Wikipedia

Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 2

< Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe
Latest comment: 2 years ago by SirDot in topic SSU
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Major characters example source

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I still feel that the major character and supporting / minor character / villain split is a good idea. Like we just need to define criteria of somebody being a major player. For example this source has a good rundown on “29 major heroes” as a major character SO FAR. I am quite surprised on how small our list is. How did we determine who is a "central character" without source anyway? Jhenderson 777 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking if we determined by title character...that’s ok. But I think we can expand on that if we split. Jhenderson 777 22:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777: If I'm not mistaken, Facu-el Millo and a few other editors agreed the central characters should be titular characters in series and/or films, counting all the Guardians. I downgraded Mantis though, as she clearly doesn't fit that category for real-world or in-universe notability. IronManCap (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
That is fine. But if we split int a smaller central character article...I think we could go larger and that includes any GOTG member (yes Mantis too). If sources tell she is major (which they do). Jhenderson 777 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources that do include Mantis. Even if she is the lowest one half the time lol. Let’s face it...half the GOTG aren’t featured. It is them in a team anyway.

Jhenderson 777 22:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  • [1] Another low ranking on poor Mantis. I should note that I do agree if the list was based on who is an Avenger. Then it is original research. Because the sources do claim any superhero as an Avenger. Though with other descriptions I feel like we don’t have to be so in-universal on and base it on source. Jhenderson 777 22:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, a split allows for inclusion of more characters, like Cosmo who I just removed for minor. I'm not sure whether to organize by phases anymore though, or maybe by groups like Avengers, Guardians, Wakandans, Asgardians, as a lot are introduced in the first two phases, but less in Phase Three. Hopefully doesn't fail WP:UNIVERSE though. IronManCap (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, I think Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) clears up the colloquial 'Avengers' tag for all heroes. IronManCap (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The Avengers colloquial thing was what was supposed to be done. Side note: two more sources. Poor Mantis again. Probable larger source (because it includes Pietro)I decided to link too. These sources (I think) focuses on who is superhero should be more of an honest phrase. Anyway I think Mantis probably counts myself. Including the fridged Pietro is more the debatable one for me. Jhenderson 777 23:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Antagonists (continued)

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

@Facu-el Millo, Jhenderson777, TriiipleThreat, Trailblazer101, Adamstom.97, InfiniteNexus, Favre1fan93, and BD2412: Should we remove the antagonists section per WP:ANTAGONIST, and add characters back into other sections? I reverted Sir Magnus' attempts to do this a while ago, pointing to a brief discussion above that wasn't really conclusive. I now feel that was a mistake on my part. IronManCap (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Natg 19. IronManCap (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
And Gonnym. IronManCap (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Remove. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'll start on the WP:BOLD removal, any objections can be discussed here. IronManCap (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes and no. I will elaborate. Yes on the term “antagonist”. Though I feel like we need to maybe split off villains list. Because the concept of having a “villain” list on the MCU is already notable. If you don’t believe me. Check google news for MCU villains. So many lists of rank downs of villains already. Comics already do stuff like this. List of Spider-Man supporting characters and List of Spider-Man enemies for prose. Since this article is too long it would be a decent compromise already to split off like the drafts do. Also we can have reformed villains on both if split. Jhenderson 777 21:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
It's counter-productive to list anything as hero or villain. Under what do you list Loki and Nebula? Villain or heroes? What about Wanda? Just list things alphabetically and things are easy to find. --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. That’s why you use sources like prose. I told you there are primary article lists that define the criteria for us. Forget the in-universe question you are thinking of. There is an alternative if we actually use the sources outside of doing original research. Jhenderson 777 21:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
My burden of proof of sources is on me I guess. Here is a start:

That only scratches the surface of how many sources there is on the topic. It’s really broad online. Jhenderson 777 21:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

We can rename the antagonists list draft to be a comprehensive list of villains, with an FAQ or something using sources to justify inclusions. For now though, this is the best way of avoiding violating WP:ANTAGONIST. Also, you would have to scroll to about midway through the article to find Thanos otherwise, which isn't really WP:COMMONSENSE. IronManCap (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking Villains of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a decent spinoff name to this list. Hopefully nobody create this red link as a redirect though. It will ruin the draft move plan. Jhenderson 777 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
IronManCap, That is only because of the horrible decision you made to limit the ToC, which is exactly what it is used for - navigating. Jhenderson, you missed my point entirely. Both Loki and Nebula were villain in one or more movie and a hero in another. There are obviously going to be sources confirming this, as it's the plot of the movie. --Gonnym (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Do you really think having the TOC full of characters would be a good idea? It would be very long indeed for a franchise with a huge, sprawling amount of characters, not just a couple dozen. Have a look at List of Game of Thrones characters for instance, which in my opinion has an unwieldy TOC. The MCU one would be much longer than that. For an article already WP:TOOLONG, the presentation of a huge TOC would be, well, untenable, and possibly actually harder to navigate. This is quite appropriate per H:LIMITTOC. IronManCap (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I did not miss your point. You are using an in-universe argument. You weren’t getting my gist. If a source ranks them as a villain (which they were at one time). The criteria of the source is to add them on a villain page. Though Nebula just needs to be linked. As she is one of the "major characters". She should be defined as a villain if the source says so. But the villain page is not her main place to redirect to obviously. She is more of an hero though in the saga though according to this official wallposter. Jhenderson 777 23:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Same goes with Loki. The wallpaper put him in hero. Wow! That’s interesting. Obviously still an anti-hero though. Jhenderson 777 00:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
But that's why this separation may not be valid. If a source ranks them as villain it doesn't mean we have to list them as villains, because in a different film they aren't the villains but the heroes, so that classification is, at least partly, incorrect. Anyway, both Nebula and Loki are listed as main characters, so arguing based on these examples doesn't make sense. —El Millo (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Let’s face it. They already have a main article. If they were both villains and heroes to say the least. Then we just need to direct the readers to the link in both pages. The villains page idea is just a splitoff idea I had because it seems to pass Wp:GNG. It’s not rocket science guys. They can appear in both articles..if split off. Jhenderson 777 01:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Other character articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

@BD2412:I think the next priority should be Draft:Carol Danvers (Marvel Cinematic Universe), since she is meant to be the main MCU character going forward. IronManCap (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to me to decide which articles others should work on. Any editor is free to work on these in any order. I am currently working on them by number of appearances to date, not based on future plans, so my own next priorities are Groot, Nebula, and Mantis. BD2412 T 19:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I know, sorry if you got that impression. I was just making a suggestion for future priorities for anyone that sees this. I’ll probably work on the Danvers one for a while. IronManCap (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Eventually all of these will go to mainspace, so no harm done of the order varies. BD2412 T 23:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: I think the Danvers article is now ready for the mainspace. IronManCap (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. BD2412 T 20:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  Done. BD2412 T 21:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: An article for a supporting character, Draft:Shuri (Marvel Cinematic Universe), also now seems about ready for mainspace. You know, in case she's the new Black Panther suddenly. IronManCap (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is. It is not clear from the article whether the powers attributed to the comic book version of the character are also being attributed to the MCU character. I would still not consider this character to be enough of a major character to merit a standalone article. BD2412 T 21:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: Well there are articles for Erik Selvig, Trevor Slattery, MJ and Sif, all of which (except MJ) are less well sourced than the Shuri draft. The Sif article doesn't even have any reception info, and is still rated C-class. The 'concept and creation' is a section focusing on the comics counterpart, in line with other articles. I would say Shuri is more notable than Selvig, Slattery, MJ or Sif at least for an article. The awards and reception info certainly satisfies WP:GNG, WP:N etc. IronManCap (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
If you mean that there should be more MCU-specific detail in 'concept and creation', then I guess that's a fair point. IronManCap (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Selvig and Slattery are original MCU characters, so everything that's about the characters is specifically about this incarnation, there's no threshold for them to be independent from a comics version because there is no comics version. MJ is also very far from the comics incarnation, and it has a lot of information on the MCU version. Sif isn't a very full article, but the "Concept and creation" section is much more specific to the MCU and the "Characterization" section is more complete. If Sif were a draft, I'd probably say it needed more work, so I agree that Shuri needs more work. The "Concept and creation" is entirely about the comics character, and the "Characterization" section is two lines long. Remember there's WP:NORUSH to get this to mainspace, you can find more info and, if you can't, we just have to wait until she has more appearances. —El Millo (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the "MJ" MCU character is also a fully new character, and has zero to no relation to the comics version of "MJ" (Mary Jane Watson). Neutral on the Shuri article. Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe), a draft that was the subject of a lot of interest from many editors, seems mostly mainspace-ready imo, albeit not flawless. @BD2412 and Favre1fan93: opinions? IronManCap (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Also I will note too that Draft:Shuri (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is already striving for potential if not already. Both of them me and @IronManCap: worked hard on. Jhenderson 777 19:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Yup, Jhenderson777 is being modest, he got both these drafts really going. I'm willing to wait if necessary on Shuri, maybe to expand the 'analysis' section, but I think it meets the basic standards for an article. IronManCap (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
On a sidenote, it still amazes me that Sif (Marvel Cinematic Universe) got into mainspace. I'll see if I can dig out the reception section for Sif in due course. IronManCap (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with Sif. Her placement in mainspace was a bit odd. Jhenderson 777 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412, Facu-el Millo, and Jhenderson777: Is the Shuri draft now mainspace ready, or are we missing something? IronManCap (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Favre1fan93 and adamstom.97 for thoughts. IronManCap (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at the Shuri draft, and its well cited and made (34 references, also has a great selection of characterization, biography and concept). So for me, It "likely it would be moved to the mainspace." ChannelSpider (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Natg 19 too. IronManCap (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s ready. Though i am a little biased because I helped expand it. She is not the most major character that still don’t have mainspace yet (looking at you Pepper Potts). Though it’s all in due time we can improve on them too. Jhenderson 777 23:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Villains of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Latest comment: 3 years ago46 comments7 people in discussion

My apologies. I didn’t know of the previous consensus to NOT split off villains before it was improvised on. Although I think if we look past the in-universal argument that we can’t tell who the villains are (We have sources to explain that. No?) then I think it’s ready for mainspace as per WP:GNG and cold be improvisation of condensing this article. If not then I guess reception part should be dumped somewhere else (with strong disappointment). Jhenderson 777 18:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok I don’t find a discussion opposing the villain article portion. Just on sections. Two different topics I feel. Anyway we didn’t get an official consensus yet. I talked to IronManCap in his page and he likes the idea though not ready for it to be rushed yet. El Millo had a justified concern. I replied to the concern but I don’t know if I solved the question he had. Also ChannelSpider was a contributor of the draft so his thoughts on it being in mainspace are welcome. So I feel like officially we had one "oppose" (Gonnym) on the page coming to mainstream, one support (me) and one support eventually (IronManCap). Anyone is welcome to ping these editors. I am kind of lazy on doing that for now. I welcome my colleagues thoughts on this when proofchecking the draft. Jhenderson 777 19:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will attempt to ping now if you don’t mind. @Gonnym:,@IronManCap:, @Facu-el Millo: @Favre1fan93:, @TriiipleThreat:, @BD2412: and @ChannelSpider:. Jhenderson 777 19:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

These divisions are advised against in the guidelines, and the fact that many characters would be listed on many of these lists at once shows that this it's not a good split, because it will generate unnecessary and unwanted repetition. —El Millo (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
ok two opposes. Please direct to the guideline please? Keep in mind there is List of Doctor Who villains, List of Spider-Man enemies, List of Batman Family enemies, List of James Bond villains etc. Jhenderson 777
Also yes. Characters redirect there too. Whether we do that approach or not. Jhenderson 777 19:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:ANTAGONIST states: Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, antagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided, but perhaps I'm taking it out of context. However those other articles you cited handle things, in this case we have characters constantly changing from villains to allies, henche the "villain" label is less accurate. —El Millo (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes. It is out of context a little. I remember the guideline when it was used. Editors kept using main antagonist on the cast list. It is about a cast list of film articles mostly. Yes we should avoid that term. But that doesn’t mean villains of X article apply. Jhenderson 777 20:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Also still what about reception I wonder. I still feel it is a notable topic and belongs there. But in this case I think we removed valuable info (that should be there IMO). But if not somewhere else I suppose. Jhenderson 777 20:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The villains that have turned into allies are not even on redirecting on that article. They well stay here or on their mainspace. The roles you speak of are Loki (already has an article), Nebula (same) and John Walker. John would just stay here.Jhenderson 777 20:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

All three of those are in fact included in the draft. Also Sharon Carter is an ally turned villain. —El Millo (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Uh yes I just clarified that. They belong too. The sources say they are villains. So they are linked. Problem solved. That Sharon Carter idea is a bit vague start. It is fine and she could be redirected here and be linked there too. I don’t know why you are basing such in-universal problems on why an notable topic shouldn’t be in mainspace.Jhenderson 777 20:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
They shouldn't be included in two different lists as they now are. This is exactly why this is a bad idea. —El Millo (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There’s nothing wrong with two different lists. That’s completely normal of what is done on Wikipedia. The "bad idea" is just an idea you don’t like it seems. Jhenderson 777 20:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
That’s like saying the MCU characters should have stayed on the main article on the comic character instead of here. Jhenderson 777 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a split that will have many characters have two practically identical entries in two different lists. That's unnecessary repetition that wouldn't exist with a different split. For example, a split by main, supporting, and minor characters with clear established criteria. —El Millo (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. I don’t see the problem. Wikipedia lists do that constantly. They just do. Jhenderson 777 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
We even have the drafts already at Draft:List of central Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, Draft:List of supporting Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, and Draft:List of minor Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. The unnecessary repetition will surely be avoided here. —El Millo (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Those drafts are unnecessary and are irrelevant to this discussion.Jhenderson 777 21:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

How could they be irrelevant to the discussion if we're talking about different methods of splitting the article? They would be unnecessary if the villains draft were to be moved to mainspace, obviously, because these represent different ways of splitting the main article. One possible way is by "villains" and things like that, the other way is by main, supporting, etc. —El Millo (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The villains list article was created because it is a notable topic worthy to be split. Splitting by "major", "minor" or "supporting” is not and is just more unnecessary. Jhenderson 777 23:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe enemies" work better? ChannelSpider (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with names changing. Though it’s a bit vague. Like enemy of who? Jhenderson 777 20:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and, the draft has a nice expansion. It's looking good. ChannelSpider (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok two opposes and three supports. Rocky start! Jhenderson 777 20:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with basically everything Facu-el Millo said. A list of characters here should be of unique entries. If an entry is on two lists, where do we redirect to? Where do readers go to read on that character? That is exactly what WP:CONTENTFORK is. I also don't think that there is even a need to split the list by roles at all. There are so many characters that can be seen as bad or good in one film, only to appear somewhere else differently, and yes, I'm sure I'll be able to find sources for those (as that is basically the plot of those films). --Gonnym (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I already answered that question where it directs to. It is not a content fork when it is a notable topic by WP:GNG to be splitoff when the "character" article is too large anyway. Jhenderson 777 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777: It would be equally notability-satisfying to split by main, supporting and minor. Gonnym was referring specifically to having the same characters on two separate articles at the same time as being a WP:CONTENTFORK, and I think that is a fair point. We should probably just have characters on one article per what most sources or consensus refer to them as. Also, the villains info could quite easily be integrated into main, supporting and minor. IronManCap (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry edit conflict. Yes it would be content fork. I don’t disagree. That’s why links and redirects were invented. Just like the see also section. They should just be linked on the villains page through here. While this character page obviously does not need link the villains if there is a primary topic of villains. If you noticed the villains were being removed and you placed a subsection on that topic. Did you not? Also "major", "supporting" and "minor" are way more debatable than the latter option. Jhenderson 777 23:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this villain page still be a different kind of list like linking the villains, organizations and objects that are villains to their directed page. But that would be less helpful of an already notable topic. If you didn’t notice the page had more than "characters" but organizations (HYDRA) linked, species (Chitauri) and even features (the Destroyer and the Supreme Intelligence) too. The sources already pointed out that it wasn’t just single characters or "characters" that are villains.Jhenderson 777 23:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this kind of split. First of all, a lot of characters are not one-dimensional. Some switch back and forth and some may do something bad or good from time to time. Others may appear as villains only to be revealed later to be the good guy, or vice verse. So, it becomes a maintenance nightmare. Second, this is a lot of in-universe overload that belongs to Wikias, not Wikipedia. Even if it's being sourced, you're going to realize most of the sources used here are mostly low-tier not-always-reliable sites (like Comicbook.com, ScreenRant, CBR, Collider) who dedicate most of their articles to covering comicbook-related stuff, including fan theories, and opinions. Many of them also published many the crazy WandaVision theories as facts. If you find that such sites are the main sources in an article as opposed to reliable sources with high reputation like Deadline, THR, Variety etc, then there's a problem.— Starforce13 00:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it was worth a shot. Though I should note there was links to more reliable magazines type sources than the ones you mentioned. Even Hollywood reporter and Variety sort of stepped into the bandwagon that Paste magazine, men’s health, SB Nation and USA Today helped contribute to.Jhenderson 777 00:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh and Digital Spy too. Not sure what tier that belongs to.Jhenderson 777 00:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel that there are too many splits as of recently. If article length is a problem, I’d prefer we trim the in-universe information and keep the articles together.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I was already convinced of that. Though I lost my drive to help out this article for now despite my starting of it. Besides I think Facu-el Millo brewing some sort of idea in a sandbox. Jhenderson 777 14:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, me again. So now further response has been seen by other users, I feel obligated to give my two cents on the draft. The page is still appealing, but it seems it was a bit rushed. The page has been continuously on for the past week, and it's major expanding happened very recently. I might partially oppose this sudden move to mainspace. – ChannelSpider (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
That’s why it’s back in the draft and being discussed here. Whether it is expanded on or not, the issue is that it will cause an unnecessary dividing split. I don’t think anything to fix that. That and the debate who is a villain or not is fresh on editors minds.Jhenderson 777 20:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding what TriiipleThreat said above (If article length is a problem, I’d prefer we trim the in-universe information and keep the articles together I completely agree. Very minor characters can be restructed into a section of an article that is a list with entries being simple one liners. Taserface, for example, is a very minor character that has 4 lines of prose text. Even Morgan Stark does not need 2 lines of prose. A simple "Morgan Stark (portrayed by Lexi Rabe) is the four-year-old daughter of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts." is enough for her. --Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually Taserface is one of the more well done parts of the draft that wasn’t improved on this page yet. That’s because the article of Taserface did it better. Sometimes I wonder if you proofchecked the villains draft page out at all. Especially the poor left out reception section that nobody (but me) failed to mention. Jhenderson 777 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. In the draft there are 4 lines of plot for that character and 5 lines of development. That is excessively long for such a minor character. --Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The plot...sure. Development...not really. Anything like that is is an improvement over the uncited fancruft we have now on this page. Also “minor character” is pretty subjective. Though I am in agreement on that he is minor, I still feel we should be wary of original research behind deciphering who is major and minor if we can’t prove that claim with reliable sources and all. Jhenderson 777 10:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
We can prove with reliable sources though. There are sources such as these for supporting: [2][3][4][5][6] and these for minor: [7][8][9][10][11][12]. So I think we can bury the OR argument. IronManCap (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I will be thorough with the sources and see if they don’t hopefully contradict each other. Scratch WhatCulture and Ranker out of the equation though. They are not reliable sources. Meanwhile the villains list I am making into an external link list. Hopefully that might work out. Jhenderson 777 12:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
True, though Hollywood Reporter and Business Insider definitely are. There are more out there. IronManCap (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, Insider is reliable-ish according to WP:Perennial sources. IronManCap (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
More: [13][14][15][16][17]. Pretty much all sources currently call Darcy Lewis a minor character. IronManCap (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That’s all good that you can find sources if they are capable of helping the articles. Despite this being a different topic all together. Meanwhile back to the villains topic. What about the different prose where we don’t use it as a split list but one that links to stuff? The Iron Man section shows the example. I don’t have time to do the rest yet. Jhenderson 777 13:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor characters

Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

I noticed yesterday that someone decided to change the "minor characters" section to "Guest characters". Has this been agreed to?

Additionally, why is this only partially complete? Is someone going to complete this section with "Characters introduced in Phase 2" etc? Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The answer to the last question is yes. I just returned from being busy. Though are you in agreement with the change or having disapproval or something? The section really says minor characters. So technically it hasn’t been changed to that but I get what you are saying. Jhenderson 777 00:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I just found the long discussion here Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Huge_amounts_of_in-universe_information_/_fan_cruft_creeping_into_this_topic. It appears that there is definitely consensus for some reworking of this "Characters", but still does not seem clear how it should be reworked. I think the bullet format is better than the section format. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok good to know you like that version. Apologies it’s incomplete. I would think any other editor could step in and make it go by faster. Though it never happened. Already again I must retire a bit but I will return to try to finish. Jhenderson 777 02:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to get this fleshed out and have put the restructuring tag at the top. Gonnym, I said I was ignoring the WP:HATNOTE rule for presentation purposes, to make it more obvious to the reader what the comic counterpart is. As of yet, you still haven't provided an explanation of why you believe we should go by your format. IronManCap (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I did explain. It's clearly stated in HATNOTE. Gonnym (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Can you please explain why using WP:COMMONSENSE and ignoring the rule might not be better in this instance, owing to WP:OSE as these hatnotes are used throughout the article? IronManCap (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if HATNOTE really applies here, but I prefer the style of linking to the "Marvel Universe" character name inline, instead of having hatnotes under each bullet point. Having hatnotes under (or above) each bullet is distracting and unsightly, in my opinion. Hatnotes make sense in a section context, but not in bulleted lists. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If we are talking about the see also template links I would prefer the format to just link it on a paragraph myself. But that just me. Jhenderson 777 02:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
We can't use hatnotes like this. Hatnotes are for articles or sections, not for bullet points. Plus, WP:HATNOTE states: Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because [...] They may be seeking an article that uses a more specific, disambiguated title. This is not a more general destination than the comic book counterpart, but the opposite. We can easily link to the original characters in prose. @IronManCap:, you're trying to shift the burden of proof by asking for Gonnym to explain why ignoring the rules wouldn't be better here, and using the hatnotes likes this doesn't seem like WP:COMMONSENSE to many of us. I don't understand what you're referring to by linking to WP:OSE, but these hatnotes are used throughout the article in sections dedicated to one character or entity, not in bullet points; one is not the same as the other. —El Millo (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
As others and El Millo, explained, they don't belong where you've put them. The "in a nutshell" sums it up fast: Hatnotes provide links at the very top of an article or a section to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for bulleted points are not sections. When ignoring the guidelines you should have a valid exception. Here, I don't see one. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, my bad. It was a WP:BOLD edit, and obviously it didn't go down too well. IronManCap (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing characters

@Gonnym, Jhenderson777, Facu-el Millo, Natg 19, Paintspot, and ChannelSpider: The reformatting of the minor characters section into a bulleted list has now been completed. However, the WP:Readable prose size is still above 100kB and therefore still violates the WP:SIZERULE. Due to this, I think we should now discuss which minor characters to remove per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, retargeting their redirects to "in other media" sections on comics articles per Starforce13's suggestion on Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe. IronManCap (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely is the better route. – ChannelSpider (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't think WP:INDISCRIMINATE, per the overall rational presented, applies here. If we say that the Alice and Bob are very minor and not worth mentioning, so remove them from here, but then link to them at another article with the same exact information, then they actually are worth mentioning. That said, I very much like the job IronManCap did with the list and if the current page is indeed too long, there is no reason not to split this article between the prose characters and the list of characters. Gonnym (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Are you proposing we split the minor characters into a separate article? IronManCap (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
If the article needs to be split then that could be one possible split, yes. My general point was that if the information is going to be at some place on Wikipedia, it should be at an article such as this. The "all-in-one" comic articles which are an amalgamation of various comic book series, various different characters going by the same name and various versions of each character, including other-media, are just a mess and personally, that would be the last place I'd like to send our readers. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Placing a version of the character in article with other versions of the same character seems to make more logical sense to me than mixing a character with hundreds of different characters. And it saves us from the need to keep creating more MCU in-universe articles, which has been a big problem. — Starforce13 21:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with the progress/decision about this.... but I think the ultimate solution is going to reduce all the characters into 1-2 sentence summary and link to the character's article (for those with an article), or link to an MCU section on the character's comic counterpart article (for those without an MCU article). It will save us a lot of space in this article but also provide a place where we can list all the relevant characters, while also being able to provide all the important details about the character on their individual articles.— Starforce13 21:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The only problem that was raised with that option was non-minor MCU-original characters like Darcy Lewis, and the question of where to link for more info. —El Millo (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Just like how on a regular article some sections may point to another "main article" while others have complete info, we could do the same with Darcy Lewis - provide her info in this article. Minor MCU-original characters could be removed completely. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the only way we're going to avoid these extremely large articles and the need to keep creating more of these as more content and characters come along.— Starforce13 22:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Weren't you talking about making this article a one-or-two sentence summary for each character? —El Millo (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents, I support completely removing the Central, Supporting, and Minor distinctions and just running with a completely alphabetized list. Unlike a TV show, it's hard to really designate who should count under what category, since each film is so unique. For example, if Pepper Potts is a central character just because she fought in the Endgame battle, shouldn't Korg, M'Baku and Howard the Duck also qualify? Or it's hard to wrap my head around Betty Brant as a more prominent character than Korg, or even more than the other Betty. And while each of these can be argued on a case-by-case basis, at the end of the day, there is no right answer. It's all just subjective, so why even add that trouble. The bulleted minor section looks clean, and using that for the whole list would make scrolling a lot easier. —Nickh105 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I starting to agree with this. I don’t think there is an officially “major” character. The closest source is Washington Post but that will turn outdated within post-infinity Saga I am sure. Although it’s kind of obvious when they are minor though. Some characters probably are too minor to be on here too.Jhenderson 777 07:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I do think that "major" can be defined based on sources (or number of films the character is featured in). However, the distinction between "supporting" and "minor" is up to interpretation in many cases. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There are sources out there for distinguishing supporting and minor too. See above. This kind of categorization is common practice on character list articles. IronManCap (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I already saw the sources. They don’t agree with each other. So we should either do one source with all of the characters or none at all. Jhenderson 777 18:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, most of those sources are just opinion pieces, even the ones from Insider and Hollywood Reporter. All of their distinctions between characters are interpretation, not fact. The Insider list even called Bucky a supporting character. The only legitimate way I can think of to clearly define a central character is having a titular role, but even that gets shaky with the Avengers, Guardians, and now the Eternals. Nickh105 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Shang Chi characters from trailer

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Is it appropriate to list Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings film for Wong and Abomination? I know that there is speculation that they appeared in the latest trailer a few days ago (in the final scene), but this has not been confirmed by any official sources from Marvel. Natg 19 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We already have reliable sources that confirm it, there's no need for official sources from Marvel to confirm it. —El Millo (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
In addition to RS confirmation, the captions for the official Marvel trailer confirm Abomination's appearance. IronManCap (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Do we know the in-universe timeline for the film? If it takes place during the Blip (rather than after it), that would confirm that characters show in the film were not snapped. BD2412 T 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
We haven't had any official confirmation on that. HITC and Screen Rant both think it will take place after Endgame. IronManCap (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
My concerns are that all the sources are just unreliable speculation. They "think" that Wong and Abomination are in the film, but those are just based on brief glimpses from the trailer. There is no real confirmation that they are actually Abomination or Wong. "Wong" could be some other sorcerer. I guess we will find out when the movie is released. Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Abomination is confirmed explicitly by the trailer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Natg 19: Like I said, the trailer's captions explicitly confirm it is Abomination. The sources are not unreliable speculation as they are reliable sources confirming that Wong is also indeed in the film. Also, WP:VNT. IronManCap (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
As I recall, the captions for WandaVision "confirmed" that the Pietro Maximoff seen there was "Quicksilver from the X-Men films", which in fact it was not. I think we'd be safe saying for now that a character that appears to be Abomination is seen in the trailer. BD2412 T 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Abomination is "tagged" at the bottom of this Marvel.com article, so it's almost certain that it was him. I'm actually more skeptical on whether that was Wong or another sorceror. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Also this might be a stretch, but the Disney head of marketing liked several tweets mentioning the Abomination in the trailer ([18], [19], [20]). InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm with BD2412 here. Captions can be misleading like we saw with Evan Peters case. And a lot of "reliable sources" used that along with other rumors about Evan Peters to make very solid conclusions that Evan Peters is the real Quicksilver. "Reliable sources" become useless if they're basing their argument on the same piece of information (trailer) that we all have, and no independent sources. The strongest case we have for Abomination is the Marvel.com tag, although tags are not usually a solid confirmation but rather a way to drive traffic. So, appears to be is the safest option, especially for Wong.— Starforce13 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, seems like this is official confirmation, from the producer Kevin Feige himself : https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/exclusive-kevin-feige-confirms-that-is-abomination-fighting-wong-in-the-shang-chi-trailer/ Natg 19 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There we go. Perfect. Quote: That is Abomination fighting Wong.IronManCap (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why are villains placed under "supporting characters" They literally did not support. Supporting characters are those who help the main character(s). Villains opposes the main character(s). Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Seaweed Brain1993: They are supporting characters in terms of their roles in the MCU, as opposed to "main" or "minor" characters. Being a villain or hero in-universe has nothing to do with it. IronManCap (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Seaweed Brain1993:: it appears you misunderstand what the role of a supporting character is. Read the article on wikipedia for more information. "A supporting character is a character in a narrative that is not the focus of the primary storyline, but appears or is mentioned in the story enough to be more than just a minor character or a cameo appearance." Sleptlapps (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No sources?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Much of this article is unsourced, which is strange since the same information featured on other pages is sourced. For example, Jonathan Majors as Kang is not sourced, yet the very same information is sourced here. What's going on? Sleptlapps (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right, this article is missing sources in many areas, especially in the list of appearances at the end of each entry. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Deadpool and Korg React

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I don't think this appearance should be noted, similar to Team Thor (in which Thor, Bruce Banner, and Grandmaster appear) and The Good, the Bart, and the Loki (in which Loki, Odin, and Renslayer appear). What are other editors' thoughts on this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. This does not count as an MCU entry unless Marvel Studios were to say so. It's just a cross-promotion using their characters. It's not unusual to have product promotion deals involving characters from a film or series. Even Disney and their networks like Freeform tend to have lots of third-party commercials featuring actors reprising their character roles from various shows. That doesn't make it officially canon/connected. — Starforce13 17:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
We can also compare this to Super Bowl commercials, or commercials of any kind, and we don't mention those here. —El Millo (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this. If Superbowl ads aren't included in this article then neither should Deadpool and Korg react since it is promotional material. Sleptlapps (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@IronManCap: I have removed the information. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough then. IronManCap (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason for images for Florence Pugh, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Tim Roth?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The characters they play appear in literally one film only. If their images are added then we might as well add images for characters in the entire article for consistency. Also the use of large images just creates additional space for an article that is already unnecessarily long. They should be deleted so that their specific character info sections can be shortened. Sleptlapps (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Me when the When Tim Roth returns for Shang-Chi – ChannelSpider (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mobius and Sylvie in minor characters?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm just confused why Mobius and Sylvie are listed as minor characters (despite appearing in nearly every Loki episode) while someone like Zuri (who only shows up in one movie and is killed off) is labeled as a supporting character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:f2c0:e584:501:8d73:24a:af55:6d5a (talk) 20:04, 29 July, 2021 (UTC)

Zuri should be listed as minor too. —El Millo (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point, Sylvie and Mobius should be in Supporting. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Minor characters

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone, I think that Soren from Captain Marvel should be listed in minor characters switching place with Xu Xialing from Shang Chi, beacuse she has a more prominent role in the MCU. Furthermore, Leonard Samson from The Incredible Hulk and Cosmo from Guardians of the Galaxy should also be added in minor characers I mean, if Morris is listed, I think that those both characters deserve a place there too. Please let me know your thoughts. 189.139.63.247 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What If...? Paragraphs

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Maybe, we should add some short paragraphs for the characters' appearances in What If...?. Am I right or not? Iago PUC (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Cassandra "Cassie" Lang

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the article, you said Cassie was appearing in Quantumania. Is there confirmation of this yet? It just seems a bit early for any major news about her, especially before being Stature or Stinger.

--Eye ay en (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-split cleanup

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

@TriiipleThreat, please realize that this arbitrary split which you just performed without any consensus has significant ramifications. First of all, there are a gazillion character redirects that will need to be updated. Secondly, the rest of the characters on this list which do not have redirects are currently linked here in multiple articles via section links, so finding and updating all of them will be extremely tedious, unless you can find a bot that will perform this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m well aware and up for the task. Also it’s not completely without discussion.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you point to the discussion, I'm also quite surprised by it. Gonnym (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
There was no discussion, only failed proposals to spin off the "Antagonists" and "Minor characters". But it's too late to stop this anyway, as TriiipleThreat is already halfway through updating all the character redirects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
While I don’t mind bold ideas to change things. I still think it needed discussion as it was a pretty major change. For anyone to disagree on the new change, someone most definitely will have a lot of hard work on their hands to override it. Jhenderson 777 00:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Yiiiiiikes. You 100% (or, really, 3,000%) totally should've gotten consensus on this beforehand (not aware of there EVER having been a significant discussion of splitting it alphabetically). This is a HUMONGOUS major change made boldly out of nowehere on a very-viewed page. Given that there's disagreement, it should be reverted and then discussed, per WP:BRD. So, I'm reverting it promptly — then we can all actually DISCUSS this (which, again, should've happened beforehand). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Others section

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

In my opinion the characters introduced in the television series should be removed from the "Others" section and should be integrated into the main lineup of characters, taking in consideration their notability in the Marvel Studios productions, for example Edwin Jarvis could be in the minor characters list, considering he only appeared in one movie and so on.

187.208.173.166 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, Marvel Television shows aren't part of any MCU "phase". Listing Jarvis as part of Phase Three in minor characters would imply that Agent Carter isn't canon, while he's definitely not a supporting or major character in the films. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree in that part, but I think that these characters deserve to be in more important sections rather than in "Others". Maybe we could imply that the Marvel Television series are not actually canon or belong to another universes, until further updates. I bring this topic into the table considering the actual rumors of more Marvel Television characters coming into the Marvel Studios productions. 189.139.105.250 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Where exactly are you proposing for Jarvis to be moved to? The Central, Supporting, and Minor characters sections are solely dedicated for Marvel Studios productions, and Marvel Television characters have their own section at the bottom of the page (and their standalone articles). If the Kingpin/Daredevil/Quake rumors are true and they do appear in future projects, then we can just add all of them in "Others". InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, @189.139.105.250: — the "Others" section is already WITHIN "Minor characters" (i.e. it's a subsection of Minor characters, just like "Introduced in Phase Three"), so they're already listed in Minor characters! So it's totally fine. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I feel that we should make the Others tab it's own section, instead of filing it under minor characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E584:501:5198:29DC:5BA:F82B (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I insist that the "Others" section should be restructured, maybe removing the Phases in the minor characters and enlist the "others" characters in the main list, taking in consideration their respective relevance in the Marvel Studios productions. 189.139.13.21 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossbones

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I understand that Brock Rumlow's alias Crossbones is never spoken aloud in the films, but in the credits for Captain America: Civil War, he is officially credited as Brock Rumlow / Crossbones. I am unsure of the criteria for using character's aliases. Is this enough to put his supervillain name in the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider-Fan77 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Right now, I believe we aren't using that codename/alias because it was never spoken on-screen, but I am open to changing this (especially because of the credits thing). Any thoughts from other editors? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
A note explaining such and such should work. Jhenderson 777 19:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Eternals characters

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Just a note that until the newly-unhidden Eternals character sections/bullet-points have been adequately expanded and updated (preferably with sources), I don't think we should be updating their redirects here. Just compare Ikaris (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to what we have right now on this page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason Ikaris is under Central Characters? He wasn’t the lead of Eternals, and he’s very likely to end up a one-off based on the events of that film. Nickh105 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Quote from producer Nate Moore: Ikaris and Sersi are very much the central characters of the movie. We've made 25 plus movies now at Marvel, but this is the first movie that's really built around a romance as the central relationship. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
So they are central characters from the one movie. That is established. The question is is that enough for the entire cinematic universe? If they are one-shot and not a titular lead like Shang-Chi, I might rather drop them to supporting. The same question applies for the Watcher. Slippery slope I feel. Jhenderson 777 20:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laceyceruolo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Love interests as major characters

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I personally feel Peggy Carter has probably already proven herself as a "major character". Also the same will most likely be applied with Jane Foster when Thor: Love and Thunder comes out in the future. A similar comparison to Pepper Potts already being in that section. I welcome other thoughts of course. Jhenderson 777 21:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I support this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Alright. Carter is added. I won't try to rush Jane Foster just yet. I guess a similar saying can go for S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, Phil Coulson and Maria Hill too. Now that I think of it. Jhenderson 777 04:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
How about Yelena and Kate? They're essentially co-leads of Black Widow and Hawkeye and have futures in the MCU. Nickh105 (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If it was up to me personally. The only “central character” from "Post-Infinty Saga" that is officially established so far is Shang-Chi. Yelena is a co-star and guest star so far. Kate Bishop is co-star even though it felt like she was the star. Others introduced like the Watcher and Eternals race really need to appear in more various media to belong in central. I understand there maybe some kind of source for Ikaris and Sersei. Still seems pretty shady since I am not sure they will return even. Jhenderson 777 20:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777: Why do you say The only “central character” from "Post-Infinty Saga" that is officially established so far is Shang-Chi.? What do you think makes him different? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I base it on the merit that he is at least a titular character (Not from a title that is based on a a race or a comic book title.) and appears to be notable for an individual article. He also seems to be returning. But not official yet. Jhenderson 777 21:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this just brings us back to the point that there will never be an objective answer for what is a central, supporting, or minor character in a series like the MCU. Nickh105 (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

We had a source for the Infinity Saga one regarding “major”. But going past that is a bit less unclear.Jhenderson 777 14:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest. I had a late start originally with watching the Eternals. I think the Eternals will return and therefore could qualify. It’s just why is there only two Eternals as “central” though? That’s more my question now. Jhenderson 777 04:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
My thinking was that the Major characters section should include the major characters of each installment, and Sersi and Ikaris are the co-leads of Eternals. It just didn't seem right to me to put, say, Gilgamesh and Ajak there given their relative lack of screentime. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
So it’s official to that Sersi and Ikaris were the two main co-stars so far? Thena, Druid and Makkari etc. were not compared in that category? It’s kind of weird because Ikaris mostly turned antagonistic at the end and had an supposed offscreen death in his first film. Jhenderson 777 05:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This is per Nate Moore's comments, see source above at #Eternals characters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
That doesn’t answer if the other guys don’t count. I would at least think Thena, Druig and and Makkari could play major roles judging by the post-credit scene. Maybe more than Ikarus. But I guess that source is a start for two so far. Jhenderson 777 06:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

X Men

There any need for an article similar to this for the X-Men film series? With 13 films, there's a fair amount of characters (not as many as the MCU, obviously) and Wolverine and Professor X (the film versions) already have their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Magnus (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 February, 2021 (UTC)

What If...? voice actors

I kinda think we should put the voice actors for characters whose actors didn't reprise their roles in What If...? down below instead of right next to their physical actors. For example, I think this is how we should format Captain America:


Steven Grant "Steve" Rogers (portrayed by Chris Evans[54]) is a founding member of the Avengers and World War II-era U.S. Army soldier who, after being enhanced to the peak of human physiology by an experimental "super soldier" serum, became known as Captain America. During his service in the European Theatre of the war against Hydra, Rogers was frozen in suspended animation and woke up in the modern world, 70 years later, becoming a formative member and leader of the Avengers. At the end of Avengers: Endgame, he retires and passes his shield to Sam Wilson. He is implied to have died after Endgame in Spider-Man: Far From Home.

As of 2021, the character has appeared in eleven films: Captain America: The First Avenger, The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World (cameo), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ant-Man (post-credits cameo), Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming (cameo), Avengers: Infinity War, Captain Marvel (mid-credits cameo), and Avengers: Endgame; as well as the Disney+ series Loki (archival footage). An alternate version of the character appears in the Disney+ animated series What If...?, voiced by Josh Keaton[55]. This version of Rogers does not take the Super Soldier Serum and dons a suit of armor made by Howard Stark dubbed the "Hydra Stomper".[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:f2c0:e584:501:8d73:24a:af55:6d5a (talk) 20:43, 18 August, 2021 (UTC)

images

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Since there is so many images. Wouldn't it be better if we just use Template:Tall image and stop using the same wording on the description? Example prose: Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Cast. Just a thought. Jhenderson 777 06:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think this article needs to do something about these images. In my opinion, there are way too many, and some of them don't align well with the character sections. And also I'm not sure who "qualifies" for a thumbnail image. Everyone? Major characters? Right now it seems arbitrary that some actors/actresses have images and some don't. Even Taserface (Chris Sullivan) has an image for some reason. Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The Taserface image makes more sense because he is in character. But I agree we need to limit the images somehow. Jhenderson 777 00:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
For the tall image suggestion, it looks like someone merged those 6 images in the Guardians article together into a single .jpg to create a "tall image". We would need someone to do that for some of the characters in this article. Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
You’re right. Though I am sure we can use a multiple image format with an scrollbar or something like that. If not I guess we can stitch the images together in an edit possibly. Jhenderson 777 09:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Aunt May

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Spider-Man: No Way Home seemed to suggest that Aunt May was always single and that there never was an Uncle Ben in the MCU. Jaybling (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Uncle Ben was explicitly mentioned in What If...?, and we see his suitcase in Far From Home. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hulk in Hawkeye

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

So apparently, Hulk was in Hawkeye. (Yes, The Direct is unreliable, but I'm sure other outlets will pick this up soon.) However, as this is just a VFX Easter egg that is practically indiscernible, I don't think we should be counting this as an "appearance". Thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A small, maybe-green dot that's possibly the Hulk shouldn't count as an appearance in my opinion. —El Millo (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not "possibly" the Hulk, they have an actual quote from the VFX company saying It is indeed Hulk jumping from building to building and getting a blast from a Chitauri weapon. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I still think it shouldn't count as an appearance, even though it is technically one, when it is so minor. —El Millo (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree (with both of you); it is so minor that we should not add it to the article. Natg 19 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree, not an "appearance" by the Hulk. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
If the sources call it an appearance then we should "count" it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Central Character Additions

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So if we’re sticking with the whole Central / Supporting / Minor split, I think we can use the reasons used to include characters like Ikaris, Okoye, Shuri, Valkyrie, Wong, Pepper, Peggy, and Coulson in Central to add a few more additions. Specifically that Nate Moore quote about Sersi and Ikaris being the central characters of Eternals, and it being the first case of a romantic relationship at the center. I think the key word there is “romantic”, because there have been other relationships that took center stage. I came up with a few that I’d like to open up for discussion:

1) Kate Bishop - Honestly, is there any argument that she’s NOT a central character? All marketing material for Hawkeye put her on equal footing as Clint. The show started with her. Her family and her actions were the catalyst for the show’s plot. The series revolves around the mentor-mentee relationship between her and Clint. She’s the one to fight the main villain in the end. And the ending suggests she actually takes on the Hawkeye mantle, thus making her a title character. I think there’s a valid argument for her being even more of the main protagonist than Clint in the series. And unlike Ikaris, she’s sticking around.

2) Yelena Belova - Similar to Kate, Yelena was essentially a co-lead in Black Widow before having another major role in Hawkeye. The Black Widow film heavily revolved around the sister relationship between her and Natasha. Also like Kate, she has a future ahead of her.

3) Monica Rambeau - WandaVision is a non-traditionally structured show, and while Wanda and Vision are really the center of it, Monica is essentially the show’s only active protagonist for the majority of the runtime. It also serves as an origin story for her. And of course, she’s a title character in the upcoming The Marvels, so she’ll end up in Central within the year anyway.

4) Yondu Udonta - The marketing for Guardians 2 emphasized the titular team as Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Baby Groot, Rocket, Yondu, Nebula, and Mantis, and all of those other characters are included. He is even named a Guardian of the Galaxy in the film itself. His relationships with Quill and Rocket are also very central to the plot of the film. I think the only reason he’s not in Central right now is because he died, which the Ikaris example makes moot.

5) Hank Pym - The Ant-Man films revolve around the trio dynamic between Scott, Hope and Hank. In all respects, they’re the core. Hank just happens to not have powers, although he created the powers used by the other two and was the first to utilize them in-universe, actually originating the Ant-Man title. Even the Wikipedia article for the first Ant-Man film states, “Ant-Man is a 2015 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics characters of the same name: Scott Lang and Hank Pym.” If it’s based on him, I’d say that’s pretty central.Nickh105 (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

SSU

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Unpopular opinion: I don't think we should be detailing scenes from SSU films, such as Vulture in Morbius or JJJ in Venom 2. Those films are not technically canon to the MCU, and this article is titled Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (bolding my own). InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Good point (didn't realize this was a week old, sorry). We should detail that Vulture was teleported to the SSU, but just that. Or do stuff similarly to the MCU Wiki, where they put "Vulture is teleported to the SSU in Morbius" in the "Behind the Scenes" section of their article and a full history would be found in the FCB section of Draft:Adrian Toomes (Marvel Cinematic Universe). –SirDot (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • J. Jonah Jameson:

[As of 2022, Jameson has appeared in two films.] Simmons makes an uncredited cameo appearance as Jameson in the SSU film Venom: Let There Be Carnage.

  • Peter Parker / Spider-Man:

[As of 2022, Parker has appeared in six films.] Holland makes an uncredited cameo appearance as Parker in the Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021).

  • Adrian Toomes / Vulture:

[As of 2022, Toomes has appeared in one film: Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017).] Toomes is teleported to the SSU in Morbius (2022), with Keaton reprising his role.
Like this? – SirDot (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @InfiniteNexus: as it seemed an edit to the original message didn't ping you here. – SirDot (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me here (I didn't get the first ping, and I'm behind on my watchlist). That suggestion sounds good to me, feel free to implement if no one objects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  Done. – SirDot (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Characters_of_the_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe/Archive_2&oldid=1102754726"