for the different articles. Otherwise you just drag the quality of the film article down because you don't have the appropriate weight for the topic of the video game as a whole. -- Izno ( talk) 03:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have gone a bit off track here in regards to the original discussion, so I'm going to try and bring us back around. We are looking to add the necessary information about these video games to the marketing sections of their respective films, and then remove the video game links from here. In doing this, we believe several of the game articles will become redundant and should just be redirected to these summarised sections in the film pages. Now, whether this does happen or not really should more appropriately be discussed at the respective talk pages of the articles, but what we want to know is, if we add these sections/links to the film articles, would the community support the removal of the video game links from this template? And on a side note, should games such as the lego game, that follows the basic plots of the first two avengers films but is apparently not actually connected to them in terms of marketing or production, be included here, and considered on the same level as the one-shots and tie-in comics (which are official MCU-set products just like the films and tv series)? - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What have we got "Marvel's" in front of everything? It's unnecessary, and doesn't even reflect the article titles. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Although this film is obviously not part of Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Incredible Hulk relates to it as a stand-alone sequel. Is it worth enough to mention the film in the template somehow? -- Santacloud ( talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This web series is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
It deserves a Wikipedia page, and a mention in this template.
It features Paul Rudd as Ant-Man and Leslie Bibb as Christine Everheart.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtJkDqZzoOFYbqwOIFn2Lng — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TotalTruthTeller24 (
talk •
contribs) 15:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: I disagree with your partial revert there, so I would like to discuss why I made the changes I did. At the moment, we have more production/behind-the-scenes information than we ever have, and I do think that it is time we follow the general pattern of big franchise templates an split off the production information. There are numerous examples of this working really well: Template:Star Wars, Template:Star Trek, even Template:Mission: Impossible pretty much does this. It means we can clearly have the films/TV shows/etc. that are set in the universe, then any really in-universe stuff (in our case, just the characters), and then we can have all the production information, with related stuff at the end.
Having this logical separation seems particularly important now when we have things like the Production of Avengers 3 & 4, which does not belong in a list of films. It is supplemental to two film articles that we will be adding soon, which means that it won't even be able to come under a film article like the Avengers accolades, for example, does. If we had a production section then that would be the obvious place to put it—it is about production, and it covers more than one MCU project. I would say the same for something like an article about all the Netflix shows filming in New York. And it obviously won't be the only thing in the section, since the cast lists and music all come under production as well.
The video games may have some influence from the movies, but the real reason they are listed where they are is because they were released as marketing for the films, so they sort of come under them. But we now have a section that is dedicated to works that are kind of inspired by the films and are definitely not part of the MCU, and so are segregated off at the bottom of the template. Not only that, but the section already includes another video game that is inspired by the films and definitely not part of the MCU. Why would we not group these together? It makes sense for navigation, because someone reading about all the MCU-inspired video games can easily find them all, together, in a clearly labeled video games section at the bottom. It also removes some undue weight that we are giving to them by putting them up with other, actual MCU stuff; down the bottom, we are clearly stating that they are related to the MCU in some way, and so are on the template, but aren't part of the MCU and so are separated from the actual MCU projects.
If we have these separate segments (projects, in-universe, production, related) like I am asking, the only other major thing that is out of place, is all the TV series character lists. By moving them to the character section, which already exists, we can clean this up and essential have a simple list of films, a simple list of TV shows, a simple list of other projects, a simple list of characters, a simple list of production articles, etc. Rather than a list of films with irrelevant video games mixed in, a list of TV shows with with character lists mixed in ... and then a character section? It is just cleaner, and simpler. Navigation wise, I can understand the thinking, again, that they come under the shows so that is where people will look. But if everything is separated as I have suggested, then these lists will also be logically found in the clearly marked character section.
I see this as sorting everything by the individual projects, or by the universe as a whole, and I sincerely believe that we are at a point where the latter option is better. I know it is a bit of a change, but making this adjustment now will make it simple in future for us to add more production stuff in one dedicated section, and eventually have a reception section with articles on the critcal response, cultural impact, etc. I'm happy to discuss all of this, but I do think that it is the way to go. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)