Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Agent Hill

Coby Smulders will be reprising her role of Agent Hill from Avengers in Ironman 3. The coding seemed confusing to me so I didn't want to touch it. Arnabdas (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Young roles

Per previous consensus, we do not include actors who briefly portrayed roles of young or alternate versions of other characters. While the information might be verifiable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

They should be a part of the page. There is no reason whatsoever that they should not be included on the page. It isn't a big edit and it gives people a small amount of information on the actors who portrayed characters in the films of the MCU . It is fact that these actors portrayed the characters, and therefore deserve to be credited on this page. I do not wish to argue or start an edit war of any kind, I was simply trying to add more information to Wikipedia to help people who seek it, because Wikipedia is used to give people as much information as it can so they can learn more and understand more about topics they wish to search. It confuses me that Wikipedia lets people add valid and useful information to pages just to have it deleted leaving the page with less information then it could have on it. - BruceBTonyS 11:42, 30 August 2012 (AEST)

I agree. --Boycool † (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the above policy, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Wikipedia is a compendium and as such is not meant to retain every piece of information. We do not need to list every bit player in the film. Furthermore adding them only adds undue weight to their roles suggesting they played bigger parts than they really did. This is not like River Phoenix in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, these actors were on-screen for less than a minute. However to be fair, the previous consensus dealt with their inclusion in the main MCU article, which we purposefully try to keep smaller.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If you say so, I won't argue. People can just find information elsewhere, I was simply trying to help them. It wasn't like I tried to add Stan Lee's truck driver character or anything. And in my opinion it wouldn't suggest they played bigger parts at all. But it's your thing, I shouldn't be one to change it. Sorry if it caused any problems. - BruceBTonyS 1:35, 31 August 2012 (AEST)

Please don't feel discouraged, discussion is a healthy part of the collaborative process that makes up Wikipedia and consensus can always change. I do recognize that you were editing in good faith, however in the future please do try to follow the Bold, Revert, Discussion cycle and seek discussion instead of simply re-reverting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood, discussion always seems to help. And I'm glad you know my editing was in good faith, I never meant to come across in any other way. So thanks again. - BruceBTonyS 4:05, 31 August 2012 (AEST)

How about Ferrigno's voice in Avengers, then? Both the producer and sound editor said that it was Ruffalo's voice, with small bits of Ferrigno's mixed in, among other people. Seems even more minor than the young actors. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Ferrigno didn't do too much in the Avengers, his role was even uncredited. Not much of a reason for him to be there. - BruceBTonyS 7:46, 2 September 2012 (AEST)

I agree as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Image?

What image would be appropriate for this article? The WP:FL article List of Harry Potter cast members has a picture of Radcliffe, but that's a different case as there is one clear-cut lead. I was thinking an image of RDJ, Evans and Hemsworth, either them standing side-by-side or separate images of each placed side-by-side. What do other editors think? -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fine, either way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it really needs one, but Sam Jackson would be best, he has been in the most MCU films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This image seems appropriate for phase one. --Boycool † (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't. We have tried to emphasize that this is not the Avengers Cinematic Unviverse and that all the films are of equal relevance and importance. Also we shouldn't recycle images that are being used in related articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think it would be best to avoid using images that appear in related articles. Regarding Jackson, he has appeared in the most films but in a really small capacity in most of them, so I'm not sure he's fully representative of the cast(s). How about taking one image each of Downey, Evans, Hemsworth and Jackson and combining them into a single image, putting each into a separate corner? And then a caption about how the first three have starred in multiple films in the franchise, and SLJ has appeared in the most films? -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good job on the lead BTW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added an image, if it needs to be improved in some way anyone should feel free to jump in and do so. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't know what you were using to organize them, so the only thing I would say is maybe do it based on main first appearance. So it would be: top RDJ, Hemsworth; bottom Evans, SLJ. Like I said, I didn't know your process for arranging the pictures, but that made logical sense to me when I looked at it. Still good no matter what. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I just did it alphabetically, which worked out as Jackson came fourth. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ben Kingsley Role

Should his role be labeled just Mandarin or something similar to on the Iron Man 3 page, as Mandarin/Trevor Slattery?

I believe he is credited as just "The Mandarin", so that should be fine for this cast list. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I seem to recall when I saw the film, he was credited just as Trevor Slattery, but I could have been wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, I went to an early press screening so the credits I'm looking at may have been changed to avoid a spoiler. -Fandraltastic (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

One Shots and S.H.I.E.L.D. Cast Member inclusion

Should these cast members be included on this page, possibly in a section or sections below the Phase One and Phase Two tables, since they are part of the MCU? Maybe more One Shot cast over S.H.I.E.L.D., as Coulson is the only member so far from the films in the TV show, and more members (though archived footage) appear in the One Shots. If not, then I feel the page should probably add the word "film" somewhere in the title, as this page has only been talking about the films' characters and would most likely continue to do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The scope is the film series and I think it should probably stay that way. After the SHIELD series gets picked up it'll inevitably get its own cast/characters article, and the short films are comparatively minor. I've added see also links, I hope that covers your concern for now? I don't think adding "films" to the title is necessary either as the MCU is a film series first and foremost, so it's rather redundant. Also it reads clunky. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think that is fine. I was just looking at the article how it stated it was the MCU character list, and it didn't include two aspects of the universe. But I agree that the see also links will work, because at the moment, both are minor, as stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The S.H.I.E.L.D cast still hasn't gotten it's own section on this article. Can someone please lay that out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Benicio del Toro inclusion on "Introduced in Guardians of the Galaxy"

How come he has not been added to that particular section. I tried to add it, and now the whole thing looks messed up. Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

He's already added under the Thor: The Dark World heading. The table is by first occurrences. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

but he's cast in Guardians of the Galaxy, along with the people you have cast in that section as well. Add him. He's confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It is already noted. Look at how the table is formatted. First occurrence in Dark World, the next cell for Guardians. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters

The "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters" redirects here, but shouldn't the character page exist as well? I have seen on many of the film pages the cast list putting a brief paragragh describing the characters that are essentically identical [for example see Tony Stark/Iron Man in the cast list of Iron Man (2008 film), Iron Man 2, The Avengers (2012 film), Iron Man 3, and Avengers: Age of Ultron, but the same goes for other characters in that film as well as the Thor, Hulk, and Captain America films]. Wouldn't it make sense to create the List of character article, combine/edit those descriptions and then have those films cast list link to the character list article? The problem now is that some link the Comic character article which is not about the film character. The comic character articles does have a link to the character in other media, but thes do not have this detail. The "Cinematic Universe" is growing and I think deserves its own list combinging details from all the film (and even the TV) franchises since they all seem linked. This could be the repository of all the character descriptions cleaning up the film articles and removing redundant information.AbramTerger (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No. The first sentence in the cast section of each of the film articles might be similar (as would be expected) but the rest of the information is specific to that particular film and therefore should be kept there per WP:FILMCAST. Also please bear in mind that this a featured list and most of films are good articles. There is no need to fix what isn't broken. If there is any needed for improvement it is within the individual character articles, which generally rely to heavily upon primary sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I do think there is something of a need for articles that are specifically about the film versions of the major characters in the series, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this page. This is a cast list. And the problem with a character list is that it would likely be largely cruft. -Fandraltastic (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree a character list would turn largely into cruft. I think we should first try to improve the character articles that exist, and if out of that improvement spawns new stand-alone articles for certain adaptions then so be it. We did have Iron Man in film before but it was merged back with Iron Man in other media. Maybe, if more emphasis was placed on the reception of Downey Jr's portrayal instead of the films itself, then it might work out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean, you are essentially getting a character list, by looking at the left column. Agree with the above too, that a straight character list will turn largely to cruft. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Triiiple, that's what I mean. Not an article about the films like the Iron Man in film, which would be redundant, but one about the character as played by Downey. A short section about plot, a few sections about development and portrayal, and then some critical reception and cultural impact stuff. There's plenty of material out there. Was thinking of working that up at some point. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Fandraltastic character description as portrayed in the films, development through the films etc is pretty much what I was thinking. The film desc contain a lot of redundant data. It doesn't have antyhing to do with this page, but as I mentioned that "character list" redirects to this page. AbramTerger (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not see much redundancy, the info on the film pages is specific to those films. I'm talking about additional information, specifically as it relates to the larger (real-world) development and reception of the character. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential alternative format

I feel I have to ask what this article is meant to accomplish. When there were only 6 movies it is nifty to have a little table showing how they all inter-related, but once the table became too big to fit on one screen it ceased to be useful anymore. Surely anyone who wants to know what films the character has been in can go to the character's article where their appearances are invariably listed in the "In Other Media" section, and anyone who wants to know what characters a film had can just go the film's article and look at the "Cast" section. When it was a convenient one-stop shop this table served a purpose, but now it's just a superfluous article that must be updated every time the character and film articles would have been updated anyway. It's an unnecessary duplication of data.

Even if we MUST have this article, the table at this point is fairly unintelligible without jumping around the place to decode it like some Rosetta Stone. I was thinking it might be better (and easier to maintain going forward) to, instead of making each film a table of characters, make each character a table of films. You could have a section for Maria Hill listing all films she's been in - The Avengers, The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron - and you don't even need a table any more. They take up a ridiculous amount of space due to blank cells anyway.

HOWEVER, I do seriously think there should be more of a discussion of exactly what kind of information "demand" we are trying to supply. The scope of the ORIGINAL article was limited to the films, but this article is new and the information a reader would most likely be interested in is "how does it all connect together", and they would most likely be very interested that, for example, Clark Gregg continues to play Phil Coulson in a spin-off TV show. The interconnectedness is the very thing that makes all the information on this article notable. If we're not interested in a round-up of where the character appears, I have to wonder why this article is even necessary when the information is available in other articles.--LeoEvilsbane (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cap 2 after credits scene revealed

the description of Cap 2 after credits scene was revealed, confirming which new characters appear on it, should we include said characters on the table or should we wait just a while before adding them. for info go here (SPOILERS WARNING)

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=95838

Comic Book Movie is not a reliable source, so we should wait. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the International Business Times?

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/545834/20140331/captain-america-winter-soldier-review-spoilers-x.htm#.UztQJPldXGg

--LeoEvilsbane (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The table

The table as it exists is useless to readers. You have to scroll through so many pages in order to figure out which header applies to which box, skipping over 100 empty boxes as you go. The changes I made were promptly reverted, with the comment "make it scrollable", which doesn't erase all of the empty boxes and all of the scrolling a user will have to do to get to any info. As more columns get added the data is going to continue trending down diagonally, with dozens of new empty boxes for the user to scroll through in order to get to any info at all, and the actual casts of each film will continue to become more and more spread out. There's no way to keep this info in one table without it looking horrendous and being unusable, now that there are going to be 10+ films.

Repeating a chunk of characters is a small price to pay to keep the article relevant and clean. Thoughts? -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have some ideas I think will solve the problem and keep it a single table without repeating entries, but I can't get into until after the labor day, if you don't mind waiting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no rush. It just needs to change in some way; there are at least twice as many empty boxes in the table now as there are useful ones, and the headers are so far away from the lower boxes that they are completely unusable. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I just tried something but I can't be 100% certain of the accessibility results right now, since I'm editing from an iPad.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks a little better but the problems of tons and tons of empty cells, hugely spaced out casts for the later films (Winter Soldier right now, it'll be even worse for Avengers 2), and tiny columns are still evident. I think it looks and is more useful split into the two tables, like this revision. Let's let some other editors weigh in. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I still feel the repeating characters aren't nessacary. The leading cells shouldn't be a problem as long as the table is scrollable horizontally as well. But these aren't the only two options if anybody else cares to jump in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So then I guess no one else cares? lol. Not sure what to do about it, then. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just tried something new. Think that's cleaner, and without too much repetition (only Fury, Coulson, Tony Stark and Howard Stark) -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I know you're only trying to help, but that table seemed very disjointed and didnt flow. Your earlier option was much better out of the two. I still dont see the problem with what we had before.--16:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter cast members () seems to follow this example.--16:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you at least explain what didn't flow? An Iron Man section, a Thor section, a Cap section, and a misc section, with the Avengers column shared. It all seemed to flow pretty well.

