Talk:The Marvels

@Natemup: your random, unnecessary paragraph breaks have been reverted multiple times and now you are edit warring. Please stop, revert your changes, and gain consensus for them at the talk page. "No consensus needed for grammatical edits" is not true, any edits that are challenged by other editors require consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with adamstom97 that the paragraph breaks seem random and do not appear to be "grammatical edits" as one edit summary states. For example, in the pre-production section, it doesn't make sense to split the analysis of the title from the paragraph that includes the title reveal. Also unclear why the link to "under the bus" was removed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense because the paragraph was too long and the analysis of a title is thematically different from the reveal itself. And "under the bus" is an extremely obvious idiom that needed neither quotemarks nor a link. Plus the blanket reversion (now with the "consensus" of exactly two editors) undoes a grammatical edit that wasn't a paragraph break. natemup (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If there is a genuine grammatical edit then you can make that, without putting random paragraph breaks all throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The MOS states that grammatical edits, which are minor, do not require prior consensus. Long paragraphs are unseemly and violate what should be encyclopedic style, and I added maybe three or four breaks at logical points in the article, which again do not require explanation. At least one of the other edits that you reverted—thrice, in violation of the 3RR policy—was the addition of a necessary comma. natemup (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

They do not require prior consensus, but if they are challenged then they do. You can't just get around discussions and consensus by labelling an edit as "grammatical", which is still not the case. This article does not have any overlong paragraphs, and the breaks you added were not "logical points" which is why you were reverted. Again, if you have genuine grammatical edits to make then you can do so without putting random paragraph breaks throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

We're discussing right here and you haven't addressed my points at all. You cited one example of what you thought was not a logical place to put a break and that's just about all you've contributed here, ignoring the rest of what I've said. natemup (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

3RR is only a violation if editors revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. I do not see the need to break up every paragraph in an article to be smaller, thus cutting off the flow of the sentences. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, since I didn't do that. This is silly. natemup (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to be passive aggressive. MOS:VAR naturally applies for any article when someone wants to change the standard formatting of an article, so this is no exception. The official MOS:LINEBREAKS says "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose, each dealing with a particular point or idea. Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read." Meanwhile, the MOS explanatory essay WP:PARAGRAPH says "Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Paragraphs should deal with a particular point or idea, and all the sentences within that paragraph should revolve around the same topic. When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started. Overly long paragraphs should usually be split up."

Firstly, separating the commentary about the title reveal from the reveal itself is a disservice by splitting the main ideas into two separate paragraphs. Splitting the explanatory details from DaCosta and Feige is breaking up two shared ideas. The filming section is not large enough or difficult to navigate. Lastly, splitting off Iger's comments from the rest of the paragraph commentary on the box office is siloing off those details. These paragraphs are not unwieldly to the point where the material presented is difficult to navigate or understand, and they keep core ideas bundled together so our readers may access them more directly. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I only looked at this one section that was split into two paragraphs, and I agree with Natemup that it was a proper move. The transition to speaking about the delay that began in October 2021 warrants a paragraph break to me. But...there are bigger fish to fry and plenty of other things to work on. This isn't worth our time and attention. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on the estimates on the wikipedia List of biggest box-office bombs, I believe it should be noted it is the biggest office bomb of wikipedia PhilovGraves (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot cite its own arbitrary lists. This has already been discussed and is a WP:DEADHORSE. That claim is not verifiable in the slightest. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Nominally, yes. Adjusted for inflation, no.
  And one thing you have to remember is that many in Wikipedia's chart list an estimate range, because multiple sources have reported different estimates. To call something the biggest, or to rank it, would mean picking one source over another; showing favoritism and/or cherry-picking sources. We shouldn't be doing that.
  On the flipside, you might be able to include a claim that states the film is "one of the biggest money losers of all time" (or something along those lines), but you would first need several strong sources backing it. I don't believe such sourcing exists yet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  fair enough, thank you for the information PhilovGraves (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I recently came across a thesis that may be of interest to editors working on this article. It is long, so I've only been able to skim the material for its main points. The thesis, Three Female Superheroes? The Feminists Are Taking Over!: Perceptions of Feminism and Rhetorical Failure in The Marvels, by Alyssa Cavalieri (2024), provides scholarly analysis of the film from multiple perspectives, including feminist film criticism, comic book genre conventions, and audience reception studies. The thesis examines the comic book histories of all three protagonists, the "M-She-U" discourse surrounding female-led superhero projects, critiques of militarism and patriotic propaganda in the MCU, and how the framing of military participation as feminist empowerment complicates feminist engagement with these films.

Cavalieri's thesis also analyzes the contrasting reception contexts for The Marvels and Captain Marvel, documenting their inverted critical/audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes (62%/82% vs. 79%/45%), and addresses the film's position as both a box-office disappointment and the highest-grossing film directed by a Black woman, which I know is briefly discussed in the article but the thesis could provide more perspective on that critical juxtaposition. The thesis also considers various contextual factors for the film's overall performance and reception, including the SAG-AFTRA strikes, Disney boycotts, superhero fatigue, and studio oversight, while also exploring how themes of sisterhood, teamwork, and the film's deliberate appeal to female audiences, offer a more positive feminist treatment of the film. Thus, I believe this thesis may provide useful scholarly perspectives for the various topics of reception, thematic analysis, production insights, and even fictional character backgrounds, depending on what is deemed most significant and resourceful to include.

I would of course appreciate editors time to review the thesis itself on its own terms and arrive at editors' own conclusions regarding what parts of the thesis warrant potential inclusion in the article. Thanks, Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This does look to have some promising information to add about the film's performance and reception. I did not immediately know whether this qualifies as a reliable source to use, given it is a student thesis for a university, however, WP:RSSM does state "Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions." I believe this qualifies, given that it was approved by dedicated faculty at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, which published the thesis. I have been wanting to expand this article with more coverage on these various factors that plagued the films' overall performance, and I think, going off of a brief skimming, this could prove insightful and a helpful addition to the scope of the relevant sections. I doubt we'll have much long-term analyses of this film, so we'll take what we can get, honestly. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Red Shogun412 and Trailblazer101: WP:THESIS is what you're actually looking for, and per that, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This is a Masters' thesis and given it was from last year, highly unlikely at this time to have met significant scholarly influence. THESIS also says on the whole, theses are consider primary sources anyways. I would say at best, we could look at the works cited that student used and see if we don't have any already featured in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk)