Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image

I wanted to replace the image we have now with formatting similar to the image(s) used on the TV actors page. I have a mock up of what I'm thinking in my sandbox here. This is a better representation of the article in my opinion than using the static image currently of the four actors, in which we can't update or adjust as necessary. Formatting as I have done in my sandbox (and is on the TV article) allows greater flexibility to add or subtract to the total amount of images, and update individual images as needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would remove those who have only have one film (or less) currently released or change the wording. One film isn't a franchise.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this would be a good change, and am happy with the actors included. If that means re-wording the franchise bit then I think we should do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes let's reword the caption at the bottom to removing the finicky "franchise" term. I agree with your reasoning Triiiple in it not being the best use at this time for only single films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How about: "Downey Jr., Hemsworth, Evans, Pratt, Rudd, Cumberbatch, Holland, Boseman, Lilly and Larson each headline their own films in the MCU. Ruffalo stars as Bruce Banner in the Avengers films while Jackson has appeared in the most films in the franchise"?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we would only need to change "all headline the various franchises of the MCU" to what you did, "each headline their own films in the MCU". I think we should also keep the mention on the preceding actors of them all appear in Avengers films, and the wording I used for Jackson "has appeared frequently across the films" is accurate because he no longer has appeared in the most films (I know at least Evans has more). So this would be the wording: "Downey Jr., Hemsworth, Evans, Pratt, Rudd, Cumberbatch, Holland, Boseman, Lilly and Larson each headline their own films in the MCU, while also appearing in Avengers films. Ruffalo stars as Bruce Banner in the Avengers films while Jackson has appeared frequently across the films.- Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, is that true? I didn't realize that he had been surpassed. Anyway I took the liberty of creating an Option 2, with Johansson and Renner, since we'd be remised not to include them as well if were are expanding the number of images while also cutting down on the verbage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know right? I didn't initially believe it either when I was compiling the images and starting the caption. For the longest time it was always Jackson was/would be appearing in the most. But Evans and Downey are both now at 10, with Jackson at 9. Anyways, I like your option 2 Triiiple. At least at this time, I wouldn't add any other supporting players outside of who you have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I created an Option 3, removing the information about films that have not actually been released yet. I also added Stan Lee, who cameoed in many of the franchises instalments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Stan Lee's cameos are insignificant. We should stick to billed actors. Not to mention that he isn't even listed in the article. Also all of the actors have appeared in released films except Larson. So I'm fine with keeping future credits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the criteria for inclusion if we have Johansson and Renner? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The same as for Ruffalo I suppose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like Ruffalo is alright because he is sort of standing in for Norton, who headlined Hulk, but if we just add people because they are Avengers then we are opening ourselves up to a whole lot of random image adds. I think we should just have headliners, with Ruffalo replacing Norton, and then only add anyone else for very specific reasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But he is not Norton. If we're to limit it to headliners then we should replace Ruffalo with Norton. Also with Jackson no longer being the most frequent actor then there is no longer any specific reason to include him either.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As Triiiple stated, Lee's cameos are insignificant so we should not consider option 3. Ruffalo was included because he represents the "Hulk" franchise, even though he replaced Norton. Jackson, Johansson and Renner are fine I feel because they have all appeared in three film franchises and a large number of films. I don't believe we can say that about any of the other actors we mention in the last paragraph of the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have revamped my suggestion, and removed all actors who have yet to headline their own film. Not saying that I am against adding them in the future, but it seems a bit inappropriate to me to add them before they have yet to headline a film, especially if we mention that in the note. What is seems like to me is that we need to decide on two things. Firstly we must decide on a threshold for inclusion, and then decide on a caption. Regarding Stan Lee not being in the article a discussion is above at #Stan Lee. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

All headliners (including future) has consensus to appear and there isn't any reason why future ones shouldn't, which is only Larson at this point, given she is sourced and mentioned in the article. Ruffalo to Renner (in option 2) is what needs to be worked out more on if they will be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to implement option 2 if there aren't any other comments on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Added - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And, of course, you knew this wouldn't take long. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just added a note, hopefully it will help.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a note too on the criteria we are using for the images will help too. So if we want to define that (especially for the non-headliners), that would be good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think that we actually established a criteria, just that inclusion is based on editorial consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

