Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 13

2947:

questioning if it should have been done that way and/or if there was a better way to do it that falls more in line with every other page that does this sort of thing on Knowledge, if that makes any sense. Is there a way to split them like you are wanting that also doesn't split the series, that way it's more in line with how Knowledge does it instead of it being a random outlier? Like maybe have it to where the series aren't split but put one of those little letter annotation things (I don't actually know the name of them) as like a note to this section where it pops up and says something like "this season/show is part of Marvel Phase 4" and for the ones that are undetermined/not phase 4 you could have a separate annotation saying something like "this season/show is part of an unknown phase". I'm aware the other series I mentioned are not collected into phases, I never said they were, what I was saying is that while it isn't done like that, there is a way that it could have been (separated into Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons, in reference to the Crisis on Infinite Earths event that canonically happened within that shared universe, as there is known/listed separation with such things among the series's parent company DC Comics content and the like), yet it was not done like that, so why is this done differently, if that makes any sense.

971:

a draftifying of that article to rethink its approach. I don't have much of an opinion on how all of these characters are handled, but we must have well-sourced information relevant to the real world to warrant any of these articles. The "Features" article, in my opinion, is beneficial, but still needs a lot more work. Major events shouldn't be moved to the mainspace and, if anything, should just merge with "Features" or be non-existent as the events in each property are covered on the films and TV series articles already. We definitely shouldn't be trying to make a timeline of sorts on here, we're not a fandom wiki. I know I presented this before, but the "Species" and "Teams and organizations" should just be merged with "Characters" where those species and groups can be explained along with the characters, or into "Features" actually, if not be entirely deleted. We seriously can't afford to make huge list articles for just anything in this franchise, as it still has to apply to the real world in relevant, properly source ways.

3593:

the random Wakandan guards. It makes no sense for her to be here. The section should be renamed to something like main cast, and a general prose overview of the major stars from the Infinity phase, and by major I mean top billing only. Where they got on the ride, where they got off, the end. You could do that in a paragraph or two and then start the future segment for phase 4. It'd look a lot better than the table, and make more sense as well than listing Ayo or...*checks notes* Gideon Malick just because they appeared in different formats. For all that I couldn't tell you who Gideon Malick is. Even looking up his picture I've still no idea.

3731:, I've reduced the "Films" and "Television" development sections, with a small c/e to "Other media". All the content removed was split to an appropriate article, or already existed at an article already. "Crossover to feature films" Television subsection is next to go (to the List of TV series article), I just haven't closely examined it or c/e it, hence why it wasn't in this edit. Next, I want to look at "Business practice", which I feel need to stay here mostly. After that, the other larger prose sections should be discussed/examined, and then I'd call being "too long" pretty much solved. - 2657:), with the task force living in the WP:FILM namespace given the MCU started as films. This way, we can add parameters to the project templates to help track articles and assessment/class across the various articles, have a centralized place to put some MOS addendums (ie how casting sections are handled: for films, listing actors as announced or a past billing until the film's billing comes out, and why we are listing the Marvel Studios Disney+ series cast the way we are, etc.) and have a centralized talk spot that isn't here that might affect many articles under the MCU umbrella. 1549:"Characters of the MCU" article should not be draftified or redirected. List of characters article is a common practice on all franchises. It's fine. We just need to keep it short by making it more of a list/summary and moving the character details to the comic character article. "Species", "Teams" "Features" are never really referenced as an article. Only the subsections. Once we move the subsections content to the comic article, then the main article doesn't need to be redirected anywhere. For example, with species page as article, these would be the clean up steps: 3393:, or something better than those really, where ALL that content goes. Same with the comic books, same with the huge cast list. The very extensive film history for example should be in the film article, retaining here just the important part about the origins thereof, and any notable milestones along the way. There could be potential in just wrapping this all up in the Infinity Saga banner, and starting over for the next phase as well. Also I'd probably remove the image of Joss Whedon altogether, because Joss Whedon. 1256:

articles redirect to in the meantime so users who already know of them get sent to the next most logical place? And (2) are we happy to say that none of those articles should return to the mainspace until we have another discussion like this one with most-if-not-all of these editors? I ask the second question because I feel like it would defeat the purpose of trying to clean everything up now if a few editors were going to turn around in a few months or so and just push all the articles back into the mainspace. -

1736:

hundreds of links, then adjusting them back once a new solution is found seems like overkill. ADD: This shouldn't be treated as an emergency where we need to break everything to solve the problem as soon as possible. It's more of a work-in-progress situation IMHO. Also, worth noting, the "Characters" page gets over half-a-million views every 2 months, meaning it's definitely of importance to readers. So, temporarily removing it from mainspace would be a huge inconvenience to a lot of readers —

1317:

stands today, it limits how much details about the character you can add which forces people to keep expanding the already large "characters of" article... or makes people want to create a new character article. As for teams, organizations and species, we could use a similar approach and redirect to those sections. The ones that don't already have their own comic version article will be tough once we dissolve the articles and we need to decide what to do with them. —

2899:

something)? should their formatting be changed to be more consistent with the other show list on the page and other Knowledge articles that list shows, especially since the television section seems likely to be separated into its own page, or is it ok as is? if it's agreed the formatting should be changed, should it be reverted back to how it was before their changes, or should some kind of "compromise" for lack of a better term be made regarding it?

578:

like "Fury's big week" are purely trivial. In reality, the most notable events are: The fall of SHIELD, Ultron/Sokovia accords, Civil War, The Blip and probably the battle of New York (though that's mostly only relevant for in-universe connections). And some of them either have their own articles or are fully covered in their respective film articles. So, unless something is well known and highly notable outside the fan community, let's avoid it.—

1692: 31: 4770:, but the actual timeline is much more complicated. Unless the next few episodes reveal that the TVA stuff is happening at a specific time instead of outside of time, I think we should leave it out of our timeline here and just explain in prose that it starts in 2012 and then takes place outside of time / at various points along the timeline. It may also make sense to discuss the sacred timeline / multiverse at some point as well. - 2350:. It currently has 87 refs, and that's a reduced number after moving a lot of features elsewhere following the discussion here. A lot of the objects and places have sourceable real-world discussion that would justify the article, we just need to focus on including it in-place of fancruft. I, like BD2412, also opposed draft-ifying individual character articles instead of improving them in mainspace, as they do mostly satisfy 1535:. I see that a few editors are a bit hesitant over draftifying the list of characters article, but my thinking was that moving it out of the mainspace would force us to come up with a better solution rather than just leaving it where it is. Perhaps we should have an official proposal of what changes are going to be made so that we can be clear what will happen and make sure there is support for it? - 1668: 4426: 2438:

redirects... but per your replies, you insisted that it has a lot of problems and moving it to draftspace is pretty much the only way to fix the problems. So, it became an "all or nothing" choice which forced me to oppose despite making it clear that I want to clean them up. And I think everyone agrees clean up is needed. The main pain point is insisting on moving them to draft first. —

1217:, yes, the "characters of the MCU" article would stay but it would serve as a list/summary article to help us include as many important characters as needed without making it too large. For the ones with very little info we could do a level-3 header under "In other media" and then once we get more info, move it to its own level-2 section. This way, the redirect remains intact. — 1011:

notable compared to the other character versions, and this will help us expand the section as needed until the character gets their own article (when the time comes). This approach could also be used for other bigger characters who haven't qualified for their own article yet... instead of bloating up the list of characters article. We used a similar approach on the

2467:

a real choice either because this is a huge article with a lot of work needed and could take weeks, if not months, to fix it or even settle on a good solution. So, that leaves draftspace as the only option. It makes it sound like an emergency or as if we're pulling "the nuclear option" like someone else put it.... which is an overkill just to fix the article. —

3415:. Then we just need to cut down what is here into a summary. The same can probably be done with some of the film-specific reception information. After that, we can continue working to cut down the size of the cast table (there is a separate thread discussing that already) and can also c/e all of the other media discussion to make sure we are being concise. - 1699:

their redirects updated. This can be its own level-2 section or a level-3 subsection under "In other media" for those with little content. Whenever each of these article has been fully absorbed into the comic-book articles, then it gets moved to draftspace... except for the Characters page which will need further discussion or at least reformatting. —

3824:. In the trimmed down "alt" version, should we add back (in one sentence) the point about Marvel Studios not necessarily looking for "big time" directors? I think that has been a notable heavily covered practice, especially with the Russos signing on with hardly any film directing experience, only to make some of the biggest films of all time. — 4487: 1797:

redirects before moving to draftspace - for a smoother transition. Does it have problems? Yes! But the problem isn't that it exists, the problem is that it's too large or overly detailed, and we don't solve those problems by moving an article that has been in mainspace for years with lots of redirects back to draft. I mean even this main

4191:

and series. Also, what are our feelings about the fact that the Outline article has what a lot of people will be looking for (i.e. a list of all the MCU films and series in one place) but it is only linked at the end of the article in the See also section? I feel like it wouldn't hurt to make this more prominent somehow. -

4282:

outline. Compared to the films and TV tables previously, those appeared three times (the respective list articles, here, and the outline). As the video games and Team Thor are "outside" the MCU, I think those are okay to stay. I do agree about listing the outline in some more prominent fashion. Maybe as a hatnote? -

1984:

series character list article instead. We can remove most minor characters too. There is already reception on the villains draft. I need more than just villains at some point since the list is not centric to just those characters. I welcome any ideas of copyediting without doing a remodel or drafting it again.

3031:

a "2022 shows" divider and a "unknown year shows" or "TBA year shows" divider, or something like that, that way all the information that's already there is still there, it's just done in a way that falls more in line with how Knowledge does things, and still roughly keeps the format you already have it in.

4190:

The wording looks good guys. Looking at the article now, I feel like we should be consistent with the One-Shots table as well, and for the digital series I can go either way since we don't have that table elsewhere but also it gives a lot of weight to a couple small marketing campaigns over the films

4130:

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

3606:

Sorry Dark, I think we may be talking about separate things. I'm mostly talking about the transcluded films, TV series, Ones-Shots, and comic book tables, retaining those because it appeared Whiteguru was mentioning removing those. I wasn't really talking about the recurring cast section, per se. But

3027:

I'm aware the other series I mentioned are not collected into phases, I never said they were, what I was saying is that while it isn't done like that, there is a way that it could have been (separated into Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons, in reference to the Crisis on Infinite Earths event

1757:

a major problem with it, that is why we are having this discussion. I agree that the effort to redirect everything and then change it all back is probably unnecessary, but not if we aren't going to do anything about the state of the article. Regardless, this section is supposed to be about confirming

970:

I agree with Adam, Favre, and TriiipleThreat on this all. Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and most of the characters' articles in the mainspace are pretty much all we need, once the Characters article gets a serious redo of how to present it and what goes where. I wouldn't mind supporting

653:

seems inevitable to me at some point, but the current version is mostly unsourced, is not formatted or organised in any useful way, and includes a large number of characters that non-fans would not find to be noteworthy. I would strongly support draftifying it and having a serious re-think about what

367:

aspects and keeping plot details to a minimum and built a catalog of good articles, even reaching good topic status by following this idea. However, this started to change once we introduced character articles; first with MCU-specific characters, then major characters, and then supporting characters.

3800:

I'm perfectly fine with any further c/e option. My one suggestion I would reinstate from my version is including the "dated" info (Whedon, Gunn, actor contracts) as it's own paragraph after the cast info and the Russo's work in Phase Three. I guess the other question then is if what has been reduced

3429:

There may be separate articles but there doesn't appear to be any splitting going on, since everything is here. Also I'm not sure an article called List of MCU Movies is the appropriate title for an article covering development of the films, so it would probably need renaming as well. The ridiculous

3030:

all of which you did not touch on or respond to or anything like that, especially the proposed "compromise" for lack of a better term that I had made. It could even be that whole proposition, and then just have each show sorted by year of the first season release like have a "2021 shows" divider and

2610:

Clearly I got a bit excited last week when I thought there was interest in cleaning this topic up, per Triiiple's starting of this thread and the positive responses to my initial comment. Hopefully in the future we will be able to make these improvements, but I don't have the time or energy to fight

2466:

Maybe you didn't intend to insist on draftifying it before moving the content and redirects to their new appropriate targets, but that's how it came out to me, and obviously most other editors... pushing them to oppose the proposal as written. Saying "deal with it now or move it to draftspace" isn't

2451:

But that isn't what happened. I proposed that we deal with it now or move it to the draftspace. In your first comment you asked that we do neither of those, so in my reply I reiterated my opposition to that and again said we should deal with it now or move it to the draftspace. I never insisted that

2148:

Well this is weird, we have gone from consensus supporting the changes in one section to a full 180 in the next. Obviously people have gotten confused since most of the oppose votes are suggesting we rework the characters list in the mainspace ... which is in my proposal! As was made pretty clear in

1355:

I don't know if we should draftify them to correct them. We should only draftify the ones that we agree shouldn't exist.... but only move them to draftspace after we have moved the content and updated the redirects. So, yeah, they're not perfect but rushing to draftify them before moving the content

732:

but that doesn't necessarily mean the target page needs to be an MCU-specific one. Many times, simply linking to an existing comic article's "in other media" section will suffice. That will probably help remove some of the in-universe dumps/copies at some of these articles, while still retaining the

727:

I also agree with this Adam. The characters article is probably the only one I feel should probably stay, after it goes through some reduction and reorganization. I know there's been a lot of work done recently to adjust links to MCU-specific titles for various characters, objects, etc. I think this

548:

Hey I created the “characters of” article. I deserve the half of blame became I haven’t watched it good enough as I should. I feel like there is still potential to fix it. I am not sure I wanted a list like Facu-el Millo's idea but anything is possible. I should note that the DC Extended Universe is

4624:

This came up a while back and the consensus was that there weren't any real solid reliable sources to support that. The only argument we had from the editor was that Avi Arad had thought about the connectivity. But nothing said he's the one who came up with MCU. All we know from reliable sources is

3785:

I agree with the Whedon info for Phase Two. I have added a proposal for the MCU article that is slightly more cut-down than yours as there was still some film-specific stuff in there that I felt was less relevant here. For the list of films article, I'm not sure if we need to add all of this there.

2898:

With all that said, my question(s) is/are were these edits sanctioned by a mod or admin as checking on their pages neither of them appear to be marked as such (Adam does have a Senior Editor mark, but I'm not sure if that's a level of hierarchy or just some special award for doing a lot of edits or

2843:

It's worth noting that tagging an article for a task force is not an encyclopedic statement so if we are going to discuss pages connected to the MCU, there really isn't any reason not to tag them. It's not like we are saying "These are MCU". I'm sure if there was a better name for a task force than

2261:

To be fair to Adam, I wasn't confused nor was I opposing his proposal altogether, but I did have a serious issue with replacing a list article with sections in a comic article. Those articles are both bad and also not relevant to MCU readers and additionally, may lose information over time (as they

1856:

and the solution proposed is to redirect to the comic pages, which even in its current state the character sections are still much better than most comic article that we could redirect to. I've pointed out in other discussions that I believe the character sections should be trimmed, with characters

1087:

incarnation of a comics character in the MCU deserves its own section in the character's article. De Fontaine has appeared in like two scenes in total thus far. Those characters that don't qualify for an article but have had quite substantive appearances are the ones that merit their own section in

930:. But the point is we don't have to document/list every aspect of the MCU. A lot of the entries in these lists can just be deleted. They do not provide any additional information that would be beneficial to readers that cannot already be gleaned from the preexisting film article or comics article.-- 666:

existed, there is no way that should ever be moved to the mainspace. As for the character articles, they seem to be doing much better in terms of real-world information and sourcing, but after looking at a few of them I can see that they mostly have duplicate information from other film/TV articles

4317:

The fact that the One-Shot and Digital series tables are right beside the film and TV sections definitely brings up undue weight concerns for me, and it raises questions about why the film and TV articles don't have tables which we know the answer to but others do not. I feel like consistency here

3770:

to go to the list of films article, but I'm actually wondering if that needs to happen (there is material there from the original that I've retained in this version that is more film-specific). However, the part about Whedon should definitely be added to the Phase Two article, which can be seen in

3592:

I get what you're aiming for, but I'm telling you it doesn't work or make sense. I did a CTRL+F for "Evans", the only result was a reference. Downey Jr, is mentioned twice. Meanwhile on this main article overview the first character mention is "Ayo". I've no idea who that is, I assume she's one of

2894:

listings to differentiate them between Pre-Crisis seasons and Post-Crisis seasons but it wasn't, at least last I checked it wasn't, seemingly to keep it consistent with the rest of Knowledge, just as an example), and I noticed here on the talk page that there was talk about separating the sections

2827:

I also agree that this sounds like a great idea, and the SPUMC articles should not be included as they are tangentially connected and created by a different studio. Doesn't mean that we can't continue to discuss that connection at the new task force talk page, but we should classify those films as

2586:

I just found this discussion, and I would also oppose draftifying the "Characters" article. Is there a clear consensus of how "Characters" should be cleaned up? I agree with the others that there does seem to be an increasing amount of fancruft / fandom creeping in, and would concur with draftying

1884:

details such as summary-only depictions of works. If there is not much more to discuss besides the plot for a particular entry then yes it should be redirected elsewhere. Again, it’s is not our job to catalogue every aspect of the MCU including minor characters and if there is a place that already

1796:

The point I was trying to make about the views is that it would be a huge inconvenience to readers if we moved it to draftspace without a solid solution to point them to the right content first. I would rather we take the time to move the content to the comic counterpart pages first and adjust the

1698:

How about we table "Characters" for later, but begin working on the others which are less complicated but more in-universe? That will help us make a huge progress fast. Teams, Species, Features should be easily integrated into their respective comic counterpart articles as an MCU section; and have

1316:

I think we're in agreement that "characters" article will stay. We just need to make it more of a summary list and move the characters in-universe details to the individual comic-character article, by introducing the new MCU version section I was proposing above. The "In other media" section as it

1255:

It sounds like there is general agreement to draftify the Characters, Teams, Features, and Species articles and then work on merging/sourcing/condensing etc. until we are happy for something with that info to return to the mainspace. My next two questions about that would be (1) where should these

759:

Ok, retargeting a lot of supporting/minor characters and teams to 'in other media' sections is certainly plausible, as they actually have more detail with good images anyway. About character articles, I agree their reception sections are a little underdone for a lot of them, although it seems that

747:

The character article probably goes through lots of views. Which might make it more controversial to merge it. That’s my two cents on that. There is already lots of reception from reliable sources stored in the villain draft both for the individual characters and overall. So we can maybe use it on

3505:

The plan as far as I knew it, was to split off basically all of the prose in "History" (and then retain a summary of the important parts) to the List of films and TV series articles, keep the transcluded tables, implement the new cast table or what have you per the discussion above, perhaps split

2886:

according to the edit logs (there may be others as well, however theirs were the only ones I checked). the edit sorts the shows by phases and such, which is fine, however Loki and What If have both been marked as Phase 4 and are confirmed to have seasons that exist outside of Phase 4 as well, and

2437:

is right - Insisting on moving the "Characters" article to draftspace first was the main problem in the proposal. I brought it up in my first comment on the proposal in hopes that we could agree to clean it up later after moving all the content to the appropriate new targets and adjusting all the

2294:

part of your proposal? And while it wasn't your proposal, other editors which supported your idea extended it to redirecting to comic articles. Since it the section turned into a poll, I made sure that it was clear that I did not support that plan of action. I do however, as I said several times,

1983:

You know there is many ways to go about the characters article. Maybe with featured characters we can do an external link overview. Since most of them have articles. Or better yet put some creation and concept / characterization section info on the characters article making it looking like the tv

1861:

brief one-liners, major characters without articles having bigger sections and minor characters could have one-two-lines of text and could be changed to a bulleted list. But in overall, forcing a reader looking for MCU information to spend hours jumping between different articles just to find the

577:

Likewise, the major events draft is an even bigger dive into this. It's extremely detailed with day-to-day scene-to-scene breakdown. Most of them are hardly notable outside "big fans" circles. "Ego's expansion", hardly had any notability outside the GOTG v2, not even within the MCU so far. Others

4281:

I thought One-Shots and Digital series could stay as tables, because my big factor with the films and TV tables were the transclusion numbers. Excluding where each table originates, the One-Shots table only appears here and the outline, while the Digital series originates here and appears on the

2014:

as written. There is a well-established consensus for the individual character articles, and nothing in the discussion preceding this touched on them to a sufficient degree to raise an issue here. The proposal appears to ignore the scrupulous review these articles underwent before being moved to

2980:

I did read your explanation, a couple different times in fact, I wasn't asking that question again, I was simply clarifying that's what I was meaning by it, as you seemed to have taken it to mean something else, which is partially my fault, as I'm not always the best at this sort of thing. I am

2675:

The multiple people working on MCU-related articles are already working as a pseudo taskforce, just without the advantages of having a central place for questions, discussions and fleshing out issues. So yes, I support this venture. A taskforce namespace also works with subpages better than the

1010:

Regarding moving minor characters info from the "characters of" article back to the Comics character articles.... I think we should introduce a new level-2 "MCU version" section header, instead of trying to dump all the MCU info as a bullet point under the "In other media" section. MCU is very

594:

The villains draft list had at least had a good reception at the bottom. Which is so the opposite of fancruft. Other than that it's be the same thing as Characters. Although I want to change the villains draft into an external list and see if that can slide. Going back to the events thing. Yeah

3370:

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

1735:

I don't know if there's a major problem with the "Characters" article besides being too detailed, which just needs to be summarized. It's a very common practice to have a "list of characters" article for franchises. The other articles are the problem. Moving it to draft, then adjusting all the

2407:

criticizing the depiction of Thanos' blade as a change from the comics. We need to focus on all this real-world stuff rather than fancruft. Items without any existing sources can be removed from the list as non-notable. The article needs to be reworked, not thrown away. It is also useful as a

1391:

I think both. If we run into a species or team/organization that's introduced in the MCU or is too minor in the comics to have its own article, what do we do with its content and redirects once we draftify the article? For example, for species, where would we put the MCU versions of Flerkens,

2946:

I'm aware they aren't actually sanctioned, what I was meaning is did mods and/or admins approve of the change/ask for the change to be made or was it done just randomly without them knowing or whatever. I understand why the change was made, I wasn't questioning why you did it that way, I was

1925:

The information already exists in comics articles for better or worse and we are not discussing clean-up the whole of the WP:COMICS project but we are discussing the clean-up of this topic. But fine, if you don’t want to point those links somewhere, I’m perfectly fine with removing the links

3237:

to this MCU page, and link off. The The table goes to that page or a new page. Keep links to Film cast members (The Infinity Saga), television series cast (Marvel Studios and Marvel Television), One-Shot cast members, WHIH Newsfront cast members, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot cast

705:

Also agree with everything Adam said. The "Teams and organizations" and "Features" absolutely have to go and almost all character pages should be draftified since like Adam said they are pretty much just a duplication of info already found in other MCU articles with long plot summaries. -

3022:

Like maybe have it to where the series aren't split but put one of those little letter annotation things (I don't actually know the name of them) as like a note to this section where it pops up and says something like "this season/show is part of Marvel Phase 4" and for the ones that are

2506:

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

3013:

I understand why the change was made, I wasn't questioning why you did it that way, I was questioning if it should have been done that way and/or if there was a better way to do it that falls more in line with every other page that does this sort of thing on Knowledge, if that makes any

847:

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

3430:

cast table should go in its own article altogether. You can make some solid articles out of the content, but there's either too much of stuff we don't need, like a huge table, or trying to cover too many things in one space. Personally, I'd link to an article about the cast ala

2981:

curious as to why you only responded to that one part and not the rest of my response, as there is more to the response than just what you decided to pick out from it, and it is common courtesy to do so and it appears as though you didn't really read my response/explanation.

4692:. Should we do the same for our chart? This is obviously tricky because that placement is both correct and not correct. Correct, because in the linear flow of time, the 2012 events of the Time Heist are occurring to the 2023 versions of the Avengers, and incorrect, because 1907:. It doesn't matter if we send the reader to an MCU section in a comic article or to a MCU list article if they both have the same piece of information. However, having that piece of information in an MCU list article gives much better context and relevance. Also, from 4696:

is from that 2012 time branch and then continues to exist outside space and time. I'm not seeing any article posting about the inclusion yet. The table also doesn't have capabilities really to put anything outside of set years and TBA, so that is also a deterrent. -

2811:

I'm all for the creation of a task force for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It would be much easier and organized to communicate en mass new propositions, news, and changes affecting multiple articles and explaining how and why we do what we do in these articles.

3028:

that canonically happened within that shared universe, as there is known/listed separation with such things among the series's parent company DC Comics content and the like), yet it was not done like that, so why is this done differently, if that makes any sense.

3349:

There are many more issues to be considered. However, in the interests of a *very* involved and committed community of editors vis-a-vis the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the page is too long and the lot of steps need to be taken. Your collaboration is invited.

2919:, and you can find the relevant discussion regarding the changes at the talk page for that article. The reason we have decided to split the series by Phase is because Marvel Studios is including series in the Phases alongside their films. The next seasons of 477:

If I am not mistaken, you're the architect behind a lot of these. If you truly want to minimalize fan cruft, you can start by removing a lot of the entries in those lists, particularly the ones that are nothing more than summary-only descriptions. Remember,

2086:' of simply drafting them all. Conceivable merge options can be figured out for any that are dubious in terms of sustaining separate articles (i.e. Teams and Species). Many of these articles, particularly the individual character ones, do at least satisfy 4255:

I know I'm late to the debate... But I think the old format of having the feature films and television / Marvel Studios series listed on the same page was much more comfortable. This system works too though.. I just think the original one was better. =

671:

says only the noteworthy articles have been kept in the mainspace, but if duplicate information and long plot summaries are being used to determine noteworthiness then I am afraid that we may need to do a mass draftifying of those articles as well. -

1199:

Personally I would say yes, as it has quite a few original characters on it as well that may be useful for redirects, and can be useful for an overview of the central characters, although it should be condensed by removing characters where possible.

1716:

That's the opposite of what I think should happen. If we don't think we can sort it out now then it should go to the draftspace until we can clean it up. If we think it can be addressed quickly then leaving it in the mainspace should be fine. -

3668:

Maybe its also time for all MCU-related articles to get a "This article is part of a series about the Marvel Cinematic Universe"-navigation below the infobox? It's not just the size of articles that are getting unwieldy, its also the number of

2914:

Changes on Knowledge are not "sanctioned by a mod or admin", everyone is free to edit here and changes to articles are determined through discussion and consensus. The edits you are referring to here were made to be consistent with changes at

1822:

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

3160:

Where tables are rendered elsewhere, they are to be removed from this page and a sufficient introduction to the topic can be given; thereafter, a link to the relevant page. Introductions replacing tables are to be short, sharp and concise.

830:

character pages have "Film appearances," where it's just a long summary of whichever movie the character appeared in. We might do that but have a small overview of that character's actions, other than that, I completely agree with Adam. –

4513:

I just noticed it was removed? Why? We agreed that it fit and no one disagreed when we talked about it here. Any one know what happened? The YouTube channel has Flash filming, it references Far From Home a ton and even promotes it on the

4388:

be added to these sections for casual users who are looking for all the tables? It took me 3 days to find this (I am not good with Knowledge and am more a user than an editor). I also think the summaries need to be cleaned up a bit.

3490:

There are already plenty of lists of cast members and characters. The point of this one is to show recurring actors across different media, but a table is not necessarily the best way to that. We are already discussing that above. -

451:, and the intention is to add more sourced real-world contexts to those articles. For instance, major events should not be published until there is significant real-world sourced commentary of every event. MCU character articles are 3761:

I've attempted a cut down of the "Business practices" section. I don't believe the section should be removed from here because the info in it is relevant to the universe. That said, I've created a cut down version for this article

1035:

and everyone else, would you find this as a good compromise to help keep the "characters of" article small, but also provide a good, clean & complete section for the MCU version of the character on the comic character's page?—

362:

I am becoming increasingly concerned over the amount of in-universe information / fan cruft that has been introduced into this topic recently. When we started this topic over ten years ago, we made the commitment to focus on the

4594:

as creator of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I have reverted, as I think such an identification requires discussion. I would think that if any individual is going to be identified as the "creator" of the MCU, it would either be

4100:

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

2372:

is a misnomer, most of these are in just a few of the sections and are barely sourcing any good, real world information. The fact that this sort of article should not exist is the whole reason we are having this discussion. -

3815:

These are impressive cut-downs from the original. Thank you. I think most of the content cut from here seems to be specific to individual films and not necessarily needed in the "List of films" article. Example, Waititi's in

1758:

the plan rather than discussing details. If you are against draftiying the characters list then just say that, if others agree then we know we will have to have a further discussion about exactly what to do with it soon. -

2319:

Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be rethought. If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the

2677: 771:, I feel it does still have some good sourced info that could be integrated into individual character articles, with the article either very redacted or deleted after that. Similar argument for Major Events, in that 3406:

That split has already happened, we definitely do not need to make anymore articles. As has already been discussed at this talk page, the best approach is to move the majority of the film development information to

3247:

List of video game tie-ins should get its own article, linked from this page with an appropriate introduction. The new article might contain a name similar to the relevant category: Marvel Cinematic Universe video

286:

This is a question, yes, since there are no more words about Loki in DS:MOM section in Phase Four Article, but there is still a line saying that DS:MOM is tied to Loki in Timeline Section of the Main MCU article.

3973:

Was the suggestion that we replace the transcluded tables with prose and then have a prominent link to the outline article which should basically be the opposite, all tables? I'm not totally against that idea. -

2094:

applies to the less well-written ones, a good reason for improving them whilst in mainspace. As Starforce has pointed out, drafting highly-viewed articles creates unnecessary instability for readers. I'm sure

2514:) article under a new "Marvel Cinematic Universe" section. This can be either its own level-2 section or a level-3 subsection under "In other media" depending on the amount of content. Do the necessary c/e. 1646:

Each character article needs to be re-evaluated to make sure they actually meet notability (duplicate information from other articles and large plot summaries do not count). If not, they should be moved to

2681: 2646: 516:. I think that the list articles could maybe be reworked into bulletpoint formats to minimalize the fancruft, focusing more on including real-world sourced info as the bulk of the article. I know that 2536:

Use similar steps for "Characters of the MCU" article but instead of moving the article to draft, summarize the character into 1-2 sentences. Minor characters can even be placed in a bulletted list.—

4539:

I believe this was left out because it is only relevant to one film and should just be mentioned at that film's article for now. WHIH covers multiple MCU films so it is relevant to the MCU article.

3465: 114: 2262:

are just a small section in a much larger article). A list article for MCU things is how I believe this should work. The list however, does need a redesign and consensus on how, what and where. --

821:"strongly support draftifying it and having a serious re-think about what that article should contain and how it should be presented so that it is coming from a logical, real-world perspective." 102: 1911:

the MCU sections in comic articles I've read, they were never written with out-of-universe context to the comic character, as were all the other comic version sections on those articles. --

667:

as well as ridiculous in-universe character summaries that need to be almost completely removed, and they do not have anywhere near the amount of reception information that I would expect.

2931:

together and then any others listed as future. Yes, we do not usually split series like this, but the other examples you listed were not collected into Phases like these ones have been. -

1278:

section for those that have it), except of course for the ones that have their own MCU-specific article. (2) Yes, a populated discussion should take place to move them back to mainspace. —

3385:

I'm normally opposed to splitting articles, but since the TV side came in, it has made the article too unwieldly. Really there needs to be this page as an overview, and then a dedicated

1422:

Just delete it, if they’re that minor then we probably don’t need it. Using your example, is there any reason to discuss Flerkens outside the context of Goose in the Captain Marvel film?—

3506:

some of the reception material to the phase articles, and then more or less leave the remaining content after that. That should solve most of the issues of the article being too long. -

1625:

needs to be rethought. If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace.

4370:

then, where the tables are better serving their purposes than what this article should be and has become per recent discussions and comment surrounding its Good Article reassessment. -

4040:

My thinking is that the feature film, TV, and short film sections can stay the same, but for the rest I think a good argument could be made for replacing tables with prose summaries. -

3469: 2150: 1628: 1299: 893: 875: 655: 373: 110: 101:

Since we are taking another look at articles that probably shouldn't exist in the discussion above this one, I would like to bring this article up. I already raised these concerns at

4792:, no Disney-affiliated person has ever commented on it, but we do have third party articles discussing the order when that first was established. That is already in the article. - 1461:

I don't think there is a need to draft-ify Characters as opposed to reworking it in mainspace, but if we do, then we should leave an anchor for Darcy on her description on either

1577:

Darcy Lewis could be one of the few characters who retain most of their info in the "Characters of" article; while the rest get summarized and moved to the comic counterparts. —

95: 3632:

I've started to make some very crude sandbox mockups of what content should go where (as of this comment I've only gone through the "Films" and "Television" prose subsections).

3018:

Is there a way to split them like you are wanting that also doesn't split the series, that way it's more in line with how Knowledge does it instead of it being a random outlier?

4021: 3838: 3412: 3199: 2916: 905: 867: 663: 381: 4054:

The main ones really in my eyes are the comics and music section. I say we start with those, and then we can reexamine if the Films and TV tables should be prose as well. -

2368:

The features article is an indiscriminate list of places and things from the films, it is fancrufty trivia that is mostly duplicated from film plot summaries. Saying it has

3611:

noted, there's a separate discussion regarding that above going over how to readjust criteria for the table. I'm sure other opinions on formatting would also be welcome. -

2399:

For instance, there are sources existing discussing the special effects, symbolism and costume design used for some of the suits, the real world notability of Wakanda, the

3801:

from what currently exists is even worth keeping, because I don't really want to add this type of section to the film list. I'd argue we aren't really losing anything. -

2890:

the issue being I don't recall anywhere else on this page or Knowledge for that matter where shows have their seasons separated like this (it could have been done on the

3520:

I'm gonna say that when we seem to have as many tables as we do across multiple articles, we don't need this one, just a link to it and some pictures and summary prose.

1998:- moving the "Characters of the MCU" article to draftspace before pointing each character redirect to its new appropriate article/section will do more harm than good. — 991:"We seriously can't afford to make huge list articles for just anything in this franchise, as it still has to apply to the real world in relevant, properly source ways." 4024:. I think it would be beneficial for this page, we should take advantage of having an article for films and an article for TV series and this seems like the best way. — 2963:

I'm aware they aren't actually sanctioned, what I was meaning is did mods and/or admins approve of the change/ask for the change to be made or was it done just randomly

3655:

This looks like the right breakdown, and unless anyone has a strong opposition or a different idea, I think we should probably go ahead and start breaking them off. —

2162: 513: 2777:

I know it's not a taskforce, I was just saying having a WikiProject has served well for other franchises, so having a taskforce would be beneficial for MCU articles.

4746:

to be more precise). As you can see, it's complicated enough to justify excluding it from the timeline graph, and explaining its place in the timeline(s) in prose. —

3473: 2202:

If there is opposition to moving it to the draftspace then a new discussion should be held soon so we can make sure it is appropriate for staying in the mainspace.

109:

made some adjustments in response, but I still feel that this article only contains redundant information copied from existing MCU articles. Plus there is already

2996:

I have made it pretty clear how this decision was made, why it was made, and why there was no admin approval required. I'm not sure what else you want to know. -

3988:

Prose was what was suggested, but I personally don't feel we need to remove the tables, since I feel seeing release dates and creatives here are also helpful. -

2738:, for instance, seems to have served well. I guess SUMC articles would be low-to-mid importance on here, as they are related in terms of business practices etc. 1502: 1494: 340:

Feige didn't reconfirm it after having said so in the past. That's not the same as calling something into question. It's hard to conclude anything from silence.

3866:

and put Adam's change in (with the director info back, plus the small formatting change I suggested) and splitting the Whedon info to the Phase Two article. -

3568:

Readers should still have an overview of all pieces of material part of the MCU here, which the table is the easiest to convey since it's just transclusions.

1852:. I don't think moving the main characters article to draft is the correct procedure. It's a bit ironic that TriiipleThreat started this discussion by saying 4638:

Stan Lee is certainly not the creator of the MCU. Creating the comic characters and storylines has no relation for the cinematic franchise known as the MCU.

3157:

public to all involved and interested authors - while the reassessment is in progress - as this article is too long and needs immediate editing and action.

2734:

Yup, good idea Favre, the volume of MCU-related articles certainly justifies a separate taskforce. Would be a helpful place for centralizing priorities too.

2161:

all need to go and shouldn't really be up for debate. If everyone is just getting hung up on the characters list and articles then I suggest we move over to

3461: 2563: 1622: 1295: 1173: 901: 871: 688: 650: 369: 1595:

That Celestials and species redirects might be significantly helpful. As for Darcy, staying her info in "Characters" seems like a plausible solution. And

1618:

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

2878:

Hello, I was scrolling through to see if any updates had been done to the page and I noticed a new format for the listings of the Disney+ shows done by

4653: 4534: 3704: 2343: 2154: 1634: 909: 863: 659: 419: 377: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 4385: 4367: 2716:

be included in my eyes, as any connections (now or in the future) would be tangential, but shouldn't be classified under the proposed task force. -

2158: 1640: 927: 897: 4017: 3408: 3227: 3181: 3170: 3166: 1238:'s point, I think it will exist in some form at some point but for now that can be decided in the draftspace once we have re-evaluated everything. 1234:'s proposal is that we don't add an undue amount of in-universe content to the "In other media" sections of the comic book character articles. To 229:

How are we going to add Loki in the Red and Black timeline? I mean will it be a new timeline diverged from 2012 (main timeline).I am very excited.

4350:

Late to the party, but major dislike here. Old table was much more digestible and accessible, and having them in the same page was beneficial.–

4083: 3242: 2518: 1560: 550: 3786:

Maybe just pick out some key points, especially if we don't have them anywhere else, and then integrate into the development section there? -

2928: 2053:

If there seriously was a "scrupulous review" of these articles then it clearly wasn't "scrupulous" enough. No harm in having another look. -

303: 4174:

That works. That's the only necessary info we need for that section, since all the development info is already in the Development section. —

862:

I agree with mostly everything being said here. Some of the articles for individual characters may need to go. I've begun trimming down the

4470: 1506: 691:

should be removed and links to these entries should be pointed back at the "in other media" sections of their respective comics articles.--

2180:

Perhaps people were "confused" by your inartful reference to draftspace in the first line of your proposal regarding the Characters page.

2397:

Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.

1514: 4404: 3694: 3154: 3032: 2982: 2948: 2900: 1801:

article has lots of problems that need to be solved, but the solution isn't to break everything and move it to draft to fix it first.

4742:

in that it happens in 2023 or after. It's set in 2012, at least in the beginning. Then, it jumps all over the place (or all over the

2791:

Sorry, I understand your point you were making. I just wanted to make sure you were not expect the outcome of a project from this. -

2204:

The only way to interpret that as "adamstom97 says we must move the Characters page to draftspace" is if you willfully misread it. -

3640:

is for the material that should split off to other existing pages. All of this would need a thorough c/e upon any implementation. -

2844:"Marvel Cinematic Universe and also Sony Marvel Universe and also anything tangentially connected" we could have used that instead. 3023:

undetermined/not phase 4 you could have a separate annotation saying something like "this season/show is part of an unknown phase".

989:, Mainspace character articles, TV shows + Movies + Digital series articles) should probably the ones that are important. In all, 775:

of it (eg the "I am Iron Man" part) does have well-sourced info, and could be integrated into other character or film articles.

1510: 3390: 1057:

but was reverted repeatedly. That is definitely a feasible option for many characters, and also features, as already done on

760:

consensus was that well-sourced concept and characterization sections made up for that. I feel most of them do still satisfy

47: 17: 460: 4726:

I think we are correct in not including it in the timeline, because in a way, it isn't in that timeline. It's right after

2634:. I don't believe a whole project is in order, because the vast majority of the articles fall under the purview of either 2602: 1599:

actually had a "Marvel Cinematic Universe" header in the "In other media" section, so we could use that as a prototype. –

1054: 292: 272: 234: 654:

that article should contain and how it should be presented so that it is coming from a logical, real-world perspective.

521: 3386: 201:

We have to follow Knowledge's guidelines, which do not allow redundant articles containing identical content, known as

3862:

Yes, I agree, if we use Adam's alternate version, we should add back in about the choosing of directors. I'm going to

3431: 3710:

which is helpful for the articles linked in that template. I don't think any other sidebar-style navbox is needed. -

1926:

entirely. Ether way, entires that are not much more than mere summary-only descriptions do not belong on Knowledge.—-

3464:, although that's already too long. Maybe we can include split tables when splits of that article are live, such as 4157: 3767: 3763: 3637: 3633: 3598: 3525: 3452: 3439: 3398: 2391:

as an example of how there are sources existing for this topic, not to claim it's a well-sourced article. To quote

985:

Agreeing with Trailblazer, "Species" and "Team and organizations" should merge. The basic stuff (Characters of the

38: 4261: 443:

on these articles, which I have been trying to do to some extent for the features and major events articles. Like

4436: 3953: 3949: 3889: 3226:

Under the heading of Literature, we may have, inter-alia, Heading, Comic Books, First paragraph of the lede from

1498: 1490: 1058: 1012: 649:, and the increasing number of MCU-specific character articles being created lately has frankly been ridiculous. 4474: 3025:

I also touch on the seeming confusion you had about what I was saying about comparing this with the Arrowverse

2817: 2044: 1972: 1931: 1890: 1881: 1427: 976: 935: 696: 487: 479: 406: 288: 268: 230: 155: 1126:

MCU incarnations, a bullet point is enough, at least until the character makes more significant appearances. —

2221:

sounds like you're not clear that there is such opposition. I'd advise that you avoid trying to shoot first.

4753: 4661: 4548: 4432: 4308: 4257: 4239: 4181: 4031: 3963: 3934: 3551: 3036: 2986: 2952: 2904: 2571: 2496: 2131: 1783: 1681: 1604: 1522: 1452: 1382: 1285: 1183: 1133: 1095: 998: 917: 883: 836: 662:

need to go, in my opinion, they are completely fan cruft, in-universe, and barely sourced. I didn't realise

623: 389: 170: 2752:

Per my comment to Gonnym above, SPUMC shouldn't be considered part of this in my opinion. Also please note

2039:

Adam’s proposal for individual character articles is just to review them. I fail to see any harm in that.—-

4400: 3376: 1885:

discusses them in a wider context such as comics then that perhaps would be the best place to send them.—

1497:, if it is moved to draftspace. "Teams", "Species", "Features", and "Events" can be redirected to either 1375:

are you talking about those based on very minor comic characters or those that are original to the MCU? —

1118:

I'm saying that the section dedicated to the MCU-version of de Fontaine was reverted because it would be

748:

the character article. There is a lot of romantic interest sources I happen to notice too from the web.

4797: 4775: 4702: 4562: 4519: 4375: 4337: 4323: 4298: 4287: 4196: 4165: 4136: 4106: 4091: 4073: 4059: 4045: 4007: 3993: 3979: 3911: 3871: 3806: 3791: 3776: 3736: 3715: 3674: 3645: 3616: 3594: 3581: 3563: 3521: 3511: 3496: 3448: 3435: 3420: 3394: 3148: 3001: 2970: 2936: 2864: 2833: 2796: 2768: 2721: 2665: 2616: 2457: 2378: 2327: 2281: 2246: 2209: 2170: 2058: 1945: 1828: 1763: 1722: 1656: 1540: 1307: 1261: 1147: 1119: 738: 677: 385: 331: 257: 133: 122: 4396: 3234: 2510:

Copy each entry (eg "Celestials" on "Species" article) section and refs into the comic counterpart (eg

3685: 3670: 764:

though, although the Guardians ones are admittedly questionable. About Features, although a lot of it

4392: 4355: 3846: 3481: 3141: 2782: 2743: 2590: 2417: 2359: 2108: 1651:

Once there is confirmation for this plan we can go ahead with the moves and start making progress. -

1478: 1466: 1346: 1205: 1155: 1109: 1074: 961: 853: 810: 780: 529: 468: 456: 364: 214: 141: 4801: 4779: 4757: 4721: 4706: 4665: 4647: 4633: 4618: 4566: 4552: 4523: 4502: 4478: 4379: 4361: 4341: 4327: 4318:

would be best. I don't think we need to worry about anything in the outside media section though. -

4312: 4291: 4265: 4243: 4200: 4185: 4169: 4140: 4110: 4095: 4077: 4063: 4049: 4035: 4011: 3997: 3983: 3967: 3938: 3915: 3901: 3875: 3850: 3832: 3810: 3795: 3780: 3740: 3719: 3678: 3663: 3649: 3620: 3601: 3585: 3555: 3528: 3515: 3500: 3485: 3455: 3442: 3424: 3401: 3380: 3359: 3040: 3005: 2990: 2974: 2956: 2940: 2908: 2868: 2853: 2837: 2821: 2800: 2786: 2772: 2747: 2725: 2707: 2693: 2669: 2620: 2575: 2544: 2500: 2475: 2461: 2446: 2421: 2382: 2363: 2331: 2304: 2285: 2271: 2250: 2236: 2213: 2195: 2174: 2137: 2112: 2062: 2048: 2030: 2006: 1990: 1976: 1949: 1935: 1920: 1894: 1871: 1832: 1813: 1787: 1767: 1744: 1726: 1707: 1685: 1660: 1608: 1585: 1544: 1526: 1482: 1456: 1431: 1400: 1386: 1364: 1350: 1325: 1311: 1289: 1265: 1225: 1209: 1187: 1159: 1137: 1113: 1099: 1078: 1044: 1002: 980: 965: 939: 921: 887: 857: 840: 814: 784: 754: 742: 715: 700: 681: 639: 627: 601: 586: 559: 533: 491: 472: 432: 410: 349: 341: 335: 321: 296: 276: 261: 238: 218: 188: 174: 159: 145: 126: 4587: 4576: 3355: 3092: 3078: 3064: 2813: 2631: 2522: 2511: 2079: 2040: 1968: 1927: 1886: 1564: 1553: 1437:

The only notable character I can think of that is original to the MCU and doesn't (and most likely

1423: 1028: 972: 953: 931: 692: 646: 611: 509: 483: 423: 402: 345: 184: 151: 106: 4232:

the relevant information since there's no individual article to summarize, this is all there is. —

4160:

is some prose mock up of the films and television sections should we want to remove the tables. -

3906:

I don't think so, as "streaming" refers to "streaming television" so that would seem redundant. -

3270:

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times.

4748: 4657: 4543: 4303: 4276: 4234: 4176: 4152: 4026: 3958: 3929: 3752: 3571: 3546: 3106: 3099: 2753: 2735: 2567: 2557: 2491: 2122: 2100: 1985: 1778: 1676: 1600: 1532: 1518: 1447: 1377: 1280: 1235: 1214: 1194: 1178: 1128: 1104:

Yeah, hence why I tried to create a separate MCU section on the comics article for the redirect.

1090: 994: 913: 879: 832: 800: 792: 768: 749: 722: 634: 618: 596: 570: 554: 517: 444: 440: 427: 196: 180: 166: 4654:

Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 12#David Maisel, Avi Arad, Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios

3434:, and put a bunch of headshots of main people in this one to make it more visually interesting. 2630:

I've been sitting on this idea for a while, but I think it would be beneficial to create an MCU

4016:

I think the idea was to replace the Feature films tables with something similar to the lead of

1019:

content into a bullet under the TV section while the rest were bullets under the film section.

633:

I know you didn’t ask me but they should still be kept I believe. Just treated with more care.

3447:

EDIT: You've actually got articles for list of cast members so why is this table here at all?

3372: 3127: 3011:

If you continue on reading from the part you quoted, you will also see that I say things like

2598: 505: 248:

appears to not be set in the main MCU timeline, it probably won't be added. The same goes for

206: 1862:

information about MCU characters, instead of of one single place, is completely unhelpful. --

4793: 4771: 4717: 4698: 4643: 4626: 4613: 4558: 4557:

I would agree with Adam's assessment from the previous thread as quoted by Facu-el Millo. -

4530: 4515: 4495: 4371: 4333: 4319: 4283: 4272: 4192: 4161: 4148: 4132: 4102: 4087: 4069: 4055: 4041: 4003: 3989: 3975: 3907: 3897: 3867: 3837:

On a sidenote, I would just like to add that part of the timeline section could be split to

3825: 3802: 3787: 3772: 3771:

that section. Please give me any thoughts or feel free to make adjustments in my sandbox. -

3756: 3748: 3732: 3711: 3656: 3641: 3612: 3608: 3577: 3507: 3492: 3416: 3213: 3209: 3134: 3085: 3071: 2997: 2966: 2932: 2883: 2879: 2860: 2849: 2829: 2792: 2764: 2717: 2703: 2689: 2661: 2654: 2650: 2612: 2537: 2531:

Once all the entries have been moved and redirected properly, move the article to draftspace

2468: 2453: 2439: 2430: 2392: 2374: 2347: 2323: 2300: 2277: 2267: 2242: 2231: 2205: 2190: 2166: 2091: 2054: 2025: 2015:

mainspace in the first place, and the exceptional work that has been done to maintain them.

1999: 1941: 1916: 1867: 1824: 1806: 1759: 1737: 1718: 1700: 1652: 1578: 1536: 1393: 1357: 1332: 1318: 1303: 1257: 1231: 1218: 1050: 1037: 1024: 1020: 734: 733:

article links across the relevant pages should it warrant an actual article at any point. -

711: 673: 579: 393: 327: 316: 253: 118: 2120:

per Starforce, B2412 and IronManCap. I'm sure we could develop them whilst in mainspace. –

4351: 4221: 3842: 3477: 3202:

and the lede from that page might profitably be utilised here. No table. Link to the page.

2778: 2739: 2413: 2409: 2355: 2104: 1691: 1474: 1342: 1201: 1151: 1143: 1105: 1070: 1032: 957: 849: 806: 796: 776: 729: 668: 525: 501: 464: 210: 202: 137: 4002:

I would suggest the comic tie-ins and music tables could probably be removed, however. -

2927:

have not been confirmed for a Phase yet, at the moment we just have the series listed at

4535:

Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 12#Semi-Protected Edit Request on 16 January 2021

304:

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four#Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

136:. I would definitely support merging and assimilating into the other relevant articles. 3863: 3857: 3351: 3220: 3192: 3173:. The table containing Future films and proposals for Phase Four can go with that link. 2635: 2400: 2096: 2083: 397: 2566:

because it is better to rework/add to them in mainspace than the "nuclear option". –

388:

information and minute plot details. This is topic is slowly starting to resemble the

326:

That should probably be updated since Feige has called this into question recently. -

2354:. I agree about drafting Teams and Species as well as reworking the Characters list. 2351: 2087: 2075: 1802: 1596: 1122:

to dedicate one section to a character that appeared in two scenes of a TV show. For

761: 452: 448: 3576:

I can try creating a sandbox mock up of what the resulting page would look like. -

3113: 2639: 2594: 1905:

it’s is not our job to catalogue every aspect of the MCU including minor characters

418:

I agree. These topics are necessary and notable. But they can be better done. Also

3241:

The Music Table and Television soundtracks - along with Singles - may be moved to

4712:

Is the Disney+ timeline order cannon? Has any official rep ever commented on it?

4787: 4713: 4639: 4604: 4600: 3893: 3700:

navbox which serves its purpose on the vast majority of articles. There is also

3120: 2845: 2699: 2685: 2434: 2404: 2296: 2263: 2222: 2181: 2016: 1912: 1863: 1854:

This problem has plagued WP:COMICS for years and now is now spreading to WP:FILM

1470: 1462: 1442: 707: 307: 46:

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

4730:

for the variant Loki, but it's after changes to the original timeline seen in

4590:

has edited this article and the multimedia franchises in film article to name

3411:

and the existing Phase articles. The majority of TV information is already at

2891: 687:

I pretty much agree with all of this. I'll add that non-noteworthy entries at

2276:

This is part of my proposal though, so what part are you in opposition to? -

3923:

After removing tables from films, TV series, digital series, One-Shots, and

2712:

Yes, I meant to include "task force" in the name, my apologies. Sony should

2315:

The list however, does need a redesign and consensus on how, what and where.

459:

satisfying in terms of real-world coverage, and ones that were not, such as

358:

Huge amounts of in-universe information / fan cruft creeping into this topic

4784:

Sorry all, your responses some how got missed by me. That all sounds good!

1880:

Length is not the only problem with the Characters list. We are discussing

179:

It's an awful idea. MCU article should stay separated from those articles.

3251:

The page logo is not attractive; consider the Facebook logo for this page?

616:

Is there any of those articles you listed that you think should be kept? —

4596: 4591: 4580: 3305:

This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.

595:

that’s pretty much cruft. No matter how many sources are placed for it.

3219:

I am Groot link is defective and should link to the animated section on

4301:

to give tables to those sections and not for the films and TV series. —

3233:

Recurring cast and characters table is to be removed. Add the section [

1066: 1062: 3286:

This is a high-traffic page with 2,576,881 views in the last 3 months.

2698:

Question for the masses, should the Sony Marvel universe be included?

2678:

Knowledge:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Drafts

4068:

I have removed those tables and made some other small adjustments. -

3927:, is there anything left to summarize, remove, or otherwise change? — 132:

I was not aware of this article, which seems at first glance to be a

3544:

Should we create a sandbox to try and implement all these changes? —

3055:

This progressive reassessment replaced with final reassessment below

2099:

can still be applied to mainspace articles in terms of cutting down

209:

or you wanting it isn't a good enough reason to retain the article.

103:

Talk:List of unproduced Marvel Cinematic Universe projects#Redundant

4734:. So it's after both films at the same time. Without the events of 3283:

A Good Article Reassessment was requested at the end of March 2021.

2082:, I feel reworking/adding to them in mainspace is better then the ' 1772:

The high amount of views may have to do with the fact that we have

500:, the only page of those I started was the major events draft as a 4020:

and do the same with the Television series tables and the lead of

508:. The teams and species articles were created by now-retired user 3290:

Average daily views are in the vicinity of 28,500 views per day.

573:

around here which is why I was opposed to an earlier draft about

426:

too. If anything it can and should be fixed through time I hope.

4762:

As far as Disney+ is concerned, I think it makes sense to watch

4625:

that Kevin Feige has been the mastermind since the beginning. —

1373:

The ones that don't already have their own comic version article

2682:

Knowledge:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force

2647:

Knowledge:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force

2342:

I agree about Teams and Species, although, as outlined, I feel

1270:(1) The most logical place for the redirect to point to is the 4420: 2489:

of them or just against draftifying the Characters article? —

2485:

Those opposed to the proposal, are you opposed to draftifying

25: 3466:

Draft:List of supporting Marvel Cinematic Universe characters

3169:- there can be a third level heading with with the lede from 2528:

Do the same for all the other entries/sections on the article

2517:

Change the redirect to point to the new section (eg redirect

115:

List of unproduced television projects based on Marvel Comics

1392:

Outriders, Sovereigns once the article goes to draftspace?—

1337:

I think Adam was asking where we will redirect the articles

480:

Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information

2649:

as a joint taskforce between WP:FILM and WP:TV (similar to

1294:

Sorry, what I meant with question (1) is where do we think

392:

and losing its encyclopedic tone. This problem has plagued

3208:

the table for Marvel One-shots can be dropped and link to

2412:

redirects for things not notable for their own articles.

2241:

The discussion on the proposal hadn't taken place yet...

4332:

Sure, then let's convert the One-Shots and DS tables. -

3470:

Draft:List of minor Marvel Cinematic Universe characters

3273:

This page reached Good Article status on April 12, 2014.

3046:

Progressive GA Reassessment of Marvel Cinematic Universe

2151: