Template talk:Live-action theatrical films based on Marvel Comics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Animated films

J Greb wish for me to post here in response to his edit warring. He is attempt to start up here the Wikipedia:Overlink crisis with adding the animated films to this navbox when they are covered in the Template:Marvel animation. See Wikipedia:Overlink crisis as why not to have too much lapping navboxes (look for the "Morocco had gained 12 separate navboxes". Animated films are covered in another navbox and were link (as is Marvel Animation directly) to in the Marvel Films see also section in my edit. The animate film link takes them to Marvel Animation Section: Animated Marvel Features which has a list of the animated films and the article has the Marvel animated production navbox. Additional there will most likely more Marvel live action films and animated films. If you set such an overlap standard then "overlink crisis" will return. Thus my use of redunate as a reason to remove them. --Spshu (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would purpose Template:Marvel Comics TV be merged with Template:Marvel animation (and remove the animated films from that template), similarly to this template. Then we would have one template for films and one for television.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wrote about the TV films and TV episodes that were repackaged into films, but lost it in an edit conflict with TriiipleThreat's post. TriiipleThreat, the problem with that is that the Animated Features and the live feature films were later broadcast on TV and some TV episodes that were repackaged into VCR/DVD films. This would create a large over lap. Spshu (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a big concern, we don't list feature films as television programs even though they are all eventually broadcast on television and likewise made-for-television films are under the scope of Template:Marvel Comics TV.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, JGreb isn't edit-warring; an edit-war is not started by the editor who reverts an edit, but by the editor who reverts a revert. Second of all, the case for covering animated films in the animation template is no more or less compelling than the case for covering them in the film template. The final point is that these templates may not always be used in conjunction with each other; there are probably many articles where you would use the film template and not the animation template, and in such cases it is necessary to include links to animated films in the film template. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who starts it, Logan. Thus J Greb, you and I are involved in edit warring but I am not doing for my own purposes but to keep overlinking under control. Overlinking as pointed out is the compelling to limit the films navbox to live action and a single "see also" link will get you to the animated movies, a couple of overlapping links (Marvel Animation & Animated films) thus therefor "covered" in the film navbox will out adding lots more links thus handing off to the Animated navbox in that article. But both navboxes would then be used on all the animated movies which will have the character navboxes and all the other navboxes that might exist on an article. Heck the Ultimate Avengers article should thus have the an Avengers, Ironman, Thor, Captain America, Pym, Ultimates, Film, Animated, TV, Lionsgate navboxes.

TriiipleThreat, from J Greb's and Logan's point of view, those should be included as they don't care about overlinking or overlapping. They seem to want to make this navbox so superinclusive and those are thus Films and should be included. Your plan would drop Marvel Knights Animation off any navbox as they were direct to Internet & DVD and have not been broadcast on TV nor are film length. Spshu (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "film length", because by definition short films are films. If overlap is such a big issue then TriiipleThreat's suggestion is the only viable solution because the film and TV templates would not be used on the same articles, and there would be no overlap. It's really the Animation template that introduces redundancy into the Film and TV templates, not the other way around. Betty Logan (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The only entries listed at Marvel Knights Animation that have independent articles are Black Panther (TV series) (a television program) and Thor & Loki: Blood Brothers. Keep in mind these navboxes are for navigation between independent articles not article sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So TV shows are now films then, Logan? Film length does make does make a difference as we have been spliting it between live feature movies, animated and live TV.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,[1] the American Film Institute,[2] and the British Film Institute[3] all define a feature as a film with a running time of 40 minutes or longer. The Centre National de la Cinématographie in France defines it as a 35 mm film longer than 1,600 metres, which is exactly 58 minutes and 29 seconds for sound films, and the Screen Actors Guild gives a minimum running time of at least 80 minutes.[4]

I sure will not use the Academy's definition as that would place most network TV shows into the feature length movie catagory as they have running time of 40-47 minutes (Of course they do specify the distribution method). Many of the TV films were TV series pilots and many first episodes were movie (another word for film in which we are using it) length. Neither Film, Animated nor TV templates need not introduce redundancy, just your opinion on what should be included does. As Marvel is going to ramp up production getting rid of a navbox like Animated will case overlinking or cause the return of animated navbox in the future.

TriiipleThreat, I have not seen any rule here on WP that states that they must link to independent articles just that navboxes should link to something (I have not seen a formal rule on that; it just makes sense). It is standard in fact to link (via redirects) in geographical navboxes. check out the "Unincorporated communities" in the following: Template:Genesee County, Michigan, Template:Lapeer County, Michigan, Template:Sanilac County, Michigan. A few might have its own article if it is census design place or important enough or started out as an independent article. These also show that you don't have to link to the full name of the article. --Spshu (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The template doesn't stipulate it is for "feature" length films, so films of any length can be included. No-one appears to support your stance, so please refrain from removing animated films from the template; the consensus is pretty clear. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus, since I disagree and there are 3 opinions on what to do. This isn't a democracy. This a debate, one that you are losing. You are avoiding argument just to fit your conclusion. You have not really address overlinking, general "film" usage, overlapping with TV navbox. Film is general used as a movie synonym as previous point out. When most people use film or movie they are talking about feature length live action motion pictures. Just like we are suppose to use common names for article titles instead of official, we should use common usage which is feature length live action motion pictures. After all if we use The Academy's length standard, you would be forced to add TV Shows. Which you have not address as it contradicts your expected results. I would thus be force to add TV Shows to the film navbox if we cave to your demands. This would be overlinking and duplication of the TV navbox and force me to Edit to prove a point which isn't allow around here. --Spshu (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A number of things:

• There was a consensus of sorts reached in December about the changes to the 'box, including covering animated as well as live action films. That one editor now does not agree is not grounds to revert. It is grounds to discuss if this template should be reverted or reworked. But without a consensus to do either, it would stay as is.
• The rationale for the expansion was that navigation between all the films is a good thing. By the same token, the animation template covers the animation projects. The TV template was suggest to cover both live action and animated television projects though this got stalled and a "live action" template was suggest that would be similar to the animation one. It was noted that any give article would be linked to roughly 3/4 of the other articles, which pushes the bounds of the essay Wikipedia:Overlink crisis. This is a bit better that a general purpose "Other media adaptations of Marvel Comics properties" and is offset by the limitation inherent in "Live action film adaptations...", "Live action television adaptations...", "Animated film adaptations of...", and "Animated television adaptations..." where reasonable navigation jumps become unlikely or impossible.
• Suggesting that "we should use common usage which is feature length live action motion pictures" for the basis of "film" has an interesting consequence. It means that the following are not films: Bambi, Shrek, The Lion King, Finding Nemo, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), Heavy Metal (film), The Secret of NIMH, and many, many others. It is also worth noting that all of those articles as well as the nine currently contained in this 'box use the term "film" to refer to their topics. That brings into question if "feature length live action motion pictures" actually is the commonly used definition of the term.
• None of the nine articles in question here were originally released as either television movies or made from stitched together episodes of television series. All are what is defined as "direct-to-video" (DVD in this case) and only some have had later airing on television. But then, most of the live action films have had television airing after their initial releases.
• It's also worth noting that the live action TV movies didn't migrate since almost all of these were either pilots or stitched together episodes. A degree of common sense was exercised here - one template for material originally released via television, one template for recorded audio and visual material released originally to theaters or directly to video/DVD. The only things left out are radio programs, audio books, and plays.
• And on the point of essays - Using redirects is contrary to WP:NAV and they generally do get converted to piped links. Also, it puts forward that the 'boxs are for navigating between "related articles". Putting a link into a navbox to point to a limited or minor subsection of an articles is contrary to that intent. If the article as a whole would not be seen as related to the topic, it shouldn't be in the 'box. The same is true about moving spin-off or losely related articles into core sections of a template.

- J Greb (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Under the supposed previous consensus would have objected to by me if I had stuck with the discussion as their inclusion was not the original topic. I grew tried of it as you put amazingly uncommon sense restriction on things -- "must link to the full name of the article", etc. Heck I could go right now to that discussion and object as it isn't "closed".
• All of your "not films" examples do qualify as film as were released through the theaters, thus were motion pictures and of feature length so are consider more easily films. 95% of the navboxes names on those article are for "animated features" not "films".
• You are admittedly not linking to all "films". "It's also worth noting that the live action TV movies didn't migrate"
• Since you did not seem to pick it up earlier in the discussion, when you start spliting out the various adaption if you split out animation then common sense under the overlink issue they should fall out of the other mediums' navboxes and just have enough overlap to hand off to the other navboxes on a couple of articles thus the see also links of Marvel Animation and animated films. Thus with the three navboxes (film, animated, TV) one would not expect to find any link except a "handoff" link to the other navboxes not their full or largely included any of the either navboxes' links.

I stating that if you and Logan where to be follow and use the widest usage possible of "film" then all TV navboxes article would also be in this navbox.

If you want me to take lead from WP:NAV, why don't you. Yours and Logan's stance is contrary this from WP:NAV:

 • The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?
 • They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider:
Split them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic.

I am saying that live action TV movies should be added based on your stance as they under the wider definition you wish to use for films. But you can not seem to apply that use of "common sense" that you have not added the tv movies to the animated features?!?!?! I have point out that if you "win"/apply your argument that we would have to add them and all the individual episodes.

While you general should not link to a article section, I suggest that in this case would thus misses a subject that a reader might be looking for & overlook the link that would find it and cuts down on the number of links in the navbox. There are anough sources for a Marvel Animated Features article but it most like would just be a stub. Spshu (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Are you going to continue to shift you definition of film? Your original definition induced the term "live action". You current one drops that be relies on "as [they] were released through the theaters". The second one would also eliminate at least one live action production currently in place, if not 3. It's a problem to understand where you are coming from when it seems to shift.
2. Could you clarify where you see subsections of a navbox remaining in the template instead of being split out to a smaller one? Is it by style? Would "Single film"/"Francis films" justify breaking the template? By individual franchise?
3. Also, are "Adaptations made for initial release on television", "Adaptations recorded to film or digital media for initial release not on television", "Adaptations made primarily using some type of animation process", and "Adaptations made primarily using recordings of live actors" groupings of related topics/articles that readers may want to navigate around?

Observations:

• The other navboxes on the articles that fall under "not films" by your first criteria wind up using the following terms in their title bars:
  • "Animated feature" in 3 cases. 2 of them are, IIUC, because that is the official name of the award won. The last, {{Disney theatrical animated features}} is more to do with splitting an extremely immense group - Disney films - into navigable chunks.
  • "Animation" in 1 case - which also happens to be part of the proper name for the production company navigated by the box.
  • "Animated film" in 1 case. And again, that seems to be the proper title of the award.
  • "Film" in 4 cases. All of the "directed by" family.
  • "Motion picture" in 1 case. Another proper award title.
  • And 12 that do not use a variation in their titles.
• And additional points with those 'boxes since it seems relevant:
  • Those 'boxes bracket this one in terms of article links - some have fewer, some have more - but all look to be as coherent as this one.
  • Disney theatrical animated features terms all the topics "films" in the sub-headers. {{DreamWorks animated films}} and {{Pixar Animation Studios}} also do this for their top sub-groupings as well and {{Don Bluth}} uses "film" for one large section of content.
  • {{The Lion King}} and Don Bluth lump direct to video material under "films".

- J Greb (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overlink crisis is an essay, which does not carry the weight of a full guideline.

Some overlap is allowed in navigation boxes. If overlap wasn't allowed all navigation boxes would have to be trimmed so that certain articles aren't in multiple navigation boxes. Take a look at major articles (such as Nightcrawler (comics) and Spider-Man) and you'll see they have multiple overlapping navigation boxes because no article fits into exactly one category/navbox/etc. I fully support J Greb on this one. Keep the animated films in this template. Kurt Parker (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is something along the lines that I would purpose for the TV navbox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I support this; if you have three templates that cover all that they should you get overlap, and if you have three templates without any overlap you get 'gaps' in what they should be covering. A film and TV template approach is mutually exclusive but comprehensive; it is the logical solution if you perceive the current approach as a problem. The other approach would be Animation and live-action templates which would also be mutually exclusive and comprehensive, but by mixing the two approaches we end up with this apples and oranges scenario. I favor the Film/TV approach over the Animation/live-action scenario because the Film and TV templates can be directly supported by their respective projects, while "live-action" doesn't have an obvious home. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No I have point out that your side keeps on shifting your definition of "film" then don't follow YOUR definition. I am point out how clueless your side is about your own definition. For example I look the basic premise for adding the Animated Features is the length but Logan shot back that there should not be a length on movies which would thus should include all TV programming. Note that the Fantastic Four in film does not included any of th animated TV shows based on them. I have been looking at others definitions for discussion and how most people view animation. My use of live-action was to excluded the animated features since there is also an animated navbox with clearly define usage and the TV navbox uses "live action". Theater release was looking for some way for a possible middle ground or another way to divide them (although not as good as the live action usage as you point out). You should point out what production you are talking about in the case of "eliminate at least one live action production currently in place". I assume that you are talking about the Captain America 1990 movie, which was released in the UK theaters in 1990. Man-Thing was theater release in Russia. But it looks more like the FF 1994 film that was unreleased. It is quite an anomaly in that it has not been official release in any format but it was expected to be released through the theaters.

As far as breaking subsection of a navbox out, it will depend on the additional movies that come out. The Cinematic Universe (MCU) might be the like bet to self standing and easily "hand off linked" through the Cinematic Universe article. (Not sure that the current MCU navbox should exist.) Other imprints adaptation navbox might be another one (taken from all three general Marvel navboxes). Given that there are other navboxes like Spiderman in Film then breaking those out seems most likely.

Yes, the Disney navboxes do try to spilt up the "an extremely immense group" as we sure are trying to do as Marvel films are also now Disney films. But we are dealing with what we have with Marvel and not the vast list of movie that Disney has put out but still a good amount to worry now about over linking. Second, you claimed that they were in "film" only category navbox like this one, but as I point out they are not. So you are missing my point. The point in the Marvel discussion is to have the overall broad category "Film" split into three distinct navbox instead of being one big difficult to use navbox. I am looking to the future, too. Under TriiipleThreat's plan with just a TV and a Film navbox, we will soon need to split them out some as Marvel will be adding 4 new TV shows soon, more films and most likely more animated material.

Kurt Parker, I did point out the guideline in response to JGreb. But of course, no one has pick up on that except JGreb. Just because they have problems with other navboxes doesn't mean that we have to tolerate them here. There should be only "hand-off" links as overlap. There is no need for overlap if the TV and film are live action only with the animated handling only animated of any kind.

TriiipleThreat, Marvel Knights Animation, except for the Black Panther, none of them were broadcast on TV. Spidey Super Story is technically a TV segment, not a TV series. Also, there are too many links making difficult to use. Additional, you are anknownledging that animation is an exceptable 'break out' category by having an animation category.

With film being of any length per your last known definition, Logan, then all these must be in the Film navbox too. Once again the TV and Film are not comprehensive per above comments on the Marvel Knights Animation. To think that the navboxes if marked "live action" whould be abandon by the TV and Film WP projects is silly as they still will have a home with the TV and Film projects. There is also an WikiProject Animation. Plus there is the WikiProject Comics for Marvel itself and the Comic book films task force.

A couple of people I have talk to and ask them whether or not they consider animated works "film", I have goten a resonding "NO". It is not a mater of what you like, Logan or TriiipleThreat, it is a matter of usability to the reader and definition of film. I am not completely against overlap in links as long as they are limited and are do to definition overlap, which can be easily avoided in this case as I suggest by using "live action" on this navbox just like the TV navbox has to limit overlap. Spshu (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Animated feature, again...

Just for clarity:

The removal of that section was reverted since it was in no way, shape, or form a "compromise." - J Greb (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is as it adds a direct link to the Animated Feature subarticle and show they exists in this template. So this is a move in your direction. This isn't assume that I am acting in good faith. I was fine with any reversion of this edit until your claim that this was not an attempt at a compromise.

Secondly, you did drop out of the discussion. When someone does that I assume that don't care any more, can't argue with my logic any more or leave the discuss as halt any attempt at a compromise. The if I do any edit they can come back and claim no compromise has accurred and block at any edits they don't like and in effect game the system. I find that way of getting what you want instead of attempting to compromise thus not acting in good faith.

Thirdly, I pointed out that the common person doesn't consider animation to be films. So they don't expect to find them here. Isn't that a standard around here, as we name articles based on the common name not legal name ie. Marvel Comics not Marvel Worldwide, Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton.

OK, you win. I am adding all the missing film per your standard. Spshu (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wolverine

Does anybody else think Wolverine should get his own section, since it is kind of a separate franchise. Just a thought.108.240.14.133 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. It's a part of the Xmen franchise, leave it there. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that he has two solo films I'm definitely not opposed to the idea. It might be a similar case to how all the Avengers related films are separated by character even though they're technically all part of the same franchise. --DocNox (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviating the titles of films

So instead of edit-warring, let's discuss this here. In what way is abbreviating the titles of films in this navbox in any way helpful, useful or worth doing? -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So you don't understand the purposes of Navbox. "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value." People visit WP on mobile phones, too (small screens).

Fandraltastic: yes I can see that they're are shorter now. the question is, how is shortening them helpful? abbreviating the titles of films is silly and pointless

In abbreviating to shorten the title was done to eliminate lines to shrink the size of the template. Also, they are categorized (IE. Captain America, Spider-Man, etc.), so it is clear what the full title is. Also, So it is not silly and pointless. Or categorizing them pointless and silly too? Or do you think all WP readers are dumb? I find that disturbing. Spshu (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The films are not consistently titled. If all of the X-Men films were titled "X-Men Colon Something", then removing the X-Men portion would be legitimate and helpful. But they aren't, the titles are varied among all of the franchises. You changed probably 10 or so titles, including "Captain America: The First Avenger" to "CA: First Avenger", "The Amazing Spider-Man" to "Amazing Spider-Man", "X-Men: First Class" to "First Class", "The Wolverine" to "Wolverine", etc, while leaving others alone. There's no rhyme or reason to this, and not only only are you misrepresenting some of these titles by removing articles like "the", you're confusing readers as it would then be unclear which films have, for instance, "X-Men" in their title. If there's no way to be consistent in abbreviation, then none of the titles should be abbreviated.

The article you're linking to about navbox size has to do with the number of articles linked to in a box, not whether or not you should randomly abbreviate the titles of creative works. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Fandraltastic, the guideline is referring to the number of entries not title size, and the abbreviations are not particularly necessary in this case.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Fandraltastic and TriiipleThreat's stance. Spshu's reasoning and actions are identically the same as what occurred at Template:The Muppets. Shortening titles is only justifiable, if and when, they are all consistent with one another, such as Star Wars or Pirates of the Caribbean (as a few examples). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It was selective, Fandraltastic, were it would actually make a difference in removing a line. Some, I forgot to look back to see if it actually impacts the spacing. Removing, "The" isn't "misrepresenting" as people automatically place "the" before and removing "The" doesn't confuse any of the one with "The" with any other movie. Name the other Marvel Movie that removing "the" from "The Wolverine" confuses it with? Secondly for those that are visiting via a web browser hovering will give the full name. Yes, Jedi94, mobile users don't get the hover feature, but a smaller navbox is to their advantage to see everything in the Navbox easier, so they can click through to the article to see the full title if they are little bit confused. Third, the only two movies with that problem is The FF (1994) and FF (2005) which are also tagged with the year and were untouched.

TriiipleThreat, read the quote, it speaks directly to the size. Yes, it does go on about the number of entries, but it doesn't restrict the use of any other method to make it unnecessary to split the navbox up. Full names aren't particularly necessary either do to the categories.

Also, if abbreviations are such a problem then why have any of you corrected the Animated wikilink that links to Marvel Animated Features? See, none of you have been consistent. Spshu (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's misrepresentative in that the film is titled "The Wolverine", not "Wolverine". The article "the" is used deliberately by the filmmakers and production studio, and we can't just choose to remove it because it makes the link shorter. And it's confusing in that, with your format, people would naturally assume that the film's title is "X-Men: Wolverine", based on the names of all the films on either side of it, and what you have removed from those titles. The navbox is much more useful if people can look at it and easily tell what the full title of each individual movie is, and as the franchise isn't titled consistently the only way to achieve that is by using the full titles. The same goes for all of the franchises, as none of them are consistently titled. I don't really see what the issue with the content stretching over two or three lines is. Yeah, people view this site on their mobile phones (I do, too!), and you can just scroll past it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been argued about before, and I'm in agreement with Fandraltastic TriiipleThreat and Jedi94. Like it has been said before, and that it is fair to say, if someone is reading a WP article, they may be lacking background information. If that's the case, having anything less than the actual title is misleading, and it is disrespectful to the creator of the film. For consistency's sake, I think we can agree It's best to have the actual film titles. Celestial Reader (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

←We can remove "The" as we use a common name not "full name" to naming the article on WP. Second, you are all ignoring the hover feature (yes, mobile surfers will have to suffer and click through, but they will have the advantage of a smaller navbox). Nor does it mislead, reader natural place "the" before lots of titles whether it is official part of the title or not. Are you, , and the "THE"/misrepresentation "police" going to arrest people for failing to use "The" or not based on what the company official calls the film? Third, we are not here to disrespectful or respectful to the creator, we are here to serve our reader. We actually suppose to fight any creator bias here. So it comes back that readers will realized that some one might abbreviate to make a navbox more viewable. Also using the "real" titles, we would also be listing:

• "Captain America ·Captain America · Captain America: The First Avenger ·Captain America: The Winter Soldier" not the current:
• "Captain America (serial) ·Captain America (1990) ·Captain America: The First Avenger ·Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and
• "The Fantastic Four ·Fantastic Four ·Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" not the current
• "The Fantastic Four (1994) ·Fantastic Four (2005) ·Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer"

Wow, we are total going to be arrested by the misrepresentation police for disambig. these titles that are confusing. I don't see how a reader that doesn't know enough which FF movie is which as the "The" doesn't help at all (using the official name, after all they don't know). Also, I have point out previously that all of you currently violate your own standard of using the official title as the template currently stands. And none of you have move to correct it. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

1977 Spider-man film

As this is a navbox for films based on Marvel comics, I'm wondering why User:Spshu keeps trying to remove Spider-man (1977 film) from this navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why Robsinden can not read edit summaries or see that Spider-man (1977 film) has been assign a navbox in the Marvel TV/animated/film navbox group. One read my edit summary. Read the animated film section here on the talk page. This template is for DTV or theatrical released films not TV pilot films. Just like the SHIELD pilot film isn't listed here nor the run of Hulk and Captain America TV films are not listed here. All TV episode could technical under one standard (42 minutes) be consider films. --Spshu (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Spider-Man (1977 film) was theatrically released outside of North America. Therefore, it should be included as it is a film based on a Marvel comics property. It is also included at the Spider-Man in film article for this very reason. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But that was not its original release. It was original released on TV, so that is why it is in the Template:Marvel Comics TV not here. So what that is included in the Spider-Man in film article; you could have just added it. Spshu (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a Spider-Man film, whether or not it was originally shown on TV. Being in one navbox does not preclude it from also being in the other. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But then all Spider-Man TV episodes are movies since they were later released on VCR tapes, some were repackage like they were full on films. Also, all Spider-Man theatrical films will be broadcast on TV at some point, doesn't make them telefilms (others agree). In the Marvel TV/animated/film navbox group, yes, being in one navbox does preclude it from being in the other (although they have a couple of "transfer" links so to speak, article that have the other navboxes in the group).

Well that just doesn't follow logical sense. Releasing a TV episode on home video does not make it a film. My argument for inclusion of the 1977 Spider-Man film is that it was released theatrically. A theatrical film that is later shown on television does not become a television programme. However, that argument might hold if a film is shown in episodic form as a TV series. But we're getting away from the point. The 1977 Spider-Man film is a film, and thus should be included in this navbox, as well as the TV navbox, since it can be considered to belong to both media. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

←Yes, it does make sense. It is the point another release method doesn't erase the original release method, which is what you are attempting to do. The inclusion of the Marvel Animated Features is based on their original direct to video release, but then they were later shown on TV. The 1977 TV pilot doesn't change to a theatrical film just because later it was show in theaters. It is a telefilm thus doesn't belong on this navbox but the TV navbox. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Having a theatrical release, and a unique film article relating to this release does qualify it for inclusion in a navbox for films based on Marvel properties. And actually, yes, having a theatrical release does make it a theatrical film. It doesnt stop it from being a TV pilot too though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You said so yourself: "Releasing a TV episode on home video does not make it a film." and "A theatrical film that is later shown on television does not become a television programme." That is what you are attempting to do reclassify a TV release to a theatrical release. The original method of release classifies the media. Spshu (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not reclassifying it, I'm saying that whilst it is still a television pilot, it is also a theatrically released film. That is not the case for the examples you give above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Consider Behind the Candelabra, a TV film in the US, but a theatrical film in the UK. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this template is for Marvel Comics films that were intended to be released theatrically. Spider-Man (1977 film) may have eventually been released theatrically overseas, but it was still originally a television pilot. Therefore, I don't believe it belongs on this template, anymore than all the other Marvel TV movies, which are already part of {{Marvel Comics TV}}. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You both have very valid points on this. I do think this film is a exception since it has a theatrical release. I did originally remove it because I never knew it had one and there is a an box for other television movies not on here. It could be debatable since its originally is a television movie but I am for it more than against it since it's a added topic in Spider-Man in film. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is no rule saying it has to be one or the other. It clearly belongs in the navbox for TV productions. Since it had a theatrical release then there is a strong argument for including it in this template too. We are not really doing our readers a service by omitting articles that may be of interest to them. Slight redundancy isn't a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There were also additional episodes from the Spider-Man live action TV series that were repackaged into theatrical movies, Given some of the articles linked, the Marvel Animated Features, were direct to video, as pointed out early in this discussion. So any TV show or animated work later issued on VCR tapes, DVDs or Blu-Ray would then qualify under your logic, Betty & Robsinden, which would then need to be included. Thus causing a massive over lap 100% with the other two navboxes. Slight redundancy already exists. Plus, several of Marvel Animated Features were later broadcasted on TV. Also as a compromise & to make readers aware of the other Marvel navboxes, I add footer links them. Which prompted, Robsinden and Fortdj33, to start argue against them. Some how, readers must not know about the other navboxes. --Spshu (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if the other "films", Spider-Man Strikes Back and Spider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge had individual articles, I'd be pro their inclusion also. However, they are just re-directs. DTV films are correctly included, because they are "films", as are TV movies. However, "any TV show or animated work later issued on VCR tapes, DVDs or Blu-Ray" would not qualify. These are still TV shows, but released for a home video market. As Betty says, slight redundancy isn't a problem. And any article that appears on more than one navbox should have all the relevant navboxes transcluded in the article. As we have told you, you do not link navboxes within navboxes. That's not what they're for, and not how they work. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

But with your logic on 1977 Spider-man film that is what should/will happen. "As we have told you, you do not link navboxes within navboxes. That's not what they're for, and not how they work." Except you have agreed that is not stated at WP:Navbox. Spshu (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh? --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Avengers

Now that The Avengers: Age of Ultron has been announced, should this be placed in a franchise section with the first film? or do we wait until release, or shortly before?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Format

I am begging you guys to go with my format change that i have already done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

First, begging won't do you any good. Secondly, the format you have changed to is not needed and unnecessary, given that the Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe exists, and can state the information as such there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well let me say this, it is more fitting to separate these films based on different continuities and studios than the names.

Start a proper discussion and then we'll see. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Sort the films in to franchise continuity instead of name 50.5.219.27 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Biblioworm 21:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well let explain: put all of the films part of the MCU into one category, all the x-men films, yes even the wolverine movies, into one category. Split the spider man and fantastic four sections into two category's each given both of them have two separate film continuitys, separate the punisher movies and put all of them into the "signal films" category scone all of them are separate continuitys

I came here to see if there was a discussion regarding this. I agree that the MCU, X Men, and maybe also the Spider Man films should be split into sub sections. Under MCU list all the films relating to that universe, under X Men include the X Men and Wolverine films and Spider-Man should be split into two different series.--Gonnym (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wolvwerine franchise and X-men franchise are listed as the same franchise

So they shouldn't be listed as seperate on the template. 72.75.234.31 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: please gain consensus for such a change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Franchise groups sugestion

Here is a sugestion to make the template separated by real franchises, instead of by characters. Réel Déco 15:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My preference is to leave the template AS IS, split by characters, rather than shared universe or series continuity distinctions. These ideas have been discussed, and ultimately rejected, before. MCU films have their own page, as do individual film series, so there is no need to add that level of classification to the template too. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

MCU a franchise or not?

All the movies in the MCU have a shared storyline, shouldnt they all be classified under MCU and Iron man, Captain america and so on be charecterized as subfranchises under MCU

Single Films

I was Bold and removed Man Thing from Single Films and added Big Hero 6. Man Thing is a Marvel television movie already listed on Template:Marvel Comics TV. DrkBlueXG (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Noticed the edit to remove Big Hero 6 - That was my fault. I COMPLETELY missed the fact that this was a LIVE ACTION FILM Template lol. Sry
DrkBlueXG (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why exactly is Deadpool listed under single films? Isn't it supposed to be part of the X-Men film series? 70.92.179.85 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

The year of release for fantastic four: rise of the silver surfer is missing.

211.25.31.250 (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The only dates given in this template are for films that have the same title as another (there are several Fantastic Fours, so we give dates for them, but there is only one Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Highlights for Continuity

Not sure how to do it, but maybe highlight all films that share continuities? Notably the MCU films get highlights, but the rest of the format remains. Thoughts? 161.185.151.51 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Marvel Cinematic Universe}} exists if you're looking for shared continuities. This table is not meant to highlight that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Captain America TV Movies

Do we think the two 70s TV movies should be in this infobox? At first I assumed this infobox was only for theatrically released films but the Corman FF movie is in there which was famously never released in cinemas (or anywhere else for that matter).90.217.143.110 (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

TV movies are at Template:Marvel Comics TV. Fantastic Four, if it was meant to be released at all, was meant to be a theatrical film. Reach Out to the Truth 16:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

2601:81:4202:55D5:6528:A1BD:9F41:3B8A (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Red Sonja status

The Red Sonja status as Marvel movie has been previously discussed.(http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics/Archive_1#Red_Sonja_and_Men_in_Black.) OscarFercho (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

Add a section for Black Panther 76.89.228.237 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as of right now, there is only one Black Panther film article, so it is in the appropriate section and does not require a separate one. NiciVampireHeart 05:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019

69.141.30.218 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you requesting? Home Lander (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)