Talk:Iron Man 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iron man 2 cast comic con.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Runtime

Hello, I believe there is an issue with the runtime listed on the page. it lists 119 Minutes as the runtime. checking the link provided for it as proof of that only says that that is an approximate runtime and not the exact. the issue is that Boxofficemojo here lists a runtime of 2 Hours and 4 Minutes which translates out to be 124 Minutes. is there some version of the film that has 5 Minutes cut out of it or something or did someone just assume approximate meant exact or what exactly? 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is not reliable for runtimes, the British Board of Film Classification is. El Millo (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

may I ask why Box Office Mojo is not reliable for runtimes? I'm assuming it's because of it's association with IMDB, which most state is more or less reliable for the past but not as reliable for upcoming things. Since Iron Man 2 is the past, that means it falls into the more or less reliable part of it. also how is the British Board of Film Classification saying Approximate (which you can see here) run time accurate? last I checked approximate only meant that it's around that general area, not the exact run time, meaning that using that as a source is inaccurate as well in this case since it only gives an approximate and not an exact. Googling Iron Man 2 runtime (seen here) also comes up with a runtime of 2 hours and 4 minutes or 124 minutes. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

looked into it some more and Amazon gives a runtime of 124 Minutes (seen here), and the Apple Movie store gives a runtime of 125 Minutes (seen here). If these sources are also deemed unreliable, I can go and find more sources stating the same thing if you would like me to. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

IMDb isn't a reliable source. El Millo (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

you've seen the discussion above. the edit is to change the runtime from the currently listed 119 minutes to 124 minutes. sources and such are provided in multiple places above. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just in case it's needed to be below the request instead of above, here are the sources:

the source El Millo is using:

• British Board of Film Classification. notice it says Approximate run time and not an exact runtime.

the sources I'm using:

• Box Office Mojo. From what I understand of debatable accuracy.
• Google. I've used before on here and it's been seen as reliable.
• Amazon. Has a digital download of the movie listing a runtime.
• Apple/Itunes. Has a digital download of the movie listing a runtime.

if needed I can also look for and provide more sources. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved this request to the semi-protected edit request queue. Do you have a conflict of interest? As far as I can tell, you don't have a conflict of interest, nor do I see how you could be conflicted on whether the film's runtime is five minutes longer or shorter. Altamel (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The article isn't protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. If it really is a COI issue, please change it back to that and reopen. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The BBFC link we are using is the wrong classification. I'm not actually sure what it is for, but they do have the proper one that the IP pointed out at 124 mins here, which I will swap in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Altamel, you are correct, I don't have a conflict of interest with it. I was trying to do just a normal help request, and from what I saw the article wasn't protected or semi-protected or anything like that so I didn't use those, and I tried finding a normal one that isn't conflict of interest or a protected one or whatever, but I couldn't, so I used that one since it was the only one I could find that would bring up a help request and wouldn't classify the article as protected or semi-protected or whatever, if that makes any sense. In other words, it was my first time using the help request thing and I wasn't really sure what I was doing, so I tried to do it in a way that would bring up a help request, and at the same time not claim the article as protected or semi-protected when it wasn't if that makes any sense.

Deacon Vorbis, I'm aware I could have edited it myself, never said I couldn't, what I was trying to do is both get like an Admin or Mod to see this discussion so that they could help settle it and at the same time try not to get in an edit war, as I felt that if I did go and edit it, that the person I was discussing this with, or potentially someone else, would just revert it and it would end up in an edit war, so I figured if I got someone to come in and help and do it that they would see that an actual important and well respected editor, or even potentially an Admin or Mod, was the one who did the edit and wouldn't change it for fear of getting a ban or something, if that makes any sense. Also, in reference to me using the COI help request, please see my above comment to Altamel as to why I used the COI one.

Favre1fan93, I'm sure it was just an accident citing the wrong BBFC link, though I have seen "incorrect", for lack of a better term, citations of links in the past or parts of articles that claim something, but then the link provided doesn't claim that or whatever. I've not seen it recently, but I have seen it in the past. I'm not sure what you mean by "I'm not actually sure what it is for" or what you were referring to in that instance. if you were referring to me as IP, I don't recall pointing out a specific one on the BBFC site that said 124 Minutes, I just recall saying the one that is linked on the article only gives an approximate time and not an exact time, and looking through the discussion, I don't see another IP citing another link of such a variety. I appreciate you swapping it out on the article. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

---

There have been a series of reversions in the past few days. There are numerous sources for run time of 124 or 125 minutes. This is an American film released in the United States. The New York Times reported on the date of release 124 minutes. Amazon reports 124 minutes. Apple iTunes reports 125 minutes. In any case, it is wrong to use the BBFC to report a time other than what BBFC says, "approximately 119 minutes". —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you checked the collapsed tabs of the BBFC page? It says many things. Mainly, under the tab "Cinema" it says it has a duration of 125m 29s in its most updated form, the previous one being 124m 29s. So it can be used for that, which is more accurate than its "approximately 119 minutes". Read WP:FILMRUNTIME, where it is carefully explained. Plus, Amazon and iTunes aren't reliable sources for this. I'm not entirely sure about The New York Times for runtimes, but it isn't the type of source we use for this, which is mainly either boards of classification such as BBFC, MPA, etc. or sources very close to production such as the director or a producer. —El Millo (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think The New York Times is acceptable for just about anything, but if only BBFC is acceptable, then the reference has to say how to find the run time on the BBFC page. Otherwise we face an endless reversion cycle as well-meaning editors see a value of 119 minutes on the BBFC page. I have implemented this change. Please don't revert on specious grounds such as "But that's now how we do things on Wikipedia." If you want the reference to look more "normal" then just accept The New York Times." Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Swapped for the Irish Film Classification Office source ([1]), which only contains the 125m 30s runtime. —El Millo (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Move to Iron Man 2 (film)

There is also a Iron Man 2 (video game) so I propose that we move this Iron Man 2 (film) to show the difference between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.151.114 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it does not need to be disambiguated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Favre1fan93 --TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Citations

The archived links for some of these citations don't work and the originals are long gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.193.6 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the masked kid at the end of Iron Man 2 a younger Peter Parker?

I began a discussion on this point here. Please read the precedents and sources, and offer your thoughts, if you can. Nightscream (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Final discussion on the wording of the paragraph

Editors on comics-related articles are quested to offer their opinion on whether to include a final line in the paragraph, which is discussed here. Thank you for your time. Nightscream (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)