Talk:Captain America: Civil War: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Captain America: Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel / Films C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Film: Comic book / American C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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