Talk:Avengers: Doomsday: Difference between revisions

Line 142: Line 142:

::OK, thanks. I saw that discussion, but that is helpful to include here. I was hoping there was one specifically about the lead and not the Cast section. We should be summarizing key facts in the lead, but that doesn’t necessarily mean top billing. Was wondering if that was ever decided through discussion for the lead specifically? — [[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 16:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:::We did discuss the lead and infobox in the discussion Favre linked to. – [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 17:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:As I’ve stated before on the talk page, I fully agree with the concerns raised by other editors that there are too many names in the lead section. The lead should only be a ”’concise”’ summary of the most important content as per [[WP:LEAD]] and having so many names and a [[WP:SEAOFBLUE]] is unnecessary for a concise summary. [[User:Kind Tennis Fan|Kind Tennis Fan]] ([[User talk:Kind Tennis Fan|talk]]) 18:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Material from Avengers: Doomsday was split out into Production of Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars on March 31, 2025 from this version. The former page’s history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

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

Add Chris Evans as Steve Rogers in the cast section. Mooredavid1992 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now’:’ Evans is already listed in prose in that section, and should not be added to the bulleted list unless his name is part of an updated official billing order, which is yet to be available. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Untitled fifth Avengers film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4 § Untitled fifth Avengers film until a consensus is reached. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just yesterday, Chris Claremont revealed that Famke Janssen would reprise her role as Jean Grey in the movie (https://www.ign.com/articles/jean-grey-actress-famke-janssen-will-return-in-avengers-doomsday-x-men-writer-claims). I don’t know if we should include it in the Also expected to appear section or not. Thoughts ? KingArti (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that he actually knows this? Or is he basing this on rumours and reports? – adamstom97 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t mention anything about rumors, I saw the interview in video form and he straight up just slipped that Famke is in Doomsday, almost like he wasn’t supposed to. KingArti (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough for an encyclopedia. Last thing we want to do is use one man’s “slip-up” as a source for a claim. —GoneIn60 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this ref covering the podcast, Claremont said “The thing I find most wonderful about it is they’re bringing back, the original cast, including Famke.” That is ambiguous for which film he was referring to. If we were to include this material anywhere, then it should be in Production of Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars § Casting, not as a definitive addition to the cast list for either film article. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailblazer101: I added the bit to the production page, but also noted Famke previously denying she was returning. Feel free to tidy it up. Of note he seemed to mention Kitty Pryde and Psylocke, but I would not add those two because as far as I know the haven’t said anything about it and probably would lean to WP:UNDUE in that regard, while Famke’s bit is okay because she has previously been asked about this prior to Claremont’s statement. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this course of action. – Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this podcast interview with Deadline (https://deadline.com/2026/01/28-years-later-bone-temple-nia-dacosta-interview-1236681261/), when Nia DaCosta mentioned that she visited the set of Doomsday last year, she mentioned that “some of my friends were in the movie”, strongly indicating that the Marvels trio are in the movie (https://collider.com/the-marvels-nia-dacosta-filming-experience-reaction-box-office-failure/). It also helps that a few months ago, there was this photo shortly after the movie wrapped filming, a stunt double wearing a Doomsday sweater with her blonde hair just like Captain Marvel’s was photographed from the back. How are we feeling about this ? KingArti (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is all borderline WP:SYNTHESIS. If nothing is explicitly stated, then we cannot infer anything from it. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, “some of my friends” could refer to anyone really, including any crewmembers who worked on The Marvels which probably has a lot of crossover. – adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And Grammer as well (as he was in the PCS of that movie). So can’t infer anything from that really. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KingArti, need to be careful about sourcing primary sources for claims of uncertainty and speculation. Interviews and photos are primary sources. We prefer that a secondary source has performed some kind of analysis before insertion. Wikipedia editors should not be doing any kind of secondary analysis, or implying something not explicitly stated in the cited source(s). —GoneIn60 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t add anything or edit the article, I simply asked y’all in the talk page here. KingArti (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should’ve been obvious given how long you’ve been active in editing these articles…. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, didn’t mean to imply that you added something. My comment was about why we wouldn’t add it, based on that sourcing. —GoneIn60 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Downey has mentioned it, don’t know if there should be some inclusion about it. – Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there is much substance to warrant a mention, unless it were to actually become a phenomenon as Barbeheimer did. A passing mention of an unofficial marketing term isn’t really much to go off of. I don’t want to set a precedent of acknowledging coincidences of when two major films share a release date just because a term was coined for it. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine to include his mention if something actually comes of it, we do have a long way until December and I’m not convinced that they will still be releasing on the same day by then. – adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes, the term “wheelchair bound” is considered offensive to folks who use wheelchairs. The idea is that a wheelchair is a tool, not a cage. You wouldn’t describe me as “glasses bound” because I need glasses to read the text I’m now typing. See List of disability-related terms with negative connotations for more. So I’m restoring my edit, and I would ask you to not to revert again without discussing it first. Novalis (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had a friend who was literally “wheelchair bound”, and that’s not an ablelist term. When he didn’have his wheelchair, his only other option was scooting around on the floor on all fours. He didn’t define the term “wheelchair-bound” as ablelist. That’s literally what he was. Wikipedia’s definition is wrong. I am also part of the disabled community, and have known of others in wheelchairs who couldn’t get around any other way. However, if that’s Wikipedia’s definition, however much I disagree with that mischaracterization personally, I will let your revert stand. But wheelchair-bound is not an ablelist term, so using that aa a rationale for removing that character description from Professor X is disingenuous, in my view. ‘Nuff said. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 19:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to me. The wording has since been changed. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include Famke Janssen‘s involvement with the film since X-Men writer Chris Claremont confirmed it? [1] And1987 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was just discussed above with consensus not to include this as a fact, given it is not a trade report and is not easily verifiable. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t see it earlier. Thanks. And1987 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please change the CAST notes for Spider-Man:

It has been rumored and reported numerous times that Tom Holland will not be reprising his role as Spider-Man in Doomsday and will only be reprising his role in Secret Wars while Tobey Maguire has been reported numerous times to be reprising his Spider-Man role in Doomsday. WIKIBROSKI67 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“the film features an ensemble cast including Chris Hemsworth, Vanessa Kirby, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, Letitia Wright, Paul Rudd, Wyatt Russell, Tenoch Huerta Mejía, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Simu Liu, Florence Pugh, Kelsey Grammer, Lewis Pullman, Danny Ramirez, Joseph Quinn, David Harbour, Winston Duke, Hannah John-Kamen, Tom Hiddleston, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Alan Cumming, Rebecca Romijn, James Marsden, Channing Tatum, Pedro Pascal, and Robert Downey Jr. ”

too many names, way too many names for the FIRST paragraph. there’s a cast section for a reason right?

Warpfrz (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and others agree, as seen here and here. There have been multiple editors complaining about this. It’s time to do something. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping past participants: @Kind Tennis Fan, Vəssel, IndrasBet, MarioProtIV, Darkwarriorblake, Jauerback, Trailblazer101, and Adamstom.97:. —GoneIn60 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot one: @BarntToust: — GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is way overdue? I would be in favor of the proposed “Downey leads (or headlines) an ensemble cast”. Might also be worth having a separate discussion about the infobox and its potential issues. Depending on how you access the article, you could be viewing the “Starring” list in the right margin while the “Cast” list is displayed simultaneously in the left margin. —GoneIn60 (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and infobox will (hopefully) ultimately use the actors that receive top billing on the poster, following the approach taken with Infinity War and Endgame. Since we currently don’t have a poster with any billing block (since it’s just the “A” logo teaser one), the hope was to follow any possible billings from a trailer or press release from Disney for a trailer release. Given the Avatar teasers weren’t really “teasers” in the traditional sense, neither of those happened. The current believe is a proper teaser will debut at the Super Bowl in two weeks. If that doesn’t happen, or we do get one with out any helpful billing info, I’d support moving forward with some sort of reduction at that time. – Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter until then that violates multiple Wikipedia P&Gs? Wouldn’t it make more sense to eliminate the clutter with the proposed “Downey leads (or headlines) an ensemble cast“, and then expand as warranted when we have the sourcing to do so? Not the other way around? Seems backward. — GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would just say something about the premise, “Dr Doom (Robert Downey Jr) comes into conflict with multiple superero teams: The X-Men, the Avengers, etc, etc”. The amount of names is ridiculous, and it was ridiculous several months ago when this was last discussed. The billing block rule was designed to avoid these issues if I remember correctly, but even when it is used you get things like Avengers Endgame, but even that is better than nearly 30 names, and ultimately, the final billing block could be equally ridiculous given the amount of people involved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would be not opposed to simply making note of the several teams opposing RDJ’s Doctor Doom. It’s a big MOS:SEAOFBLUE right there that offers no immediate encyclopedic value to anyone who is trying to scroll past the SEA to get to some actual information of informative substance in the next paragraph. Barnt Toust 18:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, why would our actions to address this cast issue hinge on WP:CRYSTAL speculation on a supposed film trailer that may or may not come out in two weeks, that even if it exists may or may not have a billing block? Take it from someone who recently just nearly got mine over CRYSTAL concerns in a different area. Barnt Toust 18:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The premise is already conveyed in the lead. I understand wanting to avoid the lead and infobox becoming overly excessive, but not all platform viewing is the same, and we should present the most prominent information upfront so our readers may have ease in navigation and finding the information they are looking for. Without any official billing order, any attempts to devise our own cast list differing from the billing would breach SYNTHESIS. However, we have sources in the production article that state Downey and Hemsworth are the leads of the film, so we could state ghat in the lead, paired with what others have suggested, in the interim, until a shorter top billing is known. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s some proposed wording:

… the film features an ensemble cast of multiple returning Marvel actors, lead by Chris Hemsworth and Robert Downey, Jr. In the film, the Avengers, Wakandans, Fantastic Four, New Avengers, and the X-Men team up to face Doctor Doom (Downey). – this version would need the addition of the report about Hemsworth as the second lead from the production article added here
… the film features an ensemble cast comprised of the actors who form the Avengers, Wakandans, Fantastic Four, New Avengers, and X-Men teams. Those teams face Doctor Doom, portrayed by Robert Downey, Jr., in the film.

– Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d go for something like the second option – “ensemble cast” and a list of teams conveys pretty much the same information in a much more readable way Vəssel ^{[talk to mə]} 20:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like removing all of the names is going to cause problems when it is time to restore a good chunk of them when the poster billing comes out. It would be better to go for a reduced list in the lead and infobox rather than jumping all the way to one or two actors now, when we should realistically expect there to still be a good number listed by the end of the year. My recommendation as a compromise would be to use the shorter list that we have at the production article until we get the poster billing: …an ensemble cast composed of many previous MCU actors, headlined by Vanessa Kirby, Anthony Mackie, Letitia Wright, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Simu Liu, Joseph Quinn, Pedro Pascal, and Robert Downey Jr. We could add Hemsworth to the list if we want since we have a source for him being a lead actor, but since this is just temporary we could keep it simple and not include him. He would still be listed in the cast section, which shouldn’t change for now. I don’t think we need to change how we handle the premise in the lead. – adamstom97 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed something? How have we determined headliners outside RDJ? Surely the problem is we don’t know the headliners? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This list is all the actors confirmed to be appearing in both Doomsday and Secret Wars. That is the criteria used for the lead of Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame which was carried over to Production of Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars. – adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

adamstom97, yes that’s regarding “all the actors”, but DWB was asking how is it determined who the “headliners” are? In order to trim the list, you would have to base it on some set of criteria which would presumably come from a reliable source. GoneIn60 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I’m not well-versed enough to figure it out, but I do like that the production article for Doomsday and Secret Wars has a lot fewer actor names mentioned. While I still think its opening paragraph has too many links overall, the cast list is a BIG improvement over what we have at this article. —GoneIn60 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To avoid any issue down the line, I’d rather go with just Downey in the lead, or really no one and just mention the teams as I presented above. That way, when we do get the billing, we can easily reference that and not worry about a preselected amount of actors chosen now. I don’t think any change should happen to the infobox at this time, only the lead. – Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is if we end up with a similar top billing to Infinity War, which has 19 names in the lead/infobox, we will be re-expanding the list from 1 actor to 19 and will surely get a lot of pushback on that. I don’t think it makes sense to have everyone agree that 1 actor is better than a big list and then turn around a few months later and try to make it a big list again. I would rather we keep the full list or come to some consensus on a shorter middle-ground. Whatever we decide, I do think we should keep the lead and infobox consistent like we have for Infinity War. – adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don’t think we are in any rush to modify the cast list and think we should not be hasty in going from one list to a condensed one only to reverse it later on. The lead actor mention could be a good alternative temporarily, but I concur that it should retain the consistent approach with IW. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i do not exactly see what problem there could be by simply one day having a condensed thing, and another having something bigger whenever the official stuff comes out. wikipedia articles are dynamic, and I do not exactly see who would be harmed or inconvenienced or annoyed or happened upon by anything negative for the fact that one day we decide to condense the lists in the interim while we wait for something official and hopefully better. WP:CCC. Barnt Toust 00:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with what @Trailblazer101 said about how there is no rush to modify the cast list, per the cited reasons in question. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 00:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i figured I was going to be reverted in an instant, lol. by the end of the year, this whole thing will be sorted out with some sense of finality, true. Barnt Toust 00:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don’t think we are in any rush to modify the cast list and think we should not be hasty…

Seeing that this is now at least the 3rd discussion in 6 months, I think we’re beyond the point of rushed or calling for less haste. It will keep coming up if something is not done.
In terms of our guidelines, consider this:

Per MOS:LEADLINK: “Too many links can make the lead hard to read…Most Featured Articles contain about 12 to 25 links in the lead, with an average of about 1.5 links per sentence, or one link for every 16 words.“. There are 46 links in the first paragraph alone! 59 total links, 4.5 links per sentence, or one link for every 6 words!
Instead of a range, WP:EXPLAINLEAD estimates 20 links for a typical FA lead.
The Film project has often relied on the billing to settle disputes or trim long lists, but in MOS:FILM, billing is only mentioned one time: in relation to the Cast section, not the lead.

One of the things we can look at are other peer-reviewed FAs, and in the film realm, the closest we have so far might be The Empire Strikes Back which strung together 9 names (which BTW was one of many recently promoted from the hard work put in by Darkwarriorblake. Just look at his profile! We would all benefit here to listen to his opinion on the matter). It may be time for those who support even longer ensemble cast lists in the lead to try to get Infinity War and Endgame promoted to FA. If successful, then that would justify continuing this approach in future articles. —GoneIn60 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments of the objectors to this change of the lead boil down to, “why bother changing something via some specific consensus when we are just going to see official billing blocks or cast lists iterated who knows how many times before the final poster, which will end up giving us finality on this matter?” And frankly they have a good point.

Basically, you have to realize you’re dealing with editors who are concerned with the ultimate state of the article when the dust is settled rather than people who want to pour over the presentation of major article components while they are still dynamic or incomplete or beholden to eventually needing to be addressed when the dust does settle at a point when we do have all of the information in front of us to inform a final decision. Barnt Toust 02:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This “ultimate state” you speak of…the wider community will not accept 46 links or anything close to that in the opening paragraph of any lead. — GoneIn60 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ultimate state of the article is probably going to have at least a hundred and thirty six links to Jeff Sneider‘s reporting, and at least three offshoot spin-off articles because nobody can bear trimming down content to fit SUMMARYSTYLE without doing so.

We already have Production of Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars; but if we keep up expanding the Marketing section at the rate we’re at—we’ve got three paragraphs just for just the Avatar teasers—we’ll have Marketing of Avengers: Doomsday and maybe later Marketing of Avengers: Secret Wars; and perhaps in time we will end up with a Reception section so big it will need to be split out into Cultural impact of Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars – and perhaps we can have Dunesday phenomenon as a bonus if Chalamet and RDJ bring it up enough times?

And nobody will question any of this. Basically, when you’re looking at making any sort of substantial changes to these articles, you have to realize these things are built out in just a certain fashion by people who think in certain ways about how to build the encyclopeda, and it’s kind of futile to get in the way of the process. Nobody wants to change anything until the most opportune moment possible, yet everybody wants to build content in a way such that the most possible information exists. Barnt Toust 04:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns raised above about the cast list being fairly long, though it is not that arduous or excessive, as it does not include any roles aside from Downey’s. On the other hand, I also understand concerns that devising our own pared-down list would give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to a singular or a few cast members. Downey is last billed, so putting only his name in the lead and infobox may be unjust, especially given that we have sources in the production article stating he is the co-lead with Hemsworth, from what we know. My point that there is no rush is not to avoid rectifying the perceived issue, but to ensure the most relevant information is presented to our readers first and foremost. Our readers should not have to be redirected to find applicable information, and I would argue that linking to the actors is more helpful than a vague descriptor or pointing them elsewhere in the article. The lead and infobox summarize the key points of an article that are expanded upon further therein, not to hide or exclude key details in the name of conserving space for a limited time.

One can argue that the stars of a major pop culture film are more sought after than the above-and-below-the-line crew or studios. It’s the same reason so many discussions on here have been about the purported cast additions, whether true or false. We cannot really be so choosy when we have limited awareness of the extent of each role, unlike with Infinity War and Endgame where the top billing suffices for the lead and infobox while the main on-end titles work for the cast section (which should be the ultimate approach for this article post-release, per WP:MCUCAST). Stating a vague summary of an ensemble cast or noting there are 26 cast members may be sufficient until further billing is given, but also runs the risk of being incomplete. Ultimately, is there any real sense of urgency to adjust a cast list that will inevitably change within the next 11 months? Realistically, not all 26 actors presently listed will receive top billing.

One alternative option is retaining the premise in the first opening lead paragraph and then separating the cast list for its own small paragraph, but again, that would only be a temporary fix. I’m not holding out hope for any new billing anytime soon. I do not think we should go from one extreme (full known billing) to another (only one actor), because it is not a sustainable solution. Wikipedia is never perfect and never complete, and we are all always working to build it. This is not about some editors being stuck in their ways; it is about how we best serve our readers and provide them with information. It does not matter how many times a question or concern is raised, because any change would require consensus with a viable solution, none of which have gained enough support either way. I should also note that the Disney movies web page for Doomsday does include Evans’s name appended to the end of the cast list we already have, which would hold more weight for his inclusion there. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, i think that disney movies web page also clarifies the status of credited writer. they do not list Michael Waldron, and this source would classify as an ultimate source on the credits for the film, as things stand atm. should we hold out for a trade publication or other reliable source to expound upon the credits, or is that good enough to make the change now? Barnt Toust 05:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait for the final WGA credits before making any changes there, because those can differ from what the studios want credited. That happened with Ant-Man and some more recent titles, too. As for the Evans addition, I brought it up to weigh input from others, as well, but it has a more viable path for inclusion than excluding Waldron at this time. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are some proposed solutions here that could work, and you’re right, there isn’t a consensus…yet. That’s the point of this discussion, is it not?I think the next steps are to narrow down our options before they get lost in the walls of text. Favre1fan93 came up with two. adamstom97 had one as well. Another would be to omit all actor names for now and just list the characters (Doom, Shang-Chi, etc) and character teams/groups (Fantastic Four, New Avengers, etc) that are returning. This would alleviate any concern you just stated of UNDUE.Let’s discuss these options further and see if we can narrow these down to 2 or 3 solid options, and then put them to a !vote. Otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels and guessing what the consensus is. —GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with either one of those proposals, so long as those who want outright removal are onboard with them. I won’t stand in the way of trimming the list down, but it will inevitably change. I do think that having a version of Favre’s 2nd proposed wording would be a viable interim solution, though I agree with Adam’s sentiments of this ultimately proves complicated with excluding names of the other actors. Perhaps we could note the number of actors (25) plus Downey? — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a version where we remove all actor names for now, as long as part of the consensus is that it is a temporary fix and the list will be expanded again later this year. It would be very frustrating to have people use this consensus as reasoning to push back on attempts to expand the list when we get the official billing. I’m not sure how we would handle the infobox in that situation, if there are concerns about the long list in the infobox then maybe my suggestion above would be better since that could give us a reduced list in both the lead and infobox. – adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a start and a move in the right direction for sure. Thank you both for being flexible and looking to find ways we can find common ground. I don’t think we should hinge any change now on some future commitment, but you’re right, unless we come up with a project-wide solution that works for other film articles in a similar predicament, we’ll probably be forced to revert back to how we’ve done it in the past. —GoneIn60 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Is Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 1#29 names in lead section the first discussion that addressed this issue? Not much has changed since 2018, and I’m not really seeing where it was decided that we had to include all names from the top billing in the lead. Could someone enlighten me?There has to be a better way. Has anyone considered tucking them into an {{efn}}? I saw Erik’s suggestion to anchor the “ensemble cast” link to the Cast section as one suggestion. I agree with the overall sentiment that it is a disservice to have a WP:SEAOFBLUE in the first paragraph, and surely if the goal is to get these articles to FA status, 40+ links in the opening paragraph will never fly. — GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: Consensus on how to approach the large amount of names for Infinity War (and subsequently Endgame) was determined here Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 2#Cast section layout. That approach is the hope to use once we get initial billings/posters for this film as well as Secret Wars. For other MCU films, MOS:FILMCAST with the billing credits used on screen is followed, as noted in WP:MCUFILMCAST. – Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I saw that discussion, but that is helpful to include here. I was hoping there was one specifically about the lead and not the Cast section. We should be summarizing key facts in the lead, but that doesn’t necessarily mean top billing. Was wondering if that was ever decided through discussion for the lead specifically? — GoneIn60 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We did discuss the lead and infobox in the discussion Favre linked to. – adamstom97 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve stated before on the talk page, I fully agree with the concerns raised by other editors that there are too many names in the lead section. The lead should only be a concise summary of the most important content as per WP:LEAD and having so many names and a WP:SEAOFBLUE is unnecessary for a concise summary. The Cast section shortly below the lead section is the appropriate place to have the very long list of names. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply