Template talk:Live-action theatrical films based on Marvel Comics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Template overhaul

I redid the template so that it was organized a bit better than just tossing all the movies in a box. Some notes:

• Right now, the "Single films" section is a little bare. It'll expand once Ghost Rider, Iron Man, and Ant-Man are released. Films are listed in the order they were released.
• The "Franchises" section is organized by franchise (imagine that!). Priority is given to the franchise with the largest number of released films; further weight is given to the eldest initial film (for example, Blade and X-Men each have three; Blade came out in 1998, while X-Men came out in 2000, so the Blade franchise is shown first). Films that have announced sequels (such as Fantastic Four and Hulk) should be listed in the Franchises section rather than the Single Films section.
• I dropped the release years because that sort of information isn't particularly important in a navigation table. Exceptions:
  • The Punisher movies have the same title, so need a distinguishing characteristic;
  • The In Production movies should (in my opinion) have their pending release date, where it is available. I'm actually fairly apathetic about this one; if someone wanted to remove them, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
• Movies in the "In Production" section shouldn't affect the weight of their franchise. For example, the X-Men line shouldn't be moved above the Blade line until after the Magneto or Wolverine film is released. Similarly, the Hulk trumps the Fantastic Four until Rise of the Silver Surfer is released.

For those that are curious: before and after.

So... yeah. That's all. EVula 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice--hottie 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Release date is a useless criteria for film ordering. It assumes knowledge of the release dates of the films, and those who don't know them see an unorganised mess.
• Giving certain franchises priority over others is POV, regardless of justification. Alphabetical order is NPOV, and therefore is preferred.
• I agree with your release date criteria.
• Your last point is part of your POV ordering critera, and so is included in bullet 1.

--Jamdav86 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what? How is anything that I did POV? I'm giving weight to the franchises with the most films, which is a neutral factor in determining order. Chronological release is a perfectly valid method of ordering; see Template:George Lucas, for example. I'd ask if restoring the release date would satisfy your complaint, but the date not appearing is apparently the only thing we agree on. ;)

I've proded the comics WP folk to weigh in on this. While I disagree with the alphabetical ordering, if the general consensus supports your ordering, I'll back down. EVula 19:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. POV may be a bit strong, but arranging misc. films by release date is a bit confusing.

BTW, Template:George Lucas ties with The Dark Tower as one of the ugliest templates I have ever seen. --Jamdav86 19:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that we now agree on two things, Jam. ;-) EVula 22:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Um, sorry to rain on the parade, but this isn't a template, it's a category placed in the wrong name space. Use {{Template:Otherarticles}} instead. Hiding Talk 19:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Hiding Talk 19:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

Is ther a place here for The Fantastic Four (film)? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Added. Although, between this and the first Punisher movie, I'm wondering if there ought to instead be a section for the older one-shot movies, before the franchise was relaunched... EVula 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

TV movies

I'm inclined to not have made-for-TV movies in this template, and restrict to just feature films. Any TV movies should be at Template:Marvel comics TV, not here. Anyone else have an opinion on this? EVula 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that the "Man-Thing" film should be added to this list because it was NOT created as a made-for-TV movie. It was created as a direct-to-DVD product, and so if we're going to list Ultimate Avengers and the animated films on here - which are also DTV products - then obviously Man-Thing belongs on here too. --Bishop2 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I had to dig through the istory. Joltman removed it in april, and in may too, it looks like. I missed this. I'll re-add this. ThuranX 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit on September 25

Hi, I rearranged the titles on this template. I put the list into alphabetical order. I moved Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and Ghost Rider out of the "In Development" section because they are either shooting or in post-production, not in development.

I also added years to all the films that have been given a tentative release date that I could find.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradtcordeiro (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 September 2006‎ (UTC)

animated films

While I'm impressed by the edit adding hte recent animated films, I do wonder if they belong here. The table looks fine to me with them in, and my only problem is that so far, these have been only the Live-Action films. I'm starting a talk section so that we don't see revert wars and such. ThuranX 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Movie Placement

Why are the Wolverine and Magneto films not under X-Men? They are still part of the series, despite being spin-offs, are they not? Especially since they use the same actors.. Also, couldn't The Punisher 2 be put in "In Development" since it's still in the works? StarIV 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at what you're talking about. to move the two X-spin-offs up, but then move the Pun 2 down would still be inconsistent. As such, I've simply moved Pun 2 down, so as to have all In Dev films in one place, (not counting SM3 and FF2, which are about to be released.) The reason Pun 2 was in it's franchise for so long was because people keep trying to add the Lundgren film to the current franchise, and with the two conencted ones there, it reads more clearly 'don't put that here'. we'll see how it goes, and come back to this if needed. Thanks ThuranX 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work, as another editor removed two active franchises, moving the completed films to single films, and the in progress films to In Development, arguing that they aren't franchises until there's a sequel out, and then they should be turned into franchises. Unfortunately, this doesn't work either, as we know they are franchises already, as Marvel's started on sequels. It makes the most sense to follow one of two paths. Keep franchises as is, and put the newest installments in the franchises, letting readers click and learn, or list them as franchises, with all in development installments falling under the 'in development' category, and letting readers read the whole template box. Not sure which is actually smarter. Thoughts? ThuranX 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (And I prefer the former, as it keeps the information more tightly grouped to the places the reader would look for them.)

I'm the one that moved the ones without released sequels to individual films. I definitely think that in development movies should be listed under in development, whether they are part of a franchise or not. I don't quite see what's wrong with waiting until a sequel is released before moving an entry to franchises. What really makes something a franchise? Especially for The Punisher, what if the sequel never actually came out? It still doesn't even have a script written. -Joltman 11:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looking again, the only other solution I see is to get rid of the 'In development' section and move all films to the appropriate single/franchise section. If we did that, perhaps there's someway we could denote films that are still in development? -Joltman 11:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

DC

why doesn't DC have it's own template?

Look in my sandbox, I've been working on one. ThuranX 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You could make one --SuperHotWiki 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have , look through my user page to my sandbox, it's there, I just need to take a week, get feedback, then go live on it. ThuranX 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of movies/When should they be added?

In my opinion, I feel that films which are only in post-production, production or even in the pre-production stages are worthy of consideration in adding to the template. Why? As I was looking at the template, I noticed films that didn't even have a rough release year being added, and by having exceptions for that can allow for the entire list of the Marvel Comics film page to be potentially added. Just my view. Whilst I've left this for public consideration, I've removed the following films from the template as the didn't even have a release year: Luke Cage (TBA), Sub-Mariner (TBA) and Ant-Man (TBA). I assume this will be fine?... => Harish101 23:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of all of these, only Ant-man's seen real movement lately, with scripts being worked on and such. However, removal of all three's good for now. ThuranX 03:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel we should follow WP:NFF and not link films until they've begun filming, like Thor, Captain America and so on. In that case, I'll remove Magneto. Alientraveller (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that addition upon the signing of production contracts would be an acceptable point. having writers doesn't assure anything, but when a producer, director, and/or leading cast are signed, we can throw the link on here, because then it'd be a notable reversal or the direction. scripts are always in spec though. ThuranX (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Marvel's franchise reboots

How should we handle Marvel's rebooting of what were intended to be franchises? Two of Marvel's properties, Punisher and Hulk, are currently devloping not as sequels but as reboots after just one film. While I'd like to move all four involved film to single film status until the newer films are announced to have sequels, I'm not sure this is going to go over well with involved editors, nor be clear to random readers. Thoughts? ThuranX 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we just wait until we see these films? Alientraveller 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be moved to single films until the reboots get sequels. It's no different than Punisher 89 and Punisher 2004. -Joltman 12:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With the reboot Hulk franchise I was kinda thinking the same as Alientraveller. I had no idea about Punisher being a reboot... having just looked into it, I would debate about what the hell they're doing but I'll stray from that and say that it may as well be taken down as a franchise or, as suggested previously, at least wait for this film to materialise also. Realistically though I guess it makes sense to remove the franchises, if I'm to be objective. => Harish101 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AT, regarding just waiting, I don't see why we should. Both films, The Incredible Hulk (film) and The Punisher 2, have RS proof they are reboots or do-overs, so waiting for months seems just foolish, but so is jumping to a contentious solution. I think that moving them there's best, and I'll do so, with a comment after each that in article citations demonstrate that each new film is a reboot, and that the two older films aren't connected. ThuranX 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the template has "in article citations demonstrate that each new film is a reboot, and that the two older films aren't connected." written above it. It's a conspiracy I tells ya! => Harish101 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, like a long day at work, I forgot to delete my copy n pasted text... damnit. Just pull that sort of thing next time, LOL. My fault and I apologize and have corrected it. ThuranX 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, it happens bro. No need to apologise. => Harish101 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It seeems that these films may not be called sequels but almost are sequels. The creators have said that both films are picking up where the others left off, they just have a new cast. I mean, we are not going to see another origin of the Hulk or the Punisher in these movies. Now something like Batman Begins was a reboot, because it started the story over completely. But then with Superman Returns, it was made up of a different cast and everything, but was still connected to the Christopher Reeve series as it picked up where they left off. So with that example, doesn't The Incredible Hulk, as well as Punisher: War Zone, count as part of the same series?RoryS89 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

No, because we have explicit statements that these are not sequels. While they won't be reintroducing the origins, they aren't going to strictly adhere to the facts of the first films. they seem to feel the eralier films set the groundwork, establishing an audience and some basic mythologies in the minds of the viewers, and now seek to go further. Until we get an explicit 'they are sequels', the citations that they are not stand. ThuranX 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Lexi Alexander explicitly stating the film is a reboot. http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6583 76.241.88.203 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Incredible Hulk is picking up where the first movie left off is a clear indication that it is a sequel. Just because it doesnt play by the same rules as the first, doesnt mean its not a sequel. Rau J16 11:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't pick up right where the last left off. That he's in South America in both could easily be attributed to coincidence, or, it could be because of the passive nature of the reboot. Had you read this entire page, instead of stopping at the first thread, you would have seen this. We have citations from Edward Norton, star and writer of the new film, specifically stating he made major changes to the script specifically to separate it from the previous effort. Penn has said similar things, and the director has said that they aren't retelling the origin, that he's relying onthe first film's relative success as teh box office to assure that most of the audience will know the basic concept. IT's akin to (finally) creating an entirely new Superman franchise, and not bothering to SHOW the rocket leaving krypton again, relying on 70 years of Superman in Pup Culture to have the audience already aware taht he's a 'strange visitor from another planet'.

Template autocollapse

Is it just on my computer, or does anyone else notice that the template collapses oddly? On my computer it usually changes from a mini collapsed bar, to a slightly deformed bar, before opening up. I know this does not make any sense in words, so I've linked an image to clarify this. -- Harish - 10:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mine does it too sometimes. Might be worth going over to the template talk pages to find out how to fix that. ThuranX 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the latest on this problem? -- Harish - 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk NOT a reboot

The Incredible Hulk has been confirmed to be a SEQUEL....yes it was originally a reboot...so they started afresh with a new cast. Only thing is Edward Norton wrote the first draft screenplay. He wrote it in continuation to the first. Need proof...how about you read the Incredible Hulk page or go to just about any movie site where details on the story are revealed? It is o longer a reboot but a sequel s leave it as a franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oilahize (talk • contribs)

Please show evidence/link us with "just about any movie site" that's reliable, in order to take the appropriate action. -- Harish - 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I went and reviewed Oilahize' citation of the film's article, and what he cited was a year plus old citation of Avi Arad, which was contradicted by later citations of Zak Penn, the writer and producer. As such, Arad's old comments were removed. Until such time as a set of proper, current citations can be found, please avoid re-editing. The 'same continuity' commentaries made by Penn in his earlier interview first off are used in comparison to batman begins, which we know to be a new franchise and total restart. His curther comments suggest instead that they intend to rely upon audience familiarity to aid in the storytelling, thus the suggestive and flashback oriented origin information they discuss. We currently have citation indicating that these are meant to be new films, see esp., the discussion regarding Norton's ideas about further separating the two films as independent of each other. ThuranX 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Penn stated the film is a sequel, but tonally different. The Alien—Aliens comparison is part of that. Feige may be calling it a reboot, but nonetheless Norton said it is in the timeframe of a sequel. So just wait until the film comes out. Alientraveller 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Penn stated that a while ago, however, the more recent article states that Norton helped rewrite the script specifically to separate the two films as different. ThuranX 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alientraveller 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really....what I got from the articles I read was that it is different in the sense of style. The original took on a different style of the Hulk, whereas this next movie is much closer to the comic books.With Norton being a huge fan of the comics...he was perfect for the job.http://www.joblo.com/upcomingmovies/movies.php?id=900 ...some links to the articles I've read. Some of them are only weeks old and are stated in the sense of a sequel just a different style.oilahize

Well, I read back four articles, which means three months back, not weeks old, and none say it's a sequel. Further, the emphasis on the rewrites, norton's discussion of separating the two, and the further discussion that norton gives, specifically saying remake when comparing it to painted veil all suggest that it's a remake, but of a story the audience will be familiar with. In other words, 2003 got the hulk to the wide audience, the ground work of explaining the character is done, now they can 'retell' it to suit thier pruposes for a new franchise. ThuranX 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well one of the articles is from October 1st...I am pretty sure that was less than a week ago..oilahize

The Incredible Hulk is a stand-alone sequel. I'm sure it will have little or no relatation to 2003's Hulk, but it's still a sequel. It's kinda like 28 Weeks Later or the Night of the Living Dead sequels. The sequels aren't related to the previous movie(s), but it's still a sequel. — Enter Movie 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We've got citations specifically contradicting your interpretation, and your examples are awful, because 28 weeks later specifically IS a direct sequel of the first, occuring 28 weeks after release of the rage virus, when London is being decontaminated and resettled; he movie's quite clear about the timeline, establisdhing a direct connection. Likewise, though produced years apart, the living dead series establishes a direct continuity, the world is progressively suffering more and more from the infestation. The best we've got about this movie is that while NOT a sequel, it's not a total reboot either, nad has chosen to simply avoid the material of the first movie, rewriting what it needs to to fit a new story. It's a passive reboot, not overtly contradicting the first, with all new origin material, but not acknowledging it either. ThuranX 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Coming from someone on the production [[1]] not a sequel.76.205.87.221 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you have proof of those citations? There's also a connection between the Hulk films: It still has the Hulk/Eric in it. And isn't a "passive reboot," as you explained, kinda like a spiritual successor?

Plus, I got some other examples, too: The Butterfly Effect 2 and White Noise 2. They're not related in any way to the previous movie. By the way, 76.205.87.221, I clicked on that site; which article do you want me to look at? I read this one, [2], and it said The Incredible Hulk is a sequel. — Enter Movie 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, which is more likely to know the truth, the writer, director, and star of the film itself, or a british reporter in Rio filing a wire report about the effects on the local economy down there? Further, explaining the 'passive reboot' isn't germaine to that story, and may have been edited out by either the writer during writing, or the editor, for clarity to the general audience. As to your demand for 'proof' of those citations, most are here on the talk pages or in the article itself. Many were linked via superherohype itself. As to your further examples, I fail to see your logic. You seem to think that simply having the 2 makes it a sequel despite zero commonality except a singular concept, like the noise or the time-jumping. If that's the case, I submit, this movie doesn't even have a 2, and thus, more ground for not being seen as a sequel. Further, you changed from asserting two movie had nothing in common but were still barely sequels. When contradicted, you suggest that two movies that really have very little in common are clear sequels. It's quite a strange turn of argument. ThuranX 03:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I'd like to have facts and truths from the writers, directors, stars, etc. than from a website. I just pointed it out because 76.205.87.221 pointed it out. And if they have a "2," doesn't it mean it's a sequel? Those sequels have the same premise and concept, just not characters from the first film. White Noise: The Light is the correct title; I just didn't feel like typing the whole thing, so it doesn't have a "2." And to explain about the sequels thing, I just wanted to point out that sequels doesn't need to be related to their predecessor to be a sequel; sorry if I was too vague. I also don't think I said that two movies that had nothing in common were "barely sequels"; I clearly stated that sequels that have little to do with their previous movie(s) are still sequels. All the writers are doing is trying to separate Hulk and The Incredible Hulk, but in a way, it's still a sequel because it's a follow-up with some origin story elements. — Enter Movie 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it shares some elements. Scientist gets hit with gamma rays, turns into big green thing that smashes stuff. However, it's been repeatedly stated that while not overtly refuting the first movie, they're not using anything from the first film, either, except for the assumptive premise that audiences will already know his origin, and thus not have to completely recap it for the new film. It's not any particular sequel, and there's a link above to a long list of articles which help establish this. ThuranX 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a new query though which could change the consensus drastically. If one were to consider Batman Forever a sequel to Batman Returns, despite the drastic change in tone, wouldn't one consider TIH a sequel to Hulk? Still, it may be better to wait and see the film. Alientraveller (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Those two were known sequels, announced and advertised as such; we've got citations here stating that this isn't one, just that they're not going to redo the origin and such. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Series order

I've reverted Alientraveller's edit, which ordered the series' by first installment release, back to an alphabetic listing. The other form looks quite jumbled, and in a franchise set, it seems readers would have an easier time reading a list of characters, not release dates, to parse the order. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable. Alientraveller (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Punisher and Hulk are both reboots

Since The Incredible Hulk and The Punisher: War Zone can be cited multiple times as NOT part of the same series, how do you guys want to play this? Should we separate them out from the other "series" listings somehow? It seems like we need to specify that these are not sequels. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

they WERE separated out for a long time, and recently, a new editor and an IP, likely to be the same editor, are trying to change it in violation of multiple policies, including WP:CRYSTAL and WP:3RR. I will review the page, but the films WERE listed under the 'single films' category for good reason. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie article list Incredible Hulk as a sequel. Rau J16 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Norton says "it's utterly unrelated to that [Hulk] film." http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=671076.243.219.242 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Venom, Capt. America, Avengers

shouldn't the venom, capt. america and avengers movie be listed? since thor is listed and it re-directs to "thor (comics)" page, i think the same thing should be done to these three movies that are planned

add Venom(TBA) and re-direct the page to Venom (eddie brock)#film

the same goes to capt. america and avengers82.155.223.136 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thor is different, in that contracts and pre-production are confirmed, the other two are only 'intent stated' level films right now. There's little guarantee that anythign will occur. ThuranX (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

they already said that they are moving on with venom, and that the producers are already meeting with writers. ALso, edward norton has already been asked to play as hulk in the avengers, and robert downey jr. as iron man82.155.220.39 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

talking about things doesn't count, and asking doesn't count without the paperwork, and citation. We don't report intent here, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL. If you have citations regarding the asking for reprising the roles, please bring it to both movies' talk pages. But until there's actual press on Venom and Avengers having peopel signed, it's not going to pass the sniff test. ThuranX (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Venom is thus far an idea. Likewise with Avengers, even though it does have a writer in Zak Penn (who has actually not begun work). Alientraveller (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man II

... has entered production. It begins filming this week. It has its own page. To whoever keeps removing it from the template... why? 72.192.217.186 (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it has not entered production. There are no reliable sources saying it has. find them, then adjust. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article on Iron Man II, so could the Irom Man films be added to film series section now? --Gman124 ^talk 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS covers this. That article shouldn't be there until the film starts filming. It hasn't. I'd take it up there; it make exist instaed as a case of a split from the first film based on size. Regardless, the standard here at this template has long been production started, so we should stick to that. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ET says that filming will begin on Monday. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Then Monday, or tuesday, after commencement confirmations are released to the press, we can alter the template. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Animated

shouldn't all of Marvel Animation's films be added to the template, not just some of them?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Avengers

Could the Iron Man and Hulk films be moved to Avengers series line instead, since the Hulk has a minor crossover with Iron Man. and also in future list all the related avengers films under there (if they come out). And since it has been reported that all those characters might appear in Avengers movie (if there is one). Since Marvel is self producing these films as it says here would it not be safe to assume that they will do with the movies, something similar to what they did with the '90's caroons in Marvel animated universe (since they had self produced those too with their Marvel Productions studio). Since all of the character, (Hulk, Iron-Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Nick Fury - for whom a movie was announced or already released) are also announced to appear in a possible avengers movie. So I think it would be best if they get put into one category rather than multiple. Gman124 ^talk 17:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Marvel's been withholding commencement of production of films, and pushing back target release dates in response to the economy; it remains possible that the 'avengers' idea will never occur. It's been discussed before, and the consensus seems strong that we should wait until there is clear, reliable sources as evidence that the Avengers movie is in production, and reliese upon the characters introduced in the then earlier films. ThuranX (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

but they are clearly connected based on the crossover24.168.38.78 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No. They're only 'connected' if something comes of the cameos, otherwise, they are JUST cameos, and so far, there's only ONE of those. ThuranX (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, isn't Samuel L. Jackson appearing as Nick Fury in Iron Man II and Thor. so shouldn't thor be placed in category of Iron man or change it to avengers or something? Gman124 ^talk 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Independent/Co-Productions Separation

Basically, I tried shoehorning the difference of the two to keep them as separate entities as they are in the film world, because having them mixed just gives me a feeling of messiness. To some, including me, the independent films are like the "official" Marvel movies, as they are making them on their own. I feel it'd also settle the whole thing about splitting the films into an Avengers series. This way, instead, you have all those films and those to come in that universe/continuity in their own template thingy. Also it'd intrigue those who don't understand the separation to look into it and become more informed on the subject. Just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.142.168 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't intrigue me one bit. We have asimple, straight-forward order, with no implications about continuity, and we have said repeatedly that we will hold off on the Avengers issue until it's actually in production. ThuranX (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of a so-called "Avenger's series", I would like to distinguish the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" from independant movies, because even if The Avengers movie never gets made, you still have Iron Man 1&2, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger, and Thor in the same movie universe. I think it would be beneficial to separate them, because they are different from the independant productions. J52y (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Future movies

I have no doubt that movies such as Captain America:The First Avenger and The Avengers movie are coming but shouldn't we limit to movies that already have their own article to be on this template such as Thor. If those should be there then why not the Untitled Spider-Man reboot or the Venom movie as well.There's even plans for an Luke Cage and Ant Man film. What I mean is even though it's announced or confirmed it doesn't mean it shouldn't be on this template right away.Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Films in Pre-production

Can Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance be added now that it has a release date and has entered pre-producton?--121.212.133.48 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Avengers franchise edits

there have been a number of recent edits to this template trying to shoehorn all the Avengers related films into a new category. I suggest instead that each character maintain their own series listing for now according to the current rules (that a sequel be in production before the template is rearranged), and then marked with an asterisk as an Avengers tie-in, once that film is actually in production. We know that Marvel has the intent to create this far-spanning MovieMarvelverse thing, but any number of factors could hamstring their efforts or shut the goals down entirely, and any such adjustments in light of one tiny scene aren't justified. ThuranX (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that Iron Man 2 has a release date mean it can be added? I figure that means they have begun production on it. Rau's Speak Page 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No. At one time, there were fairly clear announcements about Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Ant Man and more. Untill we start seeing real movement, we hold off. I know it's tempting, but one good indication that it's really time to consider it is whether or not the film has an article on here as well, rather than a section in another article. That usually doesn't happen until there's some real traction on it. ThuranX (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kay, I was referring to an Iron Man section in the series, but I get your point. Rau's Speak Page 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As ThuranX pointed out to me, there can't be an Avengers or Iron Man franchise listed until The Avengers or Iron Man 2 (for their respective series) are in production. As such, my recent changes were premature. Having said that, once such changes are apropriate, surely there should be a way to put the Iron Man series under an umbrella Avengers series (it should be safe to say that the sequels will occur in the same universe even if they don't make the overt references they're bound to make). It may require a slight redesign of the template. I'm not sure it's worth discussion right now.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there can there be an Avengers film series article if there cannot be a section in the template? Shouldn't the same rules apply? Rau's Speak Page 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And there's a lengthy discussion at that page about it. EVEN if that page stays, it doesn't validate including anything here; the article about Marvel's plans and the template inclusion of numerous films are two different things. As stated before, Characters go into their own franchises. The avengers tie-ins can be noted with asterisks, or some other device. ThuranX (talk)

When The Avengers enters production in a few weeks and is added to this template, can the MCU have its own section? --121.217.201.104 (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe

I believe there are enough quotes from the studio and creative people behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe films to add it as a series of films at this point. Even if the Avengers film were to derail before it starts filming in a month, there are enough shared characters (Coulson, Howard Stark) and continuity between the films for them to be viewed as a series. There is the same amount of continuity between these films as there is between Daredevil/Elektra -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Avengers (film project) link

Is there any good reason for The Avengers not to be included in the main section of this article? The only real reason for not including a film in pre-production is that it does not have its own article. This film does have its own article and therefore should be included. --120.146.67.92 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Red Sonja and Men in Black

Should Red Sonja (1985 film) be listed here? Its not a Marvel property. While Marvel was publishing the characters comic book at the time, she was licenced from the Robert E. Howard estate (just like Conan and Kull). And while Marvel's version was completely reinvented and bared little in resemblance to the original Howard character (who was a gun slinging heroine) it was still licenced. Today the character is essentially creator owned by the writer (Roy Thomas) and artist (Barry Windsor Smith) of the Marvel series. The character appears in comics published by Dynamite Entertainment which is another comic book company. So the film really isn't a Marvel movie per say since it doesn't feature a Marvel character.

Furthermore shouldn't The Men in Black (comics) films be listed? Those characters are owned by Marvel (they acquired Malibu Comics who acquired Aircel Comics, the originator of these characters). Marvel published various Men in Black comics around the time the film was made and still own the rights to those characters. Even though they don't use them anymore, they have owned the characters since 1994 (when they bought Malibu). This was before the first film came out in 1997.Giantdevilfish (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'm totally agree. Pro, This movie must be removed of the list.OscarFercho (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Red Sonja and Men in Black films have been discussed a few times before. Check out the archive for the multiple threads for each film. I've argued for including Red Sonja in the past, but you have raised what I think is the best rebuttal so far. This film clearly falls in a gray area. If the consensus was to de-list the Red Sonja film, I would be fine with supporting that position. While Aircel Comics wasn't a Marvel imprint at the time the first MIB film came out, it is held as a Marvel property now. So, even though the imprint is now defunct, I am inclined to list the MIB films under "From other Marvel imprints" along with Icon Comic's Kick Ass. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesh. With Red Sonja, while Marvel's version is different than the Howard original (including the tweaking of her name from SonYa to SonJa), it was still licenced. Howard was credited in the fine print at the bottom of page one of every issue of the comic book series (http://www.comics.org/series/2404/covers/) that Marvel published, (Marvel did this with all their licenced properties. The rights holder was credited in the fine print whether it was Conan the Barbarian, Kull of Atlantis, Godzilla, Transformers, GI Joe, Star Wars etc). Heck, Howard was even credited in the film.

Then, this altered version of the character became copyrighted as a separate entity. Not by Marvel Comics, but by the two creators which made her a creator owned property. These were the two gentlemen that wrote and drew the comic for Marvel and reimagned Howards character for the comic book. They even created a company called Red Sonja LLC. This is why the character is being used by another company. (Dynamite Entertainment)http://www.comics.org/series/14205/covers/

So as you can see, back then the character was licenced by Marvel and now its owned by a company that isn't Marvel. In other words she was never a Marvel property. If the film is to be included on the list then the Conan films should be included too.

As for The Men in Black, Marvel has owned them since 1994. Its irrelevant that the characters weren't originated by Marvel. Marvel owns them now. This is like how DC Comics owns Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Blue Beetle and Plastic Man. These characters originated in Fawcett Comics, Charlton Comics and Quality Comics respectively. Its just that DC obtained the rights to these old defunct comic book companies properties and as such owns these characters. Its no different with Marvel in regards to Malibu Comics/Aircel Comics. So the Men in Black films (as well as the cartoon series) is just as much a Marvel movie as a Plastic Man or Captain Marvel movie would be a DC Comics movie. Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

These are all excellent points. You clearly know your stuff. It's great to have your participation in editing this page. I support making the proposed changes (though I still think MIB should appear under "From other Marvel imprints" as an imprint of Aircel Comics; it wasn't clear whether that was your recommendation as well). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I support whatever the consensus is about this. However, whatever changes are done to this article I would like done to Template:Marvel Comics films as well for consistency's sake, meaning removing Red Sonja and adding the Men in Black films if that proves to be the case.-5- (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

On an another note, this would also mean Men in Black: The Series gets added to List of television series based on Marvel Comics, and its respective template, right?-5- (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Following this logic, I have also added Night Manand Ultraforce to the List of television series based on Marvel Comics given that they are both based on Malibu Comics. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I did it. Could you change the templates -5-? I'm not much of a template kind of guy. Also maybe we should take Osubuckeyeguy's advice and make a note that they are "From other Marvel imprints" or whatever, since Marvel doesn't really use these characters in their comic books. They just own them but do nothing with them (like the entire Ultraverse they obtained from Malibu comics). This will avoid any confusion to readers who might not understand that technically the MIB are Marvel properties.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Film series seperation

The fact that a film does not follow the same continuity does not mean that it is a different film series. This viewpoint is far too in-universe-style thinking. Therefore, I have combined the film series based on the same source material into the same sections. --60.229.202.109 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A film series is characterized by a certain degree of continuity. You are suggesting that films be divided by character(s), which I think is more confusing. The new Spiderman movie, for example, will have a different origin story altogether. Sometimes after a film series has had its run, the rights transition back to a different party, so subsequent films may not even be produced by the same studio. Don't confuse the comic book concept of "series" with the film concept of "series." Tim Burton's Batman films are not in the same series as Christopher Nolan's even though they involve the same DC character. Same idea here. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The new Spider-Man in not set in the same continuity as the old one but from a production viewpoint, they are part of the same series of films. These films are produced by the same studio. The announcement of the reboot was directly after the cancellation of Spider-Man 4. The same with The Punisher 2 and Punisher: War Zone. This is less evident with the 1977 Amazing Spider-Man film so I understand if that has to be removed. I think the key idea for the Batman film series is that a film was always in development. After Batman and Robin, Batman: Triumphant became Batman: Year One and eventually Batman: Year One became Batman Begins. It's like Casino Royale for James Bond. It clearly doesn't follow the same continuity yet is undeniably part of the same film series. I don't really see what the comic book concept of "series" has to do with it. --60.229.202.109 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Directors

Adding additional subgroups by directors, 60.229.75.152, is meaningless for most people and just complicates the template. People general don't know who the directors are. It is also clear that it is the Marvel Cinematic Universe by the title of the template, so it can be shorten to Cinematic Universe. Hovering over the wikilink will also show that it links to Marvel Cinematic Universe. --Spshu (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe is the title of the film series. You can't just shorten the title of the series because one of the word happens to be the primary focus of the template. People from Marvel who ONLY talk about Marvel-related subjects for a living refer to the series as the Marvel Cinematic Universe or MCU, never as the Cinematic Universe (or CU?). The name appearing after the hover is a ridiculous departure away from convention. The Punisher series being listed as a non-series is a massive contradiction. Directors may be obscure but years are frequently used on WP. The Template should be reverted to this format immediately. --121.217.108.185 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can shorten the the title of the film series, as it it the Marvel Film template and the ovious focus of the template as we sure are not talking about the "DC Cinematic Universe". If not then why are you refering to Marvel Studios as just Marvel. The hover is all over Wikipedia, alot of links for CEO are all over the place thus not against convention. The template used "Franchise" not series, so I tagget them as non-series as they don't have any much connection than the title character. Years were built into the wikilinks thus not need. So no reversion to that format. Spshu (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"121.217.108.185 (talk)‎ (3,388 bytes) (Undid revision 457906042 by Spshu (talk) (revert, film series definition discussed on talk page, avengers could be listed under iron man or other)"

Series is not defined by continuity nor is a single movie a series. 121.217.108.185 wants to demand not "discuss', since he has failed to continue the discussion.Spshu (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate this direct attack on me. I don't know what your definition of discussion is but I'm pretty sure this is it. Also, why do you assume I am a "he"? I was referring to Marvel Studios as "Marvel" on a talk page not on an official page. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to use shortened forms of phrases. I humbly apologize for this deeply hypocritical error.

I suppose that on this template I should also be referring to "Marvel Studios" as "Studios" since it's obvious what I'm talking about because it's the Marvel films template. I also should not require the "Cinematic" in "Cinematic Universe", since it's obvious that it's about cinema as it's the Marvel Comics FILMS template. CEO a is widely-used phrase that has entered the English lexicon. It does not require explanation to most individuals. --121.217.108.185 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume "he" because did not want to use "it" for the IP address and a male would be more interest in Marvel than a female. Also a number male nouns have assume a more sexless conotation; "guys" comes to mind right away.

You have made my point for me on the shortening that I want you to understand context better by critizing your use with Marvel. But I should point out that a few of the films were made before the existance of Marvel Studio (as Marvel Film division in 1993 then Marvel Studio in 1997). That is standard on Wikipedia in article as we don't use the official name or full name of people or companies. Marvel Comics is the article name but the official company name is Marvel Worldwide, Inc. Check out the Template:Genesee County, Michigan particularly Clayton Township wikilink. 1) Official names of charter township in Michigan are Charter Township. 2)It isn't the only Clayton Township in Michigan, so its tagged with its county in its article name and with Michigan to disambiguated it from the other Clayton Townships. But as you can see that it just shorten to "Clayton" in the Genesee County template as the template is about Michigan's Genessee County and is listed in the Charter Township group. You can shorten "Cinematic Universe" to just "Universe", so I agree to that edit. The Navboxes are not suppose to be too long, of course you still need something reasonable enough to click on. Spshu (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Continuity

The definition of a film series always seems to cause troubles... and at a quick glance at this page, it seems as though I'm not the first to question the consistency of this template. Okay, the problem here is with the Film Series sections for Fantastic Four, Punisher and Spider-Man, as they all contain films that are from separate continuities. This is a problem for two reasons:

1) The separate continuities mean that they are separate series, and should not be listed under the same film series section (would be a different story if it said "Film Franchises").

2) There is a consistency issue, as "Hulk" (2003) is separated from "the Incredible Hulk", and the two Captain America films separated from "The First Avenger".

As far as I can see there are two options to fix this problem:

1) Restrict this template to just listing continuities, which means that "The Fantastic Four", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and all of the Punisher films are moved to the "Single films" category. The sub-categorisation of the MCU would remain, as that refers to different series within the continuity.

2) List the "franchises" This means that a Captain America section would be created that includes ALL Captain America films (including "The First Avenger"), and the same for Hulk. This causes issues for the MCU, which could be handled a number of ways, such as removing the MCU section, and instead, placing asterisks next to films in the MCU. Or, the MCU section could remain as it is and be considered as a franchise (meaning films such as "Hulk" (2003) would be listed twice). Also, when listing franchises, there is the option for sub-categorisation into separate continuities (e.g. under the "Spider-Man" franchise, having a sub-section called "Raimi Continuity" or similar, and then another called "Webb Continuity"). This ends up looking a lot bigger, but it is less misleading, more informative, and probably a well-organised system. But yes, it does increase the size of this template dramatically.

The same issue was faced on the List of highest-grossing films page, on the Highest Film Franchises and Series section, and in the end, they went with a similar layout to option 2. Franchises were listed, and elaborated upon in expandable sections, and the size of the table increased considerably (particularly when fully expanded), but that is a table in an article, and this is a template, so it may not be the best option. If anyone has any other options, yell out. Otherwise, I think these are the two best ways for going about this.

Also, just a quick on-the-side thing, Men in Black and Kick-Ass were originally from other imprints owned by Marvel, and this is clearly illustrated on the List of films based on Marvel Comics page. If there's a way we can differentiate these from the others, that would be good. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Separate continuities do not indicate separate series. This has already been discussed above in the section "Film series separation". As suggested there, a film series is not defined by the continuity it is set in. This is covered by WP:IN-U. --121.217.108.185 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured someone would say that, which is why my second reason is there. Going by the logic that "Amazing Spider-Man" is in the same 'series' as the Raimi trilogy, that means that "Hulk" (2003) should be listed in the same series as "the Incredible Hulk". And also, I can't see anything in WP:IN-U that refers to the definition of a series. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If we use "option 2", we encounter the same issue of having films that could be listed in multiple series with The Avengers. It would then need to be listed under Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and Thor. The fact that The Incredible Hulk was produced by a different studio to Hulk seems like the distinguishing factor to me personally. The only other solution I can see is to put all the films in one section as was the case when the template was started in 2006. --60.229.29.148 (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one way of dealing with the problems that arise with option 2. I did suggest others that may be a little better laid out. My personal preference falls with a fully detailed option 2. I don't see any issues with adding extra detail, increasing the size of the template, as it is, after all, hidden until one unhides it... And at least "The Incredible Hulk" was distributed by the same company as "Hulk", whereas "The Fantastic Four" and "Fantastic Four" were made and distributed by totally different companies. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My preferences would be to focus on two attributes: character franchises and continuity. This seems to correspond to option 2. Before this thread was even started, I roughed up what this might look like at User:Osubuckeyeguy/sandbox. I didn't make the edits to the main template page because I am not familiar enough with footnoting to make sure the notes were done correctly. I was a participant in the thread above titled "Film series separation", which people have alluded to already here and in their edit summaries. I would point out that the thread was started, but there was never any resolution. I never agreed with the IP editor's logic, but decided just to let it go. I far prefer the use of dates rather than directors for indicating continuity because directors often change within the same continuity, and because this is a film template, not a director template. Throwing out Sam Raimi's name isn't going to help anyone who doesn't already know who he is. The years the first film in the series was released isn't perfect, but it's not a terrible solution. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes! That's pretty much what I'd like it to look like. To some extent, I agree with you on the naming of the continuities with years, but I think in some cases there would be another name that is more common (e.g. Raimi trilogy- I've never heard anyone call it the 2002 Spider-Man trilogy; MCU, etc.). But I can see where you're coming from on the thought that directors change. So, I don't know where to go on that one. Also, I think maybe the option of listing the MCU as a franchise (meaning MCU films would be listed twice) should be considered... And what do you think about perhaps putting "Men in Black" and "Kick Ass" in a different section-type thing, as it's clearly illustrated on the List of films based on Marvel Comics page that they are from other imprints of Marvel Comics. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about the films based on imprints, but it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me if they are included here with the others. Couldn't a footnote be used to indicate the imprint, much like a footnote that would denote that a film is part of the MCU? I'm not really in favor of listing MCU as it's own franchise if it means that films would be listed twice. I do think the Avengers should be considered it's own franchise though, whenever Avengers 2 is released (even if the characters are different - because presumably the continuity would still be the same). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the imprints- I guess footnotes are okay, but I would prefer something that separates it better, as is done on the Marvel films page, because in a sense, this template accompanies the article, and should therefore reflect the article. As to the MCU- yeah, footnotes may be a simpler way of treating it, but I feel that footnotes wouldn't be giving it enough emphasis... So, pretty much, for both of these I would rather not use footnotes, but I think it may need some more opinions. And don't assume we'll have an Avengers 2 yet. You'll just get disappointed if we don't... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was think that we should have the initial division as "Single films", "franchises", "film series", and "other imprints". Thus the Punisher films and the Capt. America films not in the Marvel Cinematic Universe could go under "franchises". Here is a draft of how it would look.Spshu (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is far more confusing than what I have proposed above. The franchise/series distinction isn't obvious in terms of what those words mean and by saying "other imprints", it gives the impression that these films do not belong in the template at all. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Spshu, that way seems to give it more inconsistencies, and is a little confusing. All films are part of some sort of franchise or series, so listing it that way would be incorrect, despite the inconsistencies. I do appreciate the "Other Imprints" section, which is also more consistent with the article. But anyway, I've decided that I'm not a big fan of the "single films" list if there's only four or so in it, and some other films have their own row. And since we're all making our own templates, I figured I'd give it a go, and I think this is pretty much what I'd prefer: User:ProfessorKilroy/Sandbox Thoughts? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any greater inconsistencies or confusion then either your, Kilroy or Osubuckeyeguy. In fact less. What is the second film in the 1990 series or franchise of Captain America? There isn't any such movie! But with all the navbox|childs that both of you introduce that is the inference that there are or will be movies in that series. All these subnav do in expand the template for nothing, navboxes are suppose to be compact. Franchise show those that have more than one movies made for those characters but the movies don't follow some sort of storyline ie. are in a series. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no implications towards there being another film in the same continuity as "Captain America" (1990) in my sandbox or Osubuckeyeguy's. In fact, in mine, I listed "film franchise" as the first heading, and the Captain America franchise includes all Captain America films (as shown), but is further divided into series. Also, if a film is part of a film series, it is part of a film franchise, there is no separation between the two, other than the films they include. Franchise includes every film from that franchise (e.g. Spider-man: All four), whereas Series includes the films directly in that series or continuity (e.g. Spider-man: two separate series: Raimi Trilogy and Amazing Spiderman continuity). That is where the main inconsistency from your template is. The franchises section should include "The First Avenger" in the Captain America subsection, and furthermore, the franchises section should include all franchises. Also, you included "The Amazing Spider-man" in the same series as the other ones, when you separated "The Fantastic Four" from the recent series. If you believe the template is too big, then the series sub-division can be removed (e.g. the second template on this page). However, I still believe the first template in my sandbox is the best way to go. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Also, if a film is part of a film series, it is part of a film franchise, there is no separation between the two, other than the films they include." But not all films in a franchise is in a series like Captain America (1990) as there are no more films to make it a series. Thus I think most can process my navbox. As they will understand those in series are in a franchise but so will understand under "franchises" you will see non-series for those characters franchises. But I like your second attempt, let me work off that... OK here is a variant of Kilroy's latest franchise version. I removed the Marvel Cinematic Universe group and just movies in that "supergroup" with "MCU" and added a wikilink for Marvel Cinematic Universe with the acroynm (MCU) in the see also. I also gave series or non-series in the group titles where possible. Spshu (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"But not all films in a franchise is in a series like Captain America (1990) as there are no more films to make it a series." But my template (franchise division, continuity sub-division) does not imply that. It doesn't mention the word "series" at all. And sorry, but whilst I can understand your template, I do need to look at it for a while to figure it out... I don't think continuities should be divided mid-row, as it clutters the template and adds confusion. Also, check out my Sandbox, as I've done a few more out for this. I really think we need more opinions, so I'll go spread the word on the Film and Comic project talk pages. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The main thing to remember is that a template is primarily a navigation tool, so should be organized intuitively. The relationship between the films is complicated, but the primary purpose of the template is to navigate, not to illustrate relationships. I think the cleanest template is the one at User:Osubuckeyeguy/sandbox. Rather than placing asterisks next to the MCU, you could add an extra line for the MCU as in option 4 at User:ProfessorKilroy/Sandbox. I'm aware this introduces some redundancy by repeating some films but I don't think that is a huge issue to be honest; it would allow readers to navigate by franchise, series and continuity so covers all bases. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  EDIT: An editor at the Film Project has pointed out there is a separate MCU template at Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe, so there is no need to explicitly mark out the MCU within this template. Having this template organize by franchise and series, and having a separate MCU template covers all bases. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comments/Observations
  • "franchises" would be preferable to "series" given the construction of the template.
  • Splitting the "no-brainers" - FF and Spidey - by initial year is reasonable.
  • If "lumps" must be there, redundant "lumps" aren't necessarily bad - having separate franchise lines for "Captain America", "Hulk", "Iron Man", the MCU, and potentially "Thor" is a workable compromise.
  • Links should not be provided for articles this template will not or should not be placed on.
  • Dates, when needed to dab articles, really should be part of the link.
  • Even if a film is in a labeled group, the full title should be present.

- J Greb (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left most of my current thoughts over on the Film Project page. But I have just a couple of things related more to this discussion. Betty, thanks for the reminder about the navigation thing. It just made me notice that perhaps I'm delving too far into showing the relationships. Anyway, what do you guys make of the "Single films" section? I think that if the table is divided into franchises, then single films still have their own franchise, just not a series. And there would be so few in that section, that it surely isn't worthwhile having a "Single films" section. And J Greb, could you elaborate on what you mean by "lumps"? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Grouping the Spider-Man films is a "lump", so is grouping the Punisher films. If the template is going to trend that way, it should be consistent. Beside that Betty Logan makes a fair point - {{Marvel Cinematic Universe}} exists so we shouldn't need to insert it here.

- J Greb (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• After reading some of the discussions above, I have come up with an alternate version that takes a different approach than my first pass. Check it out at User:Osubuckeyeguy/sandbox. Whereas my first version was characterized by a single film vs. series division, continuity subdivision by year, no imprints subdivision, and MCU indicated by footnote, the new version (below it) has no single film vs. series division, no continuity subdivision, imprints subdivision, and no MCU indication (following the rationale given by Betty, above). The term Marvel Comics in the title of the box represents any Marvel owned comic property, whereas the term Marvel Comics in the box refers to the primary comic imprint, so these terms aren't redundant. I am coming around on the idea that continuity isn't not a primary piece of information that this box would be expected to convey. What matters most is the films, and the comics they are based on. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Updated: Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I absolutely agree about the continuity not being essential for a navigational tool. And I'm quite happy with the template you just provided (although it is very similar to one of mine...), but I think where it says, "Marvel Comics Films", it should instead say "Film Franchises" or something similar, so that it is defined from film series. Otherwise, it may be confusing to some. As I've said, I'm okay with removing the MCU, but I've also expressed some concern about editors wishing to add it. And those editors would have a valid side to their argument, as other pages on wikipedia consider the MCU a franchise, so it could be slightly inconsistent... Otherwise, I propose we go with the format of the second table in User:Osubuckeyeguy/sandbox. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's why I am not in favor of using the term "film franchises." When a broader category (in this case, films based on Marvel Comics) is broken down into subcategories, those subcategories should differentiate the broader category at the same level of specificity. So, the category "apple" could be broken down into fuji, granny smith, honey crisp, etc., because those are all types of apples. You have brought up the issue that some of the films are not based on characters from the primary Marvel imprint. So, to make this clear in the template, you would need to have a section for films based on other imprints, as well as a section for films that are based on the primary imprint. That is how I have it set up now in my second version. If you want to use the term "film franchises", well then it doesn't make sense to have a category for films based on other imprints because now you seem to be suggesting that these films are not franchises, when in fact they are. So, if those films are included, then you only have one subcategory for film franchises, which doesn't make sense, because a category cannot be broken down into only one subcategory. If you wanted to rename the entire template "film franchises based on Marvel Comics", then I think you would have good argument. But, that doesn't seem to be what you are suggesting. The term "film series" makes sense in the version as it currently exists because there are single films that are not yet part of a series. I'm okay with a single vs. series distinction, but I can also understand why that creates problems, because it raises the continuity issue about whether or not films are in the same series if they are a reboot of a previous film. If we're trying to avoid the issue of continuity, then it doesn't make sense to include MCU films twice, because the only thing those films have in common is shared continuity. Since there are Hulk comics and Avengers comics (these are separate mastheads), and the template is a nod to the comics on which the films are based, then that division without an additional MCU division makes the most sense. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications really seem to be needed here because it is getting real muddy.

• Main topic of navigation: As per title line "Live-action films based on Marvel Comics"

As near as I can tell that is clear - the articles are all films that are based on properties originally published by Marvel Comics. There isn't a break down by publishing companies, publishing imprints, or film companies of any stripe.

Now, there are a few ways that 35 articles can be grouped after that.

• One would be by format - is it a serial or a feature length film. This may be a good starting point, but it breaks them into two groups, one of one and the other of 34. The 34 would still need sorting of some sort.
• The next would be splitting the feature length films into "single film" or "franchise". In most cases "single film" has been used to identify feature length films that are one-shots, the characters(s) not being reused in a later film. This cover three - Howard the Duck, Man-Thing, and Kick-Ass (right now we aren't CBing Kick Ass 2). "Franchise" has been applied to grouping films based on a single property, whether or not there is an internal continuity to those films. The remaining 31 do break down into this, though it is into 12 that can be named for characters or groups. Those would be:

• Avengers (or MCU)
• Blade
• Captain America
• Daredevil (with Electra)

• Fantastic Four
• Ghost Rider
• Hulk
• Iron Man

• Men in Black
• Punisher
• Spider-Man
• X-Men (including Wolverine)

• The franchises can, if need be, be split into "series", which is taken to mean there is an internal continuity and consistency to the films. That one gets dicey and possibly counter productive. Splitting say tree films down to three one item lines isn't really good (Punisher). And some of them aren't clearly split into series (X-Men).

This at least covers the current content of the 'box.

"Film franchises based on Marvel Comics" (and I'll assume "live action" is still in play) reduces the applicable articles to 32 - the one-shots are not "franchises".

"Film series based on Marvel Comics" reduces it to 24 or 29 and a massive debate and two minor ones:

• Are Daredevil and Elektra a series or just sharing a character?
• Are The Punisher and Punisher: War Zone a series or reboot 1 and reboot 2?
• Is Hulk still considered part of the Avengers series? And honestly the same can be asked of The Incredible Hulk.
• And the major one: Are the X-films one, two, or three series?

Frankly, I'd rather we try and stay as inclusive as possible and as intuitive as possible. I think that would be something like this (and I'm posting the mock up here so it isn't reliant on a sandbox that can get repurposed):

- J Greb (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Osubuckeyeguy, I understand that just "Film Franchises" is misleading, which is why I said "or similar". My point is, it needs to say franchises, otherwise it becomes misleading on the other end of the scale. Also, I don't think the MCU should be included as one of the franchises, but my concerns for consistency could be put to rest if we have some kind of mention in the template that is slightly more prominent. I don't know, I'm asking for ideas.

And J Greb, thanks for writing all that out. It's great to just take a step back and say: here's what's going on. Okay, so I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but here goes:

• I don't like the "single films" section, and feel that characters like Howard the Duck should have their own franchise section, but with reason, you should be able to convince me otherwise.
• Before splitting into franchise, I feel that splitting into "Marvel Comics" and "Other Imprints" is a good separation, and it better reflects the article.
• I agree that series subdivision gets dicey, so we should avoid it. If you do use it for some franchises, use it for all of them. So, we should just go with Franchises, but to answer your questions:

• Elektra is a spin-off, so not directly a series, but they are part of the same universe.
• All Punisher films so far, are unrelated. So, they're reboots 1 and 2.
• "Hulk" is not a part of the MCU. A different studio made it. Marvel Studios made "The Incredible Hulk" as well as the rest of the films in the MCU, and they made it as a reboot, with Ruffalo's Hulk in "The Avengers" being the same character as Norton's Hulk in "The Incredible Hulk".
• X-Men films are (like the Elektra thing) part of the same universe. Although it is, in terms of series, a trilogy, with two prequels (which may, some day, go on to form their own series). Many sources say that "First Class" is a reboot. But if this is true, and it is a reboot, it is more of a stylistic reboot and definitely not a reboot of continuity (as confirmed by the director).

• Also, Betty Logan has brought it to our attention that the MCU already has its own template, and so should not outlined as such here (especially if no subdivision into continuity occurs), so your Avengers franchise should only include the big team-up film itself (or in the case of your template, should be included in the Single Films section). And if the MCU was included in this template, it should be named "Cinematic Universe", rather than "Avengers". And, also, if Iron Man and Hulk, etc, have their own sections separate from the MCU, Thor should as well (or again, be included in the single films section).

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW

Single films like Howard aren't franchise, plain and simple. Like wise Thor and Kick-Ass aren't at the moment. After both get sequels that changes.

I can also see where "imprints" is creeping into this. Frankly, it isn't compatible here. These are properties owned by Marvel Comics. Trying to split them up by which imprint or previous/purchased company published the particular stories that were adapted or the basis of the film is non-intuitive when working with a film navbox. The article may be laid out that way, but articles are supposed to be where content and context are explained. Navigation templates aren't.

Given the relationship between Daredevil and Electra then, they seem fin under a "Daredevil" franchise. Remember, the "franchise" would be based on the Daredevil comics and the character primarily created for/associated with that. That the films aren't an explicit series would be irrelevant.

And with that lack of actual series, it shouldn't be split in to two lines. Same with the Hulk and Punisher lines. Cap, FF, and Spidey get split because there is either a format issue or series and non-series films. This is something that has be run through before with {{DC Comics films}}. And to be fair, Amazing could be set up like Man of Steel.

X-Men is going to be a sore point since right now the uneasy consensus is that all 5 films are in a shared continuity and a single series. It can as easily be flagged as a series of four and the start of a new series. Leaving it as one line seems an acceptable way to not have to wage that debate yet again since all five films do fall unequivocally into a franchise based on the X-Men comics and related characters.

Working under Betty Logan's statement, and it is a valid one, "Avengers" would disappear and Avengers and Thor would flip under "Standalone". Personally, I could live with it either way - "Avenger" either not being present or being there with six entries. Having it half-assed with just Thor and Avengers just isn't right.

- J Greb (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can understand why the "single films" section is important to you now, and I'm okay with it.
• As for imprints, it's just as compatible a division as franchise. All of the properties are part of the Marvel franchise. So, dividing into imprints is totally intuitive, and greatly improves ease of navigation - the purpose of the tool.
• I wasn't trying to suggest that Daredevil and Elektra should be treated slightly differently, so I agree with you on that point.
• But I strongly disagree with treating continuity differently for each franchise. The template should be consistent, and dividing continuities such as Spider-man infers that films like Hulk are part of the same continuity. And I don't believe that creating sub-sections under franchise for groups such as Spider-man implies that it is divided into "single films" and "film series" again.
• X-Men doesn't need to be a sore point (particularly if no series subdivision occurs...), because there is a source that quotes the director as saying "First Class" is an "official in-continuity prequel". So despite whether it is a reboot or not (although it goes against the nature of a reboot), it is part of the same series.
• And I wasn't suggesting the "Avengers" entry be half-assed. It should include "the Avengers" only. If it includes the others, it is not the "Avengers franchise", it is the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", which we have decided to remove. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Imprints: Which ones are you looking at? "Marvel and 'anything else'"? Or naming all of them? That splits off the Cap serial since it was done with the Timely character. Opens Ghost Rider to being moved to Marvel Knights. Plays hobs with Punisher films since at least one of them is based off of the MAX material, or one of them isn't. Sets up Kick-Ass as a stand alone under Icon, and MiB under Malibu. I'm sorry, that's a mess when married with the film material, or even without that, and it would need explanation within the 'box. Something that isn't acceptable.
  This also bring up the question of which way is this navbox being viewed: Comics that have been adapted for theatrical release or movies based on comics. Right now it is formatted on a "movies based on comics", which seems reasonable since it is placed on film and "...in film" articles. That would put the emphasis on the film related groupings, not the comic book publishing ones.
• Continuity and franchise: Again, franchise is applied regardless of continuity. Full stop. Continuity is related to a series. The three Punisher films are the same franchise, but each is a stand alone film. Splitting it into 3 separate lines is an unneeded level of fine grading. Applying a split to the FF and Spider-Man comes from the experience with the DC template where good arguments were raised for not lumping stand alone films with series or multiple series.
• Avengers: If the route is a one entry line, it's better to leave it in the "standalone" with Howard.

- J Greb (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Imprints: Fair enough. But if the issue is as complicated as you say it is, then why is the same approach not taken on the List of films based on Marvel Comics page?
• Continuity and franchise: I understand that we apply franchise, regardless of continuity. I'm all for listing by franchise. I understand that continuity is related to series. I understand that the three Punisher films are the same franchise. But I also understand that the four Spider-Man films are the same franchise. Treating the Spider-Man films separately implies that the Punisher films are connected, and that's not acceptable. If it is an unneeded level of fine grating, then why are we applying it to Spider-Man and FF? Give me these "good arguments" that you speak of. If they're anything like your others, they should do fine.
• Avengers: If you look at the first point in my last post, you'll see that I know, and am okay with that. I was just clearing up that Avengers should be Avengers and nothing else (which becomes a section if there's a sequel). If you add Thor, you add everything else, and then it should be called "Marvel Cinematic Universe", which has already been decided to be excluded. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay, since I've been getting no reply here, and the template page has gone on with a great deal of confusion, and no clear vision, I figured I'd make this:

It has been said a couple of times that we should follow DC's example, Template:DC Comics films, which is well laid out. So this template is set out exactly the same. It follows J Greb's explanation of the divisions (divide serials, then single films from franchises, which can be split into series), removes the MCU (as previously discussed), does not separate other imprints (as previously discussed), and is essentially a sister to the DC one. I propose that we go with this. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions do have a tendency to die out on the film project; I've always found that rather mystifying because I've seen arguments/discussions on other projects literally going on for years. Anyway your mock-up looks fine to me, give it a few days and if no-one directly challenges it you may as well just stick it in; it will either be accepted or get the discussion started again. Betty Logan (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Sounds like a plan. I've also just edited the template, to fix the links and add the MCU to the See also section. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've still got a major issue in splitting sections like Punisher into 3 sections - it's overly compulsive and unnecessary. "Serial"/"Feature" makes sense. So do cases where there is one or more series and stand alone films.

- J Greb (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Punisher: War Zone" has as much to do with the other Punisher films as "The Amazing Spider-Man" has with the other Spider-Man films. They are both reboots to the franchise, and therefore (regardless of the number of films in the previous series), should be treated the same. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• If the consensus is to split by continuity, then I support this most recent proposed version. I support dropping the MCU section and the marvel vs. other imprints split. I still think it is perhaps better to ignore continuity altogether and flatten each character subdivision to eliminate the need for the series dates. This would mean the Punisher isn't split, but either is Spiderman, so at least they are consistent. If the consensus is to not do this, then I propose renaming the section to read "Film franchises (by series)" so as to indicate what the dates mean. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Problem is there is still a disagreement as to how fine to split things. Splitting by source or franchise - Blade, Cap, X-Men, Hulk, etc - is reasonable. Splitting series from non-series - FF and Spidey - is borderline. The similar DC template resulted in it to avoid arguments over Burton/Nolan split and the Donner films. Splitting a collection of unique films into 1 year, 1 film lines - as ProfessorKilroy wants for Cap, Hulk, and Punisher - is on the extreme side of fine graining, almost to the point of being absurd. If there is gong to be a hard line of "treat them all the same", then by franchise is a discrete enough separation for this template. - J Greb (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and replaced the template as warned above. There's no if we treat them all the same here. Consistency needs to occur. We can't just treat some franchises a certain way and others a different way, just because no sequels were made. That lack of consistency implies continuity where it does not exist. It also causes confusion amongst editors and readers, so many attempts to change it would be made. This is the reason this discussion was started. Consistency is key here. So, yes, either there are series separations or there are not.
    • My opinion on whether these series separations should be used or not has changed many times over the course of this discussion, as evident above. However, I firmly believe that we should follow DC's lead here. The arguments over Batman and Superman continuities, will also occur with the Raimi/Webb split in Spider-Man, so the point to include series separations on the DC films template is also valid here. It does mean that the Punisher gets a line for each of his films, but it is by no means an absurd or extreme fine graining. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but it is.
        It's the same logic that would have had Howard, Man-Thing, and Kick-Ass each get a separate line - The other films are grouped by "source", so should they. The use of "Single film" and "Franchise" as the class split brings that up short making the need to split "singles" up absurd. The reasonable, actually need splitting trumps the need to treat each element in an identical way.
        With the franchises the same question needs to be addressed: does a specific franchise need to be split for some reason or is it being done only to satisfy a desire to treat the sub-section identically to the others. With Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four there is a boarder line case of needing to group a series of 2 or more films apart from the rest of the franchise content. But that would be using 1 sub-head each, not 2 - "2005 series" or "2005-2007" with FF and "2002 series" or "2002-2007" for Spider-Man. Yes, it's long, but the template sure has the room for it. Also note that it avoids the assumption that a Spider-Man V will happen. (With regard to the DC template, yes, this means "1966" under "Batman" isn't needed and "1951" and "2013" under "Superman" should be in a "Single film" subsection of that franchise.) Meticulous chronologies and explanations that franchise are comprised of films not necessarily set in the same continuity is the realm of the articles not the navigation box. The only thing forcing unneeded consistency on the Captain American, Hulk, and Punisher sections does is impose that article like quality.
        - J Greb (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, and one more thing... "I went ahead and replaced the template as warned above."
        Frankly, the template is not yours to enact changes by fiat. Or by threat or warning raised in a discussion where good faith attempts to reach a consensus are being made. Yes, we have, I think, reach a consensus on some points:

1. Removing the MCU line;
2. Moving Iron Man into the "Franchise" section;
3. Creating "Franchise" section lines for Hulk and Captain America; and
4. Moving Thor and The Avengers into the "Single films" section

However, there still are unresolved issues:

1. What gets put into the "Captain America" section. Does the serial get included or not.
2. If the serial is not included with the Cap films, does it get separates in a top level sub-section of its own.
3. If and how the various franchise sub-sections get further divided:
   • If the serial is included in the franchise, does Cap get "Serial" and "Feature film" sub-sections.
   • Do actual series get split from stand alone films in a franchise sub-section.
   • Do multiple films in a franchise sub-section that do not share a common in-film continuity get split into their own subsections.

- J Greb (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, first off: I know the template is not owned by me. Similarly, it is also not owned by you. So, the attitude of "I'm sorry, but it is" isn't entirely appropriate.
• No, the logic of splitting series within franchises is not the same as the logic that would have Howard, Man-Thing and Kick-Ass have separate lines. And you don't ask that question (does a specific franchise need to be split?) for each specific franchise. Otherwise, you end up treating some subsections differently to other subsections. And that simple act of treating it differently is not only inconsistent, but also has false implications, and causes confusion.
• Whatever we do here must be consistent. If one subsection needs to be split in a certain way, then the other subsections must be split in that way also for consistency. It's not meticulous chronologies and explanations that rely on finnicky continuities, etc. It's a simple subdivision that is carried out across the entire navigation box. If that subdivision is unnecessary, then it should not be used at all, meaning that there are no divisions within Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four.
• I didn't realise Cap's Serial was still an issue. I think we should just straight up, split Serial from Feature, rather than having such divisions within the Franchises section to further complicate things. This is also how the DC Films template treat their serials, although there are more than one...
• Also, I want to thank you for writing out such an extensive response. I think that it has actually explained where you want to go with this. Am I right in saying that you wish to use the same "Single/Series" division as the subdivision? Because that has the potential to be consistent, if franchises such as Spider-Man are split into "Single films" and "2002-2007" (rather than "2002-2007" and "2012"), and then Punisher is given the subheading of "Single films" (rather than splitting into "1989", "2004" and "2008"), etc. Is something similar to this okay?

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the above two examples are "okay". Please see WP:HLIST (MOS), zebra striping, and the current implementation of this navbox. Your offerings are using the now deprecated form of navbox implementation. Alarbus (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not very well accquainted with many of the formatting technicalities of wikipedia, and I know that you fixed a lot of the problems with the previous navbox. And I know it's not properly zebra striped and all that, but I was just making a draft of an example for a potential solution to the broader formatting problem (the divisions and subdivisions), and did not want to figure out all of the technicalities behind the current navbox, just to make a draft. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is fairly new, at least in widespread deployment. The current page should serve as a useful example, and {navbox} is documented (nb: may need further work;). One of the intentions of the hlist form is that it be easier to edit than the old approach, so give it a try. Alarbus (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try it out a bit later then. But do you have any thoughts on the problems of divisions and subdivisions discussed here? Or any thoughts on the general format of these navboxes? It'd be great to get some more opinions on the more recent outcomes of the discussion. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've not even read the above discussion; my concern is appropriate structure, such as what I just fixed at {{DC Comics films}}. I am seeing endashes omitted in the above draft. I do oppose both drafts on structural grounds. Alarbus (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, this discussion has been more aimed at the content lay out and kicked off before the conversion. The assumption would be that what gets hashed out here gets the new coding markup. Side question though... can the child group headers still be forced to a length longer than the text? - J Greb (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that most of the talk is about the grouping (or layout). Below, your second example uses hlist and has the zebra striping right, so I'm fine with where you're taking this regarding implementation. I do believe that grouping beyond two levels is generally not a good idea, simply because it restricts the width of the list items and makes the navbox only fit for high-res displays. The issue of hlist has nothing to do with controlling the width of groups at the same level for visual alignment; it can be done, but should be done with caution as, again, it has a constraining effect on the lists; it is implicitly about making them all match the longest item. All layout issues should considered at both half your screen width and at two times ;> Alarbus (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Brief note first: I tend to use (sigh) when I'm fixing a second or 3rd batch of typos in my posts that I should have picked up on initially. It's exasperation at my self.

As for the template...

• There is little difference between

And

Since all it does is further describes the same set of article. Once the split gets to the group of Punisher franchise films further subdivision is uncalled for. That other sections can be broken down with at least one relational set of 2 or more articles does not mean that cannot need an equalizing sub-header.

• Consistency seems a bit odd here as well. Your most resent proposal doesn't apply 3rd tier group headers consistently. Only "Single films", and that even seems to be missing on one - Daredevil. The only franchise that are obvious in the lack of the point less headers are those that put the franchise under a single date rangedate ranges. I can only see two reasons for that:
  1. "Having the 'single films' 3rd tier implies that those without a third tier are series"; or
  2. "Franchises are assumed to be series unless otherwise noted"

The first is a weak reason at best and the second is a misuse of "franchise".

• For clarity: What I'm looking at is groups of 2 or more articles that have a reasonable progression within the template. This starts with the base navigation group of the template - live action films based on Marvel Comics properties. That pool of articles is being split between franchise - sets of 2 or more articles about film productions drawn from a particular character, team, or setting/property - and one off films. If there were more serials based on material owned by Marvel, that would be a third set, that's what happened with the DC template. With just the one, which is a part of a franchise, isolating it makes little sense. The stand alone films cannot be broken down any further since a group of 2 or more would be under the pool of articles covering films belonging to one franchise or another. The pool franchise films can be broken down by identifying which franchise, the Captain America film franchise, the X-Men franchise, the Spider-Man franchise, and so on. Each of those individual groups may or may not have a set of articles that can be grouped together. There are 2 aspects that pop up for such grouping - format and continuity. The Captain America franchise is an example that can be split by format since one article is on a serial and the other two are on feature films. The Spider-Man film franchise is an example that can be split by continuity with three of the articles covering films that share the same in film continuity.
  Basically that would be this:

• And it is worth noting that this is a half step from cover all of the Marvel films:

- J Greb (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for not thoroughly reading through the entire discussion, but can you please explain me reasoning for sub-dividing some franchises per continuity? I thought the point of this reorganization was too remove in-universe perspective. I think simply listing by franchises is enough and keeps the template in real world context. Also aesthetically speaking, I feel too many sub-divisions crowds the template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first off, sorry for the delay. Some things came up. But anyway...

• Yes, I guess having one subdivision in sections such as "The Punisher" means it is just further describing it, and so is unneccesary. And for the record, I knew you would comment on the consistency of my second navbox. I just put those there as a quick suggestion, with the intention that other sections such as "Iron Man" would have the one subdivision of "2008-2013" as well. And although this would be consistent, it is a little inappropriate to be putting headers where there is no actual division.

• Isolating the serial does make less sense when there's only one, but if it is isolated, then all subdivisions are the same type. And to be honest, it looks neater that way, and it's consistent. Having implications towards incorrect groupings is not a weak reason. And neither is consistency. I still firmly believe that if Spider-Man requires subdivision, then Punisher does also. The only reason to divide Spider-Man and not the Punisher, is because Spider-Man had two films that were part of the same continuity. And that's a weak reason.

• TriiipleThreat does raise a good point though. When all the continuity subdivsions in your navbox are only separating two single films from the rest of their franchises, it may be better to ignore all continuity subdivisions, removing in-universe perspective. It's a reasonable compromise, reduces the size, and most importantly, it's consistent.

• But to answer your question TriiipleThreat, I believe continuity subdivisions were added mainly because that's how the DC films navbox was laid out. And the DC films navbox is really neat, and works out well for DC. However, just as "serials" may need to be treated differently for Marvel, so may "continuity subdivisions".

• And as a side note, the animated films are covered by the Animated productions based on Marvel Comics properties template, and it may be better to include all of the live-action TV series in this template rather than animated films (making this template "Live-action productions based on Marvel Comics properties"). Or it could go the other way and include animated films here, and turn the other template into a TV series template (including animated and live-action). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right, TriiipleThreat does raise a good point. And one I'd tend to agree with.

As far as template amalgamation goes... I'd rather add the animated films here and possibly the animated shows to {{Marvel Comics TV}} based on template names. That leaves us with the 3 existent groupings - Film, TV, and Animation - with animation acting as a bridge of sorts and it follows through on "truth in labeling".

- J Greb (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! And the Cap serial will go in with the rest of the Cap franchise. Now, I'm fine with those three groupings (templates), but if we have an animated one, shouldn't we have a live-action one as well? It makes just as much sense.

But for this template, now the question is, where do we have the Animated/Live-action divisions? Before Single/Franchise divisions, after the separate franchise divisions, or somewhere in the middle? I think before anything else is probably best. I mean, they were for a while considered separate enough to be on separate templates... Something like this:

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the above version by ProfessorKilroy. In my opinion, this is the best one yet. Minimal, but meaningful subdivisions, that avoid any issues of continuity and nit-picking about imprints. The inclusion of animated films seems reasonable so long as the box is renamed accordingly (as above). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks good, the only thing I would change is to reinclude the Captain America serial with the rest of the franchise. I'm okay with inclusion of the animated films like this but I would also be okay with were kept in another template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Cap distinction not being necessary. The rest looks good, though. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kinda borderline on the separation of Cap's serial now. Being the only one, and being a fourth separation, it's not really necessary. So, if that's the only issue with this template, I guess we should use this template. We don't really have a large consensus yet, nor has J Greb pitched in his thoughts on the most recent one, so I'll propose this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics before replacing the old template. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Short-ish version (pressed for time ATM): It looks good. re Cap and the serial: One line of 3 would work better, though I'd dab it as "(serial)" and "(1990)". - J Greb (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Small side question

Did we want to keep the links for List of films based on Marvel Comics and the "in film/(film series)" articles?

They are relevant and the the template would be reasonable to include there.

- J Greb (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Sorry, that was just me being lazy. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On that note, should we also link to the "in other media#Films" sections of articles? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No. General practice is that you link to an article, not a section. This allows the navbox to bold and de-link the item it's placed on. If what is being pointed to is a minor section or points out to a stand alone article, it means the article is tangentially relevant to the core topic, if that. This is the reason for the Daredevil note and to a degree the one about Deadpool.

- J Greb (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Daredevil franchise

I am willing do do a compromise of putting the two films Daredevil/ Elektra together as a franchise...once there is sources to prove 1: that is described as a franchise (my official source of franchise names doesn't link that one) and 2: there is a source of a official or better name for the franchise. If Daredevil isn't in Elektra it hardly is a franchise of his. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK... a few issues:

• Disrupting the template after a bold edit has been reverted is unacceptable.
• If, and it looks this looks to be the case, an editor feels a consensus has changed or is wrong, and they have been reverted, they use the talk page to make their case before they make the change again. The burden is not for their edit to stand and others to prove it wrong.
• Exceptions to this include vandalism, BLP issues, copyright violations, and the like. The structure of this template falls under none of those.
• Consensus, such as it is, was reached in December. Nutshell of that was to use "franchise" as "related characters/groups" and to leave the MCU grouping to its own template. This allowed:
  • A limit on sub-headers;
  • Films with unrelated continuities - the Cap, FF, Punisher, and Spidey sets - to be grouped;
  • Films with ambiguous continuities - Hulk and X-Men - to be grouped; and
  • Multiple listings of articles

Part and parcel of that was that Elektra is included in the "Daredevil" character set.

- J Greb (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

J Greb. This is ridiculous. I didn't revert without a unvalid reason whatsoever. But you reverted without an explanation on rollback an edit that isn't vandalism. That is number one a no-no for a administrator. I basically undone for a second time then it take it to the talk page. There is nothing wrong with that. There was no breaking the third revert rule whatsoever or anything against the guidelines. You don't decide what's unacceptable Wikipedia does...but sometimes being an administrator kind of goes to your head with that. As for what's on the navbox the title is misleading and if you were to do it this way then you would might as well count the Marvel Cinematic Universe too. Sources need to be proven that this is a legitimate franchise that's the Wikipedia way on doing this...and you should have helped do a compromise except lighting a fire in this debate. Because this talk page was meant for everybody to get along with a compromise but you killed that because you assumed bad faith with me. Which is also a no-no. That last thing you mentioned is debatable unless 1(there is a dvd set of those two together and 2(there is a reliable source like the one I placed on there. Because this seems to be a Tony Stark appearing in a Incredible Hulk movie type of case. Also another logical question is why is Avengers all alone when it is part of a franchise as well. And please answer outside of your opinion and use Wikipedia's guidelines instead. Because it is also a no-no to act like a owner of page or project...and sorry bub no matter how much you say you don't I can still wonder sometimes. Even though your intentions were pure. Mine was too so quoting "unnaceptable" on me was unacceptable. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jhenderson777, bluntly: you were reverted because you were being disruptive. You want consensus to be reviewed: use this page, not edit summaries. And do not frame it in "I'm right, I trump what has gone before, prove me wrong".

Now, do you want to have that discussion to see if that consensus has changed or not?

- J Greb (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again you don't know Wikipedia very well. Bold edits are allowed on Wikipedia. I even described it as a bold edit. No disruption was involved and I don't appreciate that would say I did such a thing. Shame on you, I thought we were colleagues...but you are provoking me on being upset because of your bad faith assuptions. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Then please take a refresher on WP:BRD.

Yes, you were bold. And an IP reverted you.

You were bold and restored what you wanted. And Spshu reverted and pointed out the whole in your logic.

You you reverted again in lieu of even trying the talk page to discus and shoe consensus for your change. That is becoming disruptive.

Coupled with that revert you started this thread with what amounts to an edict. (paraphrase) "My edit stays until I'm proved wrong."

As for AGF - it only goes so far. Do I have faith you are attempting to improve things by editing here? Yes. But seeing you ignore the collaborative approach - using the talk page before restoring your bold edit - undermines that faith. So does how you kicked off this thread.

I'm sorry if getting called on this upsets you. But where this was going is not the way to collaborate.

- J Greb (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have seen plenty of good editors doing this that I won't mention. I must have had a bad influence then..but these editors wanted the article to be reliable at most...and that's just where I was going at it. I will apologize for Spshu sometime if that gets you at ease. But I am doing it for him not you. You jumping in was never needed even though I could/should have discussed it to him first. You haven't even discussed better compromises you just came over here like you are a boss with the last word saying what should be done and shouldn't be done and assumed bad faith on how I worded something which was false. That wasn't necessary and helpful for making this template better. That feels more like showing off authority then helping a situation. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor never reverted me...and quite frankly you need to explain the change when you do it per Wikipedia's guideline which he failed to do. Spshu I still don't understand all the way when he said "- read it is org." and when he said "CA movies". What does that mean Captain America movies? Still "Daredevil" franchise is a self described term which Wikipedia should not do. Yes I reverted...but I explained a reasoning that I was thinking he didn't think about and that he may have accepted....it was morely between me and him and you jumping in is just making it worse. If he would have reverted me a second time I would not have reverted him back and discuss with him. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof of disruption. I explained my ONE undoing of a IP editor and Spshu (and I was willing to talk to him about it)..but you reverted me with a rollback with no explanation (that wasn't vandalism) which is against rollback rights. I even have rollback right so I know this. Very careless. Your rollback excuse could have been "I don't like it like that either." There was a talk page section right here to discuss if so. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat: There was a talk page thread you started demanding proof you were wrong before you would allow your bold edit to be removed. That isn't the way things are supposed to work.

Now, would you like to actually invite TriiipleThreat and the rest of the WP:CBFILM editors into this as you have done with Darkwarriorblake?

- J Greb (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They can if they want to. I requested their opinion. I didn't force them on here. I was not demanding. Even if so I was demanding reliability on here more than anything. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)