So is the criteria any actor who has headlined a film, or just that change requires consensus? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Simon Williams

Despite not actually appearing in the final film James Gunn has said that Nathan Fillion as Simon Williams is still considered canon. Can we then add him under "introduced in Vol. 2" with a P tag and a note label, indicating the circumstance and what Gunn said? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I would be against this, but I would like to hear what others think first. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Despite Gunn saying it is canon, the bottom line to me is that he does not appear in the finished film. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Dino, the real-world aspect is what we should base it on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It is worth looking at Nathan Fillion where it says Cameo, still photograph; deleted scene with the source, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2#Post-production where it has extended writing about it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References

This article after Phase Three

So we're still a ways off on this, but I've been thinking lately, would there be any benefit to potentially create a new article for Post-Phase three actors? Essentially, rename this to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (Phase One-Three) or List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (2008-2019), and then start fresh on a new article. Since we don't know if the "phase" structure will even be intact, this article is getting lengthy, and the "headliners" may not be appearing at all post Avengers 4, it may be worthwhile. Just a thought. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a good idea, but we need to know what will actually be happening after. With regards to the "headliners" if you are talking about the image then I am sure we could develop a new criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That's something I hadn't considered, but we should keep it in mind for when we do know what is happening. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that defeats the purpose of a list, a central location where one can view all this information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from but the MCU is a unique case with no precedent, and it may be appropriate as per WP:SPLIT. It is worth nothing that the Page information states that this article has a length of 213,173 bytes, and the criteria for a size split is 100 kB of readable prose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, that's prose, most of the information here is in the table code and references.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Tom Hardy to the imagebox?

If we are adding film headliners who have yet to appear in a Marvel film should we include Tom Hardy the actor of Venom, with the recent news? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Since they are "adjuct" to the proper MCU, I'd say no. or if anything, in the Sony section, but that will produce unwanted white space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter Parker in Iron Man 2?

So Tom Holland has seemingly confirmed that Peter Parker is the kid with that is comfronted by the Hammerdroids and saved by Iron Man in Iron Man 2, do we add Peter to the Iron Man 2 cast list, or not, if we do add him, the person that played Peter in that scene is named Kiana Prudhont - Eagc7 (talk) 26 June 2017

Confirmed by Holland, who was told directly by Feige. Is this something we add here? It seems a bit trivial to me, but I can see arguments for including it. (Also I'm not watching this article or talk for Homecoming spoilers, so please ping me if anyone responds). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's the source. It seems a bit trivial to me, but I can see arguments for including it. We'd need a source for Kiana Prudhont if they were credited at all to include that. (Also I'm not watching this article or talk for Homecoming spoilers, so please ping me if anyone responds). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I agree. We've been trying to maintain a real-world perspective for this list. This is a retcon of in-universe information. In the actual film, the actor is credited as "Expo kid". As such, I think a footnote would suffice.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eagc7: According to this its actually Max Favreau.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: The note looks good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Just saw this after re-watching the page. I think it would be better to add him to the Iron Man 2 section and have the note that it was retroactive there. That way we are showing the progression in appearances (even if they weren't the originally intended appearances) which is a big part of having this combined list, and it also makes it clear since the footnote as you have it is pretty difficult to come across. You would probably have to be looking for more info on Spider-Man to notice the note. I feel that it still maintains the real-world perspective because of the note explaining the situation (Favreau was simply credited as "Expo kid" in the film, but has since been confirmed to be portraying Parker in the appearance by...). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: No worries on just seeing this. Can you make a mock up of how you would portray this in the Iron Man 2 section? I'm having a difficult time visualizing how we would show it, while still noting he was introduced in Civil War. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, can we do it sort of like the Collector's note for Vol. 2? Here is a mock up of that. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

But would we then placing him under the "Introduced in Civil War" heading or the "Introduced in Phase One" heading? Because this is a retcon, so his "real" first appearance was Civil War. That's why doing as you suggested would be confusing to me, having him listed under two film introductions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Although it is under the "Introduced in Iron Man 2" header, I think the way it is listed in my mock up is clearly different from the others, enough to avoid any major confusion. We have a note to say that he was retroactively "introduced" in that film, as well as his proper introduction in Civil War. My mock up is in opposition to this one which I think would be more confusing. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If we keep Parker under the "introduced in Civil War" heading, plus doing what you are proposing, I think I'd be fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How about add Tom Hiddleston to the imagebox?

Loki is a important character, so why he don't have a pic? Mahouchino (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

He is neither a franchise lead, nor one to recurring across multiple franchise. He has only been in Thor and Avengers films, unlike others such as Nick Fury or Black Widow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's the criteria, then we have to remove Mark Ruffalo who is also not a franchise lead and has only been in Avengers and Thor ad well as Jeremy Renner, who's only been in the Avengers and Captain America franchises. In fact, both Renner and Ruffalo have actually appeared in fewer films so far than Hiddleston. JDDJS (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Renner has appeared in three franchises (Thor, Avengers, Cap) and Ruffalo, while only in the Avengers and Thor franchises, represents the "current" Hulk franchise (ie Incredible Hulk) even though the character was portrayed by Norton. has appeared in the Avengers, Thor, and Iron Man franchises. It isn't about the number of films total per se, but the franchises appeared in for the non-headliners. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Renner didn't appear in Thor. He just had an uncredited cameo. And if number of franchises is the qualifier, then we have to include Clark Gregg who had appeared in Thor, Iron Man and Avengers and will appear in Captain Marvel. Also, Paul Bettany has appeared in 3 franchises (Iron Man, Captain America and Avengers). JDDJS (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Renner still made an appearance in Thor, uncredited cameo or not. Bettany has only appeared two franchises, for each of his characters, not the sum total. As for Gregg, it may be worth reevaluating but current consensus is to have who is there, per the discussion that took place at that link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we don't change the rest there is still a space at the bottom available for Hiddleston. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless if there is a space open or not, Hiddleston still does not satisfy the criteria determined for what images to use. That isn't going to change until Hiddleston stars in a third film franchise, if at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Carrie Coon

@Favre1fan93: The RadioTimes interview, which all of this based, says “Carrie Coon has also joined the ensemble, voicing and performing motion capture for one of Thanos’ henchmen“. I think Variety is incorrect as they stated she only voiced the character in their original article. They only updated it after Carrie’s tweet. I think the author is taking her comment that her face is under there literally but her hashtag #MoCapWhileCapPregnant suggests she did full body work, like Scarlet Johansson in Age of Ultron. The Hollywood Reporter backs this up, “noted on Twitter that she is voicing the character and performing mo-cap work while pregnant with her first child.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. Then we should adjust the wording on the IW article, because I had added that Coon only did facial mo-cap. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds

I feel Ryan Reynolds should be included in there. Now that he has been confirmed to be reprising his role as Deadpool after the whole Disney/Fox buyout. User:WhoAmIandWhoAreYou? 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe we have confirmation from reliable sources on this, and even if we did we have certainly not heard whether he will be appearing in the actual MCU or some kind of R-rated spin-off. Still a lot to learn here. But, if we do end up getting an MCU Deadpool film starring Reynolds then it would indeed be right to add him here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Howard the duck endgame cameo

It was a blink or you'll miss it cameo during the climactic battle. being a cgi character with no lines in the film I don't know how you would list it and it conflicts with the topic of actors. But it's fun to include it, isn't that part of why people like to look at these lists?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.244.185 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It may be fun, but this is an encyclopaedia and we do not include fun trivia just for the sake of it. This is the "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors", so if there is no actor, it should not be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Mackie in the image gallery

I feel Mackie should be included there. He’s been in quite a few of these films now, with Cap 2/3, Avengers 2/3 and Ant-Man in his appearances. Rusted AutoParts 01:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It's inevitable after Endgame. wumbolo ^^^ 11:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We still need to have some sort of criteria rather than just choosing people who have been in "quite a few" of the films, because that is most people at this point. Also, as far as we know Mackie will be moving over to Disney+ now so not necessarily inevitable that he will headline a film. However, I would like to suggest that we adjust our current layout to be a bit less random by starting with the six OG Avengers per their Endgame special credits, and then have headliners of other franchises after that. Does anyone have thoughts on that? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: What are the Endgame special credits again? I actually like that idea quite a bit, and it definitely narrows down the randomness. Sock (tock talk) 03:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with adamstom97 about starting with the 6 OG Avengers (who received special credits at the end of Endgame) and then going with the other film franchises headliners. I would suggest adding a condition that these headliners have to have led at least two films, just so we can limit a bit the number of images when the new franchises arrive. I also think we should wait for Mackie, as Adam mentioned, he could very well be transitioning to Disney+ and never appear in a solo Cap film. - Brojam (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Brojam: Can you explain this revert to me a little more? There's no indication that neither Ruffalo nor Renner have solo films coming up either. Renner has his own series as well, so should he be removed to? I get that there's some contention over the listing in general, but this revert strikes me as inconsistent. Sock (tock talk) 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Ruffalo and Renner are part of the 6 OG Avengers and received special credits in Endgame. What makes Mackie more important than Elizabeth Olsen and Sebastian Stan? Because he is now Cap and you're assuming that he will get a solo Cap film? - Brojam (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely concede, Olsen and Stan are great counterpoints. I think that's subconsciously why I leaned towards Mackie and I didn't even notice. Thanks for the check! Sock (tock talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sock: at the end of Endgame's main-on-end credits, the six original Avengers get special title cards with the actor's signatures. They are essentially the stars of the overall franchise. I suggest that we start with them (they were in reverse order for the credits, so I would turn that back around here) so I believe that would be Downey, Evans, Ruffalo, Hemsworth, Johansson, and Renner. Then we would have the stars of subsequent films/franchises: Pratt, Rudd, Cumberbatch, Holland, Boseman, Lilly, and Larson. Jackson can also be included if people are happy to keep him. This for me makes more sense than the current format, which has been tweaked to try and get Ruffalo and Renner into it since they are obviously main characters, but this has left it all open for interpretation. Having the OG 6 + subsequent stars, and Jackson since he has been the most recurrent, all makes sense to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh right right, briefly forgot about that. I think that's a very good approach overall. I have minor quibbles with Pratt being the only one pictured for the Guardians as I think Saldana and Bautista at least should be in there as well as the other two main live-action actors, but that's a whole different discussion. Only other issue I have is how we would reword the caption. Sock (tock talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Move Peter Parker out of "Introduced in Civil War" list?

There's a pending change currently awaiting review for this article, that wants to move the "Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spidey" row out of the "Introduced in Captain America: Civil War"" table section for Phase Three, "Since it was confirmed that Peter Parker was in Iron Man 2". Instead the editor would place him after Odin in the "Introduced in Phase 1" section of that table.

I have absolutely no idea, is that correct? Should that edit be accepted? Is a character really "introduced" if literally nobody knows it's them at the time, and their "introduction" isn't known until an actor makes an out-of-band claim over a decade later? (Seriously, I'm asking. If consensus is that it counts then it counts! I have neither opinion nor policy knowledge, hence the question.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: Peter Parker absolutely belongs in the "Introduced in Civil War" section, because there is no indication of who the kid is in Iron Man 2. It was literally a retcon. So he was properly introduced in Civil War. I'm all for including a note in the Iron Man 2 section (á la the Grandmaster in Guardians 2) in addition to the Iron Man 2 note, but there's no question in my mind that Civil War is the right spot for his introduction. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: Your thoughts on the issue largely mirror my own, but I also really just don't care very much. I suspect the people who do care about this, care about it strongly enough that it's not worth fighting them on it. But, hey, we've got a consensus of two... anyone else? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Evangeline Lilly in the image gallery

I question why she is there. Paul Rudd was clearly the headliner for Ant-Man and the Wasp, with him having significantly more screen time, particularly at the beginning and end of the film. If we include Lilly in there, we might as well include Zoe Saldana, Dave Baustia, Vid Diesel, and Bradley Cooper, because they arguably headline Guardians of the Galaxy like Lilly does for Ant-Man and the Wasp. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lilly received equal billing as Rudd. “Ant-Man and the Wasp offers equal billing to a male and female superhero.” The same article also calls Lilly “the first [actress] in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to get equal billing with a man.”—- TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We also, generally, go off of characters in the title of the film. So since there's a film Ant-Man and the Wasp, we should have who's playing the Wasp in the gallery. And as for team films such as the Guardians, we take the "leader", so that would be Pratt as Quill to keep things concise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Future section

Should we add a Future section to list the actors that are already confirmed for films listed at List of MCU films#Future? El Millo (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think, if any, it should include the Black Panther and Captain Marvel sequels as those are the only officially scheduled future films we know about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Add Disney+ Shows

Seeing as the MCU Disney+ shows are produced by Marvel Studios and are being created to directly tie in with the films of the franchise, it only makes sense that they are included here as well since their casts overlap completely. Perhaps the title of this page should be retitled "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe actors" or something similar? Or, perhaps this page should be divided into individual pages for each phase (with phases 4 and beyond including the Disney+ series)? Thanks for considering.

B91302 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Any overlapping cast members are shown in the table at the Phase Four page. I think we need to be careful with how we expand this article since it is so easy for the tables to get unmanageably big. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that is a problem, which is why I suggested splitting this page into four separate ones - one for each phase, as the main MCU articles are split. The interconnectivity between the Marvel Studios-produced movies and shows is only going to grow, and thus the tables will grow too. This would be a great way to manage the situation and to keep it organized and readable.

B91302 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Each table isn't nearly big enough to justify being a list on its own. El Millo (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential split and Phase Four table formatting

Two points of order:

1. I'm wondering if we should split off Phases One-Three to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga). And then we could have a level 2 section "The Infinity Saga" pointing readers to that new article, along with some prose (maybe move some from the lead?) or a vastly condensed table.
2. For the Phase Four table, I think it would be beneficial to move away from "Introduced in Phase One, Two, Three" and simply make a "Introduced in The Infinity Saga" heading, followed by "Introduced in Phase Four series" and then the individual films. For Phase Four films (and beyond), I feel it's better just to know if the actor came from the Infinity Saga or not, not necessarily that Black Widow was introduced in Phase One, while Drax was introduced in Phase Two, etc.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If we were to split Phases One to Three to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga), would the Phase Four table be at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (Phase Four) or something like that? And would this page turn into a disambiguation page? El Millo (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I think this can stay where it is, with the Phase Four (and future phases) table. I don't equate this to what we did for the TV actors, because that was a clean split by company. This is just a size issue as I see it. So this article would remain, as I said above with a level 2 header called "The Infinity Saga", pointing readers to the split article and then some sort of prose or vastly condensed table, and then continue on with the Phase Four info as we have it now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts on what info the vastly condensed table would contain? El Millo (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I made a mockup of a Phase Four table with a Introduced in The Infinity Saga heading instead of Phase-by-Phase here, but I'm not sure it would be a change for the better. It doesn't occupy significantly less space than the current one, and perhaps keeping them separated would be more organized. Not directly against it though. El Millo (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No thoughts on a condensed table, but that if anything can be decided or prose would work. Or even just a blank section with the hatnote, though I'm not as favorable as that. In terms of the Phase Four table, it might not reduce the size, but it will removed additional headings, which I think is helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thinking on it, prose on the Infinity Saga section would be better than a condensed table, since that would probably end up looking like the table we have at List of MCU films, but without the Phase Four column, and that would already be redundant and too long. El Millo (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. And I think we could start with what's in the lead, move some of that to this new prose, and reduce what's up there, because I feel like the lead is a bit lengthy. I'll make a mock up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's what this article would look like after the split, with reduced lead, updated pictures, and Infinity Saga section. Here's what the lead would look like for the Infinity Saga split article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Also if this is agreed upon, I think the process should be move the article to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga), then split back the content to this article name so the FL content and history stay with the Infinity Saga tables. That's a bit convoluted, but worth it to keep history/attribution. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. El Millo (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I support this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Disney+ Actors

Why can't we add the confirmed characters from the Disney+ shows to this list, now that we know that it is all interconnected. It is high time we change this page from "List of MCU film actors" to "List of MCU actors". Anubhab030119 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit I reverted because you added two characters from Disney+ shows to the Captain Marvel 2 section baselessly. This is the page for all actors from the MCU films, so we can't include any actors from the Disney+ series until they are actually confirmed to be in a film, which your additions weren't. As for your suggestion, that is not the current consensus as we already have two articles for the TV actors at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Television) and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Studios), which were already split from a single page putting them together. There is currently an ongoing discussion above this post detailing a similar split of this article's content from the Phase 1-3 actors to a separate article for The Infinity Saga actors, with the rest left here for the time being. These are structured this way as they are grouped by the media formats they appear in and to consolidate the amount of content we include on each given page so we don't overload them with hyper content. A whole list of all MCU actors would just be too excessive for standard Wikipedia practice to include and make. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know about that. Sorry man. Thanks for explaining. Anubhab030119 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Saga split

Per the above discussion, formally suggesting that the Phase One, Two, and Three tables be split off to a new article, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga). As such, this namespace would retain the Phase Four and Future tables, while making a new section "The Infinity Saga", pointing towards this new article. To see what the articles would look like (sans the tables), please see mock ups for this article after the split here, and the newly split article, here. And a procedural note: if this is supported, I believe the entire article should be moved to the new namespace so the article's history, FL status, and page protection will be retained with the Infinity Saga information, as it all mostly applies to that content, and then we split back the Phase Four and Future tables to this mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I'm all for this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Chompy Ace 06:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. El Millo (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Why do we think this change is necessary? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Because the list will become larger and larger, and this seems like a good place to divide it. El Millo (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is a good place to divide it, but we had talked about this before and decided that it was too early to actually do that. Not much has changed since then, and I don't see any recent discussion about it, so that is why I am asking why we need to do this now. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Adamstom.97: I started a discussion about splitting it just above this one, and then formally started this split discussion. I do think given the size of the article, it is a clean splitting point to do it by the Infinity Saga, and then keep the Phase Four (and future Phases) and Future tables here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
      • And unless I'm mistaken, the only other discussion I found about this was from three years ago, which I would say a lot has happened since then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Probably the thing that made this discussion happen was the expansion of Phase Four and the inclusion of all that here. I would also be okay with waiting a little longer for this. If not yet, when do you think we should split this list, Adamstom.97? El Millo (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not against it, like I said I think it is the right approach to make eventually. I am just not strongly for it at the moment as I think the article as it is still works fine (or as fine as would be expected of this article). - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So are we ok to make this change? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I give one reason to not split up it right now? Next phases will probably be next saga, so it mean that in next saga cast list we will have to include Disney+ shows too. It's really necessary to do it right now? I think it's better to wait. Mike210381 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There being a "next saga" is WP:SYNTH and speculatory, so we can't judge this split off of that. Same goes for your claims of it including Disney+ series. As has already been discussed above as to why this is being proposed, this film actors list has gotten long in scale and much of the content that made this article a featured list in the first place is the actors content from Phase 1-3, so, as such, a split of that content to a list article specifically dedicated to it would keep that all in one place and prevent this article from becoming too excessive as future films are announced/released. Because we don't know if there will be another saga grouping, moving the current saga grouping to a separate article can help preserve that content whilst avoiding all future actors content from being too long. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Where I cliamed to include D+ shows? I'm saing, that if there will be another saga (and I know it's speculation right now), then we should include them. Yes it will get longer but it doesn't mean that we can't wait. Mike210381 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

But these articles will still only refer to film actors. We are not trying to make "saga" lists or generic "actor" lists. So let's say for argument, the next saga is called "The Multiverse Saga", any split of this content would still include simply the films of that saga. I still believe we have consensus to make such splits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make this split, doing the page moves first as discussed, then splitting back the content to this name space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

When you do the split, at least you could fix languages interwiki. Mike210381 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mike210381: I am not aware of the process to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed that already. Infinity Saga cast linked into other languages full cast lists insted of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors‎, but it's ok now. Mike210381 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)