The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC) [1]].[reply]

---

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films[edit]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk), TriiipleThreat (talk), Fandraltastic (talk), and Richiekim (talk)

I am nominating this article for a featured list. The content of this page was previously placed on the Marvel Cinematic Universe page, and while there, was awaiting GA review. A decision between these editors decided to split the list content off, before the GA review started, so I am nominating this content here to be considered for a Featured list. All nominators have worked hard to get this content to where it is today. Please note, as I mentioned, that this content was split off from Marvel Cinematic Universe, and history edits for this content would be on that page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I worked on a similar list (even if the Marvel one covers parts me and the others put on other articles due to size concerns), and this is well-done enough to both stand on its own and earn a star. igordebraga ≠ 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, Fandraltastic and Richiekim, more than two weeks have passed without much progress. I request you invite more users to review the article before the FAC is stalled. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Avoid bold links in the lead. Year ranges should avoid repeating the century if it's the same, per WP:DATERANGE. Avoid using hash to represent number per WP:HASH. Not sure the point of averaging the ratings of each movie. Ref 47, should be The New York Times. No need for Category:Film series, Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe films has that more than covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] All comments have been taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DWB

• Having read the article through I think it's a fairly solid ground work, good info, good overview. Not too keen on the scrolling cast list but as I cannot think of any possible alternative for that number of cast, it appears to be the best solution for that situation. I will say I think the lead needs to focus less on who paid to send copies of the film to cinemas and more on the phases/development/notable info and the critical/financial reception (overall, can't go into individual detail obviously), but aside from it being the second highest-grossing franchise, have the films broken any other records individually that makes some of them more notable than others?

Yes, given the amount of the films, the scrolling cast list is the best option. I will work on changing up the lead a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, while this wouldn't prevent me supporting it, for future development, prose may be better than RT/MC scores, again not going into the same level of detail about each individual film as would be on their articles, but a brief overview of just what kind of reception was received. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea behind not having prose, was that readers could go to individual articles for more indepth insight. But I'll look into this. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

1. In the "Box office performance" section you break down the income into US and International. That's a bit too US-centric for the majority of the world! Perhaps "US" and "Non-US" would suit.
2. I have not checked, but are the figures you're giving definatley just the US, or do they also cover Canada as well, which is what a number of the sites tend to do?
3. You've also managed to incude one of my all-time hated elements: "Domestic". That's too misleading - domestic to who? (I also note this is linked to the US and Canada list, so you need to make the labels more clear)
4. The column sort on the films should sort The Incredible Hulk under I, not T.

- SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Answer to 1 and 2) Well the info is considered "Domestic" and "Foreign" at Box Office Mojo, so I believe Canada is included in the first number.

So a) why do we have US if it's US and Canada? B) Why are we slavishly following BOM, when it's a US-facing site, rather than the multi-national Wiki? - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Domestic appears to be the common vernacular in the film industry to discuss the North American (US and Canada) box office, as I've gathered from the inline sources here.

"Common vernacular" isn't encyclopaedic, and I strongly suggest you tweak this to reflect our international readership. To me "domestic" shows UK sales, not US! - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, have you asked yourselves the benefit of the false split between having a column for the US and Canada and another for the rest of the world? (And a third for total of the two?) have you thought about just having an international column? Your call on the number of columns, but the labelling does need to be a bit tighter. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first column can be changed to North American and also "All-time North American". And since these are American films, it would make sense to use the American BOM source. I would expect international films to use reputable sources from their country of origin to cite the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've grasped what I've said: I've not suggested using a different source, I've suggested using different terminology. "North American" is good, but the "International" isn't: international means worldwide, not just things outside the US. My second point was also why do you have this false split between N Am and the rest of the world? - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"North America" and "Outside North America" should work.----TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The films originate from the US and the numbers are commonly reported with this split, so I wouldn't necessarily call it false. You'll often open up a journal or an article and see a mention of Avengers making $600 million, so I think our readers would want to see those same numbers. Also I'm not sure about the "North America" labels, as the domestic numbers do not include Mexico. Maybe we could use BOM's "domestic" and "international" labels, and include notes at the bottom indicating exactly who those are referring to? I can't think of an ideal alternative. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you go for domestic and international then I'll swap my comment to oppose, as they would be grossly misleading, note or no note. If you are going to keep the false split, try "US/Canada" and "non-US/Canada". (I'll stick to calling to false - and you should just try reading what you've written: to paraphrase, "it's not false because these US films are shown with their US and Canadian box office figures". The logic escapes me on that!) I've also not seen anything saying Avengers made $600 mill: the things I read focus on $1.5 bn. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's "US/Canada" and "Outside US/Canada" then?----TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 19:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inaccurate paraphrasing and I don't necessary appreciate the implications therein. I did note that they are US films and that listing their US gross makes sense (in the same way we list the US release date, country of origin). But my main point was that the numbers are covered extensively with that split. And we must be reading different things, I read a number of things that focus on the 600 million number. In fact a quick google search would return you thousands of results. Actually, I think the best solution would be to remove the middle column entirely, that's the one whose title causes issues and its focus on "everywhere but the US" seems arbitrary. Would two columns, "United States and Canada" and "Worldwide" work for you? -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inaccurate, and there are certainly no implications. US films with US gross may make sense in some circumstances: US films with US and Canadian grosses doesn't. That's where the logic fails. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately this is the best we have to work with. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is also an option, although I think some (not a tremendous amount) readers might wonder if the worldwide includes the United States and Canada despite the title. Is "other" or "other markets" viable? If not, maybe the two-column solution is best.--TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 20:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be misleading: worldwide is worldwide. Why not go with "US/Canada" and "Outside US/Canada"? - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it. How's that? -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: all good for a support now. I may have been being pedantic about the titles, but there are people outside the US who will look to "domestic" as being their own territory, rather than anything else. As the colums relate to a specific set of two countries, it may as well say that clearly at the top to remove any doubt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Small point. I have to agree with TriipleThreat; for some deranged reason Hollywood counts Canada as part of the "Domestic" market, probably for the same reason the "National Hockey League" or "National Basketball Association" have Canadian teams. As "Domestic" is the industry standard (yeah, it's yucky, but it's what one would expect to see), it may be reasonable to use that, with a footnote regarding how "Domestic" is defined in Hollywood. Sources can be something like this. Nevertheless, "US/Canadian" is acceptable... just feels clunky. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 16:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What makes linking this nomination in your signature not canvassing? I count almost 100 incoming links from such varied pages as Wikipedia:Files for deletion, Talk:Untitled Man of Steel sequel, and several user talk pages. I doubt many, if any, of these people expressed interest in the nomination previously. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how this is canvassing. I am not influencing the outcome of this discussion, or doing it in a way to stack the outcome in anyway. The link is there in my sig, and any one can chose to come to this discussion. I'm not forcing it on people. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC)

• My issue is that this nomination has been spread through about a hundred pages, and is not intended to draw "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics); Editors known for expertise in the field; Editors who have asked to be kept informed". Further, Wikipedia:CANVASSING#Appropriate_notification classes such wide-spread notifications as "Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")" and terms it inacceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can wander here of their own free will, the link neither forces people to come nor spend time commenting, it merely prevents the nomination, like so many others, dying a death through basic apathy caused by it being advertised only in a singular space. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Says the editor with a link practically begging for a GA review in his/her signature. You do realize that spamming does not necessarily require people to actually follow the link, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk)

I will admit that these links also make me feel a little uncomfortable. It may not have been the original motive in adding the link (which I am sure was in good faith), but canvassing/spamming does seem to be one of the results. I'm not sure that saying "the link is there, people don't have to follow it" avoids the issue: that's the same situation as with any canvassing or spamming. Can I strongly suggest that you remove these links from the signatures, if only because the reasons for which they were added could be misconstrued. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that I have brought up this issue (whether or not such links should be allowed) at WP:AN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favre1fan93, the AN discussion has closed with a consensus that signatures linking to these discussions are disruptive. Would you please remove the link to this nomination from your signature? I will discuss with the other delegates whether or not the signature taints this nomination too much for it to be promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the discussion and removed as requested. However, I don't see how this has tainted the nomination. If we got an influx of users commenting, then I'd say maybe. I don't remember exactly when the sig change occurred, but I think since it was, only yourself and SchroCat joined the discussion (and Nergaal below). SchroCat started a worthwhile discussion regarding some labels on the page, and Nergaal I guess too. So how did those two contributors taint this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That it did not have a noticeable effect does not necessarily mean it was not tainted. I've asked others to comment at the FLC talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really a list or is an article instead? Nergaal (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly think it falls into the list category. A series of one or two para sub-sections about a long string of films falls into the list area, I think. If there had been more text per section then the distinction becomes a bit more blurred, but I'm happy that the FAC co-ordinators would turn this down on the basis of this being too "listy", whereas FL co-ords are happy to examine and accept it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One could compare this to, say, List of chronometers on HMS Beagle or Description of the Western Isles of Scotland, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those two have very obvious tables. This one has only 2 ones which are not really overwhelming. And the "List of" can be dropped from the title regardless if this ends up going to FL or FA. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tables do not equal lists. As with many list pages, the words "List of" can happily be dropped without diminishing the fact that this is a list, rather than article. As an editor (and the nominator of the similar List of James Bond films) I can see this as being a list; as a FL delegate I am also happy this falls into the list category. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's Note - This list has been promoted, though there may be a delay while the bot runs through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.