Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 3

2545:

one appearance, who are reasonably notable. Before any such major changes are to be made (any compromise or a second reversal or guidelines), the main priority should be to expand the descriptions. I do not feel like the idea of this article being a dump of links to other character lists is useful, and somewhat misleading. I would not be opposed to a table overview of the major characters who already have articles being included here, as well. The "Recurring characters" criteria at the Outline and main MCU article is a good bouncing off point for any potential guidelines, actually. But, yeah, the character descriptions should have some of the casting info, characterization info on writing and design, and their role in the plot of the media they appeared in. Basically just expanding off of the bare minimum overview descriptions most currently have. I know the prospect of a second split reversal can be daunting, and I do apologize for that. I would like to thank all the editors for their hard work to getting these character articles worked on, especially with these lists, and even though character articles are not my main focus (and I was silent on prior discussions as a result), I do wish for us to find another direction to take these character articles for listings to better the readers' perspective in what is efficient, provides enough information that explains the who and why, and how best to present these.

2327:, where all of the character lists are linked. The character overviews seem to only really be a brief explanation of who the leads of each media of the main phases are, while neglecting all the other groups and other characters (ie Marvel TV), which raises some concerns about how do we deem which characters to be "central characters" and how do we get to pick-and-choose which characters should be highlighted in an article titled for the characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which hardly discusses many more of the characters. Admittedly, it feels like the article's current state is attempting to justify its own existence rather than providing any useful or inherently notable information that isn't already expanded upon in greater detail in other articles, especially the alphabetically split listings, which could also be cut down if a formal process of qualifications were to be discussed. The reception info can just easily be put in the main MCU article, and to me, feels like a poor attempt to keep this article as it currently stands around as inherently useful in compliance with article standards. If this article was to be just a true list-class, then it ought to be titled "Lists of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters" with true lists for the actual characters, per qualifiers. 2427:

the TV series articles and link to those within the article. A main issue with the characters lists here is that lots of them are bare or just one-liners, and for characters who have only recently appeared or just have very few, or brief, appearances. Not to say they should all be removed, but these should mainly be for major characters. How we determine who is a major or minor character should be determined with guidelines. The articles don't seem that long to me as they currently stand, I find that they just need to be reorganized in a way that aids readers to find who they are looking for. An alphabetical format may not be the way to do this, and we could deliberate on other ways of organizing these lists, ex. by groups and affiliations, but even then, those all would require guidelines as things keep changing in-universe. If we can find a way to include a good amount of the more notable MCU characters in this article without keeping them split up, I believe the only other issues would be in the descriptions and organizing and determining who is on here, goes where, and why.

352:

notice that you removed Maya Lopez's father. Just because they appear in a flashback or small role does not disqualify them from appearing in the list, as many MCU events are told out of order. These are all named characters, and named within the projects themselves and have significant moments and context for the main characters' stories. The Asgardian actors played by Matt Damon and company are not named at the moment. We aren't listing random background characters like the Sakaar gladiators or the Collector's menagerie, because these are never referenced in film. It sounds like the only reason you removed some of these characters is because you felt they weren't significant enough. That's not a good precedent to set. Let's re-evaluate once we convert this list to alphabetical order per earlier discussion.

625:

here or which character has comic significance enough to note their 5 seconds on screen or characters introduced in post credits for future inclusion and instead waiting for that to actually happen. This is after all a Characters of the MCU list not a Characters from the comics in the MCU list, as pointed out earlier there are fan wikis for that. I suggest Central characters only be the lead characters of their respective films (in the case of ensemble films members of the lead ensemble ) and supporting be the characters central to a films individual plot. Sure there will still be some debate on who is central to a film but it will definitely limit it. The MCU is only going to get bigger and the minor characters being included is going to make this a very long page very soon.

1578:

Homecoming). Then, in their short description, add a blurb discussing the retroactivity, which is inherently a lower level of canonicity then the films themselves (maybe that's original research on my part, but I guess I'm just trying to say that none of these "tricky" examples are addressed within the films themselves). The current list under minor characters follows similar wording for individuals such as Black Bolt, Daredevil, Kingpin, Jarvis, Charles Xavier, the Peter Parkers, etc. They may have been in other media, even other MCU media, but their first official "Phase" appearance was in "insert x."

3491:. I understand and appreciate your concern. For this list, starring and supporting are based on cast billing. However, as you pointed out, this does not perfectly solve the issue, as I would agree that those are examples of extremely minor characters who do not warrant discussion in this article. Regarding the status quo, the only reason we made the alphabetical split was because we could not come to a consensus regarding classification. Since then, page views have bottomed out and the encyclopedic value took a massive nosedive. This conversation represents an attempt to resolve all of these issues. 845:

includes the Lizard from No Way Home. There is a definite disparity there. Why is Wilson Fisk listed in supporting characters, but we have a separate section for characters introduced in Marvel Television series. Charles Xavier is a supporting character, but Reed Richards is a minor character despite having the same screen time in Multiverse of Madness. So many things don't make sense at the moment, so if we could clear this up, that would be great. Established criteria should also be placed in invisible comments for future editors as the MCU continues to expand in the coming decade.

2309:

more information in the descriptions, casting, and plot than the characters' sections in these lists do, does raise serious concerns with how this article is being operated and how we should be directing readers to the most valuable, notable information on these characters, from an encyclopedic neutral point-of-view. As I said, I don't deal with these character articles much, but the status of their quality for this list and how we let readers consume and navigate to the information on these characters, and which ones, should be reconsidered.

1501:

around if necessary. Since that has not been provided by this point, that is why the conversation and my opinion shifted towards purely alphabetical and/or by phase, because these are completely objective. Because even if we used number of appearances or some other criteria, there would still be debate (for example, I would classify Nick Fury, Ikaris, Okoye, Shuri, Pepper, Valkyrie, and Wong as supporting characters rather than central based on my personal opinions, but this list and other editors would no doubt disagree).

2885:(for Malick, I left his redirect to Characters in Agents of Shield). I think this is a good way to start being exclusive in these lists, while also striving for encyclopedic value. Next, I think I am going to the same for the members of the Kree Starforce from Captain Marvel (except Yon-Rogg). From there, we could maybe condense more of the extended families like the Starks, Maximoffs, Langs, etc., though that is still up in the air. I'll report back after I move the minor Kree to Teams. 2300:. It would be a bit much to push for this article being reduced after the splits (which I am not all for honestly), but for sure there should be set qualifiers for which characters get sections here and that they must be kept up on with information (those can be pulled from the several media articles and the absurd amount of drafts and other articles) to ensure what is actually relevant to readers and what is notable should be present in an encyclopedic formula, akin to 3802:

one time; I can't remember). Valentina is organized by "de Fontaine" while Strucker is organized by "Strucker", omitting the "von". It would also make much more sense to sort Shang-Chi and Wenwu under "Xu" to have the entire family together alongside Xu Xialing. Every conversation to shift away from subjectivity has fizzled out since the split, which is frustrating, because now it seems we can't even get alphabetical order right. Maybe it is just me.

31: 1091:

structure, we could have Central Characters just being leads/titular characters (ex. Iron Man, Captain America), Supporting Characters being any other major character that has not held that starring role (ex. Yelena Bolova, Hank Pym, Nick Fury) and appeared in multiple projects (a number that we would define), and Minor Characters being everyone else, probably with only one appearance. So everything could be based on cast lists and billing.

1275:"Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase Four)," and then change the latter's name once an overarching name is applied to the broader Phase 4-5 multiversal saga or something like that. Sections could include characters introduced in each phase, and then the Phase Four page could have a section about characters reprising their role from the Infinity Saga with redirects to their specific character pages or this one. Thoughts? 2750:

the problems with this series of pages, otherwise we will be stuck having the same conversation over and over regarding inclusion for each new entry and new character. Hopefully we can have the structural/notability issues solved before She-Hulk comes out in the coming weeks. Does anybody want to weight in? Right now, we have common consensus that the current structure needs fixing but we never get anywhere after that.

2800: 3877:. This was changed at some point by someone, don't remember who, but I'm not sure going back to the old way will benefit readers. Especially with cases like Raza, whose last name is unknown to most readers. To address the "subjectiveness", we would have to have a larger discussion since this article should be consistent with other MCU articles — so far, the only consensus we have about common names is that 1095:

the MCU as a whole. For example, Malekith is the villain of Thor: The Dark World, which would place him as a Supporting Character when analyzing the film in and of itself. However, in the broad context of the MCU, he has one appearance. Maybe this isn't that important to consider, but I am just trying to think through everything to standardize the criteria for this page and maximize its

741:

characters article link drops with summary of the always used info and add another of the team members of the titular team of the particular Infinity saga that would be split. Still the saga would have been split off from the main. This time by page move and the right way to do it. The rest of the characters would have been the used the same way TriiipleThreat is using now.

2035:

getting too large but with so many (Marvel Cinematic Universe) articles a copy and paste like split move was not necessary and there would be better compromises to trim the article to its liking. I was originally going to let it be but stuff like demoting this page’s importance as a guide article makes me want to at least express my thoughts on this.

4154: 4115: 4076: 4037: 3998: 3959: 3918: 2715: 2385:

to include. I still feel that there is a lot of encyclopedic value in presenting information regarding the characterization throughout the biggest franchise in history, but everything is honestly more of a mess now than it was before. And since I started the chain of events, I want to be involved in fixing the problem, whatever that looks like.

1666:

extremely long, because that was the whole reason the Minor characters section was listified) or convert everything to bullet points (which would be problematic for the larger sections). OR, we could alphabetize all the central and supporting characters and leave the minor characters as-is, but I'm not sure how I feel about that.

4189:

to the top of a section. The Characters articles are formatted as sections, not bulleted lists like the old Minor characters list and Features, so anchors are redundant and unnecessary. I've removed all of the anchors added to both pages, but just dropping a note here in case someone tries to add them back in the future.

1563:

allowed based on significance such as who the actor is and the character they are cameoing as such as the Ravager Captains in GotGV2 or the Asgardian Actors and of course Stan Lee. This also allows us to include characters that appear in post credit scenes that may have more significance later like Eros and Clea.

985:

have not had productive conversation to establish clear guidelines. To be honest, while the Characters in the DC Extended Universe page has a lot of problems, it's structure makes a lot more sense than this page: with central characters, antagonists, etc. considering release order instead of alphabetization.

3533:

I don't see how the labels are subjective, since we would define them ahead of future additions. That's what the purpose of this discussions is. Removing "non-notable" appearances from an alphabetical list is equally subjective. I am seeking to define that here and now since it didn't work during the

3247:

The sandbox is looking good so far. Once you're done with the rest of the films/shows, we will need to ping all those who participated in previous discussions to get more input, since SirDot and I are the only ones who have chimed in so far. By the way, did you include every single character credited

3213:

So, my sandbox now features a relatively comprehensive list of characters based on appearances and billing (starring, supporting, cameo). While much discussion/improvement could still be had, it's at least a step in the right direction of qualifying these sections and trying to maximize the value and

3168:

Thanks for making that list. But see, the problem with grouping by billing is that we end up with situations where we call Batroc a major character. He's not. Also for the non-MCU characters with their own articles, none of those can be considered central characters, and especially not Eddie Brock. I

3135:

appearances. Once we see what that looks like, we can alter the criteria if need be to break the sections down further, and we can continue to evaluate as the MCU chugs along. I apologize for continuing to advocate for this, but I think it is important, especially considering the still sub-par nature

3111:

I removed Jackson Norriss and the two Extremis soldiers (and redirected to Ten Rings and AIM), and Billy and Tommy are done as well (though that paragraph could definitely be cleaned up a little bit). Regarding Kurt and Dave, I forgot that Kurt had his appearance on the team in the What If...? zombie

2852:

Okay. With that being said, what do we do with individual members of factions like Stakar Ogord's team or the World Security Council? On their own, there is basically nothing to write about because they have like one quick scene. Do we still list them individually on these pages? Or do we remove them

2765:

I think there's general agreement that the first step is to expand the character descriptions, which any editor can start doing at any time. Finding this information shouldn't be too hard, start by paraphrasing the existing cast and casting info on the main film/TV articles. I'm all for hammering out

2749:

Since earlier conversations regarding the quality of this page have fizzled out, I thought I would attempt to reinvigorate the discussion following yesterday's exciting announcements about the future of the MCU. Since there are so many massive projects coming out, I think we need to nail down and fix

2384:

I guess I feel responsible for the current downgrade in quality because I initiated the conversation about character guidelines and criteria that led to the admittedly hasty decision. After seeing the split in action for a few weeks, the same concerns persist regarding notability and which characters

2034:

I personally don’t care of the idea. I don’t mind alphabetical but I feel a split of article by alphabet was a step backwards. I still think we could have divided it by saga or something that sounds so much better. That and we could have split it properly. But whatever I guess! I feel the article was

1130:

I agree. I think this article is mainly considering films on an individual basis, while considering the MCU as a cohesive story might be a better way to present this information. As such, we need some way to take release order and appearances into consideration. And I think that means that maybe even

1085:

I guess I am just trying to simplify the process, and this conversation indicates that the current system is confusing, subjective, and unhelpful. Rather than looking to individual sources for "who are considered the main characters of x movie," I just want to standardize the process so that we don't

844:

What are the criteria for characters being listed as central, supporting, or minor in this list? At the moment, it seems to be a little arbitrary, so if we could establish some clear guidelines, that would be great. For example, Yelena Bolova is listed as a supporting character, a category which also

721:

I'm sorry that you feel disappointed in how this was handled. I pinged your account towards the end of the conversation so that everyone involved in the conversation up to that point could have the opportunity to weigh in before the split occurred. It's not a perfect solution, but it was a compromise

351:

See, I would argue the opposite. Tony Stark's parents are an integral part to his story, and while his dad may get more screen-time across various films, his mom is the driving motivation for Stark's character in Civil War. Jason Ionello appears in multiple films, as do Daniel Drumm and Hamir. I also

216:

Derek Bishop appeared onscreen for no more than 5 minutes before dying. Ursa had like 3 lines and then disappeared for the rest of the film. Daniel Drumm died after a fight that lasted 10 seconds. None of these characters have any significant ramifications on the MCU as a whole, and they are unlikely

165:

I disagree with many of the characters removed. It begs the question what the purpose of this article even is if even some starring roles don't qualify for inclusion. I'm about ready to just give up on trying to make any changes because this article is just a mess of subjectivity. We have got to nail

4188:

I don't know who added all those anchors to the Characters pages, but they're clearly not understanding what anchors are for and how they work. An anchor is basically a substitute for section headings, serving as a quasi-section link so one can make a link to an arbitrary point on a page rather than

3724:

Multiple characters, particularly of those from a generally Asian background, have inconsistencies in how they are listed. Xu Xialing is listed under "X," but her family members Xu Shang-Chi and Xu Wenwu are classified under "S" and "W" respectively, and did not list their family name before my most

2976:

I think Maya Hansen from Iron Man 3 has enough about her to get a standalone entry, but the Extremis soldiers can definitely just be grouped together except maybe Eric Savin since he had a pretty significant presence outside the other members. Same with Howling Commandos. Rintrah I'm pretty sure was

2544:

The character descriptions need to be expanded upon to justify why these sections (and as such, this article) is useful. Without much information provided in detail on here, it would be better off for readers to just be linked to the media they appeared in. This is troubling for characters with only

2426:

article, as now we have an overview article here that doesn't benefit much other than having readers look further for the characters. I think we should reverse the split and trim the number of characters on here. We can definitely try to include Marvel TV characters in this, or we can leave those to

1922:

what "qualifies" a character to go in the "Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A-L" or "Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M-Z" pages, vs in the "minor" characters section on the main page? Do we have some guidelines for that? Are we just maintaining the status quo and keeping the

1547:

Though I personally favor the "central", "supporting", "minor" designations, it is definitely the most subjective and open to interpretation. So "by phase" or alphabetical is probably the most objective and clear guidelines. Can we also determine some guidelines as to who belongs on this page? In my

1432:

Supporting is any character who plays is large role in one or more films either as part of the main protagonist group or central antagonistic roles in individual films (for example for Black Widow this would be Yelena, Alexei, Melina, Dreykov and Taskmaster & for Eternals it would be the other 8

1145:

I'm still just thinking that this needs to be set in stone soon, otherwise we will have to go through this for every single installment in the rest of Phase Four, Five, and beyond. Ms. Marvel and Thor 4 are going to come out soon. If we can get this list cleaned up by then, and criteria established,

984:

was an anthology series dealing with variants, so I don't think anyone of those counts as a main character beyond the Watcher; plus, they are all variants anyway. Killmonger, Ultron, and Agatha Harkness as villains make more sense as supporting characters. Still, there is so much confusion and so we

697:

Yeah I was like “I guess” too but I am having second thoughts more and more on it. It just don’t didn’t feel like the best alternative at least to me. I am not even sure the split was done properly by guidelines. It should have had better preserved the history merge. For example this page could have

284:

We are absolutely not including those two characters. You must remember this is not the MCU fan wiki, we should only include characters who are actually notable. Stakar's team has a significant comics background, so they should be notable, though I admit I'm iffy on that too. Same with the Asgardian

239:

I know who all of those chatacters both on the screen and comic page. I think Bruce Campbell's cameo is worth putting in if we're keeping most of the minor cameos like Charlie-27, Aleta, Mainframe, Krugarr, etc. and some Tracksuit guys could definitely be here like Ivan and Thomas, their actors were

150:

Hmm, okay. It was hard to tell what you did or why when your edit summaries just say "clean up changes", so it seemed like a revert. Thanks for some more explanation. It was also a bit strange to see 1000 bytes of content removed at a time. If you removed some characters, it would also be helpful to

127:

I wasn't intentionally trying to revert anyone's edits, like I said in my edit summaries I was just going through the changes to the article since I last checked and cleaning them up. I'm not sure which edits you're specifically referring to, but in summary I removed minor characters not notable for

3074:

Thank you for engaging in the conversation. As of now, I have removed Jason Ionello, Rintrah, and William Lopez entirely; redirected the individual Howling Commandos to the Teams page (except for Dum Dum Dugan, who I left); created a Maximoff family section for Billy and Tommy; and moved Maggie and

2820:

World Security Council? That way, we could condense some of these headings, and we could even go broader in scale. The Maximoff family? The Eternals? We could even keep the alphabetical structure, but do it by faction instead. I'm just throwing ideas around, and I am curious to hear other thoughts.

1696:

Okay so an alphabetical bulleted list seems to be the agreement here for how to go. One little thing I wanna bring up quick is the criteria thing again, specifically how minor is too minor for a character. Personally I think as long as they are significant enough to note then they should be allowed

1160:

Bumping this thread. Is it possible that we can split a topic like this in Infinity Saga and post-Infinity Saga just like the cast members page? I do happen to agree this page is getting too large of a topic. Like I already said…I don’t mind a different way to arrange the characters at all. Whether

1094:

The other thing that we need to define is whether we are considering this page to be Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or Characters of each individual Marvel film on an individual basis. What I mean by that is this: are we considering each individual installment, or the broader story of

624:

Can I suggest we remove the Minor Character section altogether? Much of the debate seems to come from who is worthy of inclusion there. Perhaps we limit this list to only two sections: Central and Supporting and then make criteria for just those two. No more worrying about what cameo is worth being

501:

There could possibly be merit in grouping some characters like the LARPers if they were to be included. On their own, I agree; they don't have much encyclopedic value. But as the group, they actually were pretty involved in the show. The current version groups the Asgardian theater actors under one

366:

As InfiniteNexus pointed out in his link to a previous discussion, I believe this character list should be trimmed to only include "notable" characters. Though as this discussion proves, what is considered notable or "common sense" to have here varies from person to person. So there does need to be

3844:

The Raza one confuses me, as if we grouped him under his last name, wouldn't he be grouped under A? However, I had not heard of his last name, so I would group him under R. I presume his last name is derived from a Marvel guidebook, but that is not common knowledge, and he is simply referred to as

3801:

Well, if we are going based on "common name", we would need to group Raza al-Wazar under R. There's also lots of other inconsistencies with this rule. To my knowledge, William Ginter Riva is never referred to in-universe by his full name, and neither is Kazi (maybe Clint refers to him as Kazimierz

3441:

TL;DR: the current alphabetical order split isn't working. Minor characters who aren't notable keep on getting added in, making them seem as important as the main/supporting characters. The subjectiveness issue has been addressed, as we are now using the number of appearances to determine category

2972:

I feel like even if Billy and Tommy aren't a huge presence right now, they're definitely going to be important for the future so I think it's a good idea to keep them seperate. I don't think it's a coincidence that Phase Four has already introduced Kate Bishop, Billy & Tommy (Wiccan and Speed)

2596:

At this point, I'm honestly also hoping that things would be pared down to only one page. Titular characters already have their own articles, so it should basically be villains and notable supporting characters, whatever that definition of notability ends up looking like (and don't worry, we won't

2474:

TriiipleThreat split it and he is willing to do a compromise. What of the idea I propose? Do you need more visualization to understand what I mean? I understand that I am not always that clear after all! It’s also possible that we can split the character with articles for the Infinity Saga part in

1532:

I still say alphabetically is the only way to do this neutrally. Even if we establish some sort of guideline, it does not remove the subjectivity. For instance what do we consider a cameo appearance? Michael Stuhlbarg appeared in one scene in MoM but still received a starring credit. Also 4 films

3262:

Yes, most of the ones in this category are going to be removed. I did it for the sake of visual reference and to technically still qualify everything since other ones in this category (such as Matt Murdock, Dormammu, etc) will need to stay. But further guidelines can help make that distinction. I

2308:

article, and ala the qualifiers set forth at each Phase article and the main MCU article. These fictional character articles are not my main territory on here, but seeing all these redirects being made and essentially redirecting the readers from the main media subjects which at times cover a lot

1562:

If we do change it then alphabetically is definitely best subjectively as First Phase appearance can be tricky in some cases. However I still believe a Central Characters section in there would be good saved for the lead character or characters of team based films. Also I believe cameos should be

1090:

that lists are inherently going to have an element of original research, but I also want to limit that as much as possible by creating a structure that can be used for any title released for the MCU. And then, we just define that here and in invisible comments in the article. So for a preliminary

3725:

recent edit. Conversely, Ying Li and Ying Nan are both listed under "Y" based on this family name. But then, Ho Yinsen from Iron Man is listed under Y as well. I feel like something is inconsistent, though I would appreciate if someone else could weigh in, as I could be mistaken about something.

2819:

I'm wondering if there is any value in doing some organization by team/faction? I got the idea after condensing Kamala Khan's family under one heading on the A-L page. Some of these characters are so disparate on their own, but what if, for example, we had a section on Stakar Ogord's team or the

2417:

Not one person is to take full responsibility for the status of an article, especially one covering a hefty amount of content from a large multimedia franchise. This is a difficult process, but trial and error are necessary. I find it to be best to reevaluate which characters are notable, and we

1665:

There's another thing we have to worry about if we get rid of the Central/Supporting/Minor sections. The minor characters section is currently in the form of a bulleted list. If we switch to alphabetical order or by Phase, we would have to either convert everything to paragraphs (making the page

1515:

Agreed, I think most ways of sorting them by things like number of appearances is a little inaccurate but if we had to I think alphabetically is best. But I think a criteria for sorting is best. My idea for criteria is still Central = Titular Characters, Supporting = Central to a film/series and

1500:

If just establishing a consistent guideline is enough, then let's just do that. That was my original request at the start of the thread. If we can establish clear criteria like number of appearances or something else, then I am all for keeping the current general structure and moving some things

2920:

Thanks for the encouragement! Now that the Kree Starforce is done, I wanted to float some potential ideas on continuing to pare down this list. Some of these have less obvious solutions, so I wanted to get input and feedback. These are not necessarily in any order. This also might be borderline

2209:

I figured I would preemptively start a new conversation if anyone has any suggestions for the structure and format of this series of pages, as the current format has been active for a little while. Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? Ideas for how to make this content more encyclopedically valuable?

1342:

It would remove the current subjective nature. I would also say that we can still keep the opening section of "Central characters" that lays out the overall structure of the four phases. It also means that we can keep everything on one page, divided by phase? Then, if the second half of the MCU

1292:

I think the most sensible way to split everything is by first appearance. Headers are “Introduced in Phase One”, etc. Subheaders are the title of the film or series. Characters can then be listed in a bulletpoint or table format. Totally removes all of this arbitrary main/supporting/minor stuff

740:

more improperly. Cut and paste a new and different histmerge was less the correct option. I am thinking of trying a different approach in sandbox but I feel that I will either be ignored or rejected of the option because this is already been done. Basically the idea is to create infobox titular

304:

Yeah I figured that's why I didn't add them myself. But again if we're going by what you said, no flashbacks or cameos there's a lot of cleaning up to do specifically in the minor characters section like Maria Stark who only appears in flashbacks in Civil War or Jason Ionello who's role is very

3561:

going back to subjective headings, the alphabetical order must stay. I thought this was only to set a threshold that would remove non-notable characters, which I agree with. Why not do just that? Use this to see which is the most sensible threshold that would include all notable characters and

2928:

2) Extremis soldiers: Ellen Brandt, Maya Hansen, and Eric Savin. Funny enough, even though I am a huge fan of the MCU, I still haven't seen Iron Man 3, so these might actually be major characters. From the description though, it sounds like they are just henchmen, so should they be deleted and

1274:

I actually really like your idea about splitting into the Infinity Saga and Phase Four. Especially if that helps to reflect the current split for cast members, and it also helps to define some parameters. So it could possibly be "Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Infinity Saga)" and

3093:

Thinking about this a little more, maybe it wasn't the best move to get rid of the minor characters list after all. Perhaps the A–L and M–Z pages should be only for the central/supporting characters, and then we can list the minor characters here (those who have made less than three non-cameo

2581:

I agree. I guess I was thinking that if we established some guidelines for inclusion first, that would cut down some work by eliminating entire characters that wouldn't even qualify for the new format anyway. Once we have a pared down list, then we can start fleshing out the current skeletal

2490:

qualifies the list by saying, "This section includes characters who will appear or have appeared in at least three MCU films/series and received main billing credit in at least two franchises." Of course, we would establish criteria that are slightly broader in scope, but we should establish

3457:

I like these ideas, but I have no idea what is the difference between "starring" and "supporting", especially for the one appearance people. I cannot remember who "Lucian" or "Anne Marie Hoag" are, though they are listed under "starring". I'm guessing "starring" implies that they are a main

1577:

Pure alphabetizing would eliminate all confusion. I also support listing by Phase, as there's really only a couple of examples where this could get tricky. I would say go by their official first appearance as that character (so Peter Parker and Roger Harrington would be Phase 3, Spider-Man:

3126:

The expansiveness of the MCU makes all of this seem really complicated. At this moment, I am really leaning towards categorization by billing. So first, we have a list of Central characters: those that have their own articles. Then, major characters: those that have top billing in at least

667:

Sorry if this is written anywhere above, but there are just too many walls-of-text for me to read through. I see there was an alphabetical split, which is ok I guess. My question is, why are there still characters listed on this page? Is this still a work in progress or a different reason?

2295:

For a long while now, I've always been less satisfied with this article, and its quality is for sure lacking in decent well-formed structure with reliable third-party sources and notability. We can't just add a new list with each new release for just any character who appears. This is

544:

Definitely only noteworthy recognizable minor characters in the Minor section. Grouping the LARPers definitely seems a good idea since I assume this "Wendy Conrad" (whoever that is) person from the MSTV cast article is part of the LARPers. Grills is particularly noteworthy though. –

201:

I disagree. This isn't a present day list, characters featured only in flashbacks are usually relevant to the events of this franchise and therefore do have a place here. As for cameos I believe of the actor or chatacter is significant enough then they should be present as well.

457:. Like any big list page, it has issues. But maybe the subcategories that you see help to filter notability just a little bit. I don't see the Beth character you are talking about in any of those lists, and I would definitely agree that she does not even count as a character. 3263:

added the Watcher, though I am holding off on the rest of What If because it's basically +1 appearance to so many characters that it doesn't even matter. The whole variant thing is so complicated anyway that they could honestly not even count towards overall appearances.

305:

insignificant and has very little comic importance unlike some of Peter's schoolmates like Cindy Moon or Sally Avril who we don't list. If Jason can make it I don't see why Ursa, Daniel Drumm and Hamir can't given their comic origins and some being more notable than him.

756:

Well, whenever you come up with your sandbox option, I am more than happy to take a look and foster conversation on this talk page. Editing Knowledge is all about finding that next best method to present information in the most encyclopedically valuable way possible.

1439:

I think inaccurate ways of doing this list are Alphabetically with not larger sorting, by phase as some of these are tricky (like Peter Parker technically being in Iron Man 2 or Roger Harrington in The Incredible Hulk), or separate Infinity Saga and Phase 4 pages.

3751:

whose common names do not include their last names, along with Yinsen, so they should be categorized under the first letter of their first names. Ying Li and Ying Nan do not have common names that omit their last names, so they should be categorized under Y.

217:

to return. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even know exactly who those people I just mentioned are, because they're that minor. If we allow these characters to be kept, the next thing we know editors will start adding in Bruce Campbell from

698:

been moved as one of the split articles instead at least first. That and I still find it unnecessary. We could have split or made smaller the article other ways. I am very disappointed in how this was handled and how this was thought as a compromise.

1113:

The labeling of whether characters are supporting or minor must be done in the context of the whole MCU, otherwise we'll have around three characters per film count as "supporting", even if they appear in only one film out of the 28 released so far.

3766:

This seems inconsistent and confusing to me. I believe Xu Shang-Chi and Xu Wenwu should be listed at their last names to group the family members together. Or maybe they could be titled as Shang-Chi Xu and Wenwu Xu if we want to keep them separate.

979:

To be honest, I don't think that clears anything up. "Most appearances" does not mean they are a main character, otherwise Stan Lee's Watcher informant would be the main character of the MCU. Polls and fan graphics are not reliable sources either.

1711:

Let's make the change first, and then we can discuss that. The discussion below seems to be heading that direction anyway. I'll work on releasing the alphabetized version per general consensus of this conversation. Might take a little while...

3183:

That makes sense. I've worked on developing that system for Phase 1 since there's less to work with. How would you recommend qualifying a cameo versus a non-cameo appearance? My sandbox is based on the other Knowledge articles at the moment.

1428:

Central as any character who has been the titular character, member of a titular team or headlined the series if a titular character is not present (for example Nick Fury for the upcoming Secret Invasion series and Rhodey for the Armor Wars

2362:. Also, Marvel TV characters are ignored on the A–L and M–Z pages because as the hatnotes indicate, they focus primarily on Marvel Studios content. Marvel TV characters are covered by the other lists listed on the main Characters page. 254:

However if we are removing characters like that for those reasons then this page really needs a clean cause there's a large amount of insignificant characters whose only reason for being here is a cameo from an actor or comic character

1131:

the titles "Central," "Supporting," and "Minor" are disconnected from this concept, lending to the confusion. Ikaris and Sersi are not Central characters to the story of the MCU, though they may be central to their one film. Thoughts?

709:

Also I would prefer a two page split more than three. That’s why the saga divide (like the cast member page) seemed better. Why are we using Marvel Comics characters article as a good example either way? That is a terrible example.

882:. Also Peggy Carter and Phil Coulson make perfect sense too. As for Phase Four, if they are titular characters then they are central. But it gets less obvious with group titles like Eternals. I say add all the Eternals personally. 480: 2924:

1) Kamala Khan's friends: Nakia Bahadir and Bruno Carrelli. Are they notable enough in the context of the MCU to need their own headings, or should they be deleted and subsequently listed under the new section regarding Kamala's

3089:

To address your other points, I think the Extremis soldiers can be moved over to Teams (except Maya, she never fought), Kurt and Dave can be grouped in one entry, same for Billy and Tommy, and Jackson Norriss should probably be

3248:

in the films? Because many of the supporting "one-appearance wonders" can go, e.g. Akihiko, Tyr, Soh-Larr, Miriam Sharpe, Sara, Taggart, The Broker, Guang Bo, etc. I know who those characters are, but most readers won't care.

2505:

This talk about establishing guidelines for notability is great and all (and was the initial objective of the two discussions above anyway), but it doesn't address my concern about the quality of the character descriptions.

2341:

I mentioned somewhere above in this page that the film actors pages cannot/should not be used to determine which characters are notable for inclusion here, because it includes minor background characters such as "Beth" from

3442:

rather than just by common sense (the previous approach prior to the split). I had only called for the minor characters to be grouped together, but TNstingray suggested that we overhaul the rest of the list as well.

1179:

As for Reception, perhaps the info regarding Infinity Saga villains such as Thanos or Vulture can stay in the "Infinity Saga" article. Is there any Reception stuff for Phase Four in the article? Haven't checked. –

3427:. The goal was to establish criteria, which I have tentatively done with the brief headings under each section. "Starring, supporting, and cameo" were based on the individual Knowledge articles regarding casting. 999:

At least those are reliable sources. What you are going on about is very in-universal logic. Definitely the variant argument. Also the Watcher Informant thing is just a retcon and is pure original research.

2305: 476: 3633:

Fair enough, although in that case, “Mobius M. Mobius” and “Raza Hamidmi al-Wazar” should probably just be “Mobius” and “Raza”, right? Unless the filmmakers confirmed those names somewhere that I missed?

2957:

Just throwing some ideas out there. Hopefully this fosters productive conversation and leads to some specific criteria being established (one can dream, right?). I'll wait until then to make any changes.

1623:

Very good points. I failed to consider those ramifications. I'm just happy to establish any sort of objective standard. Anybody want to make it official? Pinging past members of this conversation thread:

1533:

out of 28+ films, and numerous television series doesn't seem like a lot. It seems we would still end up with an article heavily off-balanced and not resolved the need for the split in the first place.--

1068:

I believe the reason for the hidden ToC is that there are 100+ "sections" here which makes it a bit unwieldy. I personally believe that sorting by name is better than sorting by release date or whatnot.

3599:

I see there’s a hidden note stating not to add the last name Toomes as it is not confirmed. With both of her parents appearing in the credits with that last name, how much more confirmation do we need?

2491:

something to pare down the list first. From there, we can discuss how to list those remaining, whether it be alphabetical, cast-based, release order, phase order, in-universe chronology/factions, etc.

2459:

As I have pointed out before. The article would be better if it was some kind of link dump for the character who has articles. Like a wikitable for the most useful recurrently used info. Kind of like

797:

Ok you convinced me on trying. I have other projects going on that delayed me but I do have a sandbox going on of that project too. I feel more comfortable linking the sandbox when I am halfway done.

2463:. Also I feel a split of Infinity Saga and post-infinity saga would be an easier approach too like the cast member articles. That’s what I tried to do in sandbox but I lack drive to finish the task. 3579:

If that is what consensus leads to, then so be it. As long as we establish some sort of qualification for inclusion in the list as opposed to subjectively removing some characters and not others.

2234: 2162:

is a list of those links. (This is partially why I had second thoughts on splitting the page, but what's done is done.) Apologies for digging up another massive headache that needs to be fixed.

1433:

Eternals travelling with Sersi). This would have to be judged on the roles played in individual films, using the starring cast list may be a helpful way of narrowing down who these should be.

76: 64: 59: 1011:

Also maybe we should restructure it. I am not really against that. I still think sources are a good basis if it’s reliable for that kind of topic but any way to restructure it is fine too.

2980:

Jason Ionello can probably be scrapped but Betty is a pretty big supporting character particularly in FFH and NWH. I think she can be seperate. Luis as well in regards to Ant-Man's friends

860:

Related to this, is there criteria to add a character to this page? I noticed that an editor added the Spector family to this page. In my opinion, they make such a minor appearance in the

4166: 4127: 4088: 4049: 4010: 3971: 3930: 3519:

I agree we should not return to subjective labels (even if they are based on quantitative appearances). However, If you want remove non-notable appearance from the list, then go ahead.—

2930: 2882: 2835: 1055:

Lists will have a little bit of that original research in them. For example: this character is too minor for this page blah blah blah. But readers do need good navigation. I admit that.

565: 381:

Notability is determined by screentime AND impact on the MCU as a whole (in addition to coverage by sources), not either or. Again, this is not the MCU fan wiki, we must be mindful of

3229:

Good job on the sandbox, Stingray. Yes, it is a step in the right direction to qualify characters and remove non-notable, minor characters. I suggest you add The Watcher as the only

736:

Well I didn’t think the consensus didn’t need to be that rushed and I did weigh in that I didn’t care about the divided split of the letters. Also I didn’t know that it wouldn’t be

180:

Characters who only appear in cameos or flashbacks should not be included. Exceptions are characters like Eros and Clea, who will highly likely play a major role in the future. See

104:? I don't see anything glaring about the content prior to those reverts (no vandalism, etc), so this just appears like you didn't like the status of the article. The edit summaries 2921:

original research, but since we don't have inclusion criteria, the whole list is original research anyway. Maybe the conversation can still lead to establishing inclusion criteria.

683:

There is an ongoing debate above regarding which minor character should be included if at all. I thought it would be best to let that debate be settled before splitting them off.—

333:

I suggest some standards be made then that's more than "it was Matt Damon so yeah" cause that's kinda what this list is sometimes. There's a good few this list could do without.

4209: 2475:

factions. Most of the characters who have articles are Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and S.H.I.E.L.D. members. So maybe starting off with a wikitable list section of that.

2727: 1680:

Definitely everything to bullets. We should have maximum six lines per character, and make them even shorter for main characters with individual articles on them already. —

136:

info, made some of the language consistent across the article, fixed several links, cleaned up references, etc. Can you tell me what in particular you have objections to?

2881:

Just as a status report, I have removed the six members of Stakar Ogord's team (excluding Yondu) and Gideon Malick from the lists of characters, and redirected them to

1951:

Distributing those minor characters across the two pages would also not be a huge deal at all. That would clear up any and all confusion regarding character placement.

1999: 1995: 1727: 47: 17: 1259:

I think we all are agreeing with that on the major/minor character deal. I am not so fond on alphabetical split of random letters but if that the consensus so be it.

2445:

time? I dunno, we did have a very long discussion before the split was performed, and much time has been spent by some editors updating all the gazillion redirects.

1030:. Add to that the idiotic decision of limiting the ToC and you end up with a page that a reader has no idea where the section of the character they want to read is. 1596:

actually never was confirmed as canon, so we don't even need to include that. I think though that Harrington's appearance would have to be in Phase One, since this

610:

Agreed. Of those mentioned, the only remotely possible exception is Grills, but I still lean more towards their complete removal to the teams/organizations page.

4266:

Why do these characters have a paragraph about them despite they have an article? Even Peter-Two and Three have an article, but they do not have any paragraph.

2301: 2002:

should probably be temporarily moved to draftspace to avoid any confusion among casual readers. Also, an en dash (–) should be used instead of a hyphen (-) per

3075:

Jim Paxton to the section about Cassie Lang (these represent points 3, 5-7, and 9). From here on out, it really becomes about what the purpose of the list is.

1808:

Well, I didn't see this while I was editing. All I've published was the minor characters in alphabetical order so you can kinda see what that would look like.

1425:

I think we just need a little more direction on how to sort characters nd not a new way to sort them or split into new pages. Personally I think it should be:

4281:

The film version of Flint Marko doesn't have his own article. Different versions of Norman Osborn and Doc Ock (not the ones from NWO, presumably) will be in

2422:

as a backbone for this. The cast section can't effectively be used to determine the characters, but I do feel the split was not the way to go in improving

4242:

Actually, as I am thinking about it, it may be better to list J.A.R.V.I.S. under the Vision since they are functionally the same character. As in, Vision

1308:

Again, I say an alphabetical listing is the most encyclopedic approach. Besides removing the subjective nature of the current method, it is also the most

181: 2669: 2640: 2063:

to this page that need to be fixed. And by a few I really mean ... a lot. If you or some other editor could fix these ASAP that would be great, thanks.

2237:

have been retargeted to point to the Characters pages, and it's ridiculous that their new targets have less information than their previous targets at

582:

I should probably stop listing examples of non-notable characters, because for some reason editors will immediately start suggesting to add them here.

4236: 2635:

Should Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man (Peter-3) and Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man (Peter-2) be removed from this considering they are not part of the MCU?

2527: 949: 3666:

Just bumping this again because the magazine stand in No Way Home confirms her name as Liz Allan. This should be considered sufficient evidence, no?

2487: 1516:

Minor = noteworthy characters and cameos. (I also agree that the listed characters above are all supporting/recurring and not central to the MCU)

319:

I support removing Maria Stark and Jason Ionello. As a matter of fact, I don't know when Jason was added back because he used to not be included.

2233:

characters. Most of them only have one or two unsourced sentences, missing vital plot details or real-world information. I bring this up because

3131:

number of projects. As such, there really should be a lot of information available. Finally, minor characters: notable instances with less than

2256:

Until more information is added on their Characters sections, they should be retargeted back to anchors on their respective bulleted-points on

1481:

Personally, I think we should keep the current headings, and then divide each of those into Phases. Perhaps we could use a modified version of

2983:

For Kamala Khan's friends, I think Nakia and Bruno are large enough presences in that show that they have enough info for standalone entries.

1607:

by Phase would mean we'd have four sections for almost every letter in the alphabet, which can get uncomfortable, large, and tricky to link. —

938: 240:

even in the staring cast list and they appeared in the majority of episodes. Again if they're worthy to note by fans they should be included.

3817: 3169:

still think we should be going by number of non-cameo appearances, i.e. titular/main = Central, 5+ = Major, 2+ = Supporting, 1 or 0 = Minor.

2665: 2636: 2507: 783:, perhaps the table in your sandbox might be useful there and keep the individual character entries in the separate alphabetical articles.-- 3387:

I’m sorry but what is the purpose of the list in TNstingray‘s sandbox? I thought we were away from subjective terms like major and minor?—-

2351: 2229:

I'm increasingly concerned with the quality of the character descriptions on this article's subpages. Take for instance the recently-added

1698: 1564: 1517: 1441: 960: 334: 306: 256: 241: 203: 2323:

Not to sound too picky about this, but the current state of this article feels like it is just a list of lists, which we already have at

3692:

Hmm, this is tricky. We'll probably need a reliable source that mentions this Easter egg before we can do anything, or else it would be

389:. I fully support the creation of some guidelines/minimum requirements, but it may be hard to come up with specific wording (hence the 4232: 4162: 4146: 4123: 4107: 4084: 4068: 4045: 4029: 4006: 3990: 3967: 3951: 3926: 3910: 2723: 2707: 416: 3619:. It was never stated in the film, in the credits, or by the filmmakers that her last name is Toomes or Allan, so we can't add that. 3963: 626: 435:

Except I'm pretty sure those cast lists list every single character credited, including random background characters like Beth from

2359: 3669: 2939:

4) Ant-Man's friends: Dave, Kurt, Luis. Luis may be notable enough, but Kurt and Dave could be seen as more background characters?

2770:, using the film/TV cast pages for reference, get rid of all minor characters, go by common sense, etc.), so we're going nowhere. 2399:

No, it's not your fault. This has unfortunately been the case for quite a while now, even before you came along. Especially since

2515: 1233: 1229: 879: 4299:

Oh, right. But the Octavius and Osborn sections talk also about their NWH appearance, that have been covered in their articles.

2719: 1436:

Minor would be just the smaller characters that are not central protagonists or antagonists as well as cameos worthy of mention.

487:

section of the second link. The random LARPers and whoever those other people are are 100% not noteworthy to be mentioned here.

2324: 1232:), the current format is subjective and arbitrary. The only way to neutrally split the article is alphabetically like we do at 2520:

Katy (portrayed by Awkwafina), also known as Ruiwen, is a hotel valet and Shang-Chi's best friend who was unaware of his past.

1869:— and I'd say that the only thing that should possibly happen is having a clearer guideline for boundaries of those sections. 1603:

All that said, I still think that just alphabetically, without Phases, would be simpler and cleaner. Splitting alphabetically

4158: 2942:

5) Howling Commandos: Jacques Dernier, Dum Dum Dugan, James Falsworth, Gabe Jones, Jim Morita: delete and redirect to Teams?

1865:

While I have no opinion on whether the Minor characters section should be split into Phases like it was before, I genuinely

4308: 4294: 4275: 4255: 4239:. Feel free to add them to the list if you feel they are justifiably notable. I'm not aware of any precedent blocking this. 4221: 4198: 4178: 4139: 4100: 4061: 4022: 3983: 3944: 3890: 3868: 3854: 3839: 3811: 3796: 3776: 3761: 3734: 3705: 3680: 3661: 3643: 3628: 3609: 3588: 3573: 3543: 3528: 3514: 3500: 3482: 3467: 3451: 3436: 3418: 3396: 3375: 3350: 3272: 3257: 3242: 3223: 3193: 3178: 3163: 3145: 3121: 3103: 3084: 3069: 2992: 2967: 2915: 2894: 2876: 2862: 2847: 2829: 2812: 2793: 2779: 2759: 2739: 2695: 2673: 2659: 2644: 2606: 2591: 2576: 2554: 2539: 2500: 2481: 2469: 2454: 2436: 2412: 2394: 2371: 2336: 2318: 2290: 2269: 2250: 2219: 2192: 2171: 2143: 2129: 2104: 2093: 2072: 2041: 2029: 2015: 1974: 1960: 1946: 1932: 1913: 1895: 1880: 1831: 1817: 1803: 1789: 1771: 1757: 1743: 1721: 1706: 1691: 1675: 1653: 1618: 1587: 1572: 1557: 1548:

opinion, 5 sec cameos don't deserve a mention here (even in a minor character section) but other users may feel otherwise.

1542: 1525: 1510: 1494: 1449: 1420: 1394: 1380: 1352: 1337: 1321: 1302: 1284: 1265: 1253: 1200: 1189: 1167: 1155: 1140: 1125: 1108: 1078: 1061: 1050: 1039: 1017: 1006: 994: 974: 910: 899: 888: 873: 854: 821: 803: 792: 766: 747: 731: 716: 704: 692: 677: 648: 634: 619: 605: 591: 577: 554: 511: 496: 466: 448: 430: 402: 376: 361: 342: 328: 314: 298: 264: 249: 234: 211: 193: 175: 160: 145: 121: 2512:

Kaecilius (portrayed by Mads Mikkelsen) is a sorcerer and former Master of the Mystic Arts who is a follower of Dormammu.

3505:

Not going to read this ginat thread, but I gather the intent is returning to subjective titles. Oppose that completely.

2867:

Since the members' sections would be one sentence long, I'd say redirects to Teams and organizations is the best way. —

454: 408: 4080: 1901: 1343:(Phase 4 and onward) receives its own title, we can reevaluate and split at that point. This would be years from now. 2945:

6) Scott Lang's extended family: Maggie, Jim Paxton. Delete and redirect as mother and step-father under Cassie Lang?

2563:) not to link to the comic character articles due to their perceived low quality, but frankly it's embarrassing that 1312:. The problem with listing by first appearance is that readers may not be aware of where a character first appeared.— 1293:(which will NEVER be 100% accurate), and divides it up in a way that is totally based on fact and easy to navigate. 2523: 2460: 1748:

Just to clarify, you do realize there have been many changes to this article since that botched attempt last time?

38: 950:

https://www.lifestyleasia.com/bk/culture/entertainment/most-popular-marvel-movies-and-characters-amongst-fans/amp/

2158:) that also need to be fixed. I don't know if there's a more efficient way to locate and update all of them, but 2154:

I totally forgot about this last time, but there are still many, many direct section links to this article (i.e.

2098:

Not surprising. It didn’t seem split right by guidelines and even it was there would be a lot of work behind it.

2059:

Sorry to bother you again, but now that the minor characters have been merged into the split articles, there are

3473:

Additionally, I don't know if going back to the original combined format is better than the current status quo.

963:

A source saying the Eternals are main characters. Also it adds Dane Whitman too. Maybe too early for him though.

4002: 3524: 3392: 2550: 2432: 2332: 2314: 2025: 1970: 1942: 1909: 1827: 1799: 1767: 1739: 1538: 1317: 1249: 788: 688: 1702: 1568: 1521: 1445: 338: 310: 260: 245: 207: 1900:

I think we have consensus but I'll wait before I make the split. In the meantime you can view the changes in

893:

The only character for now I feel that is in supporting that could be potentially more so far is Maria Hill.

4290: 4194: 4096: 4057: 4018: 3886: 3757: 3701: 3657: 3624: 3569: 3447: 3371: 3253: 3174: 3151: 3099: 2843: 2808: 2775: 2767: 2572: 2535: 2450: 2419: 2408: 2367: 2297: 2286: 2246: 2167: 2139: 2068: 2011: 1785: 1753: 1687: 1671: 1614: 1490: 1482: 1416: 1333: 1309: 1121: 644: 587: 573: 492: 444: 439:(who I don't think should be included there either, to be honest, but that's a discussion for another day). 426: 412: 398: 324: 294: 230: 189: 141: 1411:

headings, or is the entire page going to be divided into Phases? Or are we doing a combination of the two?

939:

https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a27253878/marvel-characters-avengers-endgame-most-appearances-mcu/

630: 2257: 2238: 3649: 961:

https://www.deseret.com/2021/11/4/22761525/marvels-eternals-mcu-character-bio-what-is-it-about?_amp=true

932: 772: 390: 3044:

7) So far, Billy and Tommy aren't independently notable from Wanda. Maximoff family header under Wanda?

2682:

means they are now in the MCU, just originating from a different universe. Same goes for the cameos in

3974:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -

1026:

As I've stated in one of the earlier discussion on this, this split is just pointless and is complete

812:

Feel free to create a new discussion section and tag me whenever you reach that point. Happy editing!

502:

heading. Maybe that could be utilized to provide additional structure. Just throwing ideas out there.

4251: 4174: 4169:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

4135: 4130:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

4091:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

4052:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

4013:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

3933:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

3874: 3864: 3807: 3730: 3584: 3539: 3496: 3432: 3328: 3317:. That's all the people (from previous discussions) I think, and bonus pings for further discussion: 3268: 3219: 3189: 3159: 3141: 3117: 3080: 3034:

5) All of them are not notable independently. I think Jim Morita's grandson is Spidey's principal in

2988: 2984: 2963: 2890: 2858: 2825: 2789: 2755: 2735: 2730:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

2691: 2602: 2587: 2496: 2390: 2215: 1956: 1891: 1813: 1717: 1649: 1583: 1506: 1390: 1348: 1280: 1223: 1151: 1136: 1104: 990: 850: 817: 762: 727: 615: 507: 462: 357: 171: 1485:

as a guideline, such as 4 non-cameo appearances = Central and 2 non-cameo appearances = Supporting?

4304: 4271: 4217: 3979: 3687: 3672: 3635: 3601: 3520: 3424: 3404: 3388: 3336: 3312: 3288: 2951:

8) Jackson Norriss: is he notable enough to list separately despite only appearing in one One-Shot?

2766:

some sort of inclusion criteria, but everyone seems to have their own ideas (a modified version of

2546: 2428: 2328: 2310: 2276: 2117: 2050: 2021: 1989: 1966: 1938: 1919: 1905: 1875: 1823: 1795: 1763: 1735: 1633: 1534: 1313: 1294: 1245: 784: 684: 386: 109: 2582:

framework with some of the things Trailblazer brought up, such as casting, characterization, etc.

1734:

which retains the minor characters. From there we can decide on which characters should be kept.--

1161:

it be by alphabetical and chronological. The question is though if split where does reception go?

4286: 4190: 4092: 4053: 4014: 3882: 3753: 3697: 3676: 3653: 3639: 3620: 3605: 3564: 3443: 3367: 3358: 3320: 3304: 3249: 3170: 3095: 2839: 2804: 2771: 2568: 2560: 2531: 2486:

As long as clear and consistent guidelines are established, I'm fine with anything. For example,

2476: 2464: 2446: 2404: 2363: 2282: 2242: 2178: 2163: 2135: 2111: 2099: 2079: 2064: 2036: 2007: 1781: 1749: 1682: 1667: 1660: 1641: 1637: 1625: 1609: 1486: 1412: 1328: 1298: 1271: 1260: 1195: 1174: 1162: 1116: 1087: 1056: 1045: 1012: 1001: 969: 905: 894: 883: 809: 798: 753: 742: 711: 699: 640: 596:

Oh yeah, you're right. The Asgardian actors and LARPers should probably be at Teams than here. –

583: 569: 539: 488: 472: 440: 421: 394: 382: 348: 320: 290: 226: 185: 137: 90: 4167:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

3670:

https://twitter.com/FilmEasterEggs/status/1504601352785186816?s=20&t=nTXpVFPto20lwYAP8F0MSw

3562:

exclude as many non-notable characters as possible, while keeping them in alphabetical order. —

3922: 3850: 3772: 3478: 3463: 2728:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#Jackson Norris (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

1928: 1553: 1074: 869: 372: 156: 117: 3409:

We are developing the criteria for who should be in Central, Major, Supporting, and Minor. —

4246:

J.A.R.V.I.S. in a vibranium Ultron body with fully unlocked AI potential by the Mind Stone.

3834: 3791: 3510: 3414: 3346: 3238: 3065: 2911: 2872: 2655: 2265: 2188: 2125: 2089: 2020:

Ok split is done, also moved pages to use en dash as suggested. Now onto fixing redirects.--

1375: 1185: 1035: 673: 601: 550: 108:

also don't explain the reason for the mass reverts. This makes it seem like you are taking

4247: 4170: 4131: 3972:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Aneka (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

3860: 3803: 3742: 3726: 3580: 3535: 3492: 3428: 3264: 3215: 3185: 3155: 3137: 3113: 3076: 3055: 2959: 2901: 2886: 2854: 2821: 2785: 2751: 2731: 2687: 2598: 2583: 2492: 2386: 2211: 2054: 1952: 1937:

There still seems to be some debate regarding that, so for right now it’s the status quo.—

1887: 1809: 1713: 1645: 1579: 1502: 1386: 1344: 1276: 1219: 1147: 1132: 1100: 986: 968:

In summary add these characters and Killmonger than I think we have established criteria.

846: 813: 758: 737: 723: 611: 503: 458: 407:

I suggest we start with all the cast and characters included in the Lists of actors, i.e.

353: 167: 4089:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Todd (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

3458:

character? I would move a lot of the one appearance "starring characters to supporting.

1780:, which appears to suggest restoring this page to an earlier version with missing info. 453:

It would be a start. Maybe a synonymous page to look at regarding content and format is

4300: 4267: 4213: 3975: 2355: 1871: 776: 3112:

episode, which complicates that decision. Dave still might not be notable on his own.

2664:

They were in No Way Home because of the multiverse but they’re not from or in the MCU

1778:

When this done, this page can go back this version which retains the minor characters.

1600:

confirmed and it is the same character playing him with basically the same appearance.

3937: 3878: 1044:

It was always done this way if I remember correctly. But I don’t mind restructuring.

4228: 3846: 3768: 3693: 3616: 3488: 3474: 3459: 3280: 3108:

Perhaps. I'm open to anything, honestly, as long as clear criteria are established.

1924: 1629: 1549: 1070: 1027: 865: 368: 198: 166:

down some guidelines and place invisible comments for future editors to reference.

152: 113: 4011:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Titania / Mary MacPherran

955: 4041: 3825: 3782: 3506: 3410: 3362: 3342: 3296: 3234: 3061: 2973:

and Eli Bradley (Patriot) so far. They're definitely going to be important later

2907: 2868: 2651: 2261: 2184: 2121: 2085: 1366: 1181: 1031: 669: 597: 568:. Come to think of it, the Asgardian actors should probably be moved there too. 546: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3816:

My apologies, I thought the thrust of this section was to rename the articles,

948:

This poll includes Ultron and Agatha Harkness (who is getting her own series).

771:

Perhaps there is a compromise. I always saw this namespace working better as a

3873:

There was a time when everyone was organized by last name, without regard for

1385:

So, this would be a major upheaval of the page. Who wants to make the change?

2784:

I'll start with that then. Some of these entries are actually embarrassing.

2564: 2003: 3931:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Augustus Pugliese

2838:. This page (well, these three pages) are for individual characters only. 904:

Also Killmonger too. Because he was a featured What If…? headline member.

285:

actors, who I really didn't think should be included, but then they're in

3652:, since any change to this article will be reflected across many others. 864:

series that they don't belong here. But do we have any clear guidelines?

4153: 4114: 4075: 4036: 3997: 3958: 3917: 2714: 1726:

I'm already working on updating the previous alphabetical listing seen

4119: 933:

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-FILM-AVENGERS/010091KC2B2/index.html

4050:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Todd Phelps

3859:

That's the thing. Everything on this series of pages is subjective.

3233:

character, since he is not an alternate version of any character. —

2948:

7) Billy and Tommy Maximoff: Condense into one heading under Wanda?

3821: 2936:

3) Peter's classmates: Betty Brant, Jason Ionello. Keep or remove?

2853:

entirely, and send redirects to the Teams and Organizations page?

2567:

has an actual paragraph of info while all we have is a one-liner.

937:

Men’s Health included Happy Hogan as a most appearance character.

775:

to navigate between all the different list articles. But now that

2306:

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)

1794:

Sorry for the confusion, that information will also be updated.--

2354:

section was meant to go after the split, but it was restored by

4157: