Talk:Captain America: Civil War

Need Access

When I am trying to edit this article it says it is protected and I can't edit this.....I also want to be in part of your editing please tell me how can I get access I promise I will not make silly editing and i will discuss first before editing anything.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnaiyar (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Mark Ruffalo to appear in Civil War??

According to this BBC radio interview with Anthony Mackie, Mark Ruffalo will appear in Civil War. - Richiekim (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Though he was seen on set a few times, i'd say hold off until it's 100% confirmed. Could just be a post credits scene, or a misdirect. Rusted AutoParts 23:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like he was just trying to come up with some actors names at Marvel more than anything else, I don't know if we can use this as actual confirmation of anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ruffalo again

Richiekim added that Ruffalo would appear, based on Mackie saying he would appear (from this source 17:30 mark for start of conversation, 18:00 mark for the name drop). Kailash29792 undid the addition saying it was "a tongue-in-cheek comment, like what Downey made before." I wanted to bring this to the talk because I don't know if I believe Kailash's reasoning, as it doesn't seem like Mackie is just name-dropping MCU actors, but people in this film. So I'd like to see what others think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Even still though, we really shouldn't go by an off the cuff remark. He could very well likely be in it, but there's no verifiable proof this is correct. Might just be a post credits scene. Rusted AutoParts 19:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion just above, it seems as if Mackie was just trying to name some good MCU actors more than anything, as he was really talking about the quality of actors that he works with. I just don't think this is strong enough for us to use as a confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. I totally didn't process the discussion above was the same thing. Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've moved my discussion up to the original. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

New MCU Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland now part of the billing credits for "Captain America: Civil War" according to the billing on the poster released from the Super Bowl Issue of ESPN

I think we can put Tom Holland in the official cast billing credits for Captain America: Civil War on the movie's wiki page because as you can see on the billing credits for the movie on the poster for Civil War, that was released in the Super Bowl issue for ESPN magazine earlier this month, where Tom Holland is between Frank Grillo and William Hurt: https://twitter.com/warmustbeend123/status/700794769946124288 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.64.216 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something other than this tweet for verification?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is my only other verification I can get to you, TriipleThreat, which is from the guy who found the same ESPN issue with the Captain Amerixa: Civil War poster that included the billing credits in it: https://twitter.com/rprez2012/status/700525446228742144. If u STILL don't think that's enough, download the issue on the ESPN magazine app that's titled 2-08-16 and you'll find the poster in that issue with the billing credits that includes Tom Holland's name in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Responded below.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: I have downloaded the magazine and can 100% confirm Holland is in the billing. After Grillo and before Hurt. I believe this is a situation that the Russos were talking about that the points of the Sony deal were slowly being resolved, this being one of them. I can help make the poster viewable to all if that is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Here you go. This is pulled right from my digital file of the magazine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

I'd like the protectors of this page to add in new MCU Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland in the billing credits for the "Captain America: Civil War" cast, because, according to the billing credits from the Civil War poster from the Super Bowl magazine of ESPN, Tom Holland is now part of the cast between Frank Grillo and William Hurt's names in the poster's billing credits, which you can see at this link right here: https://twitter.com/warmustbeend123/status/700794769946124288. So, please add in Tom Holland's name in the billing cast for Civil War on it's movie page between Grillo and Hurt. Thanks.

MarvelDisney20 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC) MarvelDisney20

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. See above discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is my only other verification I can get to you, TriipleThreat, which is from the guy who found the same ESPN issue with the Captain Amerixa: Civil War poster that included the billing credits in it: https://twitter.com/rprez2012/status/700525446228742144. If u STILL don't think that's enough, download the issue on the ESPN magazine app that's titled 2-08-16 and you'll find the poster in that issue with the billing credits that includes Tom Holland'a name in it. How else can I get the proof for u? I've already tried to buy and find the issue but, I CAN'T because it's not on shelves anymore. How else more can I get you the proof? It's right there in the tweets and on the ESPN magazine app if u download it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A tweet from an unverified Twitter account is not a reliable source. Also please keep in mind that the WP:BURDEN is on you since you are the one making the request. But don't worry if true, it will eventually be made available through another source. Remember there is WP:NORUSH.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow

According to MovieWeb, Gwyneth Paltrow reprised her role as Pepper Potts during reshoots for this movie. MovieWeb says it got the info from an Empire Magazine write-up, but the link provided (this) features nothing about her. If anyone subscribes to Empire or is able to get a copy of this month's magazine, it'd definitely be worth looking in to. The issue releases on February 25, so we'll know for sure then. Sock (tock talk) 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the information maybe in the offline source, in which case we should wait until the magazine hits newsstands and check ourselves.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source confirming Pott's return in Civil War: http://www.thewrap.com/gwyneth-paltrow-will-return-as-pepper-potts-in-captain-america-civil-war/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.64.216 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Even TheWrap references Empire, but I still found no proof from the magazine itself. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Empire is notorious (well at least to me) for never releasing their article content online (unlike EW-yay for EW!). It always ends up being transcribed by Comic Book Movie, and then every reliable source, sources CBM, so we can't use it per WP:FRUIT. That's why I got a copy of the Feb2016 issue that had all the little bits of info so we could actually use it. So if someone can get a copy to double check this (and add anything else that in there), that'd be great. I'll try too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Civil War world premiere on April 12th at El Capitan Theater

According to Box Office Theory, Civil War will have its premiere at L.A.'s El Capitan Theatre on April 12th: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=33069695&postcount=546 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.64.216 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't use that, it's just a pic on a forum atm. Could be true, they typically premiere a few weeks before release, but we need a reliable source. off topic, if that's the premiere date, then hopefully a new trailer hits soon. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Definitely can't use it, as it could be fan-made for all we know. Don't worry, the sources will come in time. And yes, Rusted, hopefully a new trailer comes soon! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We have confirmation Civil War has its world premiere on April 12th next month in about a month from tomorrow: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/03/11/exclusive-marvel-girl-science-program-captain-america-movie/81629064/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the cast list in the lead paragraph too long?

I don't know who you'd cut, but I'm seeing significantly more blue than black in the lead, which looks like WP:OVERLINK, and this is almost entirely the fault of the massive cast list -- sixteen names!? This beats out the actual ensemble cast in Rat Race (2001 film) with fifteen, and I'd be willing to bet this is the longest cast list of any Wikipedia article lead on a film, excepting the equally-cluttered (and demonstrably inaccurate with regard to "ensemble") Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Let alone that this isn't technically an "ensemble cast" -- we don't know yet how relatively prominent each cast member's role will be, but the poster and all the promotion distinctly imply that it will not be an ensemble cast. Evans and Downey are the only ones pictured in the poster, and while we can speculate about whether Johansson's name is given prominence because she's the supporting player with the most name recognition, it would also be fair to assume she plays a prominent role. After that, it's all speculation at this point.

Anyway, the cast list in the lead almost certainly needs to be trimmed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I initially posted the above with a rant about billing blocks, Hayley Atwell, and why we were selectively cutting people out of our cast list who were in the billing block, but it was an embarrassing mistake on my part. I was duped by a fake billing block (no matter how much I zoom I can't read the image on this page, and I couldn't find an alternative) that included the actor who had been rumoured to play Peter Parker. I don't know either Butterfield or Holland's previous work, and I had forgotten which was which. I apologize for the mistake. But this article's use of the slang-y definition of "ensemble cast" is technically problematic, as we are not supposed to use informal forms of speech when writing articles, and saying that the cast is "ensemble" in the traditional sense is (likely false) speculation at this point, and contradicts the other speculation that can be found in reliable sources that this will be primarily Captain America's story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought we should bill everyone who appears in the billing block of the poster. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I sympathize, but WP:MOSFILM#Cast tells us to use our judgement and not be indiscriminate. The billing block is huge, and I suspect this may be a marketing trick by Marvel, who have a profit motive to sell this film as though it were Avengers 2.5. Unlike the actual Avengers films, we have no way of knowing whether this is a legit ensemble cast. We have slightly conflicting statements from Marvel, and second-party RSs being split. We have a poster with one character named in the title, that character is pictured with one other, and then those two are named along with one other. Below that is a small print section where an enormous number of people are named. On AOU, we know that this list included 15-second cameos alongside the main cast. We won't know exactly how indiscriminate this billing block is until the film is released. But we do know that we should not be mirroring the billing block's indiscriminate-ness. I say keep it minimal in the lead (The film stars Chris Evans in his fifth appearance as Captain America, alongside Robert Downey, Jr. and Scarlett Johansson.) until the film is released and third-party RSs tell us who the real stars of the film are. I also think we should cut ''ensemble cast'' stuff, which is unverifiable speculation at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can't use our judgement when we haven't seen the movie, and using the billing block has always been ideal for the MCU due to generally being pretty accurate in who the main cast is while being an independent listing (from the different opinions of editors). Once the film has been released, we can reassess as we usually do (which led to the addition of Falcon to the Ant-Man listing though he wasn't in the billing), remember we are in WP:NORUSH. Also worth noting: per this encyclopaedia, "ensemble cast" is a regularly used term in the industry that does not necessarily mean what it once did; it is not up to us to speculate or make assumptions as to why certain actors get certain billing on the poster, let alone in the billing block, especially since it is usually about contracts rather than the film itself; and finally, "this may be a marketing trick by Marvel, who have a profit motive to sell this film as though it were Avengers 2.5" is a ridiculous statement, firstly because the billing block has nothing to do with marketing—it is the fine print, focused on only be people like us, not the masses—and secondly because, as this article points out, though many people assumed as you did when the cast was announced that this would just be Avengers 2.5, Marvel is in fact marketing this as a Captain America film first and foremost, with the other Avengers simply icing on that cake. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

using the billing block has always been ideal for the MCU due to generally being pretty accurate in who the main cast is Umm... citation needed? Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba were "main cast" in Age of Ultron, then? In The Avengers, Smulders had about as much screen time and about as many lines as Paltrow, and Hiddleston and Gregg were both clearly more "main" than Renner. I am not saying we should judge why certain actors get certain billing. I am saying we should not clutter our article lead with a massive, indiscriminate list of names, when a more succinct list has been given to us right there on the poster. It is not an ensemble film. Captain America is the main character and the title character, and Evans is the star of the film. It doesn't matter if you think the term ensemble film doesn't mean what it used to; if we use it in the sense "there are a lot name actors in the film", then we are still not supposed to name them all in the lead. MOSFILM clearly uses the term in its traditional sense of "there is a large cast who all have roles of similar importance in the film and there is no one or two main characters". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want me to cite my own statements? I am simply stating my opinion / the truth, that the billing block gives us a "generally...pretty accurate" idea of who is going to be the main cast. If you disagree, then say so, at the appropriate place. Stop bringing up these other issues here, remember WP:OSE. The fact is, Marvel has released an official cast list which separates starring cast and other cast members, and then a billing block which includes all of those starring actors, and has only updated the billing block to include one more actor who couldn't previously have been included due to ongoing behind-the-scenes negotiations. That is all we can go off of here, and until we see the film we can't make any decisions ourselves as to which, if any, of the actors don't deserve to be listed as starring. As for just shortening the list in the lead, only listing a couple of actors in the lead instead of the whole starring cast, purely based off of marketing materials, is obviously not very encyclopaedic. And remember that though we have the best interest of each individual article in mind, we also have to keep the big picture in perspective; the MCU film articles are a good topic and so should be reasonably consistent. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but why can't we use the miniature billing block further up? Because its actually being legible in our image of the poster makes us giving the same facts in the article redundant? If we want what is a pretty accurate, objective guide to the main cast, this is almost certainly the better option. Furthermore, I don't think you should be pointing fingers at me for "only listing a couple of actors ... purely based off of marketing materials" -- do you even know what a billing block is? The fact is that we are both limited to using marketing materials at this point, since those are the only materials available. Also, it's a pet peeve of mine, but if I see you add "based off of" to an article I will revert you. I don't mind it on talk pages (or, rather, I am required to tolerate it on talk pages). Furthermore, in my quite extensive experience the GA and GT vetting process is a mummer's farce: you can't use it to support the status quo when no one ever discussed the status quo one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I do know what a billing block is, and as the section you linked to explains, it is the block on the poster where the film's significant cast and crew members are billed for contractual reasons, not the top actors names added to draw in audience members. And our article does not agree that only Evans, Downey, and Johansson are the main stars; note the significant coverage of how this film is really about Cap and Bucky's relationship, even more so than the fight between Cap and Tony.

If you have an issue with any of our articles being a good article, or them collectively being a good topic, then you obviously know that there is a system to address that. But I can assure you that this isn't a simple case of a single editor making poor articles and another editor promoting them to GA without reviewing them properly. In fact, despite there being multiple regular editors for the MCU film articles, we have had to make many alterations to the articles for every GA nomination to improve them to the appropriate standard. And getting to good topic was not a simple process either, so don't dismiss the system just because it has failed you before—if everyone did that, then few would follow Wikipedia's regulations and nothing would improve.

Also, I don't care whether you have to "tolerate" the way I speak. I put up with you being a condescending prick, so I'm sure you can survive some bad speech / grammar habits. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So what you are saying is the billing block (and therefore your preferred formatting) has nothing to do with who the main cast are? That would explain why Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba are listed in the lead of our AOU article, but it doesn't justify it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you call me a "condescending prick" again, I will report you on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Top billing (ie names above film titles) are for marketing. Billing block names (small print, bottom of the poster) is a result of highly thought out negotiated contracts between the studio and actors. Actors aren't just thrown on there willy nilly. They negotiate their inclusion, among other parameters, regardless of their resulting size of the role in the film. As such, using the billing block is the most unbiased, neutral form of listing the actors in the lead, infobox and cast section (as allowed by the first point of WP:FILMCAST), and that is the criteria editors of MCU articles have chosen to use, in order to keep a consistency across these articles (a Good Topic mind you) and, again, to be as unbiased and neutral as possible. Without using the billing as a basis, it introduces a whole slew of problems, including editors then trying to format the list to their liking, and creating arguments such as "A should be higher than B, because A is the main villain!!!" etc. Additionally, billing blocks use the terms "with" and "and" for higher profile actors (such as Spader as Ultron in AoU) and those are added to the end, thus they appear at the bottom of our lists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that top billing is something Wikipedia readers might care about, but billing block names ("highly thought out negotiated contracts between the studio and actors") is something our readers couldn't possibly care about? Again, you are completely ignoring my main points in favour of a strawman argument (even putting a fake "quotation" by me in quotation marks!). I don't know the details of Atwell's and Elba's contracts, but they clearly were not part of the "main cast" as you are claiming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That is the complete opposite of what I'm saying. All we can work with is the billing block, and that's what we do: it's unbiased and neutral and the best way for us to present that info, which is also supported by WP:FILMCAST. Don't know what you mean by "even putting a fake "quotation" by me in quotation marks!". I just gave a very popular example that has happened on these articles in the past. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

All we can work with is the billing block Once again: Citation needed! I have cited the only relevqnt guideline (WP:MOSFILM), and says nothing of the sort. It says to use your brain on the matter. We haven't seen this film yet, so we don't know if it is an ensemble cast where all 16 cast members listed on the billing block are worth mentioning. We do know for a fact that the billing block for AOU last year included brief cameos who probably should not be in the lead. With this film, we know that Chris Evans is the lead. Why not just say The film stars Chris Evans in his fifth appearance as Captain America, and features a large cast of supporting actors, many of whom have previously appeared in other Marvel Cinematic Universe films.? This is not inaccurate, it is not speculation, and it is not based on marketing materials. Your way might very well be inaccurate, it is speculation, and it is based on obscure contract details. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the cast list in the lead should be a summary of the cast list in the article, per WP:LEAD. it should not be independently sourced to the Billing block. Our "Cast" section in the body gives prominent coverage of sixteen actors, but if it is a different list to the one in the lead. This is unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, what citation? It is a fact that all we have is the billing on the posters, for as you point out, we haven't seen the film yet. It was the same case with Age of Ultron last year; we hadn't seen the film yet, so we went with the neutral, impartial, and official billing block. Of course, once the film came out we could reassess, as we usually do, to see if something should be changed, but I don't think anybody ever raised any objections over there, including the GA reviewer. If you do really have a problem with it, then you should start a discussion over there instead of repeatedly bringing it up here.

I am sorry, but I don't see why we should change our (so far successful) process based on your assumptions about an unreleased film. Wait till it comes out, and we can talk about it then, but for now this is a futile exercise. Also, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Our "Cast" section in the body gives prominent coverage of sixteen actors, but if it is a different list to the one in the lead. This is unacceptable." - adamstom97 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. You win. You've drained the last of my energy. But please stop reverting all my edits to these articles. I have as much right to edit as you do, and my edits are not any more 'bold' than either of yours. Seeya. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And we have as much right to revert those edits if they aren't useful edits. You can't swoop in here and expect everyone to drop common practice because you follow a different route and are too impatient to simply wait. Rusted AutoParts 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Civil War runtime revealed

Captain America: Civil War to be the longest MCU film, just by 3 minutes ahead of Avengers 1, meaning it'll be 146 minutes long: https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Movie/Captain-America-3-Civil-War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not verifiable. My region won't let me see the site in question, but it looks like a random theatre chain. They might very well be right, but the rest of us can't even see their claim, and you can't tell if they're right to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

AMC Theatres has confirmed its runtime: https://www.amctheatres.com/movies/captain-america-civil-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We should still wait for a source like the BBFC for adding it. Various theatre chains and ticketing services can list it, but most of the time, they all have variations on the runtime (ie, AMC might be 2hr 27mins, Fandango might be 2hrs 25mins, etc.) WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disney has confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter that "Captain America: Civil War" runs at 147 minutes (2 hours and 27 minutes) long. Here's the link for proof: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-civil-war-run-873534— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man is allied with Iron Man

Can we add to the Civil War cast for Spider-Man'a role that he is allied with Iron Man? Screenrant said Spider-Man in on Iron Man's side when they did their Civil War set visit: http://screenrant.com/captain-america-civil-war-set-visit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B12F:42DD:287B:E4D2:3150:CE37 (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems useful as ScreenRant is not speculating, but affirming that Spidey is with Iron Man (I guess we'll see Iron Spidey in the film). Kailash29792 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd wait, because we don't know the context of their reporting. They say "Iron Man’s team which includes Black Panther, Black Widow, Vision (from the concept art), War Machine (from what we saw in the costume tent later) and… Spider-Man. But more on that later." But there is no "later" in the article or any of their other articles that I could see at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox starring.

The project agreement was that we can use the "Big" names on the posters over the billing block when necessary. There are only 10 big names on the current poster as opposed to the SIXTEEN currently there. I'd just do it but I'm not interested in it turning into a fight when someone disagrees so I'm starting a discussion here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We already have so much information on all of the starring cast and their characters though, and I don't think it is worth shoving some of them into the bottom paragraph of the cast section when we don't have to. Yes, 16 is a lot, but that is the point. Some movies have small casts, some have big ones, and we shouldn't be making them look similar, even if the list is getting a bit long. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You can still base the cast section on the billing block, it's purpose is to avoid fan-conflict over ordering. I'm talking purely about the infobox.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to keep the infobox, lead, and cast section listings all the same like we usually do, but I'd like to hear what some other editors have to say about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to keep as is, because if we did switch to top billing (which is fine in some cases), the names are not in the same order as the bottom billing (obviously excluding the ones not there). It wouldn't be a simple reduction, because it would then present a different order to the lead and section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, using the bottom billing block is the current consensus with the wording in the template documentation, and is currently being discussed again at Template talk:Infobox film#Starring stemming from this archived discussion: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 28#Starring (revisited again) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First "Civil War" Box Office Projection

BoxOffice.com has provided us their box office prediction for Captain America: Civil War: http://pro.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2016-03-long-range-forecast-captain-america-civil-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"War Machine" or "War Hammer"?

Most of the promotional materials and sources I have seen refer to James Rhodes as "War Hammer". However, I just watched a TV spot that referred to him as "War Machine" (which is what he is currently called in this article). I'm confused. What is going on here?

Additionally, should we list him as "James "Rhodey" Rhodes / War Machine / War Hammer"?

(and yes, I'm well aware that citations are necessary) DarkKnight2149 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TotalFilm has been referring to him as War Hammer. This is likely a typo, especially if a TV spot referred to him as War Machine (which he already goes by in the MCU). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While not the best source, the Funko Pops released for the film list Rhodey's as "War Machine", and those are always very accurate. Now if he changes his moniker at some point in the film remain to be seen, but everything I've seen related to the film up to this point has been "War Machine". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Since consensus on this varies from article to article, how would we handle it if he's listed as "War Hammer" in the end credits, but never referred to as such in the film? DarkKnight2149 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would table that question until that happens. No point in discussing a lengthy hypothetical if it turns out not to be the case.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. DarkKnight2149 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

CinemaCon

Should we be mentioning this screening? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Already in the release section, as I added here and here . - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, guess I missed that one . - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It kind of blends in with all the other info around it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Release

It seems like we have quite a few release dates in the Release section. Shouldn't we really just have the premiere, the beginning of international release, and the beginning of North American release? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Release allows all that are there. The first premiere is notable because it is the first screening and appearing at CinemaCon is notable. I'd also argue that the international premiere is a notable release info. If anything, I'd remove the specific UK date. I also don't think the section is any more than some of the other more recent MCU film articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on

Of course it is based on "Civil War" bei Mark Millar and Steve McNiven, not on "Captain America" by Lee & Simon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_%28comics%29

Rumors

Rumors Are that doctor strange is going appear in post credit scene. Imnaiyar (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's something to watch out for but we can't mention it until it is proven to be 100% fact (which probably won't happen until the film's release). DarkKnight2149 17:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

DFFF

I'd be very grateful, if someone would include this sentence in the text: The film received funds of €4 million, from the German Federal Film Fund (DFFF).--93.130.213.151 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's an English source on the matter, though frankly, I don't really know what the money was used for. Was it for a VFX partnership? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not the same film fund. The FFF Bayern is the regional film fund of the state of Bavaria, the DFFF is managed by the German government. However, the Bavarian money should also be mentioned. --93.130.213.151 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But what exactly are they funding? I'm not quite clear on that. Knowing what it will used for will in my opinion on adding the info, if at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The German Federal Film Fund (DFFF) (€4 Million), and the Mitteldeutsche Medienförderung (€350.000) are funding the production of the film, in general. VFX studio Trixter was awarded (€450,000) from the Bavarian film fund for the virtual shoot. Studio Babelsberg co-produced and oversaw production services for the film (in Germany). Please see here, open the "Bavaria is Marvelous" pdf, here, as well as here, here and here. --77.10.95.83 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Whilst there is an unresolved discussion about the possible inclusion of this information, I've disabled the edit request. If consensus is reached in favour of the addition, and no involved editor is able to edit the page themselves, please feel free to reopen the request. fredgandt 10:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know consensus was necessary, to include the obvious. Could someone please give a reason, why this information should NOT be included? Please See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film → "Production" on this matter: "development: development of the concept and script, as well as the securing of financing and producers"--93.130.221.80 (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

When responding to edit requests it is discourteous to ignore ongoing discussion. Until all interested parties are in agreement, there is an implicit lack of consensus. If the discussion were not already started as I responded to the request, I'd have considered it a reasonable and uncontroversial request, and performed the edit. I am watching this discussion and will respond appropriately. fredgandt 08:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

By April 12:

By April 12 in the Dolby Theatre, are we going to add information from what we saw there on the synopsis page?

2606:A000:E6C5:500:48D1:841:72B6:F91C (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Today is April 12, the day the movie airs at the Dolby Theater, we should add some info of the story we might see in the theater like before we do so when they air in the U.K., write the whole story with some post credits to see, too

2606:A000:E6C5:500:48D1:841:72B6:F91C (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What? That was a bit of gibberish. Yes the film is premiering April 12 at 6 pm Pacific time. If after that, a user happened to see it, they are free to add the plot per WP:SPOILER without any issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

8:29 pm Pacific time, movie's over, now tell us who died, who lived, who's the villain, what's the post-credits scene, and what you learned, add the plot per WP:SPOILER, no issues! good luck!

174.107.170.85 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you are citing Eastern time. Pacific time is three hours earlier, so the film hasn't even started yet. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we see how the movie went now after the Red Carpet Premiere?

174.107.170.85 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you saw the film then add it, if not then wait until someone who saw it to add it. It might just be that none of the editors saw the film, and without seeing the film we can't write the plot. Also We are in No Rush--16:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I just add the War Machine died?

2606:A000:E6C5:500:48D1:841:72B6:F91C (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

New character descriptions

Stitch Kingdom has character description up on their site. Some of the info could be useful, for example, Vision taking after Edwin Jarvis when it comes to his wardrobe. Richiekim (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added mostly costume info, and the confirmation that Hawkeye is still in retirement at the beginning of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New exclusives from Comicbook.com

New Spidey details and whether Netflix characters were ever considered. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

See the above section for the Spidey link. I think the Netflix link is more for the ongoing discussion of if they will appear in the films. Yes this is specifically about this film, but they never were intended to appear in the first place. Would be a different story if it was Infinity War (where there was/is some expectation for them to appear in some form). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeking sources on Slattery and Condon

Just requesting people to keep a lookout. IMDB has John Slattery and Kerry Condon listed as reprising their roles as Howard Stark and FRIDAY. Seeking myself, but so far found nothing. If anyone else finds something, please post it. IMDB's also showing Rash's role as being an "MIT Liaison". Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No Spoilers!

Tons of fans will be seeing the film Thursday, April 14 (special fan screenings). Let's please not add a full plot until May 5th or 6th to avoid spoiling the film for people. -Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:C148:C6BC:E577:1FBA (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, we're allowed to publish the plot once it's made available. It's on you whether or not you want to risk getting spoiled by looking on here. Rusted AutoParts 06:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add the plot for those who do want to get spoiled; and those who don't can skip it. --84.47.247.8 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The plot has been added in several previous versions of this page for those interested #wikipedia101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.243.250 (talk • contribs) 14 April 2016‎

I don't think you quite understand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is 100% blind to what is and isn't a spoiler. Any user is free to list the entire plot of the film as soon as it becomes available. We don't give spoiler warnings, we don't delete information simply for spoiler purposes and we don't go out off our way to create extra sections for those who don't want to spoiled. It is the reader's sole responsibility to choose what they do and don't read. If they want a spoiler free summary of the material, there are plenty of other sites for that. DarkKnight2149 17:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No one's making you read the plot --185.131.151.45 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

General consensus and per WP:SPOILER - we can add the plot, so please avoid the page if you wish to avoid spoilers. -- S ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Gwenyth Paltrow revealed to be cut out of Civil War

http://www.thewrap.com/captain-america-civil-war-gwyneth-paltrow/