That Harry Potter article has a finite number of columns (9), and greater continuity between the casts. This one already has more columns and will get 2-3 more shortly, and has a much more disjointed cast between the various franchises. Which means the actual content is hugely spaced out, and the empty boxes take up most of the page. I honestly thought splitting it into the two Phases was the easiest option but apparently the repeating rows was a problem. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Spliiting cast members across multiple rows disjoints the table and breaks the flow. One character, one row: to read across the table. The number of columns is not a problem as long as its scrollable when it exceeds browser width.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the thing - making it scrollable when it exceeds browser width doesn't change the fact that the last two or so pages of the the table have tons and tons of empty, useless cells. When the entire bottom left corner of a table is just a huge, empty nothing that's usually a good indicator that you need to rethink the table's structure, especially when it's ongoing and only going to get worse. Having to scroll already breaks the flow; scrolling down or sideways doesn't make a difference. Making the entire page as useful and clear and helpful to readers as possible should be the priority. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see empty cells as detrimental, infact they are almost as useful as the white cells by telling us that certain characters do not appear in a particular film. The leading cells are just a result of the organization, we've tried to do this in the most real world way as possible. List of Harry Potter cast members on the other hand organizes the table by in-universe groupings. Also having to scroll keeps the table flowable, same as scrolling down. It puts everything in one row without having to break-up the information; well organized and very readable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the table as it currently stands is real world rather than in-universe, and that's good. I don't think the most recent change I made was from an in-universe perspective, if that's what you're trying to say - the Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America groupings are real world distinctions within the franchise. As for the empty cells, when the header already tells the user that the character was introduced in a specific film, 10+ blank boxes listing all the previous films the character was not in do not seem useful in the slightest.

I do think my original attempt (with the clean split between the first and second phases) was better, but you seemed to balk at the section of repeating rows. Perhaps if there were little notes (maybe a superscript numerical 1 and 2) next to the character name of the repeating rows that brings the user to the prior and next phase featuring the character, that would solve the problem? -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No I am simply, saying that if your biggest concern is how the empty cells are organized, maybe we can try another approach similarly to the featured list, that will mix it up a bit more. I still maintain that by splitting character information makes the table less flowable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

But that's not getting rid of them, that would be just hiding them. I'm about to try something, let me know how it works for you. (Feel free to revert it) -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking if it should be included in the table when character is only mentioned or for example only seen in a picture in the film? (146.211.0.10 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC))

We should just stick to actual appearances. That turns the table from real world perspective to an in universe perspective. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has become really long, and will continue to grow as more films are announced. Already there is information missing from the page, in an effort to keep the lead manageable, so should we be creating a new section on the page with the majority of this info in it? I don't know what you would call it, but it would be before the actual list, sort of like a prose summary of the info in the tables. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 I know you have previously expressed interest in this change. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible solution

@Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, and Fandraltastic: What do you guys think about moving this lead to the films page, as a replacement for the cast table there? This is what I am envisioning (I will fix up refs if the move is made, and some c/e can be done): this page and the films page. My reasoning behind this is that the lead here is ridiculously long, and tells the reader almost everything in the list, rather than being a concise, effecient summary of the page. It is redundant to have it here, when the information is just repeated in table form below. The table, as is, includes recasting info, other media appearances, etc. it doesn't need to be spelled out in prose at the top of the article. Over at the films page, the cast table is a failed attempt to summarise this page, with characters like The Collector included, while Star-Lord and Rocket aren't. Moving this info will give readers there an actual summary of this page, without a second, redundant table. Please reply if you have any thoughts on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Too much of the lead has been cut from the list of actors page, and the table on the films page is meant to highlight the characters that have recurred, per the FAQ. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of the info can be added back to this page, I was just trying to remove the redundant reiteration of the list. As for the films page table, as I said above, I know what it is meant to do, but it isn't the best way we can do it. The prose, even if it needs a bit of c/e, gives a far better idea of the recurring nature of characters through the films then the table. Also, as more films are released, the parametres of the table will have to tighten in order to accommodate, and that will probably end up removing characters like Coulson, who I believe should be mentioned in the section. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

One-Shots and TV series mention

So I brought this up with TriiipleThreat a while ago, regarding what seems as the growing number of appearance some characters here are making outside of the films. I was trying to think of a way to state that a character's next appearance might not necessarily be in the film they are next slated to appear in (Max Hernandez as a prime example between Avengers and Cap:TWS), without introducing a whole slew of tables. So I came up with something that used a lot of the superscript notations (see the bolded text in the description boxes). However, thinking about it for a bit, I didn't think this was the best way to maybe go. So I thought maybe changing the cell color (as seen with Coulson). What are other's thoughts on possibly utilizing this color idea here and on the One-Shot table? I think this solves some of our issues with trying to include references to the other media, because in this way, it would still give the reader the movie chronology, but would let them know the character appeared somewhere else before the next film appearance. The only thing though is, would this be setting up a big search and find on the readers part, possibly sending them from here, to the One-Shot page, then SHIELD characters, then back here? (That would be Hernandez's by the way if utilized: Avengers -> Item 47 -> SHIELD (x2) -> Cap:TWS) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should move this list to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film cast members, as this issue keeps coming up despite the FAQ. We already have List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters. And any other television shows would most likely become independently notable. Besides with the growing number of film characters and television characters, a split would soon be required anyway per WP:SIZE. Accessibility and readability of a single list the size you are proposing, once the other television shows start to fill out, can become problematic for some users.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore we can always just add a note to the corresponding character pointing readers to List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters or any other list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. I was not proposing, including the One-Shot table or my created TV series table here. I just put them together in my sandbox to have all the info together. I most definitely want to keep this page as is (though a further disambiguation as you stated might be good). I just wanted feedback on potentially changing cell colors here to indicate that the next appearance was not a film. So for Coulson, his Thor cell would receive one color to indicate his two One-Shot films, then the Avenger cell would get another, indicating a TV series appearance next. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I think the colors might get confusing but a note like you have in your sandbox is a good idea. And now that I'm thinking about it, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors has a better sound to it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fandraltastic: have you seen this discussion. Do you have any input on my thought, and I guess Triiiple's thought of changing this page's title? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think keeping the scope of this page on the films is the way to go, the tables will only get messier and messier if we expand it to include all the other media. In theory the character pages should provide further info about the character's appearances, although essentially every character page is a huge mess that needs a ton of work. A page move to clear up confusion may be warranted, although I don't like how clunky the alternatives are. Unfortunately we might not have a choice. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah scope is staying. I really should change my sandbox, because I'm being confusing. I was referring to using either superscripts or cell colors to indicate a next appearance is not film. This page will stay strictly film cast, but my sandbox was just used to show how it would look across the three tables/info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think after changing the scope of the main MCU page to reflect all mediums, we should also change this page to reflect that. Alternatively, it does make sense to keep this page as is (just as SHIELD has its own page for cast members) and cross over all of the different cast pages to show the connections across formats. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead moved it to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, hopefully that will clear up any confusion about the list's scope.----TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 13:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Just wondering if that is the proper title. Would included "characters" or "cast members" in the title be more appropriate. Going forward, I feel the old title should stay as a redirect, pointing to (at least now) the film page, AoS page, and One-Shot section, and maybe on Marvel Cinematic Universe, put a character section that discusses actors that have appeared across many of the mediums only. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the term "actor" applies to both males and females and sounds less wordy than "film cast members". It is also more fitting than "characters" as it is just a list of actors and their roles with no information regarding characterization.----TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

While the term "actor" does sound less wordy then "cast members", it does sound quite right, and the later seems like the title that people are more likely to search for as well as being the common format on wikipedia (List of Star Wars films cast members, for example). I understand the reasoning for calling the page this, but i support another move of the page, this time to "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film cast members". - adamstom97 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The new format with the directions to the One-Shots or TV when that is the next appearance is a good addition to the page, and to me it makes sense that the 2 or 3 indicating an appearance in the next phase should also be placed after the previous appearance, so a user can see where the character has appeared from appearance to appearance. This would mean that characters like Bruce Banner, who has only appeared in films so far, will have the number after their last appearance in that phase, leading to the next phase, while characters like Coulson, who jumps mediums, has an OS or a T leading to their next appearance, and then if their next film appearance comes after a tv appearance, it should be indicated on the tv page. TriiipleThreat has pointed out to me that putting the 2, for example, after an actor's name, may indicate to a reader that that actor will also be returning to portray the character that next as well, which is not always the case (i.e. Thanos), but what happens if the same could be said for a film character moving to tv, but being recast? the same wrong assumption could be made, but because of consistency (Wikipedia:Consistency), the link would still be placed after the actor's name, not the characters. If the consensus is that this is too confusing and we should leave the numbers after the characters' names, then i will respect that, but i do think it makes more sense and will flow better to make this change, especially now, before the page gets longer and more complicated. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the OS and T, they should probably be moved as well. Indicators about a character should go with the character name and indicators about a specific performance, like a V or C, should go with the actors name.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand this statement, but how can it be noted then the order of appearances? The purpose of putting them in the cell, not the character row header, was to show that, say for Coulson, he appeared in Thor, then appeared in One-Shots, then the Avengers. That was the intent of them, and as noted in the key, it said characters, not actor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is even nessecary. All the indicator did was point readers to the One-shots article. Once there they can see, where the character appeared.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If the indicators are not showing specifically when certain characters appeared in other media, is there any point in having separate indicators for different phases? For example, Sif appeared in Agents of SHIELD, but after her Phase 2 appearance. So there is an indicator on the Phase 2 Sif, and not the Phase 1 Sif, even though showing the order of appearances in other media isn't necessary. Actually, come to think of it, I think it's probably quite counter-productive to separate the phases like they are, as it makes the information very hard to read. I can't think of a better way at the moment, but it's probably worth a brainstorm. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I was just thinking about these indicators, and in the One-Shots and TV series tables, we only put indicators beside characters that first appeared there (i.e. in the One-Shots table Blake gets a TV indicator but Coulson doesn't, cause Coulson first appeared here). I was thinking, should we then just put indicators beside first appearances? That way, when you see the first appearance of the character, you know everywhere else that that character has appeared. This would also hopefully fix some of the confusion that's been surrounding these indicators. I know you are trying to note the order of appearances with the current format, but because we moved the indicators away from individual film appearances, that isn't really working like that anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Table removal

These tables are ridiculously big, very cumbersome, and difficult to navigate. It seems counter-productive to list the appearances of Steve Rogers in three separate places, and to indicate that characters such as Sif appeared in other media in some places but not others.

I think that the purpose of these tables needs to be reconsidered. If the purpose is to show the inter-connectivity of the actors/characters across the franchises, then the table at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Recurring cast and characters already has that covered. So, why rehash that here on an uncomfortably larger scale? But if the purpose is to list the actors/characters and all of their appearances, I think that at this stage, removing the tables may be more useful. Perhaps the appearances could be listed by actor/character, rather than by Phase. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, I find it very easy to navigate. Also keep in mind this is a Featured list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I did keep that in mind, but this became a featured list over a year ago, when Phase 2 was much more manageable, Phase 3 didn't exist, and TV appearances hadn't confused things further. Don't get me wrong, I think that this is basically the best the table can be. But I don't think that's good enough any more. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no TV appearances listed here. Also each individual table is a manageable size with infinite growth possibilities for future phases. I just don't see the problem.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Triiiple. I do not feel the tables are too big, nor are they hard to understand. I do not see a problem with them, or the need to get rid of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well, the page is easy to read, looks good, and has the option of expanding without messing up what is already there. There really isn't any problem that I can see. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

TV appearances aren't listed, but they are indicated. In a confusing manner too.

And to say that each table is a manageable size is a bit of a stretch. These tables are large, and don't do much for showing the inter-connectivity of the universe. There's only four characters in Phase 1 and three in Phase 2 that appear in more than one film (that isn't an Avengers film) in that phase. So, that's just not very useful, as lots of the interconnectivity happens across phases, which just isn't visible here. Also, there's already a table specifically designed to show the inter-connectivity and does a much better job of it.

Splitting this into Phases complicates things. It means that time is listed horizontally and vertically on the page, and characters reappear a number of times. If this list is supposed to be listing the film actors and their appearances, surely it's better to list all of their appearances in the one place.

But seriously, what is the purpose of these tables? I think that listing the characters/actors (still by first appearance), and simply stating the films they appeared in without all the dead space of the table is a better option. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

TV appearances are indicated in a logical way, but they are not explained very well. If you have a better way of explaining them, then please do so.

This is a list of film cast members, and if you look at many other such lists, tables are used. The difference here being we divide by phases instead of in-universe groupings. The WP:Real world route is always preferential, and we have an obvious advantage here with the official phases that we really shouldn't ignore.

Time is mostly listed vertically: Phases going down the page, then first film appearances going down the page. If we were to have all time vertically, then that would mean every individual film appearance would be listed separately, which would be ridiculous. As for listing all character appearances at at once, that would mean a ridiculous repetition of films, even more so than the current repetition of characters (currently Steve Rogers appears 3 times. Your proposal would mean Captain America: The First Avenger would be mentioned 13 times).

You have yet to convince me that there is an issue with this format. In my opinion, all of your complaints (apart from the TV stuff, but we already know about that) are null and void. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Before I provide a complete response to this, I'd like an answer to my question. Because it's an important one that needs to be asked: What is the purpose of these tables? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe, and this is just my interpretation, that they are intended to list the cast members and the characters they portray from throughout the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, taking into account both the official divisions (phases) made by Marvel, and the shared universe nature of the franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, good answer. I'd argue however, that dividing by Phases (although an official division) isn't necessary. Dividing by film, or by character (which are also official divisions) could work, and these divisions don't have the complication of listing time (or films and their order) in two directions on the page.

And although many other lists like this use tables, there are others that simply use lists. And the ones that do use tables, don't have the issue of encompassing 13 films, over 7 separate franchises, with a cast that crosses over franchises.

It doesn't have to be a table, and it doesn't have to separate phases. And it certainly shouldn't do these things if they are impairing the usefulness of the list. I believe that's the case here, but since concensus is clearly on the other side, that's fine.

The TV and One-Shot appearances aren't indicated logically. They both consider and don't consider the order in which appearances happen. There are a number of inconsistency issues with the way these appearances are indicated, but in a nutshell, the problem is that the indicators are trying to provide some sense of the order of appearances, but without actually providing the order of appearances. Instead, I think the indicators should not be sensitive to the order. If a character appears in a One-Shot or Television, or another phase of films (basically anywhere that's not that particular table), it should have an indicator. This also allows the wording to be simiplified, and the confusing "before or after" bit can be removed. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So now, my bold edit has been reverted. That's fine, but discussion would be more useful than simply reverting. Thanks. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit has been mostly kept, all that was removed was the phase one indicators in the "Introduced in Phase One" section, and the phase one and two indicators in the "Introduced in Phases One and Two" section, as that is unnecessary. Apart from that, I think some of the confusion has definitely been cleaned up. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Putting the ref tags for Phase One under the section titled "Introduced in Phase One" was just redundant. Where else would they have been introduced? As for the tags in Phase Three, I didn't not really see the purpose for the same reason as before. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. It does seem a bit redundant in Phase Two. However, it could be useful for Phase Three, as that section lists cast who appeared in Phase One, Two, or Both as opposed to just Phase One. And because of this, I added it to Phase Two for the sake of consistency. Another reason for including it is that the three tables are separate, and should therefore treat the different phases as separate entities, in a similar way to how the other media appearances are treated. Rather than treating the thing as one whole table with reappearances running down the page (since reappearances also run across the page). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we can either consider doing a "Introduced in Phase 1" and "Introduced in Phase 2" headings in Phase 3 (that's what I thought originally before it became what it was) or possibly do the formatting you created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be less confusing to have "Introduced in Phase 1" and "Introduced in Phase 2" headings in Phase 3, rather than have phase indicators going up and down the page. Perhaps we should just try it to see? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So long as indicators are consistent, they're not confusing. You'd look at Nick Fury's Phase 2 listing, and see that he appears in CA:TWS and A:AOU, and the indicators would tell you that he also appears in Phase 1 and TV, and would direct you to the appropriate tables for that.

But yeah, this other method might be a good one to try as well. Listing it that way (as opposed to using indicators) would mean that you don't have certain bits of information. Such as Howard Stark appearing in Phase 1, but not Phase 2, whilst Steve Rogers appears in both. But that's not that important, I guess.

Also, if one day, someone who was introduced in TV or One-Shots appeared in a film, would we have a separate heading for that? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. So indicators are still good for past appearances to talk about future ones (ie Cap in phase one table gets the 2, 3 tag; then in phase two table, gets the 3 tag). I think it would make sense for the horizontal headers to act as "past" tags, and the ref notes to be "future" tags. Does that make sense? And yes Professor, if say the rumors are true that Tripp from AoS is actually in AoU, the phase two table would get a header stating "Introduced in television series". I'm going to try this out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Favre. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Loki in Avengers 3 part 1 and 2?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a607266/loki-to-appear-in-thor-ragnarok-and-both-parts-of-avengers-infinity-war.html i dont know how reliable this site is, should this be taken as confirmation that we will see Loki in those films or not?

Well at the moment, the link is dead, so if the original comes back, I'd say it can be considered for inclusion. If not, I'd wait, because it is difficult to know if other sites are "fluffing" the info. And if it doesn't, then that says it may not have been true to being with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate sub-heading names

We currently have two "Introduced in Phase One"s and with this format will have many more, as well as multiple other duplicates like it. Is this going to be a problem? I know that if you edit the "Introduced in Phase One" in the Phase Three section, and press 'save page', it redirects you to the "Introduced in Phase One" in the Phase Two section. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No. We can always add {{anchor}} templates if necessary. But what you mentioned is just how Wikipedia works regarding the same headers on an article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Indicators for archive footage reprisals

@Favre1fan93: the specific wording we use for the indicators are "An ^OS indicates the character appears in a One-Shot" and "A ^T indicates the character appears in a television series." Following that logic, the characters that appear in One-Shots and TV through archive footage should get an indicator as well, since those characters are appearing in those media. If you remember, we moved the indicators from the cast member to the character because the cast member will not necessarily reprise the role when the character appears in another media (Anton Vanko, for instance) so the indicators have nothing to do with the actual portrayal of the characters (we obviously use different indicators for that). So, whether an actor has filmed new scenes for the different media or not, the characters themselves are still appearing in that other media (with appear being defined as "come into sight; become visible or noticeable"). So a reader at this page can see that the character of Steve Rogers / Captain America has also appeared in One-Shots and TV (which he has), and by following the links to those pages, they can learn the actual portrayal info, i.e. which One-Shot/show and that the appearances are through archival footage. That is why I added in those extra media indicators and believe they should be re-added. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I could have sworn there was a discussion about this. The premise, if I remember correctly (apologies on not knowing the location), was that even if it is the character, not the actor, it is still not an appearance, because Marvel is just taking a previous portrayal and reusing it so it isn't "new". The portrayal is not actually for the new media, it is still the same portrayal from the old media. So the appearance in the One-Shot (and apparently the TV series) is Evans playing the character in The First Avenger (marked appropriately here), reused in those situations. So yes, I understand that the character is still appearing, but it is the portrayal from an old media appearance, not the new one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying, and I also recall a previous discussion, but what I am saying now, something I just realised recently, is that yes, the appearance was not created newly for that other media, but the character still makes an appearance in that media. No matter how you look at it, the character still appears there. By our current criteria, we have to then include these appearances, even if they aren't new portrayals, for consistency and to avoid redundancy. I completely agree that they are not new portrayals, that the actors didn't film anything new, or anything like that. But the characters still appear in the media, and saying that they don't is flat out lying to the readers. Also, we are just asking for confusion from readers who will see those characters at the One-Shots or TV pages and follow the links to here to see which films those characters have been in, only to find that those characters apparently have not appeared in the other media. So basically, the characters do appear in those media, and so we should indicate that here like all the others. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Favre. @Adamstom.97: if you have a problem with consistency due to the wording of the existing indicators, let's change those instead. How about: "An ^OS indicates that an actor portrays the character in a One-Shot" or "A ^T indicates that an actor portrays the character in a television series"? Besides this is a list of actors not characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

But we already decided that those indicators, as well as the Phase 2/3 indicators, are solely about the characters, whereas the V/C indicators are solely about the actors, and for good reason. "An ^OS indicates that an actor portrays the character in a One-Shot" just seems silly to me - the reader will automatically assume that the character is being portrayed by someone, and the fact that we don't specify who is important because, as I said above, the same actor will not necessarily portray the character in another medium (like Anton Vanko). I understand trying to keep this out-of-universe, about the actors, etc. but logically, we should be telling people that the character is appearing in another media (FACT) and they can go there for more information, where they will learn not only who portrayed them in that media, but also how they were portrayed (in these cases, no new footage was filmed, with an existing performance used). This, as far as I am can see, isn't a big deal in the grand scope of things, but I would rather we stay consistent and help perhaps less knowledgeable but interested readers (which is really what the indicators are for) who are looking to learn about this topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Stark's one shot appearance added further context to what we already knew. He went to Ross after the events in the Incredible Hulk. The One Shot expanded on this and explained what the deal he made was if I remember correctly. I'm sure many others were the same. I think they should have the indicators as even if nothing new was filmed they still appeared in that media, most of the time expanded on the context and background of the story.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ditto51: Most have really just been the same footage from a previous film reused. I think the best solution is to tweak the wording of the indicators, maybe to something like "An ^OS indicates a new portrayal of the character in a One-Shot" and "A ^T indicates a new portrayal of character in a television series", with "new" in both those cases optional. That way, it still applies to the characters as we previously determined, and the other indicators to the actors, but if an interested reader comes along, they will know that Rogers, for example, as only made new portrayals in the film, not the One-Shots or TV, as those are archived footage (performances). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be choosing which other media appearances by characters people should be learning about or find significant. If someone is looking through this page and sees the indicators, then they wont realise that major characters here like Tony Stark have had significant appearances in other media (even if Robert Downey Jr. didn't film anything new for it). And the wording "An ^OS indicates that an actor portrays the character in a One-Shot" or "An ^OS indicates a new portrayal of the character in a One-Shot" sounds quite un-encyclopaedic to me, and more like an excuse to not included these specific appearances than anything else. There is a lot of different portrayal information at both the One-Shot and TV pages for people to find out about once they get over there (Voice, Cameo, Primary role, Archive footage, etc.) why not just leave all of that over there and keep the whole system simple. By trying to attribute performance information to a character indicator, we are making a mess of a pretty simple system, which exists only to indicate to readers that certain characters have appeared in other media (and it is a fact that these characters appeared in these media). And the fact that footage is being reused from a film does not mean that readers don't need to know about it - The Consultant completely changes the context of that scene as seen in TIH, and Stark and Ross are really pivotal characters in the short. As for Rogers, without the indicators, an interested reader will only know that the character has appeared in a few films, each time portrayed by Chris Evans. With these indicators, an interested reader will know that the character has appeared in these films, one-shot, and tv series, and that Chris Evans only portrayed the character for the films, with footage reused for the other appearances. And so, the interested reader will have full knowledge of the situation, quick and easy, without anything being held back or presented in a confusing way (imagine someone with limited knowledge of all this finding out that Captain America is in the AC short and tv series, but seeing no indicator here. it just doesn't match up). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My initial response is to fully support the notion that indicators shouldn't be used for archive footage appearances in other media. And the simplest way around this, as Favre1fan93 has been suggesting, is to change the description of the indicator. Two suggestions have been offered:

• "A ^T indicates that an actor portrays the character in a television series"
• "A ^T indicates a new portrayal of character in a television series"

The latter implies that the TV appearance is newer than all of the films, which is not necessarily correct, so that shouldn't be used. But the former does sound a bit ridiculous - it's a very roundabout way of explaining something simple - which is that the character reappears. And funnily enough, that's what the description of the indicator says anyway.

So, on reflection, I tentatively support the inclusion of indicators for archive footage appearances, because they are about where the characters appear, and that makes the most sense. However, I'm not totally sold on it, since it seems a little misleading in that noone reprised a role, and there kinda was no new appearance - just an old one with new context. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well...I think I might have changed my opinion on this. I think I might be fine with leaving it with no archive reprisal indicators, especially if that is consensus anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Pratt & Michael Rooker in GOTG2

Why they aren't on the list, when they both are confimned in GOTG2 Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy 2? Mike210381 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not confirmed. A) Draft material should not be considered factual or accurate, as formatting is, at times, done under assumptions. B) They both have expressed interest in returning, with out any official confirmation stating such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On the interview with Gunn, Pratt confirmed that, he will be returned... Mike210381 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Favre, I think he is right about that interview, which we have referenced at the draft page, both Pratt and Gunn are serious about GotG2 being an upcoming project for Pratt, rather than just something he is interested in doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Then just Pratt then, if anything. Rooker is just interested in where he could potentially go with the character (but we can't assume that means he is returning). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I found this [1] about Rooker. Mike210381 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That site doesn't look like a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Here [2] is from interview "...I know I’m gonna be in the sequel..." Mike210381 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bruhl is Baron Zemo?

I found this [3]. Mike210381 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, is it a reliable source? Seems a bit iffy to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if it was reliable (which is is not), we really shouldn't be using casting sites to source the info. We are in no rush. Everyone always thinks we are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Definitely not reliable per its about page and WP:BLOGS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Howard Stark photos in Iron Man 1 and other characters that only appear in pictures

So i was wondering why whenever we add lets say Natalie Portman in the Avengers section as she appeared in a picture or Obadiah Stane in the Iron Man 2 section as he appeared in a photo they are removed, but with Howard Stark, who only appeared in pictures in the first Iron Man, he's kept. so why we only keep Howard Stark and not other characters that appeared in that film in photos only? - --Eagc7 (talk) August 23, 2014

For now we are keeping it to significant photo appearances. Sanders was hired specifically to portray Stark in those photos in Iron Man only. Portman was hired to portray Jane Foster in Thor, and then they used a frame from the film as a picture in the Avengers. If we where indicating every character that gets mentioned (i.e. Tony Stark in Winter Soldier) then it would make sense to have all photo appearances as well, as they are generally as significant as minor mentions, but I think that is a path that we don't want to go down right now. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: I understand why you removed this, but I would still like to discuss it, as I don't understand why Sanders shouldn't be included. Basically, my reasoning can be seen above in my reply to Eagc7. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Likewise I understand why you want to keep Sanders but I'm more inclined to agree with Eagc7. We all seem to be in agreement when it comes to cases like Portman in The Avengers. But "significant" is a WP:POV term. Someone could deem Portman's photo significant based on their point of view. So I think its better to removal them all in a unbiased approach.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The significant aspect is more to do with the fact that he was hired for these photos specifically, and before anyone else was: saying that Howard Stark was introduced in Iron Man 2 is not really true, even if that was the first time we saw him moving around. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I see, but some further explanation might warranted, perhaps in the FAQ.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Downey, Infinity War

It says on the Avengers Age of Ultron page that Downey is reprising his role for both parts of infinity war, should we not include him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.242.255 (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That source was added incorrectly there, thus that is incorrect. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Avengers 3 Cast

Don't we have sources for all of the Avengers returning in Infinity War? We know that most of them are locked in contracts for the film and with Age of Altron page states that Downey Jr. signed on for Avengers 3 at the same time as Avengers 2. We have Banner on there so why not Stark?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to deal with these on individual cases. "All" is a tricky word. Besides Marvel can choose not to execute actors contracts as we have seen on other films. But the Stark info should be okay to use.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Stark is tricky though because the original deal just said "Avengers 3". So is that Part 1, Part 2, both? We should wait on clarification regarding which films he is actually going to be in. For instance, it has been speculated that Evans will only appear in one part of the films, because he only has one film left. And we also do not know if Marvel considers this one film or not (which I doubt, but still a possibility). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As of May 2015, Downey Jr. , Evans, Hemsworth, Hiddleston and Brolin are signed on for BOTH parts of Avengers: Infinity War. I think that the table needs updating with Downey Jr appearing in both. As for Renner and Johansson, there appearance is currently unknown at this time. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Source for Downey in both?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Specialist Cameron Klein??

Played by Aaron Himelstein, in both Captain America: Winter Soldier and Age Of Ultron.

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron/Credits http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0385391/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t63 http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Cameron_Klein

SG73 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither IMDb nor a wikia can be used as valid sources--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Links

This may seem like Overlinking, but I feel like each character and actors name should be linked once per table (character at least), in order to help people who may look at the phase three cast and try to go to Downey, Jr's page. They have to scroll all the way up in order to find the link.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:OVERLINK excludes infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and hatnotes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, based on what you say. So for phase two and three we would add links to the characters and then the actor in the first film they appear in that phase. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Indicators

Previously it was decided that we would use indicators for other phase appearances and other media appearances for every character, repeated on the page or otherwise, where the section headings do not already provide said information. Since then, the introduced in a previous phase section of the phase 3 table has been split into two subsections, introduced in phase 1, and introduced in phase 2, but the indicators were not adjusted accordingly, so if someone is reading the phase 3 table only, they will know which characters were introduced in phase 1, and which characters were introduced in phase 2, but not which characters that were introduced in phase 1 went on to appear in phase 2 before appearing in phase 3. Now, after fixing this error, I felt that the indicators had become a ridiculous nuisance, and weren't really always providing useful information, so I have a proposition for an alternative solution: at the list of tv actors and list of one-shot actors we only provide indicators for those characters in their first appearance. If we were to do that here, then the information is no longer being unnecessarily repeated throughout the page, and we aren't getting instances of useless indicators, while making it easy to find information about certain characters - if someone is reading the phase 3 table, sees that Tony Stark was introduced in phase 1, and wants to find out whether he appeared in phase 2 or has gone over to other media, all they have to do is go to his first listing in the article (somewhere in the phase 1 table, as the subheading notes, and easy to find thanks to the alphabetical system we use, even if the reader doesn't know what film he was introduced in) and all the information is provided. If anyone wants to see what this will look like, I made the change earlier. You can see that it isn't actually much different from the current format, just a wee bit simpler, with, as I said before, all of the redundancy removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: adamstom97 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it seems fine to me looking at it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am actually going to try something else, since we are now going to completely separate out the tables per the discussion below. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

??? We aren't separating out anything here. We're just adding more links. Do you mean the discussion over at the LoF page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant that we are now thinking of each table as if the reader hasn't necessarily read the rest of the page, so instead of just linking the first appearance, and having the indicators with that first appearance, we are now linking the first appearance in each phase. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Aunt May

The Variety source doesn't seem like a safe source here. The phrase "Sources tell Variety" isn't comfortable in terms of verifiability (and seems to have many sources for other things shot down because of it) and then "While insiders could not say where things stood in the deal-making process, they said an offer was made late last week" makes it seem like it isn't a done deal yet. Then when you think about Marvel being very quiet (No press release like they normally do for characters from the comics) and then this source from THR which both seem to support it not being a done deal yet. What does everyone else think?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm feeling that it's very much not a done deal yet. Much like Swinton and Dr. Strange. I'm going to be bold and just hide it for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

William Hurt

An editor is insisting that William Hurt, who played Thunderbolt Ross in The Invincible Hulk and who will reprise that role in Civil War should be included in the lead alongside others with recurring roles, namely Hayley Atwell, Paul Bettany, Don Cheadle, Idris Elba, Tom Hiddleston, Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Elizabeth Olsen, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeremy Renner, Stellan Skarsgård, and Cobie Smulders. I, however, believe we should hold off on listing him so prominently for a couple reasons. First, Civil War has yet to be released and we do not know how he will be billed; his scenes in the film may also be cut just like Loki's filmed appearance in Age of Ultron [4]. Second, we have no obligation to list all recurring characters who have appeared in different films. Should we include also Jenny Agutter, Garry Shandling, Maximiliano Hernández, John Slattery, etc. in the lead? Calidum 17:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Then we should remove Anthony Mackie, Gwyneth Paltrow and Idris Elba from the list. Mackie appeared briefly during the party scene at the Avengers Tower and then in the final scene with the New Avengers, Paltrow was only in Iron Man because Downey Jr insisted and was also in just one scene when Phil goes to recruit Tony, and Elba simply had Thor's hallucination in Age of Ultron, which could have very easily been cut like Hiddleston's scene.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mackie was also in Ant-Man, so he should stay. Paltrow was in at least three scenes in The Avengers (the one you mentioned, plus when Tony calls her on the plane and then the very end) so she should stay too. I'd have no problem dropping Elba from the list, however. Calidum 17:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the FAQ I linked in the edit summary, that was created with consensus from editors of the MCU articles, for inclusion in the table at that page, we determined that if the actor was billed in at least two films, and appeared in multiple film franchises (Iron Man, Hulk, Cap, Thor, Avengers, Guardians, Ant-Man), that was good criteria to control the amount of characters included. So those actors made their way over to the bottom of the lead, to highlight the connective-ness of the franchise. William Hurt applies to both of those factors - billed in TIH and is currently billed for Cap: Civil War, and both of those films are two different franchises. The names you listed at the end of your first comment Calidum, are not listed, and will not be listed at this time, as they do not satisfy both of the requirements outlined in the FAQ. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to address my main point of concern. Civil War is still in production and there is no indication he's being billed for that film. Thus, we should not include him per WP:CRYSTAL. What the FAQ, which coincidentally enough you wrote, says doesn't matter. Calidum 19:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Favre, was he actually on the billing block? Yes he is on the bulleted list on Civil War's page, but that was done to all non-cameo cast members because we had things like Ross's interview that was interesting for the character and actor, but no where to put it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Calidum, please stop accusing me for the wording on the FAQ. Yes, I was the one to write it, but it was wording determined by consensus from various editors who frequently work on these articles. Don't assume that it is my sole opinion. Ditto, we received an updated one (here) that was part of a larger press release Marvel and Disney released at D23, and he is a part of it. I know what you are talking about, but that has since been updated. Calidum, you can look at that link too and see. He is a billed actor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Calidum 20:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Phase 3 table

Anyway we can make it so that clicking on the link in edit descriptions actually takes you to the "Introduced in Phase 1" part of the Phase 3 table instead of the Phase 2 table?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give more details or examples? I'm not really following what you're asking. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

When you click on the arrow next to the heading title in this diff, you get taken to the phase 2 table instead of the phase 3 table which the IP was editing (adding in Ruffalo to Thor 3). So what I'm asking is: Is there a way of using an extra space or using the anchor template to change where these link to?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, I think anchors can solve it, though also doing List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors#Introduced in Phase One_2 solves it (but I think Wikipedia automatically takes the first section heading with that name). Anchors are probably the best way to go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mallick later became a key player in a TV show, but...

didn't the other WSC members introduced in The Avengers also later appear in TWS? Should we mention them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hawley is listed. Do the others even have names? Reach Out to the Truth 15:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Jenny Agutter (Hawley) is the only one to appear in both. In Avengers, she was joined by Powers Boothe, Arthur Darbinyan, and Donald Li. In the Winter Soldier, she was joined by Alan Dale, Bernard White, and Chin Han. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Darn, really!? I hadn't noticed at all. It's ironic, really, since I'd say the odds are good that President Ellis will win a third term before anyone at Marvel realizes the continuity gaffe. (I won't explain in detail, but Iron Man 3 was probably set in December 2012, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season four will likely end in summer 2017. But that's as nerdy and off-topic as I'm willing to get.)

Anyway, no need to fix it, then, if it be not broken.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Infinity War

Scarlet Witch is confirmed to be in Avengers: Infinity War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Darren Cross, Scott Lang, WHIH Newsfront

Dont you guys think we should have darren and scott on an Introduced in WHIH Newsfront section, because technically they didnt made their first apeparance in Ant-Man, but in Newsfront as they appeared in sagments that came weeks before the movie got released. - Eagc7

It's marketing material for the film (which were filmed and completed before these segments came out). In universe, yes they came before the films, but in real world (which we should strive to use), the film was first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is similar to the tie-in comics. For instance, Steve Rogers appeared in Captain America: First Vengeance, an official, canonical tie-in comic, before ever appearing in an MCU film, but that is just because the comic was released as marketing first, while in real world terms we know they made the film first, which is why the character is not listed under an "Introduced in tie-in comics" header. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Stan Lee

Now that it has basically been confirmed that Stan Lee plays the same character, could we please add him to the list? [5] Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem that straight forward to me. The way Feige and Gunn have worded this feels more like an implication that the various cameos are connected as a cute nod to the fans, which is fine for us to note in various places (at the Vol. 2 page and the main MCU page) but might not line up with a table like this. We also don't actually know who this one character is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What about if we don't specify him as a character, but for the time being just write Stan Lee in the character box? We could then include Stan Lee as the actor and tag his appears with the ^C indicator. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This link could be used as a citation for referencing Stan Lee Appearances. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, we leave an actor out of the table until we know who they are playing, so if we follow that then I think we should just wait until this is clarified / more details are revealed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

GotG Vol. 2 credit cameos

So I just got back from viewing the film, and while watching I thought I saw Grandmaster in there, and know I definitely did for Cosmo. Thinking about these (at least Grandmaster), should we really list him under "introduced in Vol. 2"? This is not a "normal" credit cameo and just seems more like a fun nod in my opinion and something to note on the Vol. 2 article. But here, we should put him back under the Ragnarok heading. Also, if I remember on Cosmo, it was just a photo, so how do we know it was not stock/archive footage from the first film (which means he shouldn't be listed here)? Let me know what you think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any harm in having the Grandmaster introduced with a cameo in the Guardians section first. As for Cosmo, I couldn't remember whether it was just a photo or not and the sources I have used here and at the Vol. 2 page are a bit iffy, so he can probably be removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What about Jeff Goldblum? I'm not sure does his apperence during end credits shoud count as introduction of Grandmaster in the MCU. Mike210381 (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That was my question. He appears dancing on the side of the credits, ever so briefly, and I don't know if we should look at it in the same way as other credit cameos (a la The Collector at the end of ThorTDW). My feelings are that for here, we should not make that indications, but include the note at the Vol. 2 page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have him introduced in Ragnarok, with a note saying about this credits appearance. Hopefully we can get someone talking about this as well for an explanation (it looked to me like a blooper from the set of Ragnarok that they probably decided to add to Guardians quite late). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Favre1fan93:, he shouldn't be listed here, but only at the Vol. 2 page. Mike210381 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a quick mock up of what I was thinking to note for him: User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/2#Grandmaster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's better for me than it's now. Mike210381 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be okay with that formatting. Again, it would be helpful if we had some sort of explanation for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think until we get that explanation (if ever), we should format as I suggested. I will make this change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)