Captain America: Civil War has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Captain America: Civil War is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 1, 2015 Peer review Reviewed October 24, 2016 Good article nominee Listed January 6, 2017 Good topic candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 3, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Captain America: Civil War was originally going to feature the Madbomb storyline from the comics, where Captain America would fight other heroes who had been zombified? Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel / Films GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Film: Comic book / American GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Here is the source. http://variety.com/2016/film/news/captain-america-civil-war-box-office-billion-worldwide-1201779661/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all you needed to provide. DonQuixote (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, that's not a consensus for adding information. Just because something is true does not make it pertinent. Two editors have reverted this as insignificant, hype-y trivia as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 71.81.58.55 must stop edit-warring immediately, as one more edit will put him over WP:3RR and he will be blocked from editing WIkipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that it's like writing a term paper. The first step is to research reliable sources that can be cited. The next step is to write a well-written paper/encyclopaedia article, as per protocols like the above WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding, for anyone interested, in why I felt this was WP:INDISCRIMINATE: there is nothing noteworthy, per the Variety source, in the fact that it is the 25th film overall or the 4th MCU film to reach $1 billion. If there was something else to these numbers (ie the fastest of these films to reach a billion, or some other noteworthy fact as such), then the inclusion would be warranted in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but it still seems that crossing the $1 billion mark is a noteworthy accomplishment considering only 25 films have ever done it. But I get it; we don't want to list excessive statistics. Maybe the compromise is to change the proposal from:

"the film crossed the $1 billion mark, becoming the fourth Marvel Cinematic Universe film, the tenth Disney film, and the twenty-fifth film overall to reach the milestone"

to just

"Civil War became the twenty-fifth film in history to gross over $1 billion"

Being the 25th to do something may not seem significant at first glance, but when you think about it from a historical perspective considering the number of films that have preceded it, the statistic does represent a significant milestone. Also somewhere else in that paragraph, it should probably also be mentioned that it ranks 12th overall, since this is pointed out in the lead. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this edit be restored? BFI lists Germany as a country of origin.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this studio is a commonly used production studio for big films to shoot at, and it often contributes money to those films, but I don't think Marvel or anyone else ever mentioned them as a co-producer. I wouldn't say this is a German film as well unless we had reliable sources discussing a significant contribution. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously discussed some here Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War/Archive_3#DFFF. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But is it worth adjusting the cast order to the one used in the end credits sequence? I just added info about the sequence design and watched it and noticed the billing order is different. It is the same as the poster's billing block (which could arguably be said is not as up to date as the one used in the film) through VanCamp. Then the order in the credits goes like this: Tomei, Holland, Grillo, Freeman, Hurt, Bruhl. So it would add in Tomei and Freeman to the billing block. And just for another point, I just looked at my Blu Ray copy, and that order is the same as what we currently have, so a change could have been done there I guess (like with First Avenger adding Atwell for example on its home media billing block). Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it simple, just use the billing block. Also it's easier to verify.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just a case of big name actors getting listed on screen. It happens every now and then. I don't think it is worth changing the order here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree, though it's sometimes very confusing with certain films. I remember with The Martian, in their trailers they included Donald Glover in the trailer cast listing, but replaced him with Aksel Hennie in the billing block (which made sense as Hennie was more involved in the film). It was determined to go by billing block in that case, but was still confusing as Glover was still featured in a prominent position in the trailer cast listing in further trailers. Rusted AutoParts 21:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Regarding this, could you explain what you mean? Six editors other than myself have commented, with none defending the use of the phrase in this article. Two or three very explicitly said that using it in this context was probably a no-no, one said nothing regardless, and one new user claims to be opposed to my edit to this article, but has not actually gotten around to explaining why. This film does not have an ensemble cast -- it has an "all-star cast", and one or two sources use the phrase "ensemble cast" as a euphemism for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other editors in this discussion have "explicitly said that using it in this context was probably a no-no" because no other editors besides myself have commented on this article. I'm opposed to your edit for at least two reasons I can think of right now. One is that you removed a claim that was referenced with more than one source and two, I think that the term "ensemble cast" does match the definition in the link. The sources say it has an ensemble cast and the definition says it has an ensemble cast if you pay attention to the word "principal". You are the only one who claims otherwise, and if we're to choose between your word and that of the sources/dictionary then whom should we believe? Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huggums, seriously? Are you nitpicking about users saying that using the phrase as a euphemism for "all-star cast" is a no-no are not technically saying that using it here is a no-no? Find me one source that says this film has an ensemble cast and isn't clearly using it as a euphemism for "all-star cast" (and basing it on pre-release marketing from Marvel)? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure there were no misunderstandings. Call it nitpicking, or whatever you want to. Your bold edit has been reverted and the discussion here (and here) shows the reversion is supported (by lil' ol' "new user" me). In addition, you have no direct support for these specific edits from any of the other editors who have participated in the other discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have reliable sources calling the cast "ensemble". We can't infer that those sources are "actually" a euphemism to what you claim is an all-star cast. We use what the sources tell us, not our own analysis. So including per the sources is acceptable. If we didn't have the source to back it up, then I'd support the removal of the term. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]