Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness 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 |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022, when it received 16,921,202 views. |
Credits
edit@Adamstom.97: I thought we had agreed not to include any "grouped" actor names in the main titles? This is what the other MCU articles do currently, and what WP:MCUFILMCAST reflects. Klyne and Hilliard are paired together here, as are Atim and Hugil. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah that's right, apologies. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- No worries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is there really a reasoning why we exclude them? I checked the relevant discussion and it was seemingly only mentioned once with no clear reason. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it was just that generally the main-on-end credits chuck in some extra, minor names that are grouped together. The reason we use the main-on-end credits over the poster billing block is to include any major actors that were being kept secret from the poster, not to include smaller roles in the film that are only creditied in the main-on-end. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring to the grouped names and why we exclude them in the main-on-end titles. Sorry for the confusion. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what Adamstom was referring to. The grouped names in the MOE are the minor cast members. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring to the grouped names and why we exclude them in the main-on-end titles. Sorry for the confusion. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it was just that generally the main-on-end credits chuck in some extra, minor names that are grouped together. The reason we use the main-on-end credits over the poster billing block is to include any major actors that were being kept secret from the poster, not to include smaller roles in the film that are only creditied in the main-on-end. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Film reception in the lead
editIn this recent edit from KyleJoan, "generally positive reviews" was removed from the lead (in reference to an earlier comment from Facu-el Millo). I'm fine with this. When Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic disagree, other sources are needed for such claims.
Also in an earlier edit, I removed a summary statement calling out individual film elements that were praised and criticized. Such statements must be tied to a source (or sources) that assess overall critical reception. We shouldn't be assessing individual critic reviews ourselves to synthesize a summary, which is a form of original research.
- Per MOS:FILMLEAD: "
Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources.
"
If someone wants to locate better sources and revisit, I'm all ears. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- In addition to the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus specifying praise for the direction, this round-up documents Olsen praise. I propose adding to the lead section: "The film received praise for Raimi's direction and Olsen's performance." I agree with the removal of the other (improperly synthesized) claims. KyleJoantalk 01:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's a solid source and I'd support that addition. However, it should first be added, cited, and summarized in the Critical response section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Superhero Horror Movie
editWould anyone else say that this film should be categorized as horror? It was definitely marketed as being horror-esque with the trailers and there's obvious horrific content shown throughout the film. The Scarlet Witch chasing them down the dark tunnel panting ferally was particularly terrifying. As was Sinister Strange's descent into madness.
(Tyrian Watts (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- We can only add that if there are reliable sources saying so. ZooBlazer 00:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Revisions + plot key details
editHi! I'm new to like editing Wikipedia, and I'm sorry for making so many revisions I noticed it sparked some activity. I don't know what the word count is, but I noticed that there are several key plot details missing from here (i.e the existence of Chthon, Souls of the Damned, etc.) so anyone who is more trained to fit the word limit and stuff, could fit this stuff in would it be possible? Thanks. Buckbuck855 (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please read MOS:FILMPLOT to gain a better understanding of how we write plot summaries for Wikipedia. The details you are talking about are not essential to understanding the plot. They can be covered in other sections of the article if supported by reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)