Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Other End credit scene

Should we mention the other end credit scene of this movie? TVWolf (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's omitted from the plot section because it's not quite relevant, but otherwise it is mentioned in the cast section, for the Pizza Poppa CreecregofLife (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't add anything to the plot since it is really just a joke so that is why it is left out. Similar to other films with joke end credits such as The Avengers and Spider-Man: Homecoming. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanos

Should we add Thanos in the cast list? At least it's showing that it was Josh Brolin's likeness used if anything. MestFanLol (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't a credited role so it doesn't need to be in the cast list. -- Zoo (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

He’s practically a prop CreecregofLife (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

616 Wanda Maximoff's death

Why do we say Maximoff apparently sacrificing herself? The Darkhold Temple fell on her directly. Is that a Wikipedia policy to say a character seemingly dying if that character gets an implicit death? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Well we never saw a body and there was a mysterious red flash. She may be dead, but since it's not a sure thing, that's why the plot says she "apparently" sacrificed herself. -- Zoo (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not about the Wikipedia policy that dictates what happens in the film's plot or how it should be written. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness screenwriter Michael Waldron cannot say for sure if Wanda died in the film, which is why we write Wanda's death in the plot with an adverb "apparently". Centcom08 (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Development and Pre-production section

I was wondering if the parts about Raimi being hired and then the information about writing should be split into a "Development" and "Writing" section, because I think the pre-production section is very long. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this, and I think should still be keeping much of the scheduling info together with the writing stuff. I was thinking that if we start to get more non-writing info, such as design stuff, it may make sense to split into some less standard groupings: "Director change", "Writing and scheduling", and "Design and prep", or something like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 That is fine, but I was specifically wondering if it can be split into a "Development" and "Writing" section only, with other film articles like The Batman or Dune. I think that doing only just that, and then adding information about the VFX and design and whatnot can come later, I think there is enough writing info anyway worth splitting into its own section, the pre-prod section really is too big. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

All of the MCU film articles use the "Development"/"Pre-production"/"Filming"/"Post-production" split, with further sections created within those as needed, and since we hope to have all of the articles reconsidered to be a Good Topic together in the future we should continue to be consistent. It still works for this article because all of the writing information we have fits within pre-production. Black Panther (film) is a good example of using this format. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I see, that makes more sense now. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term "variant"

Is there a reason we are not using the existing term "variant" to describe the various Stranges'? I'd be grateful if somebody can point me to a discussion on the matter. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 11:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I doubt there has been a discussion seeing as the movie only just came out. I don't think there is any part of the current plot summary that really warrants a different word (especially one that isn't used in the film, as far as I remember, and won't be familiar to a lot of readers). - adamstom97 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the term "variant" was only used by a specific group of characters in Loki: the TVA. There is no mention of the term "variant" in other MCU productions that explore the multiverse: What If...?, Spider-Man: No Way Home, and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. YgorD3 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, they're linked in the last bullet point here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the main cast list be based on theatrical release poster or in-movie end credits?

The end credits of the film had additional actors listed as main billing: Jett Klyne, Julian Hilliard, Sheila Atim and Adam Hugill, in order after Xochitl Gomez and before Michael Stuhbarg. I propose that we change the cast list to reflect the end credits, rather than the theatrical release poster, for better accuracy.The boss 1904 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

We only deviate from the poster billing if there is a good reason to. None of those actors had such a big role in the film that they need to be added to the list, this isn't a situation where a major supporting character was left off the poster to avoid spoilers or anything like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You could argue Klyne and Hilliard should be the exceptions given their a major point in Wanda’s story in the film and they’re repeatedly shown several times. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple appearances doesn't make them major cast members, they are basically just macguffins in the movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

If they’re on the main-on-end credits (which usually parrot the billing block) that complicates it a bit. Why weren’t they on the billing block then as well? Also their role was pretty important to the movie since it’s what Wanda is after for most of the film, which is reflected by their inclusion on the main-on-end. Starting to see similarities to the Homecoming issue with cast listing with discrepancies between billing block and main-on-end. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the key difference is being how integral overall these actors and their characters were to the film and plot. You don't want to be in a position of picking and choosing which actors goes in. When it was done for something like Homecoming, it was because the poster billing block left out multiple cast members that played big roles in the film, Jacob Batalon to be most specific. So you can't just make exemption for Batalon, you'd go with all the names listed during the end credits cinematic. Same with No Way Home as the appearances of Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire couldn't not be included. Rusted AutoParts 03:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't be picking or choosing the actors and I think Atim and Hugill are both too minor to consider putting them in the list. Even though there is clearly an argument that could be made for Klyne and Hilliard, in the end there isn't much to say about them other than they are in the film reprising their roles, so I stand by the current listing we have with them mentioned in the paragraph below. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Stuhlbarg is also a reprisal and received similar flashy credits and only had the wedding scene. I would not say there is significant enough a difference for Billy and Tommy to bump them up to bullets CreecregofLife (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s a fair enough point but Stuhlbarg was still given a billing block and end credits cinematic listing so that’s really the only reason he’s there. Same with Benjamin Bratt for the first film. How Marvel sets who they name in the credits can be a bit of a curious situation, such as why Stuhlbarg and Bratt would get main cast billing for relatively small parts while with No Way Home Rhys Ifans, Thomas Haden Church and J.K. Simmons reprise their characters and have a lot of participation in the film but do not get a billing block or end credits cinematic slot. It’s not to give a knock to Atim and Hugill when saying their participation is too minor for the infobox. Rusted AutoParts 06:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support moving Klyne and Hilliard to the bulleted list. Similar to Ben Kingsley in Shang-Chi, it is likely they were not included in the billing block to avoid spoilers until the film neared its premiere. Their names were displayed prominently in both the main titles and end crawl, and if I remember correctly the end crawl also listed them before Stuhlberg and the Illuminati cameos. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is the same situation. Kingsley was obviously a major character who was hidden to keep his appearance a surprise. Klyne and Hilliard do not have all that major roles in the film, less than their roles in the series which also did not give them top billing, and they weren't really a surprise since WandaVision essentially revealed that they were part of Wanda's story in the film. This is not one of the times where there is a clear reason to add someone to the cast list who was not on the poster billing. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of why they were excluded in the billing block, I believe their prominent billing in the main titles and end crawl are enough to justify them being listed as part of the main cast. As MarioProtIV noted above, the billing block always mirrors the main-on-end titles, so this unusual deviation clearly means something. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure this happens quite a lot. There are often a few extra names for minor roles added to the end of the on screen credits that are not on the billing, in this case Klyne, Hilliard, Atim and Hugill. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are the add-on names that are not part of the main cast list. I couldn't find a video online, but per IMDb (unreliable yes, but it mirrors the end crawl word-for-word), Klyne and Hilliard are listed before Stuhlberg and the Illuminati during the end credits. Atim and Hugill are listed between Charlize Theron and Bruce Campbell. Clearly, Kylne and Hilliard are not one of the add-on cast members. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't usually do anything based on the full end credits, just the main-on-end titles, and that puts them at the end of the cast list (right before the "with" and "and" credits that get moved to last). - adamstom97 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Future

I want to ask, isn’t anyone going to add about the future possibilities on the page? 216.164.255.159 (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What future possibilities? Do you have a source with information about that? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Speculation isn’t sourced fact CreecregofLife (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The only thing we "know" about the future is that Doctor Strange will return thanks to the end of the movie saying so. Other than that we know pretty much nothing factual. -- Zoo (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The only likely thing right now otherwise are “What If…?” variant cameos or supporting roles, maybe even starring safely not touching the presumably unavailable 616, but that’s still all speculation of likelies and maybes. CreecregofLife (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I do know some future possibilities that are speculated or could happen, that I could send here, if that’s alright. TheLove23 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

1. No you don't
2. No you can't CreecregofLife (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Source: "Trust me bro" 189.217.95.163 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he can. Blooker23 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Charlize Theron

So while she most likely is playing Cleo, I have yet to see an official source actually confirm it. Unless someone can provide a source, it needs to be removed. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

She was credited as Clea in the movie's credits. -- Zoo (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and she also announced it herself on social media. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And therefore made its way across plenty of reliable sources, which I’m pretty sure are already in the article CreecregofLife (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Professor X and Mister Fantastic

These two names were never uttered in the film. Patrick Stewart was introduced and credited as Professor Charles Xavier, and John Krasinski was introduced and credited as Reed Richards. I say we remove these two aliases. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus I agree with you. Centcom08 (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Easter egg link

@DonQuixote: I think you're misunderstanding what an Easter egg link is. If interdimensional being had been linked, the reader would be led to assume that it links to the article interdimensional being, and thus that would be an Easter egg link. This is not the case here, because an interdimensional being is linked, indicating that it leads to an article about an actual interdimensional being. The Pontiac's Rebellion example at WP:EASTEREGG and Texas annexation example at WP:EGG are good examples of this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't how we usually deal with , and the overall concern with EASTEREGG links is that it is unclear where the link is directing, which still is the case here, as we have no way to know which interdimensional being it refers to without clicking or hovering the link. —El Millo (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Within the context of the sentence, "an interdimensional being" is a little too vague. DonQuixote (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but would an {{refn}} note address these concerns? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. On a side note, here's a rule of thumb that I use: What would a print encyclopaedia do? DonQuixote (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@DonQuixote

Give a small note? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

About what? DonQuixote (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

About a certain phrase like the one Nexus was talking about?

An Interdimensional being Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

What is the context for this discussion? We should not be adding the Living Tribunal to the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes...and it's already in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There was no consenesus to add the Living Tribunal to the plot summary. I agree that it is too minor a character to be noted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Dr Strange Ending?

Wasn’t that the Evil Doctor Strange at the end taking control of the 616 one? You hear the musical chime from their battle, and then the complete change in persona is pretty instantaneous. 73.6.99.230 (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

When? Pretty sure that's not a thing that happens in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

You are looking at a different person. Our Strange is not a bad guy unlike the other variants. Dark Strange is only interested in taking E-838 Palmer last I checked Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The currently plot summary is correct. 616 Strange developed a third eye as a result of using the Darkhold, not because he was being possessed by Sinister Strange. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not "Evil Doctor Strange" the third eye is does not denote that the 616 version is taken control of the Darkhold from 838. JoshuaInWiki (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended soundtrack

An extended version of the soundtrack was released a couple days ago, featuring 3 new tracks that had been absent from the original version. This information is already on Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (soundtrack), but is this worth noting here as well? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added this in. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Avatar 2 trailer?

Should it be noted in the Marketing section that the Avatar 2 trailer exclusively debuted to DS2 theatrical screenings? I was wondering if this was the case, as a similar procedure was adopted for Jurassic World Dominion, in which a preview was attached to F9 theatrical screenings. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems relevant, if many reliable secondary sources reported on it then it should be added. —El Millo (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

On the parallel with JW Dominion and F9: it's not noted in the F9 article, only in the JW Dominion one. So going by that, it wouldn't be mentioned here, but only in the Avatar 2 article. UnderIrae (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Smartest Man Alive

Reed being called the smartest man alive and then telling Scarlet Witch about Black Bolt's power is receiving severe criticism from audiences and fans. It is also becoming a meme at this point. It should be acknowledged. 2A00:23C6:AF08:E701:88C2:7F9A:16D5:CFD4 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Reed kinda dumb ngl There any reliable sources talking about this? If so, it can be acknowleged. — SirDot (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do you care so much, anon? CreecregofLife (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, being smart doesn't mean you know everything that's going to happen. He didn't know what Scarlet Witch was capable of. It's not every day you come across a villain who can erase people's mouths. So, just because some people are talking about it, doesn't mean we need to entertain every dumb half-baked criticism out there. — Starforce¹³ 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The film also intentionally points this out. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Let alone platform it. And since this one didn’t come with sources maybe I should think about claiming how people were upset that Pizza Poppa’s pizza balls didn’t have enough oregano CreecregofLife (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

While I have indeed seen much talk about this scene online, I agree we don't need to point out every single scene that has been criticized. In fact, there are many more scenes from this movie that I have also seen people criticize, such as the music battle, the ice cream song, the Illuminati's deaths, the second post-credits scene, etc. There's just too many to note. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a unnecessary and trivial detail. It hasn't gained any significant commentary and hasn't radically affected the reception of the film. There are always memes around films today, it is redundant to enumerate them. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you and Nexus. You both put it very well CreecregofLife (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Second end credit after all credits pizza man finally stops hitting himself 2600:387:C:5512:0:0:0:B (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Joke end-credits-scene. Doesn't add any importance to the plot. — SirDot (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines is: WP:FILMPLOT "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary." -- 109.77.206.37 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead section should summarize

Note: The summary statement in question was removed for now, but to view it, click here

The lead section should summarize (WP:LEAD). Including side comments in parentheticals is not a good idea and the text " (particularly those of Cumberbatch, Olsen, and Gomez)," should probably be removed entirely. The lead section should summarize what is actually in the Critical response section (WP:FILMLEAD) and not just make things up (WP:SYNTH). There is probably enough there to make the generalization that Olsen's performance was praised, it seems a bit of a stretch to make the generalization and say Cumberbatch was praised, while he may have received some praise here and there and it seems WP:UNDUE to highlight it in the lead. To claim the performance of Gomez was praised make it seem like the lead of this article is suffering from the entirely subjective and made-up summary that fans like to add to these articles without proper sourcing and not based on what is actually in the article. So again, it would probably be best to remove the parenthetical text entirely, and maybe trim back more than that. -- 109.76.140.170 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t make things up by claiming we made things up. CreecregofLife (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a frequent problem with the lead sections of film articles, that's why there is a specific WP:FILMLEAD guideline for it. If you think the Critical response section can be improved to support the generalizations made in the lead section then you can do that instead, but the lead should not be making claims not clearly supported by the article body or reliable sources. The critical response section barely mentions Gomez, it does not include praise her performance, and it does not look like there is enough to make generalizations that Cumberbatch's performance should be highlighted. For example, the critical response section says the LA Times praised the performances, but what it is actually says was "Gomez, appealing if bland"[1] which is damning with faint praise, whereas they called Cumberbatch "superb as ever" and praise for Olsen was unequivocal and they called her "spectacular" (and also "So emotionally dominant is Olsen here that Cumberbatch’s Strange sometimes feels less like a hero than a villain’s foil"). An encyclopedia should be very careful about making generalizations and the lead section of this article seems to be making generalizations that are not well supported. -- 109.76.140.170 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

So your entire issue is mentioning Gomez's performance in the lead? CreecregofLife (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, so I'll say it again: the text " (particularly those of Cumberbatch, Olsen, and Gomez)," should be removed entirely. My "issue" is that the lead sections of film articles, and especially the summaries of the critical response, are frequently poorly written and include poorly supported generalizations written by over enthusiastic fans. This is a known problem and happens so often that it actually got written into the WP:FILMLEAD guidelines. Editors could replace X "(particularly those of Cumberbatch, Olsen, and Gomez)" with the more accurate Y "(particularly Olsen)" but I would still recommend removing it entirely, because again summarize. -- 109.76.140.170 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

While it is true that the lead section should summarize the article, we should keep in mind that reviews in the Critical response section are randomly chosen by us. If we summarize their findings, then we are assuming that our sample of reviews we selected represent the majority. That's a big assumption and one that we shouldn't be making. Instead of summarizing our own selection, we should be looking to sources that summarize the reviews for us.

CreecregofLife: Since it appears you may be defending the summary in the lead, what sources is this summary based on? The only one I see relevant here is the Rotten Tomatoes consensus, but that only talks about "Raimi's distinctive direction". --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This issue comes up every now and again and the answer that I always advocate for is to make sure our reception section is an accurate representation of the available reviews so we can summarise the section in the lead, like we are supposed to, without creating a WP:OR issue. We should not be adding a summary to the lead that does not match the actual article body, and we should not be using sources to summarise the film's reception that are themselves based on even less reviews than what we are looking at. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

When I think of an "accurate representation", I'm thinking of a well-balanced amount of positive, mixed, and negative reviews that reflect the overall scores at RT and MC. That's doable. However, when an editor adds "X actor was praised for his/her performance" in the lead, then this really needs to be backed by a source that makes an attempt to summarize reviews. The problem with only looking at 1 or 2 reviews that praise the actor, is that there might be 1 or 2 reviews out there (not included in our Critical response section) that disagree. That's the problem with trying to summarize specific aspects from the reviews. We can't be sure we're taking opposing views into account. When challenged, how do you defend that? In my view, you need to attribute specific reception claims directly to a source that examines the big picture, not just one critic's opinion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just because there might be something out there doesn’t mean it is CreecregofLife (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I would still be cautious about using review round-up sources from the film's opening days, since hundreds of reviews have been added to RT since then. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife: the fact that there might be is all you need before you run into trouble about making those claims. If we err on the side of caution, then we shouldn't include such claims without rock solid support. It would be original research to verify each and every review ourselves, and then conclude that X or Y actor was praised. We need a source like RT's summary (or something of that level) to support the claim.

adamstom97: We can be as cautious as we want with sources like you suggest. I have no qualms about that. My overall point is to avoid making claims that have nothing but anecdotal backing. In other words, some editor throwing a review of their choosing into the Critical response section, then later trying to justify the need to summarize that review's talking points in the lead. An opinion should only graduate to the lead if sources show that opinion is widely accepted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

So because you make an unsourced claim that something might be out there to overwhelmingly contradict a claim in the lead, we should act on it? CreecregofLife (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The statement in the lead that is being challenged here isn't properly sourced to begin with. If you think it is properly sourced, please provide those sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

But you don’t have the proof it’s improperly sourced to begin with. Your entire thing hedges on one source saying the opposite doesn’t, when that’s not enough to take the claim down CreecregofLife (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"...that’s not enough to take the claim down" Incorrect. Violations of WP:V is sufficient grounds for removal. I'm not seeing a citation that supports the claim. If I am mistaken, then provide the citation(s) here and we'll quickly restore the statement. It's that simple. Keep in mind that the source(s) you provide must avoid WP:SYNTH. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You are building an impossible threshold based on claims you are unwilling to verify CreecregofLife (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are a newer editor, but if you are, please see WP:BURDEN which clearly states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you'd like to add or restore the claim, you must show it is verifiable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

At which point you would claim SYNTH because only a chosen few would be selected instead of all of them in existence because that’s the only way to guarantee that it’s the general sentiment. You already stated such. You don’t force people into a box based on your own baseless claim for everyone else to climb out of. Your removal of the content goes against consensus. You added the removal of content, correct? Therefore the person creating the new state of the article’s being needs consensus to do so. It is therefore on you to restore the content, no questions asked CreecregofLife (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, content whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged should have an inline citation. There is no inline citation anywhere in the article that I can see. If what you're saying is that you only have individual critic reviews to point to, then yes, combining them to draw a unique conclusion would be a form of SYNTH. We are not permitted to do that.

As for removal, WP:BURDEN covers that as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"...instead of all of them in existence because that’s the only way to guarantee that it’s the general sentiment" – That is not the only way, and that is not what I stated earlier. Occasionally, a source will evaluate the general consensus and publish that opinion. We can then properly attribute the claim to that source. Good examples of this (that underwent discussion in the past) is at Terminator Genisys#Critical response, first paragraph. This has also been discussed many times at WT:FILM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

New changes

A user called Mario added back a very similar critical summary [2] without any explanation. This version was without the aside praising specific cast members so my primary concern was addressed but whether or not other editors think this summary is properly sourced or adequately supported by what is in the Critical response section remains an open question. -- 109.77.205.71 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like MarioProtIV did and that was followed up by this edit from YgorD3. As far as I'm aware, only Sam Raimi's direction has support by the RT summary, which makes for a short, undue statement in the lead that doesn't belong. If someone wants to bring additional sourcing to the table, please do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion and didn't pay much attention to the edit history at first. I just thought someone had rewritten the summary statement about reviews, so I restored the previous version which doesn't contain the sentence "the film received generally positive reviews from critics" since RT and Metacritic are not very compatible for this movie.

Here are some articles from reliable sources that mentions how Raimi's direction and cast's performances (especially Olsen) were praised by critics.

1. Variety article
2. Total Film article
3. TheWrap article (this one mentions how Raimi's direction is praised, but the plot/script received criticism)
4. Collider article
5. ScreenRant article

--Could we use some of these sources to restore the critical summary in the lead? YgorD3 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

[Boldly made formatting changes and corrections to the above list and changed it to a numbered list to make it easier to comment on.] These sorts of review roundups can be helpful but the WP:FILMLEAD is also supposed to summarize what is in the Critical response section of this encyclopedia article. The Variety article #1 praises Raimi in their headline, and throughout the selection of comments from various critics praise for Raimi is pretty consistent even in the negative reviews. Several reviews highlight Olsen for praise (maybe as many as half of those highlighted). Roundup #2 from Total Film and #4 from Collider again highlight praise for Olsen. Adding the review from the New York Times to the Critical response section would help reinforce the praise for Olsen.[3] We can safely say Olsen was praised, but I not sure about making a wider generalization about the performances being praised. That still leaves "but the pacing and writing received criticism" they're your sources, your turn. -- 109.77.205.71 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

First, let me say that this is a step in the right direction. We need sources like these. However, the problem is that all of those were published on May 3rd or earlier, and the number of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes didn't cross 100 until May 4. All we can definitively say about those sources is that they each cover early reactions. While better than what we had before (which is nothing), I think we should strive for analysis that was written on May 6th or later, which is when the number of published reviews crossed the 200 mark. We need at least one source that goes beyond "early reaction". --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Fourth weekend gross

@Centcom08:, hey! Deadline is reporting on what we call Sunday estimates. You can click the source yourself and see that the figure you're listing is presented under "SUNDAY AM UPDATE". Now, it is obvious that a three-day weekend would also include "Sunday PM". That is what Box Office Mojo is for. It is custom to add the BOM source with "Monday actuals" after Monday or Tuesday. Deadline even states that Disney incorrectly stated the Monday actuals were "$15.8M" under "MONDAY AM UPDATE". Sunday estimates = Deadline, and other reliable sources (most of the time, except for the opening weekends of big movies like Top Gun 2 where it updates the article on a Tuesday (see "TUESDAY AM UPDATE")). The Monday actuals, the most accurate numbers, are here for WK4. A person in Georgia (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you are suggesting that this [Deadline Hollywood article] written by Anthony D'Alessandro for the fourth-weekend box office of the film (which clearly states in bold text $16.4 million for FSS) is incorrect? I don't deny the Box Office Mojo as a reliable source, its just Deadline Hollywood is more useful when discussing a breakdown of a film's weekend gross. Your argument involves talking about Deadline whereas you're only current source as presented against me is from Box Office Mojo. Centcom08 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. They are reporting Sunday estimates and did not update the article. That's common and that's OK. Their main point is to tell you roughly how much a film made; that's why they updated the article on a Sunday morning. It is OK to go to an updated, reliable source. Not that Deadline is "unreliable" or "wrong" (they do say "Sunday AM") but they did not update. Monday actuals for this film can be found here. A person in Georgia (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are the sources that reports of the film's fourth weekend box office earnings: Box Office Pro: "Weekend Box Office: Top Gun: Maverick Scores Sky-High $248M Global Launch, Setting Memorial Day Weekend Record", Los Angeles Times: "'Top Gun: Maverick' is Tom Cruise's biggest box office debut", TheWrap: "'Top Gun: Maverick' Sends Tom Cruise’s Box Office Records Soaring With $124 Million 3-Day Opening, IndieWire: "'Top Gun: Maverick' Is a Marvel — Older Audiences Are Finally Returning to the Movies". They all report the same $16.4 million domestic earnings of the film for its fourth weekend. So, you are suggesting that these articles are incorrect and joins Deadline Hollywood in not bothering to update their articles? If so, why no one bothers to update it? Centcom08 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I'm not making myself clear. It is COMMON for sources to report on Sunday estimates. "Film made #, posted on a Sunday morning." But these sources don't update with final numbers unless it is a blockbuster. Take these examples from Deadline. The Bad Guys had a notable yet "small" opening, so Deadline shared "Sunday AM" numbers. Meanwhile, this movie had a big opening, so Deadline updated the Sunday AM numbers with "Monday AM" numbers. They did the same for Top Gun 2, even going as far as to update the article on a Tuesday with "Tuesday AM" numbers due to the Memorial Day weekend. It's NOT ABOUT BEING WRONG. Go the article; Deadline even puts above the $16.4M statistic that the chart is listing "Sunday AM studio reported estimates; we'll have more for you tomorrow." Most sources share estimates. That's normal. That's why we go to BOM. A person in Georgia (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do apologize but I will not buy the reasoning "because the independent sources are not the same as what I am seeing on Box Office Mojo or The Numbers, so I will stick to the latter two and call those sources incorrect". If you have an independent source/s claiming that "Oh! It should be $16.1 million for the fourth-weekend box office of Doctor Strange 2" then we might agree to replace the Deadline Hollywood source on the sentence discussing the film's fourth-weekend box office on the article. And it feels weird for me how the $16.4 million decreased to $16.1 million? There should be an independent source/s that should begin reporting how they incorrectly do estimations (if you can find one then kindly place it here, thanks!). Centcom08 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

? Estimates are educated guesses, which can vary. BOM even mentions them. Your sources do, too. Boxoffice Pro: "Sunday's Studio Weekend Estimates: Estimated weekend". Los Angeles Times: "... according to estimates from measurement firm Comscore." TheWrap: "... current industry estimates ..." IndieWire: "With an estimated ..." They project what the final numbers will be. I'd say those article writers don't want to make "updated" articles with similar information because why should they? There's BOM for that, so we should use it. Seems like you don't agree with me, when there's nothing to discuss. Deadline shared estimates and BOM has the final numbers. That's it. A person in Georgia (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article with some details and here is a recap: "Weekend box office charts show gross receipts for a given weekend, which is Friday through Sunday unless otherwise noted. Studio estimates for the weekend are reported on Sunday mornings, generally between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. Pacific Time and reflect estimated Friday and Saturday box office receipts plus a projection for Sunday. As with daily box office, weekend estimates do not reflect all movies playing in theaters, but at least the top 12 plus select movies below that may be reported. Actual weekend box office receipts are reported Monday, generally after 1 p.m. Pacific Time, and reflect most movies currently playing. A final update to the chart may be made Monday night or later in the week to reflect grosses that are reported late." A person in Georgia (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And there is no need to remove the Deadline article. Like you said, it breaks down the information. A person in Georgia (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your education on how box office works, it adds up to my current knowledge. So kindly tell me why those independent sources did not update the fourth-weekend box office as $16.1 million? Placing the Box Office Mojo source next to the Deadline Hollywood source in the sentence would be a bad idea due to their conflicting report, that's why I would like you (requesting you again) to place an independent source (a third-party source) stating that the film's fourth-weekend box office is $16.1 million (leaving the Box Office Mojo source alone to support the sentence would be WP:SYNTH) Also, kindly answer my previous question on why $16.4 million is decreased to $16.1 million? What are the reports tell us about that weird final estimation? Centcom08 (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So kindly tell me why those independent sources did not update the fourth-weekend box office as $16.1 million? They didn't want to. The Deadline article in question is about Top Gun 2 so the only final they "needed" to update with final numbers was Top Gun 2. leaving the Box Office Mojo source alone to support the sentence would be WP:SYNTH. This is not true. BOM has its rules listed at the top. Estimates are in italics, final numbers are written normally. ... why $16.4 million is decreased to $16.1 million? Again, those estimates were written on a Sunday morning. They were created taking in account trends and the results of Friday and Saturday. One official estimate from the studio was released to the media, which was shared in those countless articles. The estimate is guessing what the film will make on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, before Sunday is over, by using Friday and Saturday's numbers to predict how much the film will make on Sunday. Like the article I shared to you said, "Those box-office 'results' released over the weekend are simply a studio's own estimate of its movie's weekend performance. Distribution executives arise at dawn on Sunday mornings to crunch their numbers and report them to the media. [It] is quite similar to how the media call political elections when they have the results of only a handful of precincts: You compare the numbers you have against some past results to make an educated guess." That is why Monday actuals are posted later. These are the real deal. The results. The outcomes. The charts that say how far off people were from the actual weekend numbers. DS2 was predicted to make $16.4M in its 4th weekend, taking in account new releases, theater count, and other stuff. Studios used this information to come to their guess and they shared it on Sunday morning. On Monday, Sunday's numbers were confirmed and added to the final Friday and Saturday numbers to get the Monday actuals. The actual earnings were below projections at $16.1M. A person in Georgia (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case. We will wait for the opinion of other editors to reach a consensus. Centcom08 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I side with you here CreecregofLife (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is my final presentation of the case as to why $16.4 million is the right one to be on the article. Since you insist on only using the Box Office Mojo source in your argument, here is the official Box Office Mojo Twitter account tweet for the fourth weekend stating that Doctor Strange 2 earned $16.4 million (or if you are having a problem with an official Twitter account as a source then here is Box Office Mojo's news article for the fourth weekend clearly stating $16.4 million). This is my final reply to this discussion. And I rest my case. We will wait for the opinion of other editors to reach a consensus. Centcom08 (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the sources presented above, Deadline had placed the earnings at $15.8M, not at $16.1M (Updated Disney numbers this morning show Doctor Strange 2 with $15.8M weekend 4,). There is another source that I have found that states the earnings at $16.4M, by Rotten Tomatoes(although I'm not sure if it is reliable or not). Both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers report the earnings at $16.1M, though(with the exception of BOM's article reporting at $16.4M). Jolly1253 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly contradicting info. — SirDot (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I'm going mad.

A weekend gross includes Friday (morning and afternoon), Saturday (morning and afternoon), and Sunday (morning and afternoon). All of the articles above, including the Tweet and excluding the BOM chart, were posted on a Sunday MORNING. This alone should tell you that they made an estimate/prediction for what Sunday afternoon would bring before the weekend was over. $16.4M was the weekend gross GUESS and it was off by $300,000. The actual weekend gross what posted on a Monday, with the inclusion of the actual Sunday AFTERNOON gross. It's not wrong and it's not contradicting. Studios post estimates. Deadline shared those estimates. They are estimates. BOM updated their charts with the results. The results are not a guess. They are the real earnings, so we should use BOM. A person in Georgia (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion just shows that you guys are poorly updating information on the box office results of the MCU. In its second weekend, the film earned $61 million That's wrong. The film made $61.8M, which could be rounded to $62M, in its second weekend ([4]). In its third weekend, the film earned $31.6 million That's wrong. The film made $32.3M in its third weekend ([5]). I hope you guys google what an estimate is, because it's not that hard. Just think about it. Think about what a guess is. Think about why Deadline titled the chart "Sunday AM estimates". Or just read this. A person in Georgia (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"I feel like I'm going mad." You must be new here, Welcome to Wikipedia, it can be "difficult" at times. Perhaps this level of box office detail is not necessary and it would be better to not mention the third and fourth weekends at all. It is unfortunate that Box Office Mojo and others publish "estimates" and then later revises them with the actual final figures but that is what we have to work with. (If in doubt please do read "how Hollywood box office estimates work" as User:A person in Georgia suggested.) In general I think the opening weekend is significant, and in some cases the drop-off (or staying power) in the second weekend is in some cases noteworthy, but in most cases the inevitable decline is not. If you keep in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and imagine readers looking at it years or even decades later I do not think there is anything to suggest that the 3rd and 4th weekends are significant at all, and that it would be better to trim it back and make that paragraph more concise. -- 109.76.194.186 (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Earth-616

Regardless of what the movie might have said this statement contradicts that of the 2008 booklet that Marvel released that officially referred to the MCU as Earth-199999, not 616 (despite all the cheeky Easter eggs Marvel used with the 616 tag, even as most recently with Far From Home and Mysterio’s fake claims). I strongly suggest not using the 616 tag here because this may encroach WP:SYNTH as neither the film’s producers or Feige himself (who we’d probably take credence from) have said explicitly that the MCU is Earth-616. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it contradicts a book, it is how Earth-838 designates the setting in the film and it is not SYNTH to refer to it as such for simplicity's sake CreecregofLife (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The MCU is NOT Earth 616. It's not just one book that sources this. MrioProtiV is absolutely right. 174.59.205.47 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The film is a work of fiction. These aren't real things. The characters in it can do whatever the writers want them to do--including using the 616 designation. DonQuixote (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s like two different, non-work-sharing countries draw the same map and call the same place different names. The TV series Smallville called the one parallel Earth it visited “Earth-2”. The Arrowverse had a different Earth 2, let alone the new post-Crisis “Earth-2”. The two mapping Earths never told each other what was what, which means that as far as we know, they were both Earth-2, even when Smallville’s Earth was designated 167 in Crisis. Strange or America or whoever might tell whoever the authority is that another Earth designated them 616, but that authority refuses the designation. But that’s hypothetical. It doesn’t become “wrong” until something in universe is uniformly agreed upon, but that requires more material to be written and made that we currently don’t have. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Studios producer Nate Moore also referred to the MCU as "616" in an interview. YgorD3 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That was from November 2021, before MoM came out, and to be honest I think it doesn’t count unless Feige himself explicitly confirmed it (which I doubt he even cares about it). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So while Strange was in reshoots? And there’s no correlation? CreecregofLife (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about this? "616" is clearly used in the film, and has also been used in at least two other MCU films before. Regardless of what it was classified as in relation to the comics by a booklet from 2008(!!!) the main MCU universe is clearly labeled "Earth-616" in the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that those other instances were Easter eggs that Marvel likes to include to reference the comments (and the Mysterio claim was later a lie as revealed). The booklet from 2008 is the only published and verified source by Marvel themselves not in-film that officially designates the MCU, which is Earth-199999. The book also listed all the designations for the other Spider-Man films, various animated shows and comic storylines, but there’s been no explicit confirmation from Marvel that they’re dropping 199999 in favor of 616, regardless of what we’ve seen the movies themselves refer to it as. To do so would be WP:SYNTH to some degree because your using a bunch of sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly confirmed. In regards to Feige I feel that because he basically runs Marvel and Marvel Comics now, his word would carry the greatest weight to change in favor of the movie’s adaptation. Other producers could simply just be parroting what they’ve seen in the movie/script. I should also mention that this same problem applies to a scene in Loki which shows that Loki viewing his MCU life and the movie strip is labeled “616” as well. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In a world where there's a hundred versions of Sherlock Holmes, a hundred versions of Dracula and at least ten versions of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and Earth-1, most people don't care. It only matters that each individual work of fiction is self-consistent. And it's nowhere near SYNTH to just use the primary sources to describe the primary sources themselves. See MOS:REALWORLD. All that 199999 vs 616 stuff is in-universe focus and is more appropriate for fan wikis. DonQuixote (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Nate Moore is a Marvel Studios producer, how could only Feige count? We can't just disregard the multiple other important producers these projects have, as if Feige was the only one with knowledge or authority. —El Millo (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll trust what one of the Parliament members says. Their word is often just as good as Feige's. -- Zoo (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, "616" is just a reference for comics fans. No need for a lengthy discussion like this. – SirDot (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe there is a discussion on whether to go with what is explicitly mentioned in a film. Of course that overrides the Marvel Comics handbook from 2008! InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was saying! CreecregofLife (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems Marvel themselves are now referring to the MCU as 616 instead of 199999, as given in this interview about the whole musical battle with Sinister Strange. This is significant because it’s the first mention of the MCU being 616 from an official source at Marvel rather then just a in-movie Easter egg. It seems stupid but I think we might need an RfC or something to decide which we’re going with. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we really don't. Earth-199999 was a designation given by Marvel Comics, which as you know is no longer connected to Marvel Studios. Not to mention that this was a decade ago, so things change. The plot summary should reflect what is stated in the plot, and a character in the film explicitly calls the MCU "Earth-616". So this really shouldn't be a debate, and an RFC is completely unnecessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As much as I think they shouldn’t be beholden to what another Earth assigns them (in-universe I imagine it should be at least discussed beyond the one person), I think this makes a lot more sense to the studio without such just for ease of discussion CreecregofLife (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is really nothing to debate here. Canon/in-universe content is based on what actually happens in the MCU movies/shows, not external commentaries. One thing people don't seem to understand is that the MCU multiverse is an adaptation of the comics multiverse and not part of it. So, MCU-616 is just an adaptaion of comics 616, regardless of how comics might designate it. If it were the same multiverse, then Wanda destroying the Darkhold across the multiverse would have implications in the comics as well. But it won't, because that's a different multiverse, untethered from the MCU. (Also, the fact that even Mysterio (despite lying about himself) called it 616, it means that the designation is not a random easter-egg, but rather based on an algorithm that always produces the same numbers.) — Starforce¹³ 21:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

We need to stop searching for an in-universe explanation for this discrepancy. The fact is, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness refers to the MCU as Earth-616, which unequivocally overrides what Marvel Comics said back in 2008. Again, Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios are two separate companies. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

ICYMI, according to Iman Vellani, Kevin Feige internally referred to the MCU as Earth-616 even before MoM's release, so that settles it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

To me “before release” doesn’t say much, he probably saw scripts and the filming of that script, and thus he’d bring it internally. Though I can definitely believe he probably nudged the 616 usage in because he’d been using it all along on his own CreecregofLife (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Just saw the film, I feel like Earth-838's Palmer mistakenly designated Strange being from Earth-616, not knowing he's from Earth-199999. It's also been long established that that's what it's called. I suggest changing all "Earth-616" names to "Earth-199999" with the first note stating "The Marvel Cinematic Universe is given the designation Earth-616 in the film." Not only would this be more logical, but it sticks to the 199999 reality number. --VincentWeir — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, it’s not a mistake, and the previous number shouldn’t be considered betrayed or contradicted. There’s no reason to stick to it--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is Gargantos in cast section?

"Also appearing in the film are Sheila Atim as Sara, a Master of the Mystic Arts; Adam Hugill as the voice of Rintrah, a minotaur-like being from R'Vaal who is a student at Kamar-Taj; and the creature Gargantos, with its design based on the comic book creature Shuma-Gorath."

This reads more like a list of 'things to look for' which has been lifted from a magazine review than a wiki section on the cast of a film - why is Gargantos mentioned here at all? That section should be removed. 2404:4408:671D:4000:EDE0:2024:10FC:D492 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sara and Rintrah are notable characters listed in the end credits. I asked the same question about Gargantos many months ago, and to be honest I still don't think it should be included, but other editors may have a different opinion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@2404:4408:671D:4000:EDE0:2024:10FC:D492 I don't think Gargantos should be on the Cast and characters section since no one voiced it enough to be credited. The details about the creature in the Post-production section are enough to be noted in the article. Centcom08 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If enough details are included on Gargantos in Post-production, and since the film has long been released, it should be safe to remove the character from the cast section as there is no voice actor. The reason it was included there pre-release was that it was unclear if there would be any voice actor or mo-cap actor for the creature, and since we know those did not happen, the information is not needed there anymore. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If there's no actor portraying it in any way, then there's no place in the Cast section for it. —El Millo (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well. It has a better proper place in the article. Pretty sure its presence in cast is why there was that one user wanting to include Thanos-838 in the cast too, despite him being even less of a character and more of a prop CreecregofLife (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If we're getting rid of Gargantos here I think we should get rid of the Elementals from Far From Home too, since that was brought up in the previous discussion as a reason for keeping Gargantos in the cast section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@2404:4408:671D:4000:EDE0:2024:10FC:D492 Yes agreed, both the Elementals and Gargantos should be removed from the cast sections of their respective pages. They are not related to the cast. 2404:4408:671D:4000:DCFF:AE9F:D3E9:56B6 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s certainly reasonable CreecregofLife (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Gargantos and the Elementals should move to Post-production, since they are VFX. By the way, you can't ping IPs. You have to put a talkback notice at their talk page. — SirDot (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely more egregious considering the ensuing implementation of an actual Sandman in No Way Home that at least had substantive human element CreecregofLife (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Box office

BOM clearly says the worldwide box office gross for Multiverse of Madness is $951,092,185. So, that would be just 951 million; when it hits $951,100,XXX THEN "951.1" can be re-added. — SirDot (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@SirDot That rounds to 951.1, and standard practice seems to be 1 decimal place for a number of that size? The edit war seems pointless when it'll likely rise soon anyway, but seem to be three people added .1 and 2 removed it so small consensus for it. Indagate (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Rounding box office figures up is generally inappropriate. To 1 significant digit, this film has grossed $1 billion. Of course, it hasn't actually grossed $1 billion, so stating that it has would be an outright lie. This would be true even if it had grossed $999,999,999—the follow-up question would be "when did it reach $1 billion?", and the only truthful answer would be "never". Rounding down (in other words, truncating) is the only appropriate course of action. TompaDompa (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Performances

Hi,

The reviews I have seen recently have generally praised the ensemble cast, not just Olsen, so I think we should change that to just the ensemble cast. 220.244.237.205 (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could cite those reviews. DonQuixote (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The critics summary is based on reviews in § Reception.

There are 2 Olsen praises, 1 Cumberbatch praise, 1 McAdams praise, 1 overall cast criticism, and 1 Gomez criticism. — SirDot (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2022

The film has grossed $954,998,698 and not 955 million. 2804:7F2:69C:76CD:1839:192D:7385:D410 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done the number is rounded, we don't need to show the full amount. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Darkhold

Why is the a link to a Darkhold page that doesn't exist and redirects to a page containing a mention of Mount Wundagore? 173.217.172.69 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This is per WP:MCULINKS. Redirects are not broken and don't need to be fixed. — SirDot (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not just MCULINKS, the comics links (Darkhold and Mount Wundagore) are redirects too. Neither is notable for their own article, comics or MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

ئاریا سالار (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Pls let me edit the lines I do not change it I just copy it and take it to kurdish Wikipedia

Can view source even if not able to edit. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"generally positive reviews"

This is, to me, a very serious problem to film pages in Wikipedia. There is this one time which I added the term "generally positive reviews" on the lead part of this page, but then the edit was undone for a clearly innapropriate reason. However, for Minions: The Rise Of Gru, the term "generally positive reviews" was once removed but it was undone because of the RT score. SEE? That's what the problem is. The Rise Of Gru literally has lower scores on both RT and Metacritic (71% and 56/100) than MoM (74% and 60/100) yet it still deserves the term "generally positive reviews" while MoM doesn't. Either you add the term on this page or remove it from the Rise Of Gru page, and I am not doing it because I would be claimed to be "disruptive". Thank you. Alvin mogus (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about "deserving". Different articles are edited by different bubbles of editors. Editors who edit MCU articles have formed consensus that using standard phrases such as "generally positive reviews", "mixed reviews", and "critical acclaim" aren't always accurate and are often ambiguous. We've found it to simply state what the film generally received praise and criticism for, without stating if the reviews were "generally positive", "mixed", etc. There's no community-wide consensus for setting standard descriptions in lead sections of film articles depending on the scores of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and it's unlikely such consensus will ever exist, mainly because doing so would give WP:UNDUE weight to those two review aggregators. —El Millo (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

sara

the article states,a surviving sorceress sacrifices herself". in the film she is named Sara. should'nt we address her as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.239.61.54 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Potential third film

So there was a rumor that surfaced back in January that Doctor Strange 3 would be fast-tracked and try to be released before Avengers: The Kang Dynasty. There was also an interview that Clea actress Charlize Theron did with Jimmy Kimmel where she said regarding her character's return, "I have some work to do," or something like that. Should we add something in the article that's devoted to talking about a possible Doctor Strange 3? 72.213.40.101 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We do not include rumors in Wikipedia, and we definitely can't assume by Theron's statement that's a third Doctor Strange film is being produced. —El Millo (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RUMOR, we should not address rumors on Wikipedia as that is all they are, rumors, and basing it being in development off of Theron's comments would be WP:SYNTH. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for more than 2 alternate variants of one character

May i request for a sub-bullet index for variants of one character? In case there are more than 2, we probably should bullet it like we did with Marc Spector. Also, Can you explain how variants work since there are alternate 2 Peter Parkers in NWH but they are separate from the main entry (Not falling under Peter Parker (TH version)). JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

For this article, Strange's variants do not necessitate separate bullet points as there is limited explanation needed to explain them. For Moon Knight, there was consensus to alter the bullet points as Marc, Steven, and Jake are three separate alters with much more detailed descriptions. As for NWH, Maguire and Garfield were billed separately from Holland, so they were placed in the billing order. The suggested bulleting here would only apply to Strange, and I don't see the need for it as its already concise and enough of a description for what his variants are. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, bro. Thanks JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding release dates for filming location countries

I have started a discussion on this topic here should you care to share your opinions. Barry Wom (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)