Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Start of the task force - general updates

So I've added info in about cast sections and references - any one please feel free to adjust or question me on what I put. The task force can now be added to the Film and TV project templates. Just add |mcu=yes. As noted above, I've put in a bot request to do all the articles in our categories. I'm hopeful if some editors do a few, and then the bot, that will get the assessment, recognized content, and announcements working. I believe I set it all up for bots to do their thing, so if they're still appearing as red links after a couple days, I'll look into it. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Calling All MCU Editors

Pinging other active MCU editors who may be interested in joining the MCU task force: @(a)nnihilation97, Bloodyboppa, ChannelSpider, Chompy Ace, Jedi94, LoreMaster22, Natg 19, Richiekim, Sir Magnus, Starforce13, and TriiipleThreat. Click here to add your name to the list of participants. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Added Myself. – ChannelSpider (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Support to get a bot to tag all articles with the taskforce

Per the requirements at User talk:AnomieBOT to get that bot to run its WikiProjectTagger, we need to have a discussion supporting where it will run. My thought is all articles in Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe and its subcategories should be run, and if they {{WikiProject Film}} and/or {{WikiProject Television}} they get mcu=yes added (once those templates are updated). The one thing I'm unsure of is if an article (like Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics) doesn't have either project, should the Film one get added? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, they are primarily film tie-in comics. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. Also add Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe drafts which isn't a child of the main category. --Gonnym (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. IronManCap (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Request made at the bot's talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

These two Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe task force and Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe templates as well. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Template

Should we have a membership/participation userbox template? IronManCap (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Would not be opposed! InfiniteNexus already made one for general MCU at User:InfiniteNexus/Userboxes/MCU, maybe they would want to make one for the task force? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I could make one if no one is opposed. My only question would be which image we should use. My top 3 candidates are Marvel Cinematic Universe Logo.png, Symbol from Marvel's The Avengers logo.svg, and Marvel Studios 2016 logo.svg. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My vote would be the Marvel Studios 2016 logo first, then the Avengers, then the MCU logo png. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I second that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have created a userbox at Template:User Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. Placing {{User Marvel Cinematic Universe task force}} on your user page should automatically add you to Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe task force participants. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Very nice, thanks. IronManCap (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Biographies

Should we add |mcu=yes for any biographies/BLPs, particularly ones like Russo brothers, Joss Whedon and Kevin Feige? IronManCap (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards no in general, but if any, just Feige. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:Media franchises

Should this task force be also part of the WikiProject Media franchises? —El Millo (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to say no for this in my opinion, because Marvel Cinematic Universe (the article) falls under Media franchises, but something like Iron Man 2 or WandaVision wouldn't. Conversely, the majority of articles within the MCU set of articles are covered by Film and/or TV projects, and the Comics project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

MCU Book and the Good Topic status subpage

Wanted to pose questions on 2 MCU items, both of which are somewhat out of date:

1. The Book namespace has been depreciated as of May 24, 2021. As such, I no longer see any value in retaining Book:Marvel Cinematic Universe (partially because it is no where near complete anymore and it was a good way to track article assessments) and would propose it be put up for deletion per WP:BPROD (which I have just found is being discussed here).
2. The Good Topic status subpage, similarly, is now wildly out of date, and with the explosion of new articles coming about I know the Good Topic push has stalled and I feel it's more about simply getting the articles to Good Article status. Once articles get tagged for the task force, I feel like the table we have here will be a better indicator, and perhaps we can do more tracking from that data in the "Assessments" section. So my thought is we redirect the GT status subpage to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force#Assessment at this time.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The RfC about the books hasn't been closed yet, but it is pretty obvious what that close will be. The books are going to be deleted so no need to do anything with that. Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the book should go, but we probably don't need to do anything per Gonnym, and redirecting the Good Topic subpage for now is probably for the best. Let's just work on getting articles to GA where we can! - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Phases for GA-status

Are Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One, Phase Two, and Phase Three in condition to be nominated for GA-status? —El Millo (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I would lean towards no, since they are mostly an overview of other articles / duplicated information at the moment. Previously I would have maybe said yes to FL, but they are even less like lists than the full film list was. I would probably want to try expand reception to cover general Phase reception before trying to push them for GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:Comics

I think we should invite WP:Comics to be a part of this task force as this scope falls in their purview.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As a third member along with Film and TV? I was debating this, and went only with Film and TV to start because the medium in which the MCU mainly encompasses (though based on comics) is feature films and television series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes as a third member. I understand why TV and Film were included.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Apart from two comic-related pages, there really isn't any overlap. I'll even say that how the comic WP does stuff (as can be seen by the comic-related articles) is very different, to put it politely. Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The MOSs for TV and FILM also differ from each other but this is about scope, not style. The MCU film articles already fall under WP:COMICS through the WP:CBFILM task force. This proposal will just extend that coverage to the MCU television articles.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Simply for scope, I support this. We will need to adjust the project banner to handle this, and that should be done soon before AnomieBot goes through with its tagging. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I do believe we should add in the task force to {{WikiProject Comics}} I'm going to be unavailable for much of the weekend, are you able to implement? If you can, we can have the bot go around and tag this template too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Even though I think it's pretty pointless for only 2 comic pages to do this, I have no problem implementing this on live if someone wants to do the work in the /sandbox and testing it out. Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I can create it in the sandbox. But just to clarify, while there are only 2 MCU-specific comic book pages, virtually all the MCU articles are tagged by the Comics banner (unlike the film or television banners), which facilitates us doing this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, I just don't see how that is relevant. Most pages are also tagged with the Disney WP and a lot also with the Media franchises WP and US WP. The fact that some WP banners are on a page does not mean we need to add support in the template. I'll even say that the fact that the comic WP even tags non-comic media is pointless. None of their guidelines even relate to these pages. Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I will stand down on this for the time being then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not voicing an opposition to this (as in a bold oppose) so go ahead. I was just voicing an opinion on the matter. If you decide to do the work, I'll implement it so just ping me as usual. Gonnym (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think more opinions should be had on the matter before proceeding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Character articles

​​​​​I think we need to establish a clear consensus here. I added the "at least four appearances" thing as that was the reason given for not moving Draft:Shuri (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to mainspace on the talkpage, even though I think GNG is easily cleared by that draft, and it is actually probably better than some of the MCU character articles we have in mainspace, so I assumed that was the criteria we were using generally. Perhaps we need some other criteria if we're saying GNG isn't enough. IronManCap (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There really should not be any sort of super-GNG requirement here. Does it pass GNG? Do reliable sources talk about the MCU version outside of trivial mentions and casting? If that is a yes, then an article can be made. Is there enough for more than a start quality article? If there isn't, then keep it as a section. Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

We have had issues in the past with editors who consider these articles "cruft" attempting to merge them into the comic book character articles. It is better to have a clearly delineated standard under which there is demonstrable agreement that these should exist as stand-alone articles. BD2412 T 19:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My standard has generally been at least three appearances including a tentpole (i.e., at least one production for which the character is the main character named in the title of the production). I have been a bit lenient with these standards for Guardians of the Galaxy characters (taking the collective films as the tentpoles for the individual characters), and with the main recurring villains, Thanos and Loki (although I didn't create the Thanos article, and Loki now has a tentpole TV series). BD2412 T 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

What is keeping the Shuri draft from being mainspace-ready then? Is the justification that we should wait for her to get a stand-alone project? She may turn out to be the lead character in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever based on RS info, but the draft currently already satisfies GNG. IronManCap (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the four-appearances requirement is more of an unspoken local consensus that should be coupled with WP:GNG in order to determine whether articles should be moved to mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this MCU-specific taskforce not a good place to mention local consensuses on articles? IronManCap (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It is. I think Gonnym was only confused because this local consensus was never explicitly established in any discussion. Like I said, it's more of an unspoken standard. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If having "at least four appearances" is made unofficial criteria, then Carol Danvers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe) might be in trouble. Essentially, articles should be seen on a case-by-case basis. Nothing can ever be inherently un-notable if it has sources. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How about we change the criteria to at least four appearances OR at least one solo film/series? Also, the MJ article exists because she's a (semi-)original character. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what the wording already is. Maybe we need to bold the "or" if there's confusion, sorry. IronManCap (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that, my bad. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Hope it's clearer now for all. IronManCap (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Character Descriptions Matching Story

The character descriptions for some of the upcoming content, especially in Phase Four, have some issues in stating certain characters (particularly those from Endgame) as Avengers for their forthcoming appearances despite us not even knowing if this will be true. This is done for Scott Lang on Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Carol Danvers on The Marvels, and Nebula on Thor: Love and Thunder and Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, the latter of which also has it for Rocket. For a while, Nebula's character description on LaT did not mention her being a member of the Avengers or an Avenger as it does at Vol. 3, and so it was added there. I initially reverted the additions to LaT as unsourced, with the rationale that we honestly do not know if her character will be an Avenger in these upcoming stories. It was readded to LaT with a source from THR in 2019 on her character in Endgame, but that does not mention she is an Avenger in LaT or Vol. 3. We know from Spider-Man: Far From Home that the Avengers are disbanded, so stating that these characters are "member[s] of the Avengers" or is "an Avenger" is WP:OR. My proposition to resolve this is to state that these such characters were Avengers, as that's what we know is true. Another potential issue as pointed out by User:IronManCap at LaT (with Nebula) is that some of the sources we use to cite character's confirmed appearances don't always explain the characters in detail. As an ex., the aforementioned THR article on Nebula is now being used alongside the source confirming her appearance to explain her info. As it is from 2019, should we try to find updated sources about the characters in these upcoming projects that give descriptions of them to WP:STICKTOSOURCES that way we can avoid the cut descriptions at Endgame's article? Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Avengers team being disbanded didn't stop the individual members from being avengers on their own. An avenger isn't just a team, it's who they are. That's why even Captain America : The First Avenger uses that term even before they started the avengers initiative. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and WandaVision as well as Marvel press releases/film descriptions still refer to them as avengers. So, assuming they stopped being avengers, that's the original research / unsourced information. — Starforce¹³ 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Starforce13: I agree that stating they are Avengers is in no way OR, as Trailblazer101 indicates, as it is supported by several RS and onscreen confirmation, regardless of whether the Avengers are disbanded or not. However, the real issue here is with WP:STICKTOSOURCE, as the sources cited do not support the character descriptions provided. This is why I think we should consider either moving the refs next to the character listing before the description, and/or finding extra sources to support the descriptions (which are still correct), like I did with Nebula at Love and Thunder. IronManCap (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that for WV and FWS the press releases state they are Avengers, but we have no press release as far as I'm aware of saying Nebula is an Avenger in LaT. We do need a source to state they are depicted as Avengers in these upcoming releases just like we would to say otherwise. Stating either one with the sources we have for these upcoming releases is both original research, as no sources we currently use for these projects call them Avengers in these projects. Yes, we must stick to the sources, and no sources we have stated these such characters are Avengers in these upcoming releases. That's the issue here. I know saying they were Avengers isn't a good option, so I'm not really sure how we mention them being part of the Avengers when no updated sources reflect that for these upcoming releases. I think saying they were Avengers is pointing out their role but not saying they were a former Avenger. But, alas, I don't know the best wording for this as it's all technicalities we have to take into account. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Usually, in-universe character descriptions are acceptable. But MCU gets enough media coverage, so, if something is significant enough to be used for character description, it would be covered somewhere in a reliable source. So, I'm fine with sticking to secondary sources. My only problem is using Avengers were disbanded as the reason to question whether they're still avengers. But if it comes down to in-universe vs secondary sources, then yeah, that's worth the discussion. With or without sources, I personally don't think we need to mention Rocket and Nebula as Avengers, because it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT since it hasn't been a notable part about their characters and got minimal attention, even in-universe. So, "Guardians" should be sufficient, unless being an Avenger becomes a significant part of their characters. — Starforce¹³ 20:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing mention of them being Avengers as WP:UNDUE then, but we need to think about moving these refs next to the character listing (eg Karen Gillan as Nebula: A Guardian of the Galaxy who....) to comply with WP:STICKTOSOURCE. IronManCap (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty fine with removing the mention of Nebula being an Avenger. ‐ ChannelSpider (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to reevaluate our approach to formatting these character descriptions with respect to the sourcing. Based on what was discussed above, we do need to WP:STICKTOSOURCES and avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. There have been some recent edits at Thor: Love and Thunder over this, and I feel we should formulate a consensus on ref placement and usage, and information incorporated in the character descriptions for each project before proceeding with instating it. It's not best to just move the references and leave most of the descriptions unsourced, and not every reference will apply to this project, so I'm open to hearing on how we proceed with this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if we don't want to leave descriptions unsourced, then I think we should find extra sourced info for each character whilst still having the confirmation ref next to the listing. Alternatively, we could find sources both confirming the character and describing them, but I'm not sure whether there'll be many of those. IronManCap (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not a member but I did have this conversation with user:Trailblazer101 on Love and Thunder talk page about a month ago. Both Rocket and Nebula had more screen time than Carol in Endgame and were part of the team. This issue confuses me because I thought everyone agreed already. It’s in the characters pages and Avengers MCU page. Yet, here we are again. Sources have been listed on those pages and at this point I don’t see how everyone is still not sure about this. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kinsley Bottom: This is a different issue, about how to place references alongside character descriptions per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. IronManCap (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That’s the thing, in the times discussing this issue with the both of you sources have been provided in which you’ve agreed. That’s what makes this confusing, we’ve all agreed on them before, I just don’t get why we can use the same sources? Kinsley Bottom (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, it's not about which sources, it's about where to put the sources. IronManCap (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If that’s the issue, then why not have it like this for example: A member of the Guardians and an Avenger who is an orphan from an alien world,[source here] and adopted by Thanos and trained to be his personal assassin. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Disney+ series articles for GA-status

Are WandaVision and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier now ready for GA nominations? IronManCap (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

WandaVision is closer than FWS. My personal feeling was to wait to see what Emmy nominations would be for either series before nominating either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I propose that we nominate WV and wait for Emmy info and sources to come for TFATWS. Thoughts? IronManCap (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We'd get Emmy info for both at the same time, so in my view, it makes sense to wait on both. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. IronManCap (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. ‐ ChannelSpider (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I have been working on some expansion for these articles that I hope to get into the mainspace soon, mostly production info but also some analysis stuff. I would prefer to finish that and let everyone look over it before we go ahead with GAN, assuming that I don't take too long. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I noticed you've been adding a lot of Emmy info to TV series and episode articles. Should we go ahead with any nominations for WandaVision and FWS articles? IronManCap (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap: Per a continuing discussion on the WandaVision talk, we are very close to having that ready, as there are more c/e myself and Adamstom.97 specifically would like to perform. And as such, neither of us have even touched FWS at the level we have for WandaVision, when I know there's probably some additional useful info out there that can be added. With that said, I still feel it would be fruitless to go ahead with FWS at this time until we've had a chance to add such info. WandaVision as stated is close, and then I would assume the WV episode articles are not far behind. So in the immediate, we can get those all in a spot to nominate, and then the attention can turn to FWS and its episodes. - 20:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Deadpool and Korg

No idea where this fits in any MCU article, but there is a new commercial with Deadpool and Korg for Free Guy - [1]. Gonnym (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to put that at #Other short films or #Other media at Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as perhaps some mention at Draft:Untitled Deadpool film. Worth pointing out that this is being interpreted as Deadpool's MCU debut: [2][3][4]. IronManCap (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Now has an article Deadpool and Korg React. Gonnym (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

wow – ChannelSpider (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:FILM banner

Can we change the image in the WP:FILM banner to avoid confusion with the WP:CBFILM task force? We are currently using File:Comic Clapperboard.svg which is the same image that they use. I suggest we use File:Marvel_Studios_2016_logo.svg, which is the image we use in the WP:TV banner. If not, perhaps I can make a new one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree IronManCap (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. For the sake of consistency with the other images WP:FILM uses, that's the one I put there when I created the code. If editors are fine with a non-clapper board image, let's go with the Marvel Studios logo. Otherwise, if you don't mind making an MCU-specific clapperboard image TriiipleThreat, that'd be great. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(file to be converted and renamed) How's this?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Works for me InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Looks great! Let us know when the file is in its final state, and then you can ping Gonnym (who has template editor rights) to make the image change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this ready? Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat said it still needs to be converted to SVG, which I'm assuming also means the name will change. But if we add, I'm assuming a bot would fix when that happens? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No idea. We can just wait, just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it. Gonnym (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: the file hasn't been converted, but I think you're safe to implement it in the necessary templates here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Importance scale

Was hoping we could start tagging some article for importance. My feeling is that anything by Marvel Studios (so the films and Disney+ series) or what's currently releasing/will be releasing, and the main page and lists/hub pages are High for sure, and then maybe Marvel Television-related articles, and seemingly "concluded" Marvel Studios content (the One-Shots/WHIH/Team Thor), and the tie-in comics and music list, are Mid, and then soundtracks, live attractions would be Low. Anyone who works more on the character articles (including the Features) than me can probably suggest some scale thoughts for those. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good starting point to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say Mid for the in-universe articles (Characters, Features, Teams, Species) and Low for the video games articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If the soundtracks are low, shouldn't the music list be low as well? —El Millo (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it be based on page views?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Is that normally how importance is determined? I just felt it was what the project felt were "key" articles that, on the scale of High, Mid, and Low, indicate which should probably have the most attention/work to be maintained. There could be a highly important article for the project that might not get a high view count. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

For references, this is what the 1.0 editorial team says on the matter, while WP:ANIMATION (as an example) says this for their assessment notice: The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Animation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Are there any further objections to tagging articles as I suggested (with the changes per others)? I feel like that should be the way we approach, while looking at page viewership second to see if the importance level should be adjusted. Because if it was solely on viewership, Phase One films would be a lot lower than say the Phase Four films, but I still consider those Phase One film article "high" importance to the task force. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel that a manual criteria of importance then adjusted only upwards based on page views should be how we handle this. I basically agree with Favre but with a small difference. I think the "main" article of each topic should be the highest rating, while the secondary pages should be lower. So for example, I would place Loki (TV series) in top, while I would place Glorious Purpose in high. I would also place the series article of the Marvel Television in high (Agents of SHIELD maybe in top as its history is pretty significant and has a pretty big coverage). Gonnym (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, any specific episode or soundtrack that receives special recognition (awards, controversy, etc.) could always be raised higher. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I like that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged all the in-universe articles now, with most at mid and the ones with lower page views at low. So I guess we're going for either top or high for most projects? IronManCap (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Should Loki's appearance in What If be included under Loki alternate versions, or in the main character bio?

There is a dispute at Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as to whether Loki's appearance in What If should be included under the header for Loki alternate versions, or under the header for the main character bio.

The What If version was initially added with variants by User:Gggiann, here, and was worked on within that section by User:IronManCap and User:Davefelmer. It was moved to a section under the main bio by User:RobotGoggles here, without discussion. I do not believe that a consensus has been established to move this content to the main bio section of this article. RobotGoggles suggests that this is consistent with other articles, but there are no other articles with sections on variants, as that was a feature of the Loki TV series. I do note that Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) lists both the time travelling Thanos from Endgame and the What If Thanos under an "Alternative versions" header. BD2412 T 19:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) does not list What If...? Thanos under an "Alternative versions" header. If you pay attention, the What If...? subheader isn't underneath Alternative versions at all. Secondly, I think it best to preserve the Loki variants in their own section, which I argued in the discussion I opened in Talk:Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe). The implication that I edited without discussion completely ignores the fact that I opened a discussion immediately after reverting your edit, as is customary. No other articles have sections on variants, that's true, and that's my whole point. "Variants" are a part of the lore of Loki, not What If...?. The argument could be made that the Loki seen in What If...? is a variant, but we currently don't see him being hunted by the TVA, so we can only assume he's not a variant. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This Loki version isn't a variant. Variant and alternate version aren't synonyms. A variant is one who deviates from their timeline, not simply an alternate version of the "main" Loki from the films. —El Millo (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly my point. The term "Variant" is very specific, and there's no evidence that this new Loki is a variant or if he is following his own timeline. That's why I added a new definition of the word Variant to the Loki alternate versions section, and moved What If...? out of it.RobotGoggles (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Either way, it is an alternative version and there is a heading for "Alternative versions"; including it under the main bio header as if this were part of the biography of the character in the main timeline is unacceptable. BD2412 T 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If it is to be included under Alternate versions, it should be in its own subsection as What If...?, given that it's not a variant as it is currently stated in the article. —El Millo (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You're just wrong here. Look at Talk:Peggy Carter (Marvel Cinematic Universe). There are multiple versions of her character, three at current count, and so the biography features a What If...? section. Loki is a special case, and it would be unencyclopedic to just whittle the events of that show into just a list of "alternative versions". RobotGoggles (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

For proper organization, it should be a level 3 "What If" subsection under the "Alternate versions" section (below "Other variants") - not under the main header or main character bio. Other articles need to have "Alternate Versions" sections too to avoid mixing alternate versions and variants with other character events.— Starforce¹³ 19:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

For the mass of complex information in Loki, I think it deserves its own dedicated Level 1 section. And by dedicated, I mean that it ONLY features events and characters from the show Loki. I think having What If...? characters in the Loki subsection unnecessarily complicates things. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We are always going to have new alternative versions. It's almost certain we might see another Loki version in Multiverse of Madness or Love and Thunder. We can't create a new Level 1 (technically Level2) section for each one of those. Otherwise, the articles will be a mess. That's why we need just one "Alternate versions" section and use subsections for all the various versions/variants. — Starforce¹³ 20:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, then, let's simplify it. I think "Alternative versions" is far too broad, and will result in a bogged-down, clunky, and hard to read section detailing the different characters in different timelines. Instead, I think we should create sections based on their property. We could dedicate the Fictional character biography to the mainline film series, and create new sections, not for each version, but for each show. One for Loki, one for What If...?. Similarly to Nick Fury (Marvel Cinematic Universe), we could have a section for What If...?, and since he has two versions in that show, we could create subsections titled with episode titles. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

But they are "Alternate versions", so that's not too broad. It's literally what they are and where they fall under. Creating a top-level section for each property gives it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. They may be notable within the episode/series/film, but at the end of the day, they're insignificant compared to the main entry. Hence UNDUEWEIGHT. Also, if we broke them down by property, what happens if the Loki variant from Loki series shows up in an upcoming film?— Starforce¹³ 20:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Starforce13 here, and I think we now have a consensus for this. BD2412 T 20:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Two people versus two people is not a consensus. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read the discussion more carefully. User:Facu-el Millo clearly stated: "If it is to be included under Alternate versions, it should be in its own subsection as What If...?". There is no consensus to include this content anywhere other than under the "Alternative versions" header. BD2412 T 20:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"If it is to be" and "it should be" are not synonymous. And besides that point, you're right. There's no consensus in either direction, this discussion needs more voices. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

With or without local consensus, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT still applies. It was created for things like these.— Starforce¹³ 20:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I also raised WP:UNDUEWEIGHT at Talk:Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe), so I agree with Starforce13 here. IronManCap (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agreeing with Starforce13. — ChannelSpider (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on this consensus, I've edited the other articles with the same format. RobotGoggles (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've further edited the other articles, as having "What If...?" as a subsection of "Alternate versions" is unnecessary in most of these, since there are no other subsections within that section. —El Millo (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Facu-el Millo, that's what I was envisioning. Once we get more versions for those characters, then we can break out What If...? as its own subsection. — Starforce¹³ 00:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Defining "Alternative versions" vs "Fictional character biography"

After the previous discussion's consensus, I think there needs to be a broader consensus on what justifies Alternative versions and what justifies Character Biography. I think the choice is clear, while Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Peggy Carter (Marvel Cinematic Universe) have multiple versions, the versions present in the main film series should be included in the character's biography. For example, Peggy Carter dies in Captain America: Civil War, but her character's biography should continue with the new version present at the end of Endgame. Further, Thanos' 2014 version time-travelling forward to 2023 for the Battle for Earth should be considered another part of his biography. Conversely, both of these characters have versions in What If...?, and I can only assume they could have versions appear from the multiverse as the film series continues. These versions, I think, deserve to be in the Alternative Versions section. I think we need to establish a MoS for now, which of course can be amended as new films are released. RobotGoggles (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Things are going to get complicated. For example, there will presumably be an "alternate" Gamora going forward in the MCU. BD2412 T 21:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but I think that new version should be considered the successor to the Original version, since it is the same Gamora, just plucked from 2014 and placed into 2023. I think we should consider whether or not these characters continue the characters' arcs or if they're completely separate. Time travel makes things complicated, but I think the Alternative versions sections should be reserved for Multiverse versions, not time travel versions. RobotGoggles (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I expect that we will need a case-by-case determination rather than an overall rule. BD2412 T 23:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A case-by-case determination sounds good. – ChannelSpider (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Direct reliability

I've noticed The Direct is increasingly being used as a source on MCU articles, with many exclusive pieces with production members. Should we revise their listing at WP:MCURS to something like "reliable for exclusives, but unreliable otherwise"? IronManCap (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should, it has been publishing many useful exclusive interviews, which are obviously reliable since it's the creatives themselves speaking. —El Millo (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added some text in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is acceptable, but I still think a more reliable source should be used whenever possible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft notice

This is a notice that there is a draft for Danny Rand at Draft:Danny Rand (Marvel Cinematic Universe) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. Painting17 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fictional victims of The Blip has been nominated for deletion

Category:Fictional victims of The Blip has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. IronManCap (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Naming convention

I also raised this discussion in Wanda's (MCU) talk page, and was told it'd be better to do it here. I have noticed that for a long time now, characters in the MCU—both in the own articles, and ones about films / shows—are referred to by their family names, rather than given name. Taking Wikipedia "common name" policy into consideration, shouldn't characters like Wanda and many others be referred to by their first names or superhero alias? While I am aware that Wikipedia—as most formal forms of writing—uses surnames for real people, Wanda and the rest aren't real people. So why are they referred to by their last names? It makes sense in the case of a character like Jemma Simmons, as most people in-universe refer to her by her last name, but this phenomenon does not apply to most other characters. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Superhero film character articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Superhero film character articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent phase categories and template addition

Hello, there appears to have been the creation of categories for each phase of the MCU, as well as the addition of Venom: Let There Be Carnage in a "Related" tab in the MCU template for the Marvel Studios section, despite it not being from MS. We need to establish a consensus on what to do with these phase categories and how to acknowledge Venom and the SSU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

So I've tried taking care of the Phase categories. I'm not actually opposed to this, but there were character articles added to them which felt like not in the scope of such so those have been removed. I think I've adjusted the structure of these as they should, but would love if Gonnym had a second to look over my work. They are Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One, Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two, Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three, and Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four. As for Venom and the SSU, I'm not sure yet what should happen, but I don't think anything should be added to the MCU templates or categories just yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Just so we're clear here. Are these categories only for film (and film subpage) articles? Not character, Albums, games, etc? Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to start with films (and TV series for Phase Four), but definitely not characters, since it appeared to apply to when they were introduced, which can't be discerned from the category naming (nor should it). Other outside media I think would be okay to include, but then that might alter the categories within these since I just limited them to the MCU film (and TV series) cat, and the Phase cat. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Tyrone Johnson and Tandy Bowen (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Tyrone Johnson and Tandy Bowen (Marvel Cinematic Universe) was recently created. While I personally dislike very much cominbed articles, the bigger issue here is dealing with the article talking about "Cloak" and "Dagger" which were not the names used in the TV series. This article needs some cleanup if even notable in mainspace. Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My changes there were reverted. Would appreciate other editor opinion there. Gonnym (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I also moved it back to the non-hero names. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ABC.com external link dead?

The Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. articles have an external link leading to the episode guide on the ABC.com website, however I'm not sure if these are still working. As I'm outside the US I can't see anything, but it might be working for someone who is. Can anyone verify if the following link works?

• "The End Is at Hand" at ABC

If it doesn't, should we remove these? Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the link doesn't work in the US. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 thoughts on this? Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah they aren't working. The site on ABC.com seems to have been removed for the show. I'd say if the URLs are on the pages and not at Wikidata, that they just get commented out so they are there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Dealmaces' edits

Dealmaces has been found to be a sockpuppet of TotalTruthTeller24 and as such, much of their creations have been deleted per WP:G5. This likely is resulting in a lot of red links now across articles since I believe they were doing a lot of redirect work for MCU (and SSU and others) characters. Be on the look out when you are traversing articles to see if you come across them. Also if you see this type of editing start up again from a new user, be sure to report it to the TotalTruth SPI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Draft talk:Howard the Duck (Marvel Cinematic Universe) regarding what to do with the articles they created. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotional websites

So this edit made me ponder whether or not we should include promotional websites for MCU films in addition to the regular Marvel.com listings that we currently have. I should note that Marvel stopped doing these after Captain Marvel (Far From Home and No Way Home being exceptions because they are managed by Sony), with that film and NWH being the only sites still live. For reference, here are some examples: Thor, Cap 2, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, NWH. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on this? Anyone? No? InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

New character redirects needing attention

Hi all, these 100 recently-created character redirects all need to be tagged with {{Fictional character redirect|series_name=Marvel Cinematic Universe|to_article=yes}}, while their corresponding talk pages need to be tagged with {{WikiProject Film|mcu=yes}} and/or {{WikiProject Television|mcu=yes}}. I've already taken care of the rest, but like I said there are still 100 of them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, a lot of these redirects seem heavily unnecessary and an over clogging of the redirect space. I mean, they seem to be more in-universe and fan terms, so I guess if they are visited quite eough, they could stay, but I highly doubt all of them are necessary, like the nicknames, misspellings, the "MCU" acronym, and maybe the full names, while the SSU one for Spidey for sure shouldn't exist. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I was thinking maybe we could nominate some of them for deletion at WP:RfD, especially the unofficial ones ("Hex Vision", "Fake Mandarin", "Hope Pym"). Also, the overclogging of the redirect space has long been a problem, as evidenced by this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I really hate when editors just create a ton of pointless redirects like that. I'd be for RfD, but from my experience there, the editors sadly there keep almost anything. If they are nominated, please ping me. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow Sylvie Laufeydottir (née Loki). Complete garbage. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym, Dealmaces has been blocked for sockpuppetry (thank goodness), so a majority of their redirects should get deleted under WP:CSD#G5. If not, we can nominate them ourselves. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It would seem User:Explicit deleted all? most? Rough eyeballing the list seemed like 300 or so entries. Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, looking at this, the only redirect creations left are the Venom and JJJ ones, which are now articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"In the present day..."

As we all know, following the events of Avengers: Endgame the "present day" within the MCU is, at the earliest, mid-2023 CE. Now, for consistencies sake, we have continued to use the term "in the present day" in a number Phase Four articles that cover events both before and after Endgame, but I am strongly of the opinion that this is misleading for the simple fact that Phase Four is in fact set in the near-future. I accept that "in the present day" works better than "In the near future" for our articles, but I think we need to include notes alongisde the term that makes clear the point that these movies are set post-Endgame (i.e. post-2023) and not, well, in the present (i.e. 2021).

I raised this point previously in an article edit, and saw it again mentioned more recently in Eternals, though both times the information was subsequently removed. I'm not sure why it was removed from Eternals, but for my edit the reason given was It's still is "the present day". Saying it's "Post-Blip" is jargon and too in-universe, and it's not actually relevant to this particular story. Ignoring use of the term "post-blip" (which I agree leans a little close to being 'jargon'), I still believe a distinction needs to be made, especially when we start to deal with Phase Four films not set after Endgame (e.g. Black Widow and the theorised Planet Hulk movie). I really just want to get a discussion started and to see where people land on this. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, I think we should just stick to "present day". 2023/24 is the "present day" within the fictional world of the MCU, plus on-screen text in Eternals explicitly states "present day". Black Widow is different because it actually states (also via on-screen text) that it is set in 2016, so we hould note that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Present day" within the MCU doesn't necessarily need to relate to our real world present day. We should go by what the film tells us, and in the case of Eternals, it explicitly uses that terminology so we should too for the plot. We can explain in the production section further what "present day" actually means. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CONFORMTITLE

MOS:CONFORMTITLE is a citation guideline on how to list the title of a work. It reads, "Titles of works that should be italicized receive this treatment inside another title. E.g., convert a newspaper title like "Ben Daniels Joins Cast of 'The Crown' for Season Three" to "Ben Daniels Joins Cast of The Crown for Season Three". This includes in a citation template as well as in running text." This means that citations including titles (ex. 'Shang-Chi') should be italicized (Shangi-Chi). Should this guideline be practiced in all MCU articles? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No reason not to follow the guideline. Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there any sort of script or bot that can assist? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Populating film or TV series cats with characters

Should we be populating film to TV series categories (such as Category:Avengers (film series) of Category:What If...? (TV series) with every single characters that appears in such series? This is in reference to recent edits (a)nnihilation97 has made. For example, this one at Phil Coulson. Should he be added to the Avengers, Captain Marvel, Iron Man, Thor, and What If cats? My feeling is likely not. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt so. Especially with the MCU as characters often appear in multiple franchises, it would be too much and become non-defining. —El Millo (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I would think "title" characters would be ok, so Tony Stark in the Category:Iron Man (film series), but I agree that the others shouldn't be in every other film/tv series cat. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed characters from the film or TV characters in which they were not the title character (outside those who are known to be Avengers in the MCU or Guardians members). I think we can maybe come up with some sort of guidance on adding some characters back into certain characters. But we should be avoiding things such as Steve Rogers in the Captain Marvel category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I would think that the What If category would encompass all of those who were effectively main characters over more than one episode of the series (at a minimum, Stephen Strange, T'Challa, Natasha Romanoff, and Thor). BD2412 T 04:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

But I would not included them for at least What If, because our articles aren't for those versions of the characters. So in my view, for that one, only a Watcher article would probably be best to categorize. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Those versions of the character are still basically the same character in a different situation, and they are well-covered in the articles. There was, you may recall, an attempt to make a separate Star-Lord T'Challa article that was (correctly) shot down by this community. This categorization is a reasonable position short of that kind of effort. BD2412 T 18:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

First names and last names

@IJBall: has twice edited Hawkeye, changing it to refer to Yelena Belova by her first name instead of her last name in repeating occurrences. Although not explicitly, it seems they're doing so on the basis of MOS:SURNAME and its instruction For fictional entities, use common names instead of always the surname. But we have established consensus for the WikiProject as stated in its Miscallenous section to use surnames in almost all instances to keep consistency. Should we revise this to stick to common names o keep it as is? —El Millo (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the reasoning basis for this project's consensus. I.e. What about MCU fictional characters should overrule the longstanding WP (and industry...) consensus on common name usage? To me it looks like it was just a convenience move because someone went rogue to use full names before and nobody wanted to change all the articles. That's laziness, not an argument. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we could loosen it a bit to use the first name of those whose first name is clearly the common name, but wherever there's doubt, keep the surname by default. —El Millo (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a clear case WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is contrary to both MOS:FILM and MOS:TV – which is not even followed consistently at Hawkeye: I notice it's "Kate", "Kate", "Kate", and not "Bishop" there. Regardless, there is a reason "names as per credits (or commonname)" has been added to the above guidelines, and to WP:FILMOGRAPHY. In the specific instance of Hawkeye, her surname is not credited, and has not been uttered (on screen), at least as of yet, and the specific source referenced only refers to the character as "Yelena". The problem here is that the MCU project seems to believe there's a direct correspondence between the comics characters and the film/TV characters, there is not – the latter are adaptations of the former. Even from one work to the next, there may or may not be direct correspondence between the characters (e.g. "multiverse" differences) – we can't even assume that this is the same "Yelena" as we saw in Black Widow. So how do we know her surname on Hawkeye?! These articles should be written for casual fans, not fanboys, and there is already a link to the character article, so there is no need to include an unused surname here. Bottom line – this character's surname has never been uttered on Hawkeye, let alone credited, so it is completely inappropriate to refer to a fictional character by a surname that has never even been referenced. The important guidelines here are MOS:FILM and MOS:TV – this project's guidelines are subsumed to those. P.S. I fully agree with Kingsif's point above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The usage of "Kate" in Hawkeye is because there are two other characters with the surname Bishop, her father and her mother. That's not an example of the surnname rule not being followed. On the surname of Yelena in Hawkeye, we have reliable sources to back it up, see for example this Variety source, which is what's mainly used to reference the character's appearance in the series within the Cast and characters section: Pugh will reprise the role of spy and assassin Yelena Belova. So the last name being unsourced is refuted now. If you think "Yelena" is the common name that's fine and it is clearly correct, that's why I brought forth the discussion on deciding whether to use common names or deciding on keeping with the surname rule we have had consensus for within the WikiProject. We could start by stating our support or opposition for going back to common names and what to do in cases where there isn't a clear common name. —El Millo (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In Hawkeye, right now, "Yelena" is clearly the common name - it's the only name, so far. And it's "as per credits or common name" – so if there's no common name, you go explicitly by what's credited. (The issue is if there's no credited name – luckily, this is not an issue with the MCU and its TV shows, as there are always character names in the credits.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that no one called her "Yelena" yet either. Clint just said "Someone has hired the Blackwidow assassin." Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that she was credited as "Yelena" – you understand it's "names as per credits...", right? So, yeah, that actually was established. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow this actually became a discussion? Seemed like an incredibly petty thing to take such umbridge with. The MCU articles have been heavily interlinked with one another, which makes this seem like common sense that a character who has appeared in the franchise previously under their full name would still have said last name. Pretty silly this is in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 04:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the problem – this task force is treating these as if they are all one big project: they're not. They're a series of sometimes closely-linked, and sometimes not, different, individual projects. Basically, this actually borders on WP:OR in assuming that the character from Black Widow is exactly the same one on Hawkeye, without that being established in the latter. But, that's a side issue – once again, task forces under MOS:FILM and MOS:TV cannot just make up rules that are contrary to the parent projects'. So, yes – the "surname rule" should be explicitly abandoned, and replaced with the "names as per credits or common name" guidance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

they're not they clearly are. At least anything from Marvel Studios is. This has been clearly established in multiple places with multiple sources. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If only we had some way of determining whether these are the same character. Oh, wait, it has already been pointed out that reliable sources expressly state that this character is Yelana Belova. E.g., "Kate Bishop doesn't shoot Yelena Belova at the end of Hawkeye episode 4"; "Black Widow actor Florence Pugh made her debut in Hawkeye this week as Yelena Belova"; "What are Disney's plans for the immensely talented Florence Pugh playing Yelena Belova, coming from Black Widow to be a new quasi-villain in Hawkeye?"; "A classic Marvel villain continues to be teased in small doses, while Black Widow's Yelena Belova has made her grand entrance". BD2412 T 18:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

And, again, who cares?! (I'm not even going to get into WP:ONUS on this.)
MOS:SURNAME does not apply to fictional characters – "names per credits or common name" does. She is not know primarily by her last name, even in the MCU, so referring to her (or most of the characters) that way is wrong, and contrary to guidelines such as MOS:TV/MOS:FILM. While that may work for Tony Stark, it doesn't work for a lot of the especially more supporting characters. Now, instead of whining, why don't you guys just fix your task force's guidance on this, hmmmm?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

How about you stop being combative and try to convince other editors? So far we haven't discussed the proper subject, which is whether we keep using surnames almost exclusively or whether we use the common name, because you keep repeating your flawed that because she's just credited as Yelena we can't use or we can't know if her surname is Belova or not, which has already been refuted many times here. If you stop bringing that up, we'll all focus on the real issue, and you'll have a chance to hear why the surname rule was implemented in the first place by those who decided it, and judge if it's a valid argument or not. —El Millo (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will save you the time – you will not convince me that a task force can supercede its parents' WikiProjects' guidelines, regardless of the rationale. That is textbook WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Beyond that, this is going to be my last comment on this – it is clear that to me that this is one of those WP's that less interested in writing their articles for "general audiences" on the individual works, and more interested in tailoring content for "true fans" of the overall "franchise". This is hardly the only WP or task force that operates this way. And WP:Readers first always gets lost in the shuffle when this happens... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, if we're really trying to stick to the WP:COMMONNAME guideline word-for-word, we would have to call Scott Lang "Ant-Man", Valentina Allegra de Fontaine "Val", Abraham Erskine "Dr. Erskine", etc. Let's not overcomplicate things and keep thing consistent. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what "common name" means at all. And "names per credits" can always be used in lieu of that, if it's a problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Course it is. Plenty of sources call those characters that, typically after their full name is stated once. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If IJBall just sticks to arguing that Yelena is s rarely referred to by their last name, then even according to our own guideline here it would be correct to refer to her as "Yelena", but they kept going with the argument that we somehow can't use the last name or don't even know if it is her last name simply because of the show's credits. It seems as if they hadn't even read WP:MCU properly, because it clearly says Use last names when referring to characters, except when to differentiate them with other characters of the same last name or if the character in question is rarely referred to by their last name, i.e. "use last names except when the first name is a clear common name". Perhaps we could rephrase it somewhat to make that even clearer. —El Millo (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying her last name has not been established in Hawkeye. Again, you all are approaching this from the franchise level. But the Hawkeye article should be primarily written about Hawkeye, not what may or may not have happened in other projects. IOW, the article should be written for someone who has only watched Hawkeye and has no other knowledge of anything MCU (all the articles should be written thusly!). Further, my point is you already link to the character article – if someone wants to know more about the character, they will find the surname (that has not been indicated on Hawkeye) there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, you have already been presented with numerous sources indicating that the Yelena in Hawkeye is the same one from Black Widow. Facu, your proposal kinda makes sense. Using Black Widow as an example, I think Yelena and Alexei's last names were only mentioned like once in the entire film, while Melina and Rick Mason's weren't even mentioned at all. Does that mean we should consider their first names as their common names? (Side note: Off the top of my head, the characters who we currently use first names to refer to are Asgardians, Yondu, Kraglin, Shang-Chi, Xialing, and Wenwu.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Checking through Black Widow subtitles, it seems Rick Mason is never even named in the film, and is credited simply as "Mason". We know his first name from press and reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, so Mason is probably his common name. See, this what is I meant by an unnecessary overcomplication of things. If we were to switch to all common names, we would have to analyze ever single character to determine what we should call them. Things would be even worse if we go by their credited names, which are horrifically inconsistent across films, shows, and even episodes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should still check for those whose first name is clearly and predominantly used over the surname. Yelena and Alexei may well be some of those, and Melina certainly seems to be, as her surname isn't even mentioned or credited in the film, only coming from secondary reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Matt Murdock

Since the character has now appeared in an MCU property, and there is substantial content at List of Daredevil (TV series) characters, I think this can immediately be broken out into a separate article. The only thing I am uncertain of is what title to use. BD2412 T 19:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth waiting for next appearance to see if the character has the Netflix history or if this is the same actor playing the same character but a different version. Gonnym (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Doctor Octopus

An article that been involved with (Doctor Octopus ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Otto Octavius (film character)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Trailers and plot info

This is something I've been thinking about since watching No Way Home and it is relevant to all MCU articles so I thought I would bring it up here. There are times when a new trailer is released and we use the trailer / sources that discuss the trailer to add new plot and character details to our articles. This has just happened with the Doctor Strange 2 teaser where we have updated our description of Wanda in the article to say that Strange approaches her for help with the multiverse. However, the trailers for No Way Home are a good example of why we can't always trust trailers, for instance they made it look like Dr Strange was going behind Wong's back to cast a dangerous spell (something that was widely discussed on the internet at the time) when the film itself actually uses a different version of the scene in which the spell is said to not be that dangerous and Wong is aware that Strange is going to cast it. Another example is the trailers suggesting that all of the multiversal villains were killed by their Spider-Men (another thing that was widely discussed on the internet) when the film itself does not suggest that at all, and this was likely done to get the general idea across to trailer viewers in a few short lines where the movie itself takes longer to give the full picture. So I feel that we should be more wary in the future about updating plot summaries and character descriptions based on trailers, especially when it could easily be a line thrown in there to get the point of the movie across (i.e. the film could indeed have Strange talk to Wanda about the multiverse, but it is also plausible that they threw the "what do you know about the multiverse" line in there just for the trailers). Another thing to consider in this specific instance is whether the fact is noteworthy just because it is in the trailer, because even if that multiverse line is in the film it may not be something that defines Wanda's role and so may be inappropriate to add to the cast section since that is not the place for unrelated plot points. I don't think we need to go changing anything at the moment if others disagree as we will find out eventually, but these are just some thoughts to keep in mind going forward. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. In all my time editing on Wikipedia/Wikia across a number of fandoms, I've always taken the contents of a trailer with a grain of salt. Everything we see and hear about these movies, be it from a trailer or any other source, is subject to change up until release day. It is not ideal for us to include trailer-sourced information in our articles only to have to remove it later once the film has actuall released. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Avengers (comics) § Requested move 15 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Avengers (comics) § Requested move 15 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject task force. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye TV episodes

Several of the Hawkeye TV episodes feel like they are ready for mainspace. Specifically the first three: Draft:Never Meet Your Heroes, Draft:Hide and Seek (Hawkeye), and Draft:Echoes (Hawkeye). (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the Hawkeye talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Peter Parker retcon

FYI, a large discussion regarding two MCU articles, Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Iron Man 2, has been started over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Disappearance of User:IronManCap

User:IronManCap has not edited in over six months. I am worried about them. Does anyone here have a closer connection to them? BD2412 T 21:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They do have {{Busy}} on their talk page. Hopefully they are ok and just busy or haven't found the time or desire to return. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They have a project-relevant draft or two in the oven still. I'll keep an eye on those. BD2412 T 22:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They had to create a new account because they apparently lost their password to their old account. It's not clear why they stopped editing after that, but hopefully it's nothing bad or serious. (They might just be distraught at the loss of their watchlist or edit count.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about this exchange. BD2412 T 00:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Pointless MCU redirects, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. And also these discussions: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Pointless MCU redirects (pt. 2), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Pointless MCU redirects (pt. 3), and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 9 Gonnym (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Another batch of new redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#The Amazing Spider Man (again). Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#SM (2002 film) and a few others on the same day. Gonnym (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: The user's redirect creations have been nuked by an administrator. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Win – SirDot (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Marvel Cinematic Universe

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Characters, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been nominated for discussion

Category:Characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteNexus (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mystique (film series character)

I noticed that Draft:Mystique (film series character) had fallen off the radar and been deleted as abandoned. I have restored it, but let's get it finished and moved to mainspace. The character has more than enough coverage to support this. BD2412 T 14:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That's an X-Men character, not an MCU character. Perhaps a better place to post this would be WT:CBFILM? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Before long, there won't be a difference between X-Men characters and MCU characters. BD2412 T 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That's speculation, we don't know how these characters will be included in the MCU, and which of them will be. As of now, this draft has nothing to do with the MCU. —El Millo (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Xavier (film series character)

Charles Xavier (film series character) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Xavier (film series character), which is odd timing, given that the character has just made his debut in the MCU. BD2412 T 23:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Arthur Harrow

The comics redirect Arthur Harrow has been brought under discussion as it was originally made for the MCU version, which I since made for the Arthur Harrow (Marvel Cinematic Universe) redirect, and it has been reverted back to that by a few editors. Just a heads up to hopefully formulate a consensus on these types of character redirects and the MCU ones being primary, as was brought up there and is fairly important. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Character articles to potential GA status

I was looking through the current assessments of MCU articles and noticed that none of the character articles are GAs yet. Are there any that are close to being able to be nominated that anyone knows of? I've been slowly working on the Thanos article for a couple days in my sandbox, but it still has a ways to go. -- Zoo (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility. I don't remember any Wiki articles on characters being GAs though. – SirDot (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You can look to Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Fictional characters and technologies for examples of character articles that have been promoted to GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. – SirDot (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

One problem I see repeated a lot in character articles is the infobox usage. The infobox is supposed to summarize information that is available in the articles (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), yet a lot of times, such information is only available there (see Anna (Frozen), GA article where the birth day "Summer Solstice (which isn't even a birth date) isn't listed anywhere in the article). References should also not be used in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXREF. Also sometimes the parameters usage is too much subjective or incorrect. As to your draft, if I'm looking at User:ZooBlazer/sandbox5, I'd remove all the parenthesis information from the infobox such as Josh Brolin (voice and motion-capture) as it just adds clutter to the infobox. Additionally, an alias like The Great Titan doesn't appear anywhere in the article, but more importantly, is that something he calls himself or just a one-liner someone called him? Because only one of those is actually an alias. Also, Proxima Midnight and gang are not the his children, unlike Gamora and Nebula which he does call his daughters. Neither is "Sanctuary II" a weapon. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't even begun the c/e process of the actual info yet. Been spending most of my time cleaning up the refs and archiving. Didn't realize how messy some of the refs would be. Thanks for the helpful info. I'll be sure to look closely at what info can be removed from the infobox. -- Zoo (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The Great Titan is what Ebony Maw refers to Thanos as at the beginning of Infinity War. "You have had the privilege of being saved by the Great Titan". Is it worth keeping that in the infobox and then adding info in the article, or should it just be removed? -- Zoo (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a passing mention, so it shouldn't be noted. As an example, Peter-One is noted on Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe) because this was used by the other Peters in the entire third act of NWH, but a nickname such as Point Break isn't noted on Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) because it was just a joke. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the page supposed to be in present tense or past tense? It's a little mixed on the Thanos page at times so I'm trying to decide which parts to fix. -- Zoo (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Plot-related content and in-universe info should be in present tense per WP:PLOTTENSE. Everything else should go by logic/grammar. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I finally published my changes to the Thanos article if anyone (hopefully multiple people) can do their own c/e to get it as cleaned up as possible. -- Zoo (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

mf published his c/e into mainspace within a week but Green Goblin is still in my sandbox (joke) – SirDot (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just need a little motivation I guess. Thanos is probably my favorite MCU character, plus info isn't too hard to find currently. Good luck with Green Goblin! -- Zoo (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)