This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I understand the above sentiment of separating video games from the films, but it logically can't be discribed as outside media since video games are a form of media. It more appropriately belongs with other media or excluded all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The outside media means media outside the MCU, rather than stuff outside of media. That is how we have been using the term at the main MCU page to refer to things that are just inspired by the MCU like the Lego game or that Coke ad. Perhaps you can think of a better heading for us to use? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If it is truly outside, does it belong here? Perhaps "Related topics", but that might be too general and encourage even more creep.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really mind whether we keep it here or not myself. I think the reason for including it was so readers of these related articles can easily navigate to the actual MCU stuff. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this for MCU-only articles, and just adding some see also links to these pages instead of the template. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If they are to be listed, it should be reorganized or relabeled. Outside media doesn't work because it was listed with a live attraction which is truly a non-media. Also the fewer groups, the cleaner the template. It's not so choppy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, but if the video games are going to be listed here, then it must be in an outside or related section, other wise we are giving undue weight to media that isn't actually part of the universe, and therefore giving readers the idea that they are part of the MCU, or significant to the MCU in someway. And if we aren't including the video games because they aren't part of the MCU, then we shouldn't be including the theme park ride either. Also, the music isn't another part of the MCU in a different medium, it is behind-the-scenes information about the making of the universe. Putting the music in the other media section would be like having an article on the costume design of the universe and putting it under other media; yes, it is technically another medium, but it isn't a part of the MCU, it is about the MCU. That is why I proposed a production section above, for all the behind the scenes information that is separate from the actual projects set in the universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe they should all go then. Also music section lists a bunch of soundtrack articles, which is a different medium from films and television. Costume design isn't a medium but albums are. Now if Marvel released a book about the costumes like they released albums of the music, then it would a medium.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't have a problem with the way it was listed previously, unless "Outside media" needed another change. I don't think we should group the One-Shots and music as subheadings to "Other media". If we did, then the TV series should go too, because they are technically "other media" to the original feature films. But because those two have their own "top" article (Marvel One-Shots and Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe) plus sub articles, I think the previous formatting was best for them. And since the comics and WHIH are the only items for each, they fit nicely under "Other media". I'm indifferent to the inclusion or exclusion of the GotG attraction and the video games, only I know users will definitely keep trying to readd them if we decide to remove them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Costumes are definitely a medium, but that's not the point. We should be listing all the things set in the MCU, and I think Favre is right in that we should use the "top" articles as sub headings for films, TV, and short films, with the other under an other media heading. Then there is the music, which is obviously not a new project set in the shared universe, it is behind-the-scenes/production information that applies to all of the universe, so it should get its own section that will expand to a broader production section when needed. And then we can include other inspired-by things, such as the video games and attraction, or we don't include them at all. If we do include them, we can use the outside media heading, or something else if someone comes up with something better. However, I'm starting to think that we should remove that section due to how vague it is being a general related section. There are quite a few things, including the current animated series and even some of the actual comics, that take inspiration from the films and could be seen as related to the MCU in someway. Perhaps it is best to just remove the section and be prepared to revert any unwanted additions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Again soundtrack albums are not "behind-the-scenes/production information". Perhaps the information in the music article is, but the soundtrack albums are not. They are their own medium that is released, sold and reviewed separately. Anyway I grouped the video games under "Related articles" for now unless you all decide to remove it all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
What makes you think that the soundtracks to films and TV shows are completely separate from them, and are just another individual story set in the MCU? That doesn't make any sense to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Who said anything about a story? Soundtrack albums are distinct individually sold entities seperate from the films and series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just made "video games" a 'first class' header. Is there anything wrong with that? --Izno (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This is going way off track now. This template is about the MCU, not anything kind of MCU related. Only the projects that are set in the MCU should be listed as such. Then other related real world things can be listed below. The way you guys have managed to make it, during this discussion, just doesn't make sense. The soundtracks and video games are not set in the MCU, we shouldn't be tricking people into thinking they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This should be really simple. Either they're a apart of the franchise or they're not. If they're not then they don't belong in this template at all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The video games and that attraction aren't part of the franchise, they're just based on it, so they can go. And maybe the soundtracks shouldn't be here either, as there is enough of them to have their own template. The music article would still go here though, under a production header at the bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
No-body in any discussion has shown why they shouldn't be included simply because they aren't quote "in the universe", and I will steadfastly disagree to removing them. There are literally hundreds of templates that include the video games, whether canon or not, in their templates. Speaking of which, we're not here to document what's canon, we're here to provide navigation for the users--and I would bet that the vast majority of users would like to know a video game exists of their particular film of interest. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, usually canon isn't relevant for Wikipedia. But in this day and age of big, multi-media shared universes it is important to differentiate between what is part of the franchise (and is set in the continuity and therefore goes out of its way to conform to it) and what isn't part of the franchise, but has been made to look like it for marketing reasons. Marvel's animated shows are not part of the MCU franchise, but they do copy things from the films to trick kids into thinking it is the same. The video games aren't part of the franchise either, but their release ties in with the respective film's release, so the games copy some things from the film so players think it is an extension of the film when it isn't. Now, a navbox is meant to provide links between related articles, and it is feasible that a reader would be interested in these video game articles. But we have to make it clear that the games are included because they are related, not because they are actually MCU games. That's why a related section at the bottom seemed logical. Removing them all together as Triiiple said would also make sense, as long as we are internally consistent and remove all non-MCU articles. I don't know if that is necessary or not though. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Nav boxes aren't meant to show what is and isn't part of a franchise–it is meant to help readers navigate to relevant and appropriate articles about the given subject matter for the template, per everything stated at WP:NAV#Properties. The soundtracks, video games and live attraction all belong in the nav box because of that principle. As the template exists here is fine at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If we were supposed to just link to all the related pages that users might want to navigate to then we wouldn't use any groupings or headings, we would just leave everything for them to figure out. But we don't, we link to all the relevant pages, and we organise it in a way so that the readers can find certain articles and know why/how they are related. So we use a subheading to let people know which articles are about MCU films. We use another for MCU TV series. We use parenthesis to indicate the individual seasons of a TV series. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense, and would be really unhelpful for something that is supposed to aide navigation. This template is for MCU articles, plus any other article that we think a user may want to navigate to. Mixing those two different things together is literally the same as having just one section for films and TV series—yes, the reader would eventually figure out what all the articles are and how they fit together after visiting them all, but they shouldn't have to. We are supposed to be making it easier for them to find the pages that they are looking for.
First we have a whole lot of films, TV shows, and other projects that are set in the MCU that it makes sense readers may want to navigate between. To make that easy for them, we have some obvious headings that we can use to break them up (Films, TV shows, Other Media; and further, with Phase #, Network). Then we have some articles that aren't about MCU projects, but are related to the MCU and so it is feasible that users would again want to navigate to/between them. But we don't want a user who is trying to find every MCU article accidentally getting to these and getting confused or getting the wrong idea (remember, this is a source of knowledge, we want people to get the right idea), so we make that clear with an appropriate heading (Outside Media, Related articles, something else?) as well. And then we have some articles that aren't about things set in the MCU, but they are still about the franchise and don't belong in that related section at the bottom. They fall in the middle, and also have some obvious headings to break them up (Cast and characters, music).
I'm not trying to be in-universe focused or anything like that. I understand what Wikipedia finds trivial and irrelevant, and what it does not. But the basic function of these templates, which is for easy, visual navigation, just doesn't work if the links aren't grouped and ordered in logical ways, and the way that they currently are is not logical or the best for navigation. Remember, most of our readers do not have an ingrained understanding of all these articles, their functions, and their subjects like we do. For many people, finding this template at the bottom of an article will be their first discovery of a lot of these other articles. If we give them the wrong idea from the start, it's just going to cause problems down the line. The focus should be on helping our readers get where they most likely want to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I know that was a lot of text, but I don't think I am being unreasonable here. This is all I suggest we change the template to at this time:
Sorry for not responding before. I'm fine with that, though slightly altered. The title should be adjusted if we use "MCU-inspired media" at the bottom, the video games can be a sublist, and a then next to the GotG attraction so it formats correctly. So this:
I just changed the video games from a sublist because it was screwing up the alternating backgrounds, but that isn't a big deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Production
Triiiple, could we discuss the version of the template I suggested? I think the production article, cast, and music links all naturally fit together, and I don't think putting it under "related" is a viable option. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Funny, cause I was thinking the opposite. The music is produced separately from the film and cast fits better with the cast and characters. The Related group is the same as the one used at Template:Harry Potter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I just think we shouldn't stick the production article in a "related" section if we don't have to, as it implies that the link is to something only tangentially related that doesn't fit in with anything else. Instead of having it on its own under related, could we just have it on its own under production? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Why can't we just put it as a sublink under both IW and the sequel? Are we trying to avoid it being linked twice? To me, this would be the best formatting, per how other related articles are handled, despite it being linked twice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a rule against linking twice, but it feels like bad practice. If we can do that, then that would be fine, but otherwise I think we should give it its own production section since the only difference between that and what it is now is it would have a more specific heading. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell (and from experience) there is nothing stating a link can't be used twice. And in this case it isn't being added twice for the sake of it. It is related to both of these films, and once more Phase 3 films get added, the space between them will increase, so having them in both places will be helpful for readers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I had at first. As for it being "related" all it means is that it is not a film article but related to films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to boldly restore the edit as Triiiple had it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with having two links to the same article. I think it is better that we keep it separated since the production is for two films.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK does not apply to infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and hatnotes. It makes sense to repeat after both films since the article applies to both films and its easier than having the full title of the article written out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea why it would be harder to have a separate section for it. What does having the same link twice do except make people think that there would be two separate articles. It's misleading.★Trekker (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no reason to have it completely separated out as the production is directly related to these two films, nor is it misleading to think that there would be two separate articles. Readers will be expecting to be taken to an article on the production of the film, which happens to be for the two of them. Additionally, there will be two addition links between the two once AMWasp and Captain Marvel articles are created, so it is necessary to have the production link both places. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I still think it's misleading even if you don't think it is.★Trekker (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Compacting
An editor request that I explain supposed unexplained edits. I did explain my edit, so I cannot explain why the unexplained reversals occurred or support for the abuse of Twinkle. Short hand in the original edit summary was "generally shrink navbox; grpw to 6em, wlink TV, create TV series subgroup Other for single subgroups & digital series". Navboxes are for easily to scan, the bigger they are the less useful it is. Thus having groups with one entry such as Hulu with Runaways, Freeform with Cloak & Dagger and Unaired pilot with Most Wanted are just as good group as Other with appropriate tagging (Hulu). Digital series subgroup in Other should be in TV series as Hulu and Netflix shows are "digital series" being online like YouTube and ABC.com that WHIH Newsfront and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot were on. So, Other is not appropriate if Hulu and Netflix is under Television series. Just because they are short form TV online should not matter. Group width was arbitrary, I reduced it such that it allow a group to be on a single line for better visual scanning with out wrapping a group title. --Spshu (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Compacting may be necessary at some point, but at the moment it isn't, as the template is not being overbearing. First, the Digital series are not TV series, so it was not correct, regardless of the compacting, to move them to that heading. After that, there really isn't a need to group Runaways, C&D and MW together either at this time, especially when Freeform will have New Warriors added to its section in the near future. Regarding the other edits, the networks should not be wikilinked in this template, and as for the 8em to 6em, I did not see any noticeable difference in its formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: digital series: then the Hulu and Netflix are not TV series either, but you have them list as TV series. The digital series are just short form TV. Just stating that "Digital series are not TV series" doesn't make them so. Two in one group doesn't seem enough either, so stating that Freeform will have another show shouldn't create a new subgroup, but would then be () group differently. Yes, there are two other group that have 1 but there wasn't a clear merger partner for them.
It is fine with me if you don't want the channels wlinked. Changing em from 8 to 6 allowed the ABC group to fit on one line making it easier to scan. Spshu (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The Hulu and Netflix series are most certainly TV series; it is irrelevant which network those series are released on. And WHIH and Slingshot aren't TV series in the same sense as all the others currently linked in that section, and should not be included with them. This is also per the layout of the content at the Marvel Cinematic Universe article, as there is a clear distinction between both groups and their content that supports them not being the same or listing them together. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I asked to to indicate why "Digital series are not TV series" not for you to tell me in another way that you don't consider them TV series. As I pointed out the "digital series" and the Hulu & Netflix are both internet based, there is just a different length. Re: layout of the MCU article - that does not dictate the form of the Navbox needs to take as some subjects can be cover in the CMU article but be listed in the navbox as they don't have an article. Spshu (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how the series was released, what matters is what it is. The Netflix and Hulu shows are just normal TV shows that happen to be released online. The digital series are not TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Based on what definitions, pardon my ignorance but what is the difference?★Trekker (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
WHIH content is viral marketing pieces for the MCU; Slingshot is short 3-6 minute clips of content. Both are not TV series, which are generally 8-23 episodes, with content ranging from 21 mins to an hour. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Team Thor
This belongs with the other short films I think. Questionable continuity (not the first time a MCU short has had this) or not it was still produced with the same actors released as an extra feature on a DVD.★Trekker (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
That's not what the ordering is based on. If it is part of the MCU then it should go with the other short films, if it is just inspired by the MCU then it should go in that section. As far as I can tell, it is only inspired by it. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
What is "only inspired" supposed to even mean? It sure as hell has more connection to it than the ride you moved it next to.★Trekker (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it part of the MCU, or did they just try and make it look sort of like the MCU. If it's actually part of the MCU then that is noteworthy, because efforts need to be made to have it line up. If it is just a fun thing that they did for the DVD that has no bearing on anything else, then we shouldn't make a bigger deal of it than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, what is that supposed to mean?★Trekker (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Adam means, the films, TV series, and films released under the One-Shots, have all been confirmed to be taking place within the fictional MCU universe (and for better or worse "count" towards continuity), along with the digital series and comics. However, there has been "MCU-inspired" material, such as the tie-in video games that utilize MCU characters/concepts, but are not consider "official" continuity furthering material. I also believe "Team Thor" falls into this latter category, because the shorts are not cannon, just fun bits Waititi did to promote Ragnarok. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok but where is it stated what is part and what isn't? Has someone from Disney said "these aren't canon" or something?★Trekker (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
We generally err on the side of trying to prove a positive, rather than a negative.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Good thing I have at least some points and you guys have had none so far. Again point out somewhere where it would imply that it shouldn't be MUC more than something like the uncanon Agent Carter short. No ofource you don't want to put in effort to do that. You just gang up three against one per usual or ignore everything I say just like every time I try to have a conversation here.★Trekker (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
What points? Did I miss your source, if I did I apologize. This thread just read as bunch of assumptions. We have sources for Agent Carter.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Also for example with the tie-in video games, they have had press releases or the like that state they are "inspired by" the film on which they are based, or similar wording. And I do seem to recall there being some sourcing for Team Thor in this regards as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Then you should find that.★Trekker (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, calm down. No one is ganging up on you. If you think these are set in the MCU, then a get a source for that. Otherwise, what you have at the Team Thor page does not support putting the link with the One-Shots here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is a source about its place in the MCU: technically this isn't part of the official MCU canon, but the Team Thor shorts still made for amusing bonus content at 2016 San Diego Comic-Con and the Doctor Strange home media release, respectively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Venom (2018)
It is unknown why Venom cannot be part of the MCU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not made by Marvel Studios, so they don't consider it to be part of their universe. I do think there is a place in this template for a link to Sony's Marvel Universe though, when that page exists. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The page Sony's Marvel Universe does exist now, but it's not linked in the template. Honestly, that's a good thing - including it would have been more confusing than helpful. Airbornemihir (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Future TV series
I see that What If...? (TV series) is linked, but WandaVision, Loki, etc. are not. Is the distinction based on blue links vs. red links? Airbornemihir (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:EXISTING. Content should be added to navigation templates when articles exist. Thus, no red links or plain text, and hence why of the announced upcoming TV series, only What If? is there because that is the only one that is in the mainspace. The other series are being curated in the draftspace until they are ready to be moved to the mainspace (which is once filming has begun on the series). You can find those drafts here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Too large?
I'm wondering if this navbox is getting too large in it's current state. Here's an alternative which utilizes {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually instead of linking to Marvel Studios and Marvel Television, why dont you link to the film and television pages directly like you did with the music?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought of that, but then I remembered we changed the formatting because of the Phase Four TV series being with the films, and not the other Marvel TV, TV series. I'm happy if we go back to the headings being "Films" and "Television series" linked to the lists if we don't care about the Phase Four Disney+ series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, let me try something. I'll make Triiiple's changes, and link the TV series subheading in Phase Four to the list as well. @Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, and TriiipleThreat: thoughts on this version (it's the new Option 2)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I think we should stick with Option 1, even more so now that we are hiding all the content. Having a heading that says "Feature films" for a section that includes both films and TV series just doesn't make sense to me. That's why we changed it in the first place. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm for Option 1 as well. El Millo (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, I'm going to implement then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think they should be included at all, as they aren't actually set in the MCU but rather crossing over via the "Multiverse". However, if anyone disagrees, we could try something like the "related media" section on {{DC Extended Universe}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with InfiniteNexus, they aren't actually set in the MCU for the most part of what we know, so they shouldn't be listed. We list the Spider-Man in film and Sony's Spider-Man Universe articles in "Other", as Marvel Studios coordinated with Sony to have actors reprise roles from past Spidey films in NWH and for that Venom credits scene. To list each of the films in a part of a template dedicated to another franchise would be overkill, especially when there are already templates for the Raimi and Webb film series and Sony's universe. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Venom: Let There Be Carnage Post-Credits MCU Scene
Should Venom: Let There Be Carnage be added to this template in any capacity, since the post-credits scene technically takes place in the MCU?The Editor 155 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I know this was also asked in the discussion above, but I think the fact that the post-credits scene for Venom: Let There Be Carnage literally occurs in the MCU means it should be added to this template.The Editor 155 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Per my point in the above discussion, I don't think this should be included in this template. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the other films in Sony's Spider-Man Universe should not be added, but I think the fact that the post-credits scene for Venom: Let There Be Carnage takes place in the MCU means it should be included, as the scene literally brings the film into the MCU.The Editor 155 (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote at Talk:Venom: Let There Be Carnage § MCU (which has not received a lot of responses, so I would appreciate if more editors chimed in), I still don't think we should just jump to conclusions like this regardless of how apparent the situation might seem. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
A Wilson Fisk character page was created and it's already been properly linked to other outgoing and connected pages, but it has not yet been added to the navigation template. --TheOrbFromDown (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC) TheOrbFromDown (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably best to wait to see how the discussion on Talk:Kingpin (character) shakes out before modifying the template - there seems to be an edit war going on. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: That article has been redirected. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
SSU, Venom LTBC, and Venom linked in this navbox
I think based on the NWH post-credits scene, we really shouldn't be linking these three articles here. They are fully related to just NWH, not the MCU as a whole, at least still for the time being. I'm iffy too about Osborn and Peter 2 and 3, but they at least had more prominent roles in NWH that I can see an argument for their inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Unless Venom is a main starrer in an MCU film and not just a cameo in one film (NWH), he shouldn't be here, and Let There Be Carnage especially shouldn't only for just one scene. Let There Be Carnage's scene does connect to both FFH and NWH via the multiverse, but that doesn't warrant an inclusion for the film here when we already explain it in the NWH article, and because it only connected to the MCU Spidey films and no other ones as of yet. I think it would be best to include "(Sony's Spider-Man Universe) after the "Spider-Man in film link due to how much coverage the SSU-MCU connections have on our articles, but any specific films and characters should likely be left out for the time being, with characters from the SSU and other non-MCU franchises only being included here if it's a major starrer role, like Osborn, Peter-Two, and Peter-Three. Also pininging @(a)nnihilation97:. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't even think the SSU needs a link because there really hasn't been any "true" connections between the two yet, and one can get to that info through the Spider-Man in film article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Very true, I was hesitant about how we could include that. For now, we can leave it out. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Would help to know in what section we are talking about as the navbox has become pretty huge. In general I think that the Venom film can be added a "related" section as both the end-credits of that film and the end-credits of NWH have valid connections. Both non-MCU Spider-Man, the 5 villains and Venom can also be in a related section as they've appeared in the film. Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of it being huge. I would think we need to split off different topics of the subject already. I don’t feel like we need an over collapsible navbox. It’s getting harder to navigate this for reader I feel. Jhenderson777 17:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: SSU and Venom: LTBC were in "Marvel Studios -> Other", while the characters were in "Cast and characters -> Characters -> Related". @Jhenderson777: we can start that separate discussion on altering the navbox because of its size for sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for pinging me in this conversation, Trailblazer101. I really do believe that the character Venom and the film, Let There Be Carnage should be included in the related/other tabs. Mainly due to Let There Be Carnage being tied into the bigger picture in the Multiverse Saga. Yes it does primarily tie into Far From Home & No Way Home, but it also ties into Multiverse of Madness which ties into Loki which also ties into Ant-Man 3. It confirms it is part of the MCU multiverse and though for a short period is set in the MCU, so I do believe Let There Be Carnage is an important/necessary addition because it sorta does add to the Multiverse Saga. While for the Venom character,... I do feel like it is necessary to put Venom in the Related tab in the Characters. I do agree that for the characters to be in the Related tab that they should have a bigger role such as Osborn and the two Spider-Men. But with Venom a piece of it/it's potential offspring is stuck in the MCU, hinting at the possibilities in the future. Maybe we could make a similar page like J. Jonah Jameson (film character) and the draft page Draft:Wade Wilson (film character) and move the symbiote to its own page, due to it hinting that the symbiote in Spider-Man 3 shares a hive mind with Venom in the Sony's Spider-Man Universe. Due to multiple versions of it being in the Sam Raimi, the SSU and now the MCU. - (a)nnihilation97 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I agree @Favre1fan93:, what I said is a totally different subject altogether. My opinion of the relevant subject so far is I don’t really have an issue with the inclusion of the multiverse related subjects if they appeared in the MCU as “related”. It’s just the only issue of it is it’s quite crowded to allow such a thing so far. Jhenderson777 21:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that now the character of Venom must be included in the navbox, as he directly appears in No Way Home. I think the inclusion of Venom LTBC was as succinct as it could be, in parentheses next to Spider-Man in film, given it's related but not exactly encompassed by that article and term, yet if it were any other way around we should have to list all the previous five Spider-Man films as well. —El Millo (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Venom should absolutely be included in the Related characters section of the infobox. As he appeared in the mid-credits scene of No Way Home, he did appear in an MCU film. --Sricsi (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Jumping in here with my thoughts: are we saying that any crossovers from other franchises and continuities should only be included here (as a franchise/film link or a character link) if they have an actual role in the film and are not just a cameo appearance? I am happy to go with something like that if we are going to clearly define that expectation. Seems like we may need to make similar judgement calls for a certain movie coming up next year. Also, 'Marvel Studios > Other' sounds like it is for Marvel Studios films that do not fit under the Phase headings which is not the case here, can we go with 'Marvel Studios > Related' perhaps? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would mind. The fact that you can't even see the difference between those templates and this is troublesome. Also, as I've stated in my many reverts I had to do, what you are doing is creating a duplicate template and not fixing any WP:CONCISE or WP:BLOATED issues as both templates will appear on pages. If you want to fix this template, then propose one that still leaves us with 1 set of links. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Not only was the created template full of basically all incorrect/unnecessary links, when looking at what would actually be part of a navbox (which would be the whole "Netflix" row of the Marvel Television section here, plus the links to the Luke Cage soundtrack, Matt Murdock, and Claire Temple), it's clear that a separate navbox is not necessary. Echoing what Gonnym said, it is troublesome that you perhaps don't see the difference of those templates, in which they were created when individual episode articles were made and thus would have bloated this template with those links. Since none of the Netflix series have individual episode articles, and likely won't, there is no real need to duplicate the same navigation in another template. All articles serviced by those series are coded in a way that opening this template you are able to navigate quickly to all related articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Splitting this template
I felt this template was starting to get a bit unwieldy, and have mocked up some examples of splitting this content out by Phases. You can find the examples [[1]]. A few notes, I feel the Phase templates would need some sort of "related" section to maybe link the other phases, or at least the same ones in its saga. Secondly, I wasn't sure what to do with the cast (I felt the actor lists needed to be linked in the phase templates, but wasn't sure where), and same with Features. Let me know what everyone thinks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
If we were to do this, we could have a header or footer on each phase navbox for the cast lists and other overall article links, similar to what we already have on this template. That way we won't necessarily need to add every phase navbox to those lists. I don't think we necessarily need to add the other phases to each phase navbox because we already have the phase nav template on each phase article. If we are discussing a split to streamline the navbox then I would suggest also splitting off the character and feature stuff to a separate template. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
We have to keep some form of navigation between all the relevant articles so it isn't harder for users to get between articles. Though I didn't really have a sense of what should be done with the characters or features. For example, The Blip could clearly go in the Phase Three template, but the others I wasn't sure if they should be split out at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Also I've updated my example link to be a permalink to what I suggested. Others are free to play around in my sandbox with options if they want to try things out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm not a fan of this idea. The MCU is a very large topic, and I feel a split would do more harm than good in helping readers navigate across the many MCU-related articles. (Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe is more difficult to browse and less visible to readers.) A split would work if a topic was extremely disconnected (e.g. the articles on {{Spider-Man films}} are completely unrelated to {{Spider-Man in TV}}), but this isn't the case for the MCU (e.g. someone on WandaVision might look for Avengers: Age of Ultron, the main characters' first appearance). I'm also concerned that cutting off characters and features from the film and TV articles (unsurprisingly the most popular pages of the navbox) could possibly lead to them receiving fewer views. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I would only really be fine with us having separate templates for the phases as long as those did not detract from what we have to navigate with this template, ie including the phase templates in this navbox. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is such a broad topic that we have to be very delicate with this and how readers navigate between everything, and we have to know that we simply cannot cover everything in a single template, which doesn't necessarily have to mean splitting contents. For instance, the music could just be linked to with only the music article and then only the relevant song articles in the phase sections as I've seen. The characters and in-universe contents could be split into their own templates, but how necessary and how much they are viewed (and the potential of consequently reducing the amount of views) would have to be a factor. I feel only linking to the phases in saga sectors would not be as useful and risk more confusion than navigation aid, but I do think including the sagas is a good move. Phase templates, as I've said, would only really be useful if they were transcluded as part of this template, but even then, that would risk having an abundance of nav headers and may be a poor excuse of dispersing some info across multiple templates all under one collective topic. Another option would be having templates for The Infinity Saga and The Multiverse Saga, but it would be too early to have those, and probably too early to even make temps for Phase Five, let alone Six. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I will say that I personally think the current format with collapsible headings is my preferred option, it avoids the messiness of having multiple navboxes while still doing a good job of streamlining for usability. Also, remember that navboxes should be on every article that they link to and if you want to link between every MCU article you are going to have to stick to one big one or include all of the smaller ones on each page. As an alternative option, we could consider doing something similar to Template:Doctor Who episodes which includes links for the entire series but when you are on a season or episode article it only shows the ones from the same season. If we wanted something like that, we could show all of the links on the main MCU articles but on a Phase, film, or TV article we could just show the links for the same phase. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I would like a format inspired by that Doctor Who episodes template. That, to me, seems to be one of the better options in terms of navigation and relevance. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I still believe a navbox listing all MCU articles (minus episodes) is more beneficial to readers. The current arrangement with collapsible groups and the |selected= parameter is already sufficient in providing readers with the most relevant links. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Logan?
Should we be adding Logan to the template, in light of the recent casting announcement? Just wanted to check in with the more experienced users before I jumped in and did it. KingEuronIIIGreyjoy (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Jackman returning has so many weird implications, but it's best we wait. — SirDot (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That's what I thought. It's certainly weird with all the returning characters and multiverse stuff, kind of a headache for Wikipedians, but it's exciting nonetheless. KingEuronIIIGreyjoy (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Due to recent interviews from Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds, confirming that Deadpool 3 takes place before the events of Logan and that is the loophole of how Logan is still alive. Is that enough to add Logan to the template sorta proving that this Logan is the same exact Logan seen in all the previous X-Men films? Similair to Dafoe, Molina, Maguire and Garfield in No Way Home. - (a)nnihilation97 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
We should not include Wolverine until after the film's release, as it is not part of the MCU until it is depicted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done: That article has been redirected. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)