# Talk:Captain Marvel (film)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiriat Monterroso, Cecybueso.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone. In the current revision of this page, IronManCap justified restoring the word "Sequel" instead of the word "Future" that had replaced it with the prior edit to that part of the page. While I agree with the change itself (the section should rightfully remain titled "Sequel", I wanted to note here for the record that the rationale given for the change appears to be faulty. According to the reason given in the edit summary: "we don't know for sure it is a team-oriented film, and it has been billed as a direct sequel to Captain rvel." Because that rationale didn't sit right with me, before I commmented on the matter here, I decided to do some research on my end. Those initial search efforts yielded the following results: This article from Variety includes the following verbatim statement in the seventh paragraph from the top (unless I miscounted somehow0): "Taking place after the events of “WandaVision,” the feature film [the Marvels] is on track to be the first all-female superhero film for the MCU." And that's just the first reference I looked at on this matter. I can bring other sources in for further verification, but in this one source, the film is clearly described as "the first all-female superhero film", with the surrounding paragraphs setting up the supporting information that Monica Rambeau will join forces with her mom's friend Captain Marvel and with Ms. Marvel to handle whatever the problematic situation in that film might be. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily picky about the word choice on the edit summary here, but using a faulty argument as an  assertion to justify a revert may not be the most effective strategy. Having said that, my issue again is with the edit summary, not the substance or detail of the edit itself in question. Just wanted to go on record about that here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Jgstokes, my point was that the film has been billed as a direct sequel to Captain Marvel so far in WP:RS so "sequel" seems most appropriate so far. If we get RS confirmation that this is not a direct sequel, we can adjust accordingly. I appreciate my reasoning was a bit brief and could have been better though, so thanks for bringing this up. IronManCap (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The Marvels was first announced as Captain Marvel 2 (with the castings of Vellani and Parris known then), so this is probably best equated to Captain America: Civil War: a sequel film for a specific franchise (Captain Marvel's) that will also be a larger team-up film. Sequel is the proper term. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
IronManCap: thnak you. Again, I have no problem with the change (sequel is definitely the more appropriate term by comparison to future), so it was only the edit summary explanation with which I took issue. And to you and to Favre1fan93 , by way of additional clarification, I know that direct MCU sequels can involve subsequent heroes (Iron Man flew solo in his first movie, worked along with War Macine and Black Widow in Iron Man 2, and received help from Harley and from Pepper Potts in Iron Man 3. Captain America's first film was a solo outing, he worked alongside Black Widow and the Falcon in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and he and Tony, alongside whom different heroes had supported or opposed the Accords, phsyically came to blows in Captain Amrica: Cvil War. So the idea of other superhoes being featured in films being billed as direct sequels to oriinal solo outings is not a new one. I also know enough about the MCU by now to understand that intial inforrmation released as a project is first announced can change or be clarified during the production and filming process. The powers-that-be in the MCU are very good at providing such updates themselves, or by allowing their film stars to provide further information as the productions are further along or nearing completion. So I have no problem at all in recognizing as well that the film was first announced as a direct sequel to Captain Marvel, and referring to it as such in this article is likewise very appropriate. That being said, I am glad that the MCu has specified now that this film will feature the first all-female superhero lineup. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
If reliable sources consistently stop referring to The Marvels as a sequel to Captain Marvel, then we'd definitely follow suit and stop referring to it as such, but for now and until that comes we'll keep it. —El Millo (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The film was originally announced as Captain Marvel 2 for quite some before the title reveal so I agree that labelling this film as the sequel to Captain Marvel is totally appropriate. - Richiekim (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I would add that this seems to be a similar situation to Ant-Man and the Wasp where the sequel added another hero to the title (in this case potentially more than one). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Notwally: Please stop edit warring and explain why you believe the audience response section should not be summarised in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:UGC, WP:FILMAUDIENCE, and all the past discussions on this talk page where you are the only one arguing for more content about unscientific audience polling that is demonstrably incorrect based on the actual reliable polling sources. Please stop restoring content without consensus per WP:ONUS. Also, how this works is you were supposed to actually provide reasons as well... – notwally (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The so-called "content about unscientific audience polling that is demonstrably incorrect" is IN THE AUDIENCE RESPONSE SECTION ALREADY. I don't know how I can make that any clearer for you. I am not trying to add anything new to the article, I am just summarising the section that already exists. If you don't like the Audience response section then say that, stop trying to argue against it by removing something else that should be there. While the section is as it is in the article it needs to be summarised with due weight in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
From past discussions, it appears that Adamstom.97 is the main person who has been pushing for a separate audience response section and for the amount of content in that section about the unscientific reviews. I see no consensus that the negative audience reviews from unscientific polling (described in our article as "ugly Internet troll noise") should be included in the lead. Therefore, WP:ONUS applies and consensus needs to be reached for the disputed content before it is included.
As for the substance of the content, first, just because there is a section in the body, that does not mean that content is significant enough to be included in the lead. Most film articles have a paragraph or even section about audience response from actual valid, scientific polling, and yet there is consensus that audience response is not usually appropriate for the lead despite this. Second, picking out the negative audience reviews to include in the lead when all actual valid audience polling was positive goes against policy. If anything should be included in the lead about the audience, it would be that it was highly anticipated by audiences and that the film was very well-received by audiences. – notwally (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Still you are confusing two separate issues, you clearly want to remove the audience response section from the article and are starting by edit warring over the summary in the lead as a stealth way to get it removed. You are also doing so carelessly as your most recent edit removed the critical response summary from the lead as well. What is your justification for that? Both the critical response and audience response sections are well supported by reliable sources and were put together by multiple editors through talk page consensus. We aren't just going to remove them because you don't like them, nor are we just going to leave them out of the lead. The lead summarises the entire article with DUEWEIGHT, and it is very rare for a whole section to be excluded from that. If it is noteworthy enough to have a whole section, it is usually noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
We can easily start a new section for the "criticism for its lack of originality" line that was in the lead if you desire, as I believe that line is also undue in the lead considering the film received positive reviews. However, you have not actually responded to any of my specific arguments regarding the "Negative audience responses online were attributed to review bombing" line that you have been adding to the lead. In particular, (1) not all sections and subsections are summarized in the lead, especially audience response sections, which are routinely excluded from film leads, and (2) if the audience response section is summarized in the lead, then it should focus on the actual noteworthy parts of that section, which is the high anticipation for the film and the positive reception by audiences.
Also, please abide by the policy WP:ONUS. There has to be consensus for inclusion of disputed content. That is an actual editing policy, unlike the essay WP:STATUSQUO, which doesn't apply anyway since you just recently added the content in June [1] and then again in July [2]. Neither of those additions of yours to the lead appear to be "long established", contrary to your claims in your July edit summary. I checked dozens of page versions going back to January 2021, and none of them included either of your recent additions. – notwally (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
If you were strictly concerned with the wording in the lead then your second paragraph may be accurate, but your primary reason for removing the audience details from the lead is because you also want to remove the audience responce section from the article and there is clear consensus for its inclusion. The removal of the audience summary in the lead was also reverted by another editor, and the critical response change is unrelated and was never discussed. All-in-all it is a messy situation, made worse by uncooperative behaviour. As far as your first paragraph goes, I have already addressed your first point in my previous comment. I disagree with your second point that an audience summary should only focus on positive elements, as the whole reason that the audience response section exists and is noteworthy is the fact that there was review bombing and it was widely covered by sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You can make whatever bad faith assumptions about me that you want, but making false claims about consensus or how long the content that you added was in the article aren't going to help your argument. – notwally (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
My feeling that you are acting in bad faith comes from the wording of your comments and edit summaries. Happy for your future comments to prove me wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
To give my two cents on this issue, I also think we can keep the audience response in the lead section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I also think the audience response should stay in the lead, though maybe we expand it to account for the CinemaScore and PostTrak results? So it could become Negative audience responses online were attributed to review bombing though audiences polled by CinemaScore and PostTrak were more positive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
If we were to go with something like that, I think we would just want to make clear in this discussion that it is a special circumstance and we don't expect CinemaScore and PostTrak results to be in the lead for all film articles going forward. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's being included to balance the weight of how there was the review bombing on the user rating sites, but that ultimately didn't reflect the properly polled audiences. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
 I attempted to add Favre1fan93's suggestion to the lead, although with a few changes to make it more accurate and in line with the audience reception section in the body [3]. In particular, the content recently added by Adamstom.97 refers to "negative audience responses online" but the article body only discusses negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Not all "online" audience reviews that were negative were because of review bombing (at least not according to what is currently sourced in the article body), but only those on RottenTomatoes. What the sourced content in the body section actually says is that the film was one of the most highly anticipated and received positive audience reviews (based on scientific polling), but that user reviews on RottenTomatoes were review bombed by "Internet trolls". Not sure why Adamstom.97 is so insistent on cherrypicking for the lead only the part of the audience review section, especially when that part was added into the body against the preferences of other editors in past discussions. If the audience reception section is going to be included in the lead, it should be done accurately. – notwally (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Please focus on editing the article. I am not cherrypicking anything, I provided a summary of the section which you didn't like because you don't like the section, but now you have provided a summary of the section that adds even more content from it to the lead. I'm not sure why you phrased this as adding Favre's suggestion with "a few changes" because what you added was completely different from Favre's wording above. I have removed The film was one of the most anticipated films of the year as there was definitely no consensus for that addition, it is not something we typically note in the lead, and it is a somewhat misleading phrasing of what the body of the article actually says. I'm okay with Audience responses were also positive, although the audience reception section on Rotten Tomatoes was subject to review bombing but again, there was no discussion about that wording so I think it is fair that several other editors reverted your addition. I would be interested to hear any other opinions on your new wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The content you removed was not "misleading" at all, but taken directly from the body: The body states "the film was named as the most anticipated 2019 film by IMDb, the most anticipated new standalone comic book film and the second-most anticipated blockbuster of 2019 according to Fandango" and you removed "The film was one of the most anticipated films of the year" [4]. – notwally (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I think your comment proves my point. Stating in the lead The film was one of the most anticipated films of the year suggests that this claim is true universally, rather than being the subject of an IMDb poll. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
As the quoted content I copied above shows, this was not based on just an IMDB poll, but also by Fandango, with both being reported in highly reputable sources. You continually making up false claims is not helpful to a productive discussion. – notwally (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
the most anticipated new standalone comic book film and the second-most anticipated blockbuster of 2019 according to Fandango - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, which is why it is "one of the most anticipated films of the year". So what are you claiming is misleading? – notwally (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
A poll on IMDb found it to be the most anticipated film of the year + Fandango found it to be anticipated to lesser degrees =/= "one of the most anticipated films of the year". You have used WP:SYNTH to come up with a claim that is not supported by the article. And even if there was consensus that your claim was supported by the article, it would not automatically be noteworthy enough for inclusion in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? One poll found it was the most anticipated film of the year, and two other polls found it to be one of the most anticipated films of the year. So both sources found it to be one of the most anticipated films of the year. Also, the justification for including in the lead is the same as your attempts to include information from the same section in the lead. You are making bizarre arguments. – notwally (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
two other polls found it to be one of the most anticipated films of the year that isn't necessarily true, it is your interpretation. And just because I support including details from the section in the lead does not mean I support including every part of the section in the lead. Some things are noteworthy enough for the lead and some are not. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Under any reasonable interpretation of the English language, "the most anticipated new standalone comic book film and the second-most anticipated blockbuster of 2019 according to Fandango" would be one of the most anticipated films of the year. Those aren't some niche categories, but literally refer to the largest and most profitable films (blockbusters) as well as the largest single genre of films (comics). In addition, RT found it was the most anticipated film of the year overall. The fact that you are arguing to include review bombing by internet trolls as noteworthy enough for the lead, but not the fact that the film was easily one of the most anticipated films of the year and that this anticipation explains why the film was able to become the highest grossing superhero film with a female lead, is bizarre. That seems like pretty clear POV-pushing. The article needs to be neutral and based on the sources. – notwally (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)