Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force#Short descriptions
{{talk header|wp=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Film|mcu=yes}}
{{WikiProject Television|mcu=yes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(45d)
| archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 4
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{mbox|text=Helpful links
[https://dam.gettyimages.com/thewaltdisneystudios/allaccess Disney's press site]}}
The Illuminerdi source reliability
hi all! i noticed the website The Illuminerdi [https://theilluminerdi.com/] was listed as unreliable by this wikiproject. can i ask what the rationale for this is as i couldn't find any discussion. does it extend to all content, including interviews, or is it because the site contains other unreliable content, listicles etc.? i'm entirely unfamiliar with it, but the site appears to be the source of an interview i wish to include in a film article not directly related to this project. many thanks!--Plifal (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:@Plifal: I just noticed your message and wanted to let you know that The Illuminerdi is listed as unreliable specifically because it includes rumors and unverifiable reports, but any interviews exclusive to the site may be used as they are the original source of said interviews. I hope this helps! — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 23:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::@Trailblazer101, many thanks, appreciate your work as always!--Plifal (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Phase 1-6 intro sections
Kudos to everyone who has worked on the Phase articles! I have a few proposals for their intro sections (for reference: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six). At the prompting of Trailblazer101 and Adamstom.97, I'm bringing our nascent discussion here. I'm going to list my various suggestions in one bunch; we can certainly split up the ensuing discussions if need be.
Ensure consistency
- Move "Phase X is part of the Y Saga" to the lead paragraph. At least some of the Phase articles define "MCU" in the lead graf ("The MCU is the shared universe in which all of the films and series are set") and only at the end of the intro add the phase's place in the MCU—that is, in the Infinity or Multiversa saga. I propose that the lead paragraph say, e.g., "The MCU is the shared universe in which all of the films and series are set; Phase Four, along with Five and Six, make up its "Multiverse Saga" storyline."
- Put "the films made $X billion" in the paragraph about the films. This fact appears in various places in the various intros.
- Standardize how the intros treat works that are not films or TV series. Some phases group them with the series graf; some through them into the final "kitchen sink" graf.
More efficiently convey information
- Strive to mention each work only once in the intro. The intro to Three, for example, mentions Avengers: Endgame four times; Spider-Man: Far From Home and Captain America: Civil War three times; and Spider-Man: Homecoming, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Avengers: Infinity War twice apiece. Surely we can be defter and less repetitious.
- Consider not listing producers in the intro. Perhaps "Kevin Feige produced all the films" is significant enough to belong in the intro, but I'm not convinced all the other producers need to be. In several of the Phase articles, the non-Feige producers named in the intro do not appear elsewhere in the article; if they're not important enough for downpage mention, they certainly don't belong in the lead section. And if they are mentioned downpage—and some Phase articles also mention them in the infobox—do they need to be in the intro as well? Trailblazer101 argues that some producers are so important to the Phase that they belong in the intro; I'd like to hear what others think.
- Consider not listing stars in the intro. While we're at it, do we need to list the stars and their roles in the intro? After all, they're all enumerated in the work's downpage section. And most of the roles appear in the works' names anyway. What's the argument for including such details in a Phase intro?
I have a few other ideas, but that's certainly enough to get us started. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:I'm happy to discuss adjusting how we approach the leads for each article, as long as we come to a consensus for a consistent approach. Part of the problem is that the current format was established for Phases One and Two, which are much simpler than the other phases. I don't have a problem with moving the storyline part into the first paragraph. The thing with the box office is I think it does make sense where it is for Phases One, Two, and Three because it is with general reception information, I moved it to the film paragraph for the other phases because it doesn't apply to television. I'm not sure what you mean by your third point, as all the leads are consistent already: films and series/specials get their own paragraphs and anything else is listed in the last paragraph after the reception info. I don't think we should restrict ourselves to only mentioning each film once if that means cramming a bunch of information into a list. Better to settle on what information we want to include and then work out how best to represent it. We have consistently mentioned the producers at the list of films so I think we would need wider consensus to stop mentioning them, plus all the producers are definitely listed in the body of the article. I don't agree with removing actors from the lead, for many readers they are going to be the most noteworthy people involved in the franchise. I think you may misunderstand what the lead is for if you are confused why we are mentioning details that are already covered by the rest of the article. The lead is a summary of the article and should mention details from most, if not all, sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. So we have (initial) consensus on 1: moving "Phase X is part of the Y Saga" to the lead paragraph. Yay!
::2: As you note, the film-box-office total appears in the kitchen-sink graf in One, Two, and Three; and in the film graf in Four and Five (and in Six?). I'd argue that consistency wants it to be in the film graf.
::3. One, Two, and Three put nonfilm, nonseries works in the kitchen-sink graf; Four puts the TV specials in the series graf and the Groot shorts in the kitchen-sink graf; Five keeps the Groots in the KS graf. Perhaps we want to make the "TV series" graf the "non-film" graf? Or if we are making the series graf the "series/specials" graf, then a topic sentence is needed to convey that.
::4. Totally agree: figure out what we want in the intro, then go from there.
::Stars: Your argument for keeping stars makes sense, if indeed readers come to the Phase articles primarily wanting to know "who's in them?"; I suppose we have no way to really know. Bonus topic: the "most appearances" stat is in the films graf in One, Two, and Three; and in the kitchen-sink graf in Four and Five. Seems like it ought to consistently be in the KS graf.
::Finally, producers and the lead: yes, of course, the intros include details from the articles, but, of course, they do not include all of the details, so we must pick and choose which ones are crucial to understanding the topic and which ones are not. The fact that, say, Nate Moore appears in the intro to Five, but not in its section about CA:BNW, except in an omnibus film-detail table, seems to suggest that he need not appear in the intro. And yes, let's see if we can get wider consensus for removing from the intro what still seem to me to be second-tier and arbitrarily chosen details about a Phase. PRRfan (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::2) Phases One, Two, and Three do not have a film paragraph and a "kitchen-sink" paragraph, they have film details spread across all three paragraphs since those articles are primarily about films. Phases Four, Five, and Six do have a dedicated film paragraph because they are also about TV series/specials. That could change if others feel we should take consistency across the phase articles even further.
:::3) Phases One, Two, and Three focus on the films with a mention of other media in the last paragraph. Phases Four, Five, and Six focus on the films and series/specials with a mention of other media in the last paragraph. I still do not see the problem you have with this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
