Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Five#Let’s remove co-producers from the intro

Adamstom.97,

When there is two or more season of same series, they will be combined. This is a reason. Like this - List of Star Wars television series. This isn't different structure. Just, this is first time one series have two seasons in same phase. Lado85 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

:Usually that would be the case for a normal list of TV shows, but this also uses some film rules. This section has subsections based on when seasons are released and the overview table should match. It is different from Marvel's ABC television series or Marvel's Netflix television series, where the sections are structured at the series level so the overview tables match that. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

::This isn't enough reason to list same show twice in a table. Release date make it clear where is season in overall chronology. Lado85 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Why isn't it enough? The table is a summary of the section, it should be structured in the same way. You keep making statements about how things must be done but have not provided any clear reasoning to support that. Like I said before, this article combines the approach for film and TV so there may be differences from other TV-only articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

::::It shouldn't be structured is this way. There is no difference from another T articles. You version is only your own opinion. Lado85 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::You are just saying the opposite of what I said without anything to back it up. There are previous discussions about combining the rules for film and television that led to the structuring of these phase articles, that is what my version is based on. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::If you are talking about this - Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 4#Listings of seperate seasons, there was not same situation. There is nothing about two season of same show in same phase. Lado85 (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

::While I can understand the sentiments from Lado, they do have a point in that we probably should not be duplicating a series entry in the table. The film-basis for how these tables are constructed still holds weight in its foundation, although, since we know Marvel Studios has since moved to a more traditional approach, I think that bodes some consideration in how we approach this in principal. I was going to bring this up with the table changes considering we have not had two seasons of a series in the same Phase, and I think, while arguments that the release order showcases chronology, these series are not chronological in nature (especially the What If seasons as they are anthologies). I would support combining the What If entries on the basis of the new TV approach and to avoid duplicate entires, but not combining the subheaders themselves. The added code in the short term is worth making it easier to navigate for readers without the potential for some confusion over having two entires for the same series, and I think there is enough room of leniency and ambiguity in the original decision to use this format to make this change. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I'm not really following what you are saying Trail, this isn't anything to do with chronological order. While Marvel have been moving more towards traditional television production, these seasons are still being produced and released in a similar way to the films. Even the series that have gotten additional seasons are treated more like multiple sets of limited series, not just by Marvel but by all of our page structures as well. If Loki season 2 happened to come out at the end of Phase Four I would also argue against combining both seasons of Loki since they are otherwise treated as separate entities. As I noted above, this would be different if the subsections were combined as I would still argue that the overview table should match the structure of the section that it represents. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

::::My apologies. The "chronology" bit was a response to a part of Lado's comments. I understand your rationale and I have no problems with how we display these tables, I just can understand why some would question it due to unfamiliarity with how these projects are treated. I don't think it is something we necessarily need to change at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::I had noticed this once I came back from my editing break, but saw there had been some back and forth in the editing. The What If seasons in the table should follow a "traditional" series overview approach where both are grouped together. We shouldn't be following a release order structure and splitting out the seasons. This is the first time this happened in any of the phases so it wasn't a problem before. But my opinion is the two should be grouped together as a normal overview should function. Additionally, I also think the prose should probably be combined too, as we can make one, slightly larger section for both seasons with all the info, rather than duplicating some of the production info between both. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::If we combine the sections in prose to follow a more tradition TV structure then I don't have a problem with the rows being combined in the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::With the new press release confirming some info for season 3, I think it would be beneficial. I'm going to be bold and make this change (it will be an easy revert if there is disagreement). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok I've done the combining [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_Cinematic_Universe%3A_Phase_Five&diff=1256850716&oldid=1256848861 here]. If anyone majorly objects please revert, but I hope smaller adjustments can be made off of his change rather than a full revert. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:I fully support this motion. It just makes more sense and organizes it better for the long-term. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way we can have Hawkeye be red in the timeline? I tried changing it but wasn't sure of the syntax. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not particularly sure myself either, but Civil War should also be red. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Adamstom.97|Trailblazer101}} With the template we've been using on the phase article, no that is not possible. As they are both reference projects, I took the easiest approach by just doing the whole year as a different color. Without completely hard coding the timeline, or still trying to work out moving the full timeline at that article to a template and then figuring out transcluding things, this is the current option we have with this template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe we should make a note of this on the WP:MCU to-do list as something that should be figured out when somewhere with the know-how has the time? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I have a thought process for two approaches to it. One is simple and the other feels code heavy and time consuming. I can note my thoughts on the timeline talk where we had already started discussing this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sebastian Stan's cameo appearance as Bucky Barnes in Brave New World shouldn't be mentioned because he was already a cast member of the Captain America franchise. In other cases, reprisals from another MCU franchise in one film are noted only for the first time, as Jon Favreau's (Happy Hogan from other MCU films) appearance in Spider-Man: Homecoming being noted but not in the subsequent Spider-Man films. In this case, Stan not only is reprising his MCU role, but he originated such role in the Captain America franchise, and Brave New World is the fourth entry in that series. The fact of it being a continuation of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier does not change anything. It is still the fourth Captain America film. Several films continue from events from other franchises, such as Civil War serving as a follow-up to Age of Ultron but still being the third Captain America film. AxGRvS (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think this can be a rare exception to this standard rule of thumb, which, from what I recall, has never been set in stone with a definitive approach for how to best address these universe connections in the third paragraphs. While Brave New World is the fourth in that film series, it is largely its own story a part from the prior trilogy and Stan's role extends more from his role in TF&TWS than his role in the prior trilogy. @Favre1fan93 was the one who originally added it to this article, so pinging him for his thoughts on this. If we have to formally establish an outline of the purpose for these paragraphs, I think that could be arranged as needed. I will note that Favreau is not mentioned for Far From Home and No Way Home because of his role in Homecoming made him a staple in the Holland films, not because he was in prior non-Spidey MCU films. This film is one of the few ones thus far that have continued directly from a TV series rather than a preceding film, similar to Multiverse of Madness and The Marvels, more so than continuing from the Chris Evans films. This is not a Steve Rogers film, this is a Sam Wilson Captain America film, and Bucky is as important for Wilson's role as he was in their show. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::In other places we are treating Brave New World as essentially the start of a new franchise, and Stan's cameo is a reference to The Falcon and the Winter Soldier as well as his upcoming role in Thunderbolts*, so based on how we usually approach these sections (which has not been entirely consistent) I think it makes sense to keep the mention. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I still think there should be a standard for this. And why is Brave New World being treated as the start of a new franchise? The beginning of a new film series within the Captain America franchise starring Mackie's Wilson? Yes, but it is still part of the same franchise and Stan has been a regular cast member since its beginning, so his cameo in this film isn't notable here. His cameo being a reference to Stan's upcoming role in Thunderbolts is already explained in the Brave New World article, but it's not necessary for this article. AxGRvS (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::But he is not a regular cast member of this film, which is separate from the previous three no matter how you phrase it. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would argue the fact that it does set up his role in Thunderbolts* makes it relevant to note here. Brave New World is being treated as the start of a new franchise, technically, because it is a quasi reboot of sorts with Mackie taking over as the lead and Captain America. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The names of co-producers are not immediately vital to a reader’s understanding of what “Phase 5” is, which is the MCU context, timeframe, and list of films/series/etc. There’s certainly no danger that streamlining the intro in this way might leave the reader uninformed, since the co-producers are listed in the infobox, in the table that begins the Films section, and under the subsection for each individual film. Moreover, consistency would demand that we add the co-producers for the TV series and specials as well, which are currently missing from the intro, and I don’t think we want to do that. What do we think? PRRfan (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:For the record, these MCU Phase articles should have consistency in their article structure, particularly in the lead, so any changes being proposed here should be discussed en mass. I will note that the main MCU films list currently only lists producers with articles in the lead, and that should follow suit in these articles to not give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to the other Marvel Studios executives. There is a minor issue I noticed from a quick glance in which it states Feige is a "co-producer" of all films, which is technically incorrect, because co-producer is a different title in filmmaking for a lower tier producer, not sharing a producer credit and some films only Feige produces in this phase, hence why it was worded how it was previously. Each Phase article has typically started with an introduction explaining what the phase is, which companies and people are involved, and what title starts and ends the phase (and for latter phases, which film and show start and end the phase), before explaining the order of the phase contents and others involved. I do think moving the saga bit to the first paragraph is an improvement, but not directly informing the readers what starts and ends the phase may be less than ideal. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with you: the structure of the Phase articles, and their intros, should be consistent. And perhaps we agree that the current intro structure could be improved. So where do "en masse" discussions take place?

::About "co-producer”: I think that particular word makes the situation clearer for lay readers unfamiliar with movie-industry hierarchy; it also emphasizes their actions (“these people co-produced the film”) rather than their titles. But I also see the argument for using the field’s terms of art.

::Most immediately, I don’t think I understand what you’re saying about the question at hand: why should the intro for an article about a group of more than a dozen works, each of which is detailed in its own section, include all of the producers for each of the works? PRRfan (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::A more general location for such a revamp discussion would be at WT:MCU to weigh in other members of that task force that edits these articles, just so it is a more centralized discussion. Yes, some readers may be unfamiliar with filmmaking terms, but I think transparency and accuracy should prevail and it is best to avoid potential ambiguity or confusion. I don't think the lead should include every producer, just the notable ones. For instance, in the Phase Six article, it is noteworthy that the Russo brothers are producing the next two Avengers films with Feige. Ditto for Amy Pascal for the Spider-Man films and Shuler Donner, Reynolds, and Levy on Deadpool & Wolverine, because there are distinct deals and relations established for those particular IPs contrasting the rest of how Marvel Studios produces their films. I do agree with you that the Phase articles should have their leads less overloaded, and I do like some of your ideas, so I think there is some wiggle room to improve them collectively. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Cool; thanks. I'll start a discussion at WT:MCU presently.

::::In the meantime, I tip my cap to your knowledge of the various IP deals that produced the films. But to the lay reader—me, in this case—an intro that notes a subset of the works' producers without explaining why others were omitted looks inconsistent, like editors just got tired of listing them all. I could imagine a sentence like "Several noted producers worked on Phase 5 films, including..." but that still begs the question of where we draw the "notable" line. Or perhaps "Several IP deals were needed to produce the films," but I don't think that's particularly notable when we're talking about a group of a dozen-plus works. Anyway, thanks, and see you at the larger discussion. PRRfan (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not up to date with the recent changes here, but I would note that Phase One and Two are good articles and I have just updated the lead of Phase Three to match those. I think the other phases should be aligned to those three articles, with some adjustments to handle the TV side of things. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)