This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I feel like these articles [1] [2] [3] could be used to show how Endgame was originally thought to be the end of Phase Three. As well as these [4] [5] could be used too to talk about the production and marketing. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A centralized discussion regarding the images for this, the Phase One, and Phase Two articles, can be found at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Phase One, Two, and Three article images. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 14:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I want to know why everyone thinks the TV Shows aren't in the MCU. I've watched them all and they clearly are in the MCU. To say otherwise means you haven't really been paying attention. Tinytimm101 ( talk) 17:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
How can people say Agents of Shield and the others aren't in the MCU when they clearly are? I just don't get it. Tinytimm101 ( talk) 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
say[ing] Agents of Shield and the others aren't in the MCU. El Millo ( talk) 18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Facu-el Millo: You recently reverted an edit I made.
Original text: "Avengers: Endgame became the highest-grossing film of all time."
My edit: "As of July 2021 [update], Avengers: Endgame is the second highest-grossing film of all time."
You reverted my edit back to the original, noting that "This isn't about the current position, but the peak position".
I disagree with your reasoning.
If it's about the peak position, then the wording is not clear—misleading even. "briefly became" could work, but then we'd need to describe where it landed. My edit describes where it ended up, links to the page where this info originated, and attaches a date.
If we want to save peak position, we can place it a footnote within the article. The way it's currently described is going to mislead people. I'm a native English speaker and it misled me—the wording is unclear and not salvageable.
Dloewenherz ( talk) 01:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)