Talk:Captain America: Civil War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Preproduction yet?

Are we in preproduction for this yet? We've stated as such in the table at the main page, but we have not really heard much else about the film to confirm so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I may have found something here. In the audio at 39:55. May indicate that we can consider this to be in pre. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: He definitely confirms that Cap 3 is in prepro, even specifically saying "yes" to it being in "the scripting stages", I think was the phrasing used. Definitely indicative that the film is underway. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 02:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"The scripting stages" =/= pre-production. I can't tell by the audio if Feige is agreeing that it is in pre or that they are working on the script.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the news on the casting of RDJ, could we possibly be in pre-production? Maybe if we get an official announcement, that can be used? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation of Downey and Chadwick's involvement ?

Soo since Downey and Chadwick took the stage to announce Civil War, does this confirm that they'll both indeed have parts in the film? Here's a source, dunno tho.. 2601:C:780:234:BDE9:6D37:3CEC:B05B (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Downey is confirmed, as is Chadwick (that was revealed later in the Q&A). Info has been added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo

http://static.squarespace.com/static/53323bb4e4b0cebc6a28ffa2/t/544ff6d2e4b03c11b598810d/1414526675126/captainamerica3-civilwar-logo.jpg

Images are not allowed outside the main space. Will add once it is moved to the main space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Based On

Since we know it is based on the Civil War Comic storyline, should we put that in the Based On section of the infobox with Captain America?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. Much like Iron Man 3, which used Extremis concepts, but was not based on it, we should wait for official crediting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sebastian Stan

Here is an article from Deadline that confirms Stan will be returning. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Will add now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Filming locations

Can we use this as a source for these? In it, Mackie says the film will shoot in Puerto Rico, Berlin, and Atlanta starting April. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Passes WP:VIDEOREF (official Youtube channel of B96 Chicago). You can use {{cite av media}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TCA press tour

This might have some usefull stuff from Markus and McFeely. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

In this video, the Russo brothers confirm Scarlett Johansson will return as Black Widow. Richiekim (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Casting call source floating around

I know we can't use this source, but it does have some info just to keep an eye on, mainly the filming dates of April 4 - August 8. Just to have a rough idea of when the article can be moved to the main space. And that Bruhl is Zemo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Spider-Man will appear in Captain America Civil War. The article is open to subscribers only, but other sources are reporting on the WSJ article. Richiekim (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen this as well. I think it would be fine to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Move to mainspace checklist

Hi all. So it appears, based on the new source added by Richie, that filming is scheduled to start on April 1 (no joke!) maybe sooner. Just wanted to make a checklist of things that have to happen for the move to mainspace. Please feel free to add directly to this list, or comment below if you have any issues to what I have. For the most part, I think we've all been linking directly to the article (letting it take the redirect), so I don't think we'll have any issue with general links out there. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Move to the mainspace! This can happen in two ways: contact an admin to perform the move (which requires the deletion of Captain America: Civil War in the mainspace). User:HJ Mitchell has been helpful in the past to our MCU needs. OR place {{db-move|1=Draft:Captain America: Civil War|2=Filming has begun on the film, allowing it to enter the mainspace per [[WP:NFF]].}} at Captain America: Civil War. DO NOT CUT AND PASTE!
   1. If the moving admin does not do this, be sure to remove {{Draft article}} and unhid the categories.
2. Change the template at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Captain America: Civil War (2016) and Captain America: The First Avenger#Captain America: Civil War from {{further}} to {{main}}.
3. Replace the whole Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Sequel section with the content at User:Favre1fan93/sandbox#CapTWS sequel section. All ref tags used are already on the Cap:TWS page, so just delete what's there and past what's in my sandbox.
4. Upload the Cap Civil War logo (which you can grab from here) to File:Captain America: Civil War logo.
5. Fix redirects currently going to Cap TWS sequel section to the new mainspace article. (so far they are: Captain America 3, Captain America Civil War, Captain America: Civil War (2016), Captain America: Civil War (film), Captain America: The Serpent Society, Civil War (film).
6. Add the article link to all the nav boxes used in the article.
7. If Marvel provides us with a press releases indicating filming starting, adding any info from that to our respective pages (castings mainly)

Wow, good checklist. I think you have everything covered. But I can't imagine that pp is starting so early with the A:AoU press tour in full swing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I may copy this over to my sandbox so we have it for all our other drafts coming up and just replace the specific info as we need it. It doesn't surprise me that it would be an April 1 date for start of shooting. While all of our other sources just said April, I could have sworn one or two of them implied the earlier part of the month. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After seeing all, I consider it's okay to move it to mainspace. Besides, I noticed that many other languages have this article, such as Russian, French, and Portuguese. --Whaterss (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a thing with the MCU articles, they aren't moved until filming has begun, simply because that gives us a set frame of time to get the artcle ready. And just because the other versions of this project do things doesn't mean that we should--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it, I just gave some examples, not meant we should imitate them. Whaterss (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Also just a question. The redirect isn't protected is it? If it isn't then we could simply copy and paste the page over and just unhide the categories.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be a WP:CUTPASTE move, which are incorrect because they do not preserve the page history.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is also fully protected until April 20. So we should either have that removed, or lowered to semi. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So tomorrow is apparently the day filming starts. If its okay with everyone, can we not jump right at midnight to get this done? More than likely we will get a release from Marvel confirming (as they did with Ant-Man) and that way we will be absolutely sure it has started. The page is protected in the mainspace until April 20, so 12 hours (heck even a day) won't kill anyone. And when we do move, remember my checklist above! :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait to see if an announcement comes before making the move. If nothing comes, I would say go ahead with the move on the basis of our sources, but give it a bit of time first. No need to rush. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Adam.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, last year, Marvel announced that filming began on The Winter Soldier on their website. I'm sure the same will happen for Civil War. Richiekim (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! Glad we are all on the same page (as the usual). :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone found any news about filming starting? I have absolutely no problem continuing to wait, but I haven't found anything indicating one way or the other, even from potential unreliable sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Disney Casting Calls, filming is supposed to begin on April 4. There's also a new synopsis as well. Richiekim (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You already know this but just restating the obvious, Disney Casting Calls is not a reliable source and per WP:NFF we need verification that filming has begun, not when filming is supposed to begin.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well it's good to know to possibly be on the look out for the end of the week, rather than thinking we may have missed it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential second unit starting

It's not much, but something to keep are eyes peeled for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Has filming begun?

IGN says, "Civil War has just begun filming." However, this has not been confirmed by Marvel. Can this be used? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it has. IGN is most likely going off the Collider source for the April 1 start date. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

According to today's press release, confirming the Russo Bros. for Avengers 3, it says "[they] are currently preparing to shoot Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War." So not yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Filming starting in two weeks

In this interview Feige says that filming is starting in two weeks, so no specific date yet, but be on the look out. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks Adam. I haven't watched the full interview yet, but there seems to be some good tidbits to add (if no one has already). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Filming this week?

This USA Today article from yesterday (4/19) states that filming for Civil War begins this week. Richiekim (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We're definitely getting warmer to a start date. Feige said next week, but maybe some second unit shooting starts this week? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Scarlet Witch; Olsen confirms casting

According to Devin Faraci, it appears that Scarlet Witch will make an appearance in Civil War. Richiekim (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the reliability of Badass Digest. It seems they have close relationship with the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, but I don't see any journalistic or scholarly credentials.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Badass on their own has always fallen more towards the unreliable side of things. But I believe this was a direct interview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Feige doesn't confirm Scarlet Witch will be in Civil War (he only says "will feed into"), but we should expect a more concrete announcement/report at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Olsen has confirmed that she'll be filming Civil War in the next week or so. Here's the source @Favre1fan93. Npamusic (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Npamusic. CBM is not a reliable source to use. I've only found one other at the moment on Hypable, but that is still an iffy source. Now that we know it is real, we should wait for a better source to come around. We aren't in any rush, so it should come soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27

The Variety article about IMax 2D was giving April 27 as the start of shooting. Here we are. Any confirmation ? Hektor (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27 in America. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is April 27 in America. Still no confirmation anywhere. On-Location Vacations isn't saying anything, which is quite surprising if filming did indeed start today. Sock (tock talk) 14:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is of any help, Chris Evans just tweeted that he shaved his beard with the hashtag #Cap3Begins.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but he could be shaving it ready for tomorow or the day after, while it is evidence that it starts soon, it isn't evidence that it is starting today.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Filming has begun

According to this tweet from Louis D'Esposito of Marvel Studios, filming has begin.Richiekim (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't use unverified accounts as sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh. So close! Come on Marvel! Give us the press release! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, going to use Evans' tweet, which is in a CBR article, that does state filming starting the 27th. (That along with the personal presumptions that D'Espositos' tweet was actually from him, I'd say we are good to go). I'm going to start the process to get us to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"We start [Captain America: Civil War] in a couple weeks, and then that shoots until August or something like that. August or September." - Chris Evans, to Esquire. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: That article was released on the 27th, but the interview was conducted a few weeks ago, during the AoU press tour. Hence, then it was "a couple of weeks". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

Change Captain America's bio to superhuman and remove enhanced to the zenith of human physicality as he is a soldier that displays super human attributes.

Captain America 1945 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The terminology you are asking to change does not exist on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section has no preamble, just a bulleted list. Which leads the reader to read the list as a list of cast members. Except for one at the end. Who has been various excluded from the list first because he's not "starring" and now because he might not be "credited". I attempted to add the preamble that the list was for "starring" roles, but that too was reverted. Please fix the section so that the reader can understand what is being listed, and not have to rely on the edit summaries from the reversions to understand who warrants a bullet and who does not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The other MCU films have all been passed as Good Articles and no one has brought it up before. The section is fine, especially since though who are starring has been listed in the lead and the infobox --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The cast section needs no preamble. We do not detail Wikipedia modus operandi in the article itself. Per the Wikipedia manual of style we only include relevant actors, as not to indiscriminately include every bit player. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, this usually boils down to the billed actors. However, on occasion there are relevant actors that do not appear on the film's billing. Typically, these actors as deemed relevant by reliable third-party sources are separated with a style change to avoid confusion. In this case, billed actors are listed with bullets while others are included at the bottom. Since their is no billing for this film yet, users are making editorial decisions based on previous films in the same universe. While there is only one actor listed at the bottom now, more will be added as the article grows and names will probably be shifted around once the billing is released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good, so Good Articles, no one has brought it up before, modus operandi, etc., etc., so confusing the readers is OK here, rather than add clarity? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if you are confused, but it doesn't appear that readers are. It is reasonable that the unbulleted cast members at the bottom in prose, following the word "Additionally", are less relevant. For the sake of compromise, there could be other possible solutions to the two that you mentioned. Perhaps expanding the verbiage in the prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just note that this section will be ever changing for a few months as press releases are revealed as well as additional castings. This initial listing is based off of previous MCU film billings, and since Bruhl is a new actor/character to the universe, we are unsure of his billing. While he very well may be, we just don't know at this time. We are in no rush to make changes that aren't backed by reliable sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Casting update?

According to this article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, William Hurt and Don Cheadle are part of the cast. Richiekim (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So this has been had on various different MCU articles. As has been pointed out to me by TriiipleThreat, this is a WP:NEWSBLOG, so it is acceptable. However, the issue I still have with this, is not many other reliable third party sources are reporting on this, or linking back to the AJC source, so how can we judge how reliable this is in itself? What are other's thoughts? TriiipleThreat Adamstom.97 Rusted AutoParts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

William Hurt, Don Cheadle spotted filming.

Here's the source Any credibility to this? Any other sources? Npamusic (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC).

Right now it's someone claiming to have seen them. Same thing happened when Iron Man 3 and people spotted Cobie Smulders in North Carolina, where it was filming. Turned out not to be true. We'll wait until there's solid evidence. Rusted AutoParts 19:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Emily VanCamp

Here's a source. 2601:C:780:234:8090:AE7:739E:756D (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cast confirmed; Paul Rudd reprising his role as 'Ant-Man', Bettany as 'Vision'

Here's the source. 2601:C:780:234:8090:AE7:739E:756D (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been used. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank Grillo

Due to his role based on the comic book, and the fact he participates in one major plot point during the comic storyline, which may yet happen in the movie, should he not get higher billing in the cast list? Corabal (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Per this source from Marvel, he is a part of the additional cast.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Can i ask what is meant by relevant? Those three are the newcomers to the cast amongst many of the returning from previous projects. I feel the article needs a few more pictures than it does to spruce it up a bit. Rusted AutoParts 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A picture of them all at a panel like there are for some of the other films (i think)? I guess that would be more relevent than three random pictures of the new actors.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

By relevant, I mean somehow related to the film like set images, them promoting the film at a panel or press conference, or on the red carpet. See Captain America: The First Avenger or Captain America: The Winter Soldier as examples. Also we don't use images free or not as decoration to "spruce" it up. If you just want to see what the actors look like you can just go to their respective articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Damion Poitiers spotted on set.

Here's a source. No word on who he may be playing though. Npamusic (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you already know this but we can't use comicbookmovie.com as a source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I know, there isn't another source I could find that was reliable. Npamusic (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Then we can't add it. Clearly he is on the set, but then again, despite him doing the body work for Thanos, is Poitier's involvement notable anyway? Rusted AutoParts 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Besides the prose from the unreliable source, we have no idea what he is doing on the set; acting, standing-in, visiting. Still photographs can be misleading, and theres the small chance that they could be doctored. Like always if notable, a more reliable source will mention it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I already know this, clearly, @User:Rusted AutoParts, if there was a more reliable source then I would've presented it instead of CBM. No ned to cut in when Trip and i already established that it wasnt. Hopefully there is more to this than meets the eye, and the image doesn't look 'doctored', looks legit. He may jus be a stamd -in for T'challa, but we won't know until a more reliable source. Npamusic (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't bite my hand off simply for throwing my two cents in. Rusted AutoParts 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

General Thaddeus thunderbolt Ross / Rulk 81.155.210.215 (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What about him? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 19:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No source given for Ross being Rulk in the film (PS. Ebyabe, that is what he wanted added.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Collateral damage

As defined by Wiktionary, collateral damage is a euphemistic term that refers to "Damage to civilian property or civilian casualties that are the unintended result of military operations." And we have WP:EUPHEMISM which specifically prohibits the usage of that term, which is why I sought to have it replaced here. TriiipleThreat, any comment? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference, 'collateral damage' can be used as a euphemism but we are not using it as euphemism in this instance. We are not downplaying or masking anything because the source itself uses the term. We do not know what type damage of was done, except that it was result of The Avenger's actions. Explaining that would be unnecessarily wordy when there is an exact term that expresses this idea.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ruffallo as HULK confirmed?

Here's a source. Npamusic (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He also says that he hasn't been contacted by anyone official at production yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek response.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Page lock.

Can we please lock the page, e vandalism in the last hour has become too much. Thanks! Npamusic (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I already requested protection, now we just have to wait.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

William Hurt quotes

Here are some quotes from Hurt about playing Ross again. Since he doesn't have a paragraph since he isn't starring at the moment, hopefully we can find a way to include some of them because they are definitely insightful to Hurt's take appearing again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something in the casting section about him returning? You may have already done this, but could some of that fit in the Incredible Hulk article, like how he thought his version of Ross was just as cartoon as Hulk and Abomination?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think of that for the "THI" article, but that's a good idea. And yeah, casting section may be good. I also have another from IGN to maybe use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's not starring role, then we shouldn't give it too much weight. You could paraphrase his comments into a concise statement in the cast section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll give a stab at it tomorrow. As always, feel free to change what ever I come up with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye open for some reliable sources for Leslie Bibb

Given her recent Instagram post it would seem that she's going to be in Civil War, but that's hardly a reliable source. Maybe someone else will run across something more concrete. (someone tried adding her to the page without providing a source, but she probably shouldn't be added until we've got something a bit stronger than a single "#marvel" hashtag) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone should also keep in mind that the hashtag could just as easily mean that she is guest starring in an episode of Jessica Jones. I personally feel that would be a huge win for continuity. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as JJ is finished filming, and Civil War is filming it would make more sense for her to be in this film, what with her connects to Tony Stark and all. Npamusic (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen nothing that says it is finished filming. Where did you see that? - DinoSlider (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

JJ would make sense (and be and awesome continuity win as Dino said). Also, can guarantee it is still filming, as I've gone by the NYC set recently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd totally forgotten that JJ was still filming. All the more reason we should wait for a better source than this. (it popped across my radar on reddit, where someone said they'd tried adding it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure no one guessed Ant-Man. A good lesson for not jumping to conclusions. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Good job, but just to clarify its a viral marketing campaign for the film, not necessarily the film itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Great job DinoSlider! And yes, good reason never to jump to conclusions. I've added the info to the Ant-Man page. While nothings come out from any of the reviewers/trades, maybe for all we know she shot some "background" newscast footage for in the film too? Because to me, while a good marketing move, it seems a bit odd to have her be used if she doesn't have some appearance in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we really hold SlashFilm as a reliable source to confirm Bibb's return? Just general curiosity. Rusted AutoParts 23:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Marisa Tomei in Civil War as 'Aunt May'?

Expected is the key word here. Npamusic (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It says she may, not that she is. (no pun intended). So until now, just appearing in the Spidey film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

More cast information

Fiege just revealed some more information about Black Panther. Given the recent information about Ross and Spidey maybe we ought to rethink our current position and give everyone a bullet except confirmed cameos like Lee and unspecified roles like Freeman. Once the billing block is revealed, we can readjust the cast section as necessary and curtail any additional information about minor roles. Given Marvel's past, I suspect the billing block will be a lot longer than we think.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel like we should treat them the same as the guideline for including them. If the secondary sources deem them important enough to go into detail about them (interviews with actors and whatnot) then we should do the same, just so that we can cover what the sources are saying.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea Triiiple. I think we should give bullets to everyone except Holland, Freeman (as we don't know his role) and Lee. However, I think we should keep the infobox as is until an updated billing comes out. But I do agree that this film will probably be a hefty billing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Going back to this, considering we have no infomation for Baron Zemo, would it not be better if he were in the bottom paragraph, he looks kinda out of place as it is now.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Forbes article

This may be of some use. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93, what do you think? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really anything to note in the article. It's pretty much just a new view of the same argument that this is "Avengers 2.5" and not a Cap movie, which we noted in the filming section, with a bunch of refs already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Holland confirmed as Spider-Man

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no confirmation for Civil War though, which is why it has not been added yet.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears we have another case of WP:SYNTHESIS (A+B=C):

• A: We have sources that say Spider-Man will appear in CA:CW.
  • Fritz, Ben (February 9, 2015). "Marvel and Sony Reach Deal on Spider-Man Movie Production". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on February 7, 2015. Retrieved February 11, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • McNary, David (March 3, 2015). "Russo Brothers Sign First-Look Deal with Sony". Variety. Archived from the original on March 3, 2015. Retrieved March 3, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• B: We have a source that Spider-Man will be portrayed by Tom Holland.
  • "Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director". Marvel.com. June 23, 2015. Retrieved June 23, 2015. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• C: But we do not have a source that says Spider-Man will be portrayed by Tom Holland in CA:CW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure we do: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/06/23/marvels-new-spider-man-is-our-third-white-peter-parker-in-15-years/ "... Marvel and Sony Pictures have finally cast their all-new Peter Parker in their all-new Spider-Man movie. And the winner is Tom Holland. He will be playing Spider-Man first in a glorified cameo for Captain America: Civil War and then again in a stand-alone Spider-Man movie ..." DinoSlider (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Great!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I would of course note at this point that this has of course not been "officially" announced yet but Wikipedia does not rely on official sources, just reliable ones. This is more a note for the sake of anyone reading this and needing clarification in case there's a shock announcement it's really Doctor Strange he's making his debut in. It's unlikely, but I feel the point should be made here on the talk page (rather than in the article itself) on the 1% chance something has changed between December when the Sony leaks happened (and the Civil War confirmation was made) and February when the deal was finalized for the pre-solo movie appearance. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

then if he can't be added to the page because there is no source then all the information on SM on this and article should be removed right? The info about Sony and marvel and the Russo's meeting to pick Spiderman, a!l that. It's irrelevant then, right? Npamusic (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been no confirmation from Marvel or Sony that he will appear in this film. Even previously, HitFix announced that Aquaman would appear in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, but that was not considered reliable or even slightly credible until it was officially announced. What makes this any different? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, HitFix isn't exactly Forbes. Besides our guideline is reliable not official.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

here is a reliable source for his inclusion. Npamusic (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes article above is good enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ok please include I can't for some reason and remove the SuperHeroHype source. Npamusic (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, not too keen on the Forbes source as it does look like an opinion piece. I'd rather have the inclusion of the Hollywood Reporter source as it looks more concrete than that of the Forbes article. Npamusic (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement, "Our long national nightmare is over, as Marvel and Sony Pictures have finally cast their all-new Peter Parker in their all-new Spider-Man movie. And the winner is Tom Holland. He will be playing Spider-Man first in a glorified cameo for Captain America: Civil War and then again in a stand-alone Spider-Man movie that is due to be released on July 28th, 2017 and directed by Jon Watts (Clown, the Kevin Bacon thriller Cop Car)", is pretty definitive except for the "glorified" remark. The THR source on the hand is a bit more ambiguous: "With Holland in the lead, the franchise is now ready for rebooting for a new series of Sony films, the first of which will arrive in theaters July 28, 2017 -- but not before the character first appears in Marvel Studios' Captain America: Civil War." It says the "character" will appear not Holland.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, I think you're nitpicking with that last comment for why we shouldn't use THR as a source. Forbes has more opinion than news and Wikipedia is only for news. Spidey104 20:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe but its not the opinions that we are referencing. We need the best source possible to unambiguously verify that Tom Holland will play Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War. So far the Forbes article does this better than other source that has been brought up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deadline says "He will appear with Evans in Captain America: Civil War, which Joe and Anthony Russo are shooting in Atlanta."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

then Deadline has it. I can go with the source. Add it. :) Npamusic (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline work for me. Spidey104 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears THR has updated their article to make it less ambiguous. It now says "The actor will appear in both Sony's 2017 stand-alone film and Marvel Studios' 'Captain America: Civil War,' which will precede it."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

With all respect to my colleagues, neither Variety, THR or anyone else says the Spider-Man claim in confirmed. Go back and back through the articles, and there is no attribution for this claim anywhere. Even Variety says it based on no sourcing at all that Spidey "was expected" to be in the movie. Expected by whom? Significantly, neither Marvel nor Sony have confirmed any claim about Spider-Man in CA:CW, meaning that at this point it's a rumor. And tempting as it may be to say it here based on widely reported rumors, an encyclopedia has to have a higher standard than journalism — which is famously "the first draft of history" because of deadliens and of facts only gradually coming out. An encyclopedia is closer to the final draft of history. Forbes would be great if it attributed its claim. But Forbes is simply repeating a rumor.

Rumors, additionally, are WP:CRYSTAL. Marvel itself may not know how it plans to introduce Spider-Man. And the fact that Marvel/Sony press releases give an even dozen superheroes appearing in Captain America: Civil War but leave Spider-Man out of it — despite the clear audience/fan desire and attendant promotional boost — should be a red flag in that regard.

I think an encyclopedia needs to wait until a particularly high-profile claim like this is actually confirmed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The respect is mutual. THR, Deadline and Forbes all make clear definitive statements without regard to attribution. But I don't think its completely necessary when the tone is so unambiguous. But if there is doubt, and there seems to be based on your comments, I do not mind waiting for an "official" confirmation. We are as always in WP:NORUSH. Let's hear from others to gauge consensus before we act.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We have another confirmation from THR from today's interview with Kevin Feige that Spider-Man will be in Civil War: http://comicbook.com/2015/06/24/spider-man-confirmed-for-captain-america-civil-war/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.79.49 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, Feige didn't say anything about Holland, but THR doubling down is worth consideration.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

THR is doubling down, but I still think it's a case of them going A+B=C. We should wait until there is official confirmation. Spidey104 18:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't need official confirmation, we need reliable secondary sources which we have. When Marvel or Sony want to come out and say he is in Civil War then the sources can be switched out, but right now we do not have an official source so we go with the secondary reliable source.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat and Spidery104 that there's no deadline, and would add that we're not news. And there's at least one journalist who's writing with caution about this, at Newsday here: "Since the deal, which was announced on February 9, trade reports have indicated Spider-Man will make his Marvel Studios debut in next year's "Captain America: Civil War," but neither Marvel nor Sony have confirmed either this or reports that the new cinematic iteration of Spider-Man would be a high school student."

Ditto51 makes the valid point that reliable secondary sources are sufficient in lieu of official confirmation, but that doesn't apply to rumors. If THR, Variety, etc. were quoting the directors making this statement, for example, then we wouldn't need to wait for Marvel/Sony. But we don't have that — if you go back to the earliest mentions of the CA:CW Spider-Man possibility, you'll see that it's based on anonymous, unnamed sources. They can repeat the rumor over and over, but that doesn't make it less of a rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would point out that the Newsday report isn't really relevant here, because, as has already been said, we don't need official confirmation and never have needed it, not to mention that Feige indeed has stated that the character will be in high school. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If Feige confirmed high school, that's great and we can use that wherever. But it's pretty well-established that we don't report rumors just because a reliable source does. We didn't run rumors about ScarJo's pregnancy (either time it was reported — the first time, a couple of years ago, it being not true.) This is no different. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any official reliable source saying his appearance will only be cameo though? Charlr6 (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There was one that mentioned him only being in a cameo, but in the article it is just stated that he would appear. He isn't bulleted until/if he is confirmed to be starring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

While we're discussing this, could we please at least adjust the wording here to reflect that used in Spider-Man in film, which is (with cites): "Reports indicated that the MCU film Spider-Man would appear in as part of the deal would be Captain America: Civil War." Conversely, the article Captain America: Civil War is saying that Holland is definitely, unequivocally, absolutely cast in the film. I don't believe even Marvel knows at this point if that's a certainty. All that we definitely, unequivocally, absolutely know is that some reliable sources have claimed this based on anonymous sourcing — and not even semi-attributed anonymous sourcing, like "a studio executive who asked not to be named," but just some shadowy "insider." This is tabloid-level, it wouldn't fly in WikiProject:Biography, and I'd like to ask my colleagues to consider the other article's wording for A) consistency and B) letting readers know the honest facts. Otherwise, I think we're leading people to believe this is absolutely a done deal, and we don't know that. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing that gets me is that while some sources are being a bit cautious (e.g IGN), we have sources (e.g. THR, Deadline) that make unequivocal definitive statements without the usual gossipy catch phrases like "I hear" OR "a source close to the film." By making such definitive statements and not attributing the information to anything else, these journalists are taking full responsibility for their reporting. In cases like this, we should rely on the reliability of the publication. At the same time, I understand your concern for caution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And I've worked with you long enough to know how careful you are and how you always do things thoughtfully. I'd like to suggest a middle ground, and let me give some background reasoning first.

Variety actually did hedge its bet the first time it mentioned this [1], saying "It’s very likely that Spider-Man will make his first appearance in 'Captain America: Civil War' next year." The Hollywood Reporter likewise wrote it as speculation [2], saying, "As part of the revamp, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film. The companies are not revealing details, but that movie is likely to be 'Captain America: Civil War', as Spidey was a major player in the comics storyline." Deadline.com as well says it was speculating [3]:"There had been talk that Spidey would surface in the next installment of 'Captain America: Civil War'. Now, that can happen."

As far as I can see, having called up further stories from these outlets, they've simply changed their language without giving any evidence of further reporting. So it's still speculation. As I mentioned earlier, it's one thing if Variety or another RS reports that, say, Kevin Feige or the Russos confirmed it, even though Marvel/Sony hadn't yet. But this isn't that — it's only their speculation. IGN and Newsday are, as noted, reporting this cautiously.

I'm not advocating for complete removal of the mention, though that would be my preference. I'm suggesting a compromise: to use language that we already use in Spider-Man in film. It's factual, it lets the reader know there's been no official confirmation, and it's consistent, which helps avoid mixed messages. What do we think of this compromise suggestion that uses extant wording? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some middle ground, but as of now I am not advocating any position just gathering some thoughts before I do so. Hopefully, this discussion will help. Surely a source can change their stance between February and June, but is it necessary that the source share their rationale or evidence with its readership? I think we can all agree that it would be useful, but is it necessary for our purposes here? Are we to assume that when a reputable source like Deadline makes a definitive statement like "He will appear with Evans in Captain America: Civil War, which Joe and Anthony Russo are shooting in Atlanta," that they are speculating or are we to take it at face value?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR, but I believe we can use this Hollywood Report source, which states that "Holland will report immediately to the set of the currently shooting Captain America: Civil War". I believe that will suffice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In the above mentioned source, Feige states, "Spider-Man wasn't part of that announcement when we made it in October. So there's always room to shift. But since we shifted the release dates a couple of months ago when the Sony agreement was announced, that's the plan we're very much headed toward, with Civil War being the first part of that." Through this, I assumed that Feige confirmed that Spidey would appear in Civil War, as I perceived the film as being the first part of the Sony deal. Am I right or wrong? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I believed Feige meant the film release dates, so the plan they annonced in October was without Spider-man on the table, while the one they annonced later was with Spider-Man on the table. He may have just been reiterating that Civil War is the beginning of the Phase 3 line up and storylines and whatnot. However, it may also meant Spider-man being in Civil War but it isn't clear enough right now.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I take a day off from Wikipedia, and we get the ACA accepted, marriage quality approved, and Spider-Man sounding pretty much confirmed! What a day!

Given that THR spoke with Feige and reported a definitive, physical action involving a specific person — "Holland will report immediately to the set of the currently shooting Captain America: Civil War" — and given the highly RS, I'd agree with Favre1fan93 that this constitutes confirmation. The previous claims were anonymously sourced; while THR didn't quote Feige directly, the magazine clearly was speaking with him and wrote something highly specific that, if need be, can physically be checked. Speaking as a longtime journalist, I'm comfortable with saying that Marvel plans to debut the MCU Spider-Man in CA:CW.

And may I add that I love the way WikiProject:Comics editors can have such a civilized, respectful, quality discussion, as we've done many times. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm so happy and proud to be in a Wikipedia project with colleagues such as all of you. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think these articles get the best of some of the two better projects on the Wiki, Comics and Film. And we've had a number of us (Triiiple, RichieKim and myself) regularly formatting and creating these issues for a few years now, with other joining in the help and others helping here and there. I agree too that it is always nice to have productive, civil discussions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this recent interview with Feige on Collider is implying that Feige is "not willing" to give up info that Spider-Man will be in Civil War: http://collider.com/kevin-feige-on-ant-man-post-credits-scenes-spider-man-and-marvel-disneyland/

I still believe Spider-Man's first MCU appearance will be in Civil War because of this quote saying Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film from Marvel Studios: http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.79.49 (talk • contribs)

I guess we have a confirmation here from an interview with the writers of the MCU Spider-Man reboot that Spider-Man will be in Civil War. Look for the 6th or 7th paragraph in the article when it mentions that the writers saying they'll visit Marvel Studios to see footage of Peter Parker in Civil War: http://www.vulture.com/2015/07/all-about-chris-hemsworths-vacation-dick.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.138.19 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Spidey "not" in Civil War?

In this recent interview, Feige has stated, "Everyone takes for granted that he's in it, but I don't want people to have false expectations." What is that supposed to mean? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like its still not a done deal. Perhaps Tenebrae was right, the previous sources were speculating.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing a little synthesis here, and playing devil's advocate, why would you have the screen tests in Atlanta and have the candidates test with Evans and Downey, as well as have the Russos sit in if they weren't going to appear? And if it was just insane prep for Infinity War, why not have the screen tests in LA and just have the Russos fly there for the day or so to do? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are good questions, and synthesizing/analyzing in a different direction, we could speculate that the Russo want to see the actor and consider whether they want to work with him or do something interesting with the character. I'm sure they don't want to just shoehorn him in for a cameo that looks like pandering and doesn't contribute to the story.

I know I suggested earlier that The Hollywood Reporter reported a highly specific action (Holland appearing on the set). But on further consideration — and taking into account Feige's accurate statement that, "Everyone takes for granted that he's in it" — I think that no one knows at this point if he's going to be in CA:CW or not. I'm thinking the cautious course of action is perhaps not stateting definitively that Spider-Man is in it. Even Feige, who's aware of the trade reports, isn't stating that definitively.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that all Spidey related info be removed from this article, as Feige has strongly implied that the character may not appear in the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All Feige has said is that it isn't actually official yet, which is true, but as per usual we have other, reliable sources saying that it will happen, and it is up to us to decide whether we should use those sources or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

why not compromise? Saying something like Tom Holland, who has been cast as Spiderman in the upcoming spiderman solo film, has reportedly been cast in a cameo role for the film.

And then add on the sources saying he is and the source where Feige notes that it is not official. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Reportedly" is an expression of doubt and should be avoided. Just state what we know to be factual and omit anything that we are unsure about until it becomes clear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is doubt because of what Feige has stated, so should it really be avoided? We have sources stating that he is in the film (reason to believe that he is) and then we have Feige, the head of Marvel Studios, stating that it is not necessarily the thing (a reason to doubt). Either way, we need to find someway of showing that it is not a done deal yet.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, just state what we know to be factual and omit everything else. So we can say that Holland has been cast Spider-Man in the solo film and that Feige would not confirm his involvement in Civil War. The speculation about him being cast is not encyclopedic per WP:SPECULATION: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."--TriiipleThreat (talk)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure those "false expectations" he's referring to is focused on how much Spider-Man is in the film, not if he's in the film. He's saying that everyone takes it for granted that he's in it, not that everyone takes for granted the thought that he's in it. As far as I can ascertain, this is an instance of people reading a little too far in to a quote. As it stands, we have a tremendous amount of sources that say Spider-Man will appear in Civil War, and only one quote that could possibly be interpreted as saying that he may not be in it. That seems like a clear-cut case of WP:NOTTRUTH to me. Sock (tock talk) 15:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we do something similar to Diesel as Groot in GotG? At that page we do (in filming section): "Also in September, Vin Diesel stated that he was voicing Groot.[source] However, Marvel did not confirm Diesel's involvement in the film at the time.[sources x3]" Then in the post section: "In December 2013, Marvel confirmed that Diesel would voice Groot.[source]" So maybe something along these lines for Holland? We have in the pre section that it was speculated in this film, so I don't believe it would hurt to say something like "In June, Holland was cast as the character for the solo film. Marvel at the time did not confirm Holland's appearance in CW." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Perhaps, but you're reading something in the quote that isn't explicitly stated. Also the LA Times says its speculation. International Business Times calls it a rumor. Time and The Guardian say Holland will "likely" appear in Civil War. It seems sources are divided on this. Cherry picking sources that seem to confirm his involvement would not be WP:NPOV at this point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: That is exactly what I was saying in my last response.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You and Favre both make a lot of sense. That said, I know I'm reading something in the quote that isn't stated, but so is everyone else who's saying he implied that Spidey won't be in the movie. It can go both ways. However, I think Favre's/your suggestion make the most sense with making it similar to Diesel's listing. Sock (tock talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to edit the page, and then I remembered these comments from Feige a few days after the announcement, "Even though the details of Peter's function in "Civil War" remain vague, Feige says this version of Peter's story will still touch on the idea of him being torn between superhero ideologies. "Does he want to be like these other characters? Does he want nothing to do with these other characters? How does that impact his experience, being this grounded but super powerful hero? Those are all the things that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko played with in the first 10 years of his comics, and that now we can play with for the first time in a movie," he explains. How does this mesh with his comments in LA Times?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like Sock's interpretation might be right. Holland will appear in the film, in a cameo, where he will be seen as being split between Iron Man and Cap but that will be about it, as such in the LA Times quote he could just mean that people are taking for granted that he is going to play a big role in the film instead of a small cameo. But at this point it is best to go with what the sources say rather than inferring from the quotes.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this recent interview with Feige on Collider is implying that Feige is "not willing" to give up info that Spider-Man will be in Civil War: http://collider.com/kevin-feige-on-ant-man-post-credits-scenes-spider-man-and-marvel-disneyland/

In this Collider link, Feige has explicitly stated that Spidey will not appear in the film, and I think it's time we accept it. I just hope the Sony-Marvel deal isn't laid to waste. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

He's playing coy. He didn't "explicitly" state anything. Rusted AutoParts 15:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the direct quote is "I'm not even acknowledging that he has any screen time in any movie, except a standalone movie in July 2017." "[N]ot acknowledging" is not "I am denying". Sock (tock talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I still believe Spider-Man's first MCU appearance will be in Civil War because of this quote from the marvel.com article announcement saying Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film from Marvel Studios: http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.79.49 (talk • contribs)

Is not stated explicitly in that article, so your belief is original research. It will be announced eventually, and then it can be added with reliable sources. After all, we're not in a hurry. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 01:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an EW interview with Jon Watts that mentions Spidey's first appearance will be in Civil War. Richiekim (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Watts doesn't say that; EW does. He doesn't confirm that, he is just commenting on the fact that there is collaboration between the creative teams, not referring to Civil War in particular. So I believe we haven't really changed our status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Favre1fan93. Watts in his answer gives only in vague generalities and doesn't mention the Russos or CA:CW in his reply. --Tenebrae (talk)

I guess we have a confirmation here from an interview with the writers of the MCU Spider-Man reboot that Spider-Man will be in Civil War. Look for the 6th or 7th paragraph in the article when it mentions that the writers saying they'll visit Marvel Studios to see footage of Peter Parker in Civil War: http://www.vulture.com/2015/07/all-about-chris-hemsworths-vacation-dick.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.138.19 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Let us hope he is not misleading; it is sometimes common for crew members to spread rumours about things they are involved in, albeit at secondary level. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

The cast list needs updated 82.8.222.161 (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated with what? New cast members? Do you have any proof for that? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Berlin doubling as Romania?

Sources are here: source1 / source2 / source3 / source4. Npamusic (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All sources are unreliable and even if they were, they are speculating that it's Romnia, not stating that it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Npamusic (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

D23 panel

Appears the panel has just ended, and beyond the footage shown, only other interesting thing I got out of it from the live blog I was watching was Marvel's Agent M tweeting that there was 1 week left of shooting. I guess something to look out for in the articles that post the panel recaps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Evans' latest comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Holland part of the main cast now?

According to this tweet from Kyle Buchanan of New York Magazine/Vulture, Tom Holland is now part of the Civil War billing block. Richiekim (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we wait for a confirmation from Disney itself? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a potential, but I think we should see if a Marvel release gives us this, because I don't know where Buchanan could have gotten that info, unless it was given to press members. Maybe Tenebrae could help us confirm or not? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it is a reliable source, but here is an article with the entire press release reproduced. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Normally, Cosmic Book News is not reliable, but here I think that link could be used (if we needed), given they are directly posting the published press release (which I can't seem to find on PR Newswire or other PR sites). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on

I know typically the Based on section is predominantly for the source m,aterial, but since we're dealing with various characters from different stories, should we change it to "Based on characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby"? Moreover, now that Spider-Man is involved, should we include Steve Ditko as well? Rusted AutoParts 23:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as is until we see how the film handles the credits. They very well may use the wording you suggested, plus add the Ditko credit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ant-Man's abilities

@PraetorianFury: You added a source that says "The Ant-Man suit allows the wearer to shrink in size but increase in strength". So why are you continuing to re-revert? BTW, it appears that you have exceeded WP:3RR. Also pinging @Richiekim:.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Yes, it increases his strength in proportion to his size. And if you watch the video from the actual movie, as I explained, it says he has the punch of a 200 pound man. The movie is THE definitive source on this, and it says exactly what I've been saying. His strength is that of a normal person. I am baffled why you would be so stubborn about this when multiple sources including a primary source have confirmed this. Would you like to try to support your position in an RFC? Let me know and I'll write it up. Otherwise, please remove the fallacious info you've been insisting on. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't say anything about being in proportion and you're assuming Lang normally has the strength of a 200 pound man. We can only go on what is exactly stated in the source without any assumptions, synthesis or other original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, the secondary source is poorly worded, several are, as we have seen. If you don't think the 200 pound comment was referring to Rudd, you are clearly being uncooperative and this discussion is pointless. Fortunately RFCs are designed specifically to deal with aggressive editors such as those you've collected. I will write one up shortly. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Marvel URL Triiiple linked above has two clips in it. The top one supports the quotable material of "The Ant-Man suit allows the wearer to shrink in size but increase in strength" around the 6 seconds marks, while the second also supports it, because it is talking about the force of a 200 lb man, not their strength. So yes, when shrunk, the user increases in strength. And as I mentioned below in your RfC Praetorian, you jumped way too quickly to an RfC without exhausting all discussion matters here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This comprehension of both English and Wikipedia policy is so bad that you must be trolling. I'm not going to argue with someone saying "his fists have the weight of a 200 pound man". She is clearly saying that he is punching with the strength of a 200 pound man. Paul Rudd is tall and muscular. He probably weighs at least 180, rounded up is 200 pounds. This argument is a joke and you should be ashamed for making this minor, trivially verifiable fact so difficult to correct. If you think your transparent WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics will intimidate me, you are mistaken. Eventually users not included in your off-site cabal will become involved in the discussion and we can set things straight. PraetorianFury (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War has completed filming as of 6.5 hours ago.

It was just revealed by one of Marvel Studios' executive producers, Louis D'Esposito on Twitter that Civil War has completed filming today as of 6.5 hours ago. Here's the link for proof so you can add it into the filming section on the Civil War page: https://mobile.twitter.com/louisde2/status/634961164305235968 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:9060:D700:B8BC:7EF1:C50A:4133 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Though it is not his verified page, the info has been added. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Added from a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Has there been any verification that filming took place in Puerto Rico.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that I've seen, but then again, that doesn't mean they didn't do second unit stuff there. Or in Iceland for that matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ruffalo confirmed to return as Hulk?

Tricky is one is, but here is a source. What would Ruffalo be doing in Berlin with Daniel Brühl? Npamusic (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the source says they went to dinner and a nightclub, but its something to keep an eye on incase he is spotted on set. Also the filming section hasn't been update in awhile. Have they filmed anywhere else besides Georgia so far?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but based on that article, shooting has moved from Georgia to Germany. Let's wait and see though, as you've said. There isn't anything other than that article that states they're shooting in Berlin (at the moment). Npamusic (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree something to watch and also agree with both of you that filming section hasn't been updated recently, but that's because there haven't been any article updates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I updated the Filming section to indicate shooting has begun in Berlin.Richiekim (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats not Mark Ruffalo --193.28.249.15 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Kudos

Don't remember if I've said this before about this article — might have been about Ant-Man — but the work the WikiProject Comics editors do on Marvel movies is just phenomenal. The fact alone that the editors here meticulously archive to prevent link rot, and are scrupulous about good citing and about seriously debating whether something is a rumor or a fact — I'll say again how proud I am to be a member of this project and to work with editors I firmly believe are among the best of Wikipedia. How many film articles look like this, and read so well and informatively, at this stage of production? And I've barely touched the article except for polishing some cite formatting, so my compliments all go out to everybody else here. Dudes! Yer great! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil War factions

According to this video the two factions have been revealed, with Iron Man, War Machine, Black Widow, Black Panther and Vision on one side and Captain America, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Falcon, Agent 13 and Bucky on the other. I was wondering if we could incorporate this info in the article, perhaps in the cast section. Richiekim (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The video isn't reliable but it can noted in the cast section when we get something more reliable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This article seems more appropriate, I'll add it to the article if their aren't any objections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Still seems overly fannish to me. But it looks like Variety considers it mainstream news, so IMHO FWIW, I'd say go for it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Is there a way we can limit the word "who" while still maintaining brevity? It is repeating in the some of the character descriptions. Also thanks for cleaning up all those references!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we can describe each character as being an ally of Captain America or Iron Man. BTW, I think Cap's team (despite having 6 members) may not stand a chance against Team Stark (5 members) due to the presence of Rhodey, Vision and Stark, all of whom have superpowers. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea: "..., an ally of _____________." Shorter and says the same thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 and Tenebrae: Keep in mind we still want to label the Avengers and we don't want repetitive clauses with multiple "ands".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it! "allied with..." Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering (as was brought up with AoU) wouldn't this info be better covered with the plot section, where we can just have a sentence at the appropriate spot that says "A, B, C, D aligned themselves with Cap, while X, Y, Z, aligned with Stark"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It will eventually be covered in the plot but might overwhelm the premise.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not now of course, but yes in the plot. Because I remember we were trying to update I believe Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch's summaries at AoU about being with Ultron, then Avengers, and we decided just to leave that to the plot. I believe this is a similar instance where maybe this info should stay within the plot (once we have one). Especially if it comes out that any member is waffling between the two sides, we don't want to add "allied with Cap initially, then with Stark" etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't really see a problem right now but yes if we get more information that requires the information to be expanded then it might be better to just limit it to the plot section. The point is we want these discriptions to be brief and not retell the plot or entire character arc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Something we'll have to definitely keep an eye on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil War trailer leak

According to this source, both stills and footage from the D23 trailer have leaked online, even though the trailer was intended to be exclusive to the D23 event. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't really add anything about that, even if reliable. Leaked content isn't notable in itself (though IPs love to think otherwise). But oh man, I hope Marvel gives us at least something soon. Those images / gifs look great. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you remember Suicide Squad's trailer leak, and Warner Bros' response to that? Both incidents are mentioned in the film's article. IMO, if WB really wanted to keep the trailer exclusive to the Comic Con event, they would have illegalised usage of camera devices there. Most schools and colleges here in my country (India) do the same. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The impact and response of the leak may be worth discussing but not the content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The use of recording devices is prohibited at both events. DinoSlider (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hulk and Civil War

This is the original source of Ruffalo stating that Hulk was removed from the script. How do we use it though? It is not in English. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We're allowed to use non-English sources. However, Google Translate is translating the page for me, and it's not very cohesive English. So I'd suggest either another translation method to see what was actually said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done I have used Superhero Hype, as Comicbook.com describes it as a "cleaned up version" of the translation of Ruffalo's Italian quote. